Copyright

[Bill Pierce]

Copyright used to be a concern for professional photographers. Now, with so many folks posting on public internet sites, it’s a problem for all photographers, amateur and professional. Here are three recent posts from Petapixel worth reading - and thinking about.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/hig...hotos-under-threat-of-suspension/#more-166183

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/20/how...photographer-in-the-modern-world/#more-166027

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/ric...-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/

 

[robert blu]

It's a complicated world...both for professionals from a point of view (business, legal thinking etc) and for amateurs as well (the simple pleasure to take a photo...).
robert

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Generally 'fair use' kills copyright for the stingy photog. I've always allowed free use for education, so I don't care unless they start making prints, signing my name and selling them.

I'd tell the stingy photog to be more worried about your photos dying with you than about the being put to a good use. Either use them or hoard them. - the world is polluted with pix.

 

[Bill Pierce]

In addition to dealing with copyright laws that are outdated in a digital age and pictures posted on the internet, many photographers are dealing with what happens to their rights when they store photos in the cloud. Here’s another PetaPixel post. This time the situation doesn’t seem as bad as it is with copyright.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/22/a-l...storage-services-say-about-your-photo-rights/

 

[Dektol Dan]

To Sum it Up

To Sum it Up

Don't mess with the public schools, ever.
I made an effort to shoot the son of my neighbor at his HS track meet. I was confronted by the police and escorted out. This was after I presented them with my valid FBI security check card that all Arizona teachers must have (I still substitute).

If they (school or business that you work for) own the network, you own nothing. No rights, NOTHING.

Don't appear commercial, if you are shooting a hot button scene,
shoot fast, think 'I'm a fox'. Now you see me now you don't. You came to shoot, not share doughnuts with a cop.

If shooting public events, in the street or otherwise, you are probably good. Greet and meet your subjects. If you don't like people you have NO right being a street shooter.

The Cloud was invented for large corporations sharing a common private data base. That's what it is for. I use the Cloud for storing my extra iPad/Phone apps, and if I bought movies I would feel safe saving those too. Anything private, NEVER. I mean NEVER!

Bill, I'm sorry, but your thread has nothing to do with copyright.... yet.

If you want to get into Internet copyright issues, Google: 'fair use'.

 

[Bill Pierce]

If you want to get into Internet copyright issues, Google: 'fair use'.

Absolutely!!

 

[Dante_Stella]

Bill, what's your opinion of the phrase "courtesy of...." being used in conjunction with simply using someone else's image, permission or not? I've seen tons of this. Looks like a copyright violation to me.

Dante

 

[mfunnell]

Bill, what's your opinion of the phrase "courtesy of...." being used in conjunction with simply using someone else's image, permission or not? I've seen tons of this. Looks like a copyright violation to me.

Dante

I've often wondered about this in terms both of legality and "doing the right thing" (given that "legal" and "right" aren't necessarily that closely related), when referring to others' content in the context of web posting.

Certainly downloading or copying (without permission) someone else's photo into a space owned or controlled by me, then posting it on the web seems like it would be both illegal and wrong (though various exemptions for 'fair use' may change the legality part).

But how about posting an image hosted on the web but just including it in-line like so:

[photo courtesy of Mike Funnell]

...with no active link back to the original (ie. clicking on the image won't take you anywhere). That seems, to me, a dubious case legally. (If I'm just referencing a photo someone has "put out there" am I stealing it? Even if it's hosted on a space owned or controlled by the author?) It still seems wrong to me, even when the author is credited in the text, whether it's considered legal or not.

Somewhat better is an in-line photo with a link back to the original, something like:


[photo courtesy of Mike Funnell]

At least, with this, clicking on the image takes you to the author's page, where the image is hosted. I don't know the legalities on this and yet, somehow, without permission that still seems wrong to me. You can see the author's photo without clicking on the link (and so visiting the author's page) or even necessarily knowing that clicking willl take you there.

Showing a thumbnail, which can be clicked through to the full image seems better to me:


[photo by Mike Funnell; click to view original]

That seems closer to "right" to me, but has a few problems of it's own. It works best if there's a thumbnail size version of the original on the author's site that can be referenced to produce the thumbnail image. If there isn't, using web software to down-sample the image produces a version that the author never produced, intended or made available. Hosting a down-sampled version yourself to provide the thumbnail risks things on the legaility side of the equation (leaving the morality side alone for a moment) but might slip past as 'fair use' - yet still leaves me feeling somewhat off regarding "doing the right thing".

I don't have any answers here, just questions. But I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on the matter.

...Mike

 

[fergus]

Hi Mike,

Australian law is a little different to other countries, for example we have no 'fair use' provisions, nor do we have 'registration' of copyright.

In your examples, if you linked to the work (photo) then you didn't copy it, so no problem. If you copied it to use/post, then attribution (citation) may still not be enough, it will depend on the usage rights / licence the owner allows.

Embedding the photo is interesting, it can be viewed within your post but is hosted back on the author's original webpage. As long as it hasn't been saved as a copy then the Act hasn't been breached. There's an ongoing review of our IP laws and surely they will need to update them to deal with these issues.

Re citation/attribution, the copyright owner is free to set their own usage rights / licence rules, for example some newspapers in Australia consider use even in educational materials to be 'commercial' (and so there is a fee to pay).

A challenging area of the law, even for those who work with it every day.

Cheers...
Fergus

 

[Contarama]

Rather than 'fair use' maybe 'permission to use'?

 

[mfunnell]

Thanks Fergus.

Hi Mike,

Australian law is a little different to other countries, for example we have no 'fair use' provisions, nor do we have 'registration' of copyright.

In your examples, if you linked to the work (photo) then you didn't copy it, so no problem. If you copied it to use/post, then attribution (citation) may still not be enough, it will depend on the usage rights / licence the owner allows.

Given that my examples are all my own work, I figure I'm probably safe enough from myself!

Embedding the photo is interesting, it can be viewed within your post but is hosted back on the author's original webpage. As long as it hasn't been saved as a copy then the Act hasn't been breached.

Which may well be true, and does make me uncomfortable (which is why I won't do it).

There's an ongoing review of our IP laws and surely they will need to update them to deal with these issues.

Pardon my cynicism, but I can't help but feel this needs an "and so stuff them up even further" addendum.

Re citation/attribution, the copyright owner is free to set their own usage rights / licence rules, for example some newspapers in Australia consider use even in educational materials to be 'commercial' (and so there is a fee to pay).

A challenging area of the law, even for those who work with it every day.

All too true, yet "the rest of us" somehow have to cope with trying to do the right thing (however we may see it) without running afoul of law, that even experts find difficult, on the basis that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" even though ignorance of exactly how the law might be interpreted is almost guaranteed. The law can indeed be an ass (or at least asinine) at times.

...Mike

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill, what's your opinion of the phrase "courtesy of...." being used in conjunction with simply using someone else's image, permission or not? I've seen tons of this. Looks like a copyright violation to me.

Dante

Dante - I’m a fan and delighted you browse this forum. As to your question…

Well, I suppose it could be “courtesy of.” But you’ll never be sure because it is so easy to steal an image on the internet and so expensive to take legal action against the thief that there is a good chance there was no courtesy involved, just burglary.

Most folks I know fall into two rough categories when it comes to putting pictures on the internet. (1) It’s great when folks spread your stuff around the internet and even greater when they give you credit. These are nice folks, but they obviously don’t make their living from their photography. Photography makes them happy. And sharing photography makes them happier. (2) Then there are the pros and advanced folk. They often do photography that requires access, gear, time, knowledge and sometimes just sheer experience and talent that most folks have not acquired and developed. To that extent, their pictures are unique, and they take care of their families by selling those images. They watermark their images and keep them at relatively small sizes on the internet and their websites in the hope of making the pictures useless if used for more than internet usage. They still get stolen and distributed, for the most part by folks who aren’t making money from the theft but just want to use the photo for their internet presence, but, don’t kid yourself, also by folks who are now using them on the internet in ads and websites that promote a product, service or organization. I have friends who track usage of some of their images on the internet. They probably only discover a fraction of the usage of these images. Legal action is simply too expensive and too time consuming. I have friends who spent years in court, and the great majority of the money rewarded them went to the lawyers. Now they send a polite letter requesting a reasonable payment. Sometimes they get a check. Sometimes they get a letter back that says, “Go f..k yourself. (quite literally).” I’m not quite sure what to do.

 

[BillBingham2]

As an old Yearbook/Student Newspaper Photographer I really feel for Anthony Mazur in his silly battle with the Lewisville Independent School District.

I think that as he owns the copyright he should be able to share them, sell them is another thing.

The silliness over the districts misguided policy is just simple Lawyer-Fee-Baiting. The district is in enforcing the rules equitably across all of the student body. Having one who graduated last year and one who is graduating next year there are HUNDREDS of pictures all over the social-sphere. The short blurb doesn't tell how the Administration was "alerted" but it sounds like no one was loosing sleep over it.

Perhaps he should assign ownership to his parents and have them post them.

B2 (;->

 

[Graham Line]

I work with an online US-based magazine for hobbyists. We use many contributor photographs, get permission for each one published, give a credit reading "Max & Ruby photo," and pay a small amount. Product photos are obtained from the manufacturers. We ask permission and pay because we find that improves reader participation in our product. We're also (nominally) a for-profit venture, so it seems only fair.

 

[fergus]

I work with an online US-based magazine for hobbyists. We use many contributor photographs, get permission for each one published, give a credit reading "Max & Ruby photo," and pay a small amount.

I wish everyone did this (asked permission for use). It resolves so many of the issues.

 

[:: Mark]

...
But how about posting an image hosted on the web but just including it in-line like so:
.
...with no active link back to the original (ie. clicking on the image won't take you anywhere). That seems, to me, a dubious case legally.

When I first started posting a photo-blog, it was quite frustrating to find a large number of my images embedded without attribution in commercial (spam) web sites.

These are pages generated automatically from other web content purely to attract clicks for purpose of selling web ads. Some of these were bizarre - for example, pictures of street protests that were being used for content stuffing in a web site full of car-related adverts.

In response, I changed the uploads to add a watermark and made sure that uploaded files had search-friendly names and attribution (rather than auto-generated hashes). I am not sure what can be done more than this - save for not posting online.

 

[dmr]

Bill, what's your opinion of the phrase "courtesy of...." being used in conjunction with simply using someone else's image, permission or not? I've seen tons of this. Looks like a copyright violation to me.

IANAL but to me the term "courtesy of" implies permission and no consideration.

 

[RichC]

Bill, what's your opinion of the phrase "courtesy of...." being used in conjunction with simply using someone else's image, permission or not? I've seen tons of this. Looks like a copyright violation to me.

Dante

It means exactly what it implies: "thanks for letting me use ... whatever".

It's a usage borrowed from print publishing, where the phrase became traditional and commonplace over the decades. Of course, you should never use someone else's property without permission, so usually the phrase typically occurs in conjunction with "by permission of" or "copyright of", or the like.

Using "courtesy of" without permission of the owner of the work is, as you say, straightforward copyright violation. And, yes, I've seen it on websites where I'm damn sure permission's not been sought..."

"Fair use" in America is broader than it's counterpart in the UK ("fair dealing"). Here in Blighty if you use someone else's work in any way except for three VERY limited exceptions (news reporting, critique/review, parody) you're breaking copyright law - and if the courts become involved, it's up to the infringer (not the owner) to prove that they're not infringing. Also, we in the UK don't have that registering copyright stuff: it's taken as read that if you create work, it's your copyright.

Neither do we have a "derivative works" clause here, so Richard Prince would be 100% guilty of breaking copyright law in the UK.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Hi Bill - I'm actually a fan of yours!

You raise some excellent points. It's not all taking all the time; sometimes there are good effects. It really depends on how you calibrate the mix between exposure and commercial exploitation. Think of toy cars and model trains: real-life manufacturers used to allow the use of their designs and marks for the exposure; that changed about 15 years ago to licensing models (and in many cases, it's not so much about the money as the control).

The big difficulty I see with copyright and the internet is not that copyright as a concept is broken. You can bet your bottom dollar that high-dollar content creators and aggregators will keep the law where it is. They actually have the resources to sue someone just to make a point. And really, if we concede that the law is "out of date," then we effectively concede uniquely that for one medium, there is no commercial value.

But for a lot of people, the $25,000 in statutory damages for a copyright violation is cold comfort if they don't want to spend that much to get that much - or nothing. What is really missing from the system is two things: (1) realistic copy protection and (2) a low-cost and mandatory arbitral forum for resolving copyright cases (think of ICANN arbitration for artists). These are not as separate as might seem at first glance.

There certainly exists the technology to prevent the reproduction of images, at least easily. Adobe Flash is one such method; you pretty much have to take a screen shot to capture something, and it would have to be reprocessed to be used. Disabling right-click functionality would be another. Our web browsers are stuck in the NSCA era, when no one ever thought that online pictures would ever be a business (or a business issue). When your frame of references is HTML - designed for an academic environment where convenience comes before copyright protection - you're already fighting an uphill battle. One difficulty is that any industry-wide copy-protection method would require significant buy-in from companies that make money from data analysis and aggregation. Another is that it would also require a significant rework of most web sites.

In terms of dispute resolution, it would not actually be hard to shrink-wrap arbitration into internet access contracts, the same way that credit card agreements sometimes make everything subject to arbitration. But that only works to the extent that you are holding a stick; although it is technically possible to acquire jurisdiction over an offshore infringer, the reality is that unless he or it has property in the United States that could be seized, a judgment would just be a piece of paper. Could an international treaty be penned to handle this? Probably, but the U.S. and the EU have different ideas on a lot of things (consider the EU's "moral rights" concept). And behind this lies another conflict: simple, low-cost arbitration is probably more preferable to individuals; arbitration tends to fall in and out of favor with business entities. They may have strategic reasons to use conventional courts.

If photography is going to continue as a business for anything but weddings, senior portraits, and events (in other words, the disciplines where the product has relatively low usability by strangers), the product has to be able to maintain some value. The market price for images is severely depressed due to a flood of product, but creators of photos need an opportunity to reap whatever small benefits of their work are left.

Dante

 

[dmr]

Disabling right-click functionality would be another.

I'm not a techogeek by any means and even I know how to get around things like this easily. I don't think there's any practical way to stop someone from grabbing images or audio/video if they want to!