Nonprofit group seeks dismissal of lawsuit over use of photo

[Damaso]

A very interesting case. I don't think this falls under fair use but we shall see...

"Public Advocate of the United States, a conservative nonprofit organization led by Loudoun County Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling), filed a motion Friday to dismiss a federal complaint alleging that the organization illegally used a same-sex couple’s engagement photo on anti-gay-marriage campaign fliers in Colorado.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center, a prominent civil rights organization that designated Public Advocate as a hate group this year, filed the complaint in September in U.S. District Court in Colorado. The SPLC is representing Tom Privitere and Brian Edwards — a New Jersey couple pictured on the campaign mailers sent out by Public Advocate in June — and Kristina Hill, the photographer who copyrighted the image."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3ab94c-276b-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html

 

[nikkor-watching]

Wouldn't your post have been more interesting if you had offered an opinion and more relevant legal information, rather than appearing as a bait for controversy? The photographer would seem to have grounds in civil law to make the non-profit organisation desist but would seem to have the worry that it will be difficult to extract damages or court costs from them. Legal precedents?

 

[Merkin]

Wouldn't your post have been more interesting if you had offered an opinion and more relevant legal information, rather than appearing as a bait for controversy? The photographer would seem to have grounds in civil law to make the non-profit organisation desist but would seem to have the worry that it will be difficult to extract damages or court costs from them. Legal precedents?

It probably would have been bait for controversy regardless of what he said

 

[dogberryjr]

Thanks for posting this, Damaso.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It probably would have been bait for controversy regardless of what he said

Quite.

A couple of times, I've had stuff used without permission. I immediately contacted them, without saying what I was going to do, to point out that this is very illegal. Then, once I had their attention, because they were both working for a cause I believe in (Tibetan independence and Tibetan Buddhism), I told them I granted permission retrospectively.

Had I disagreed with them -- in other words, if they'd been using my words or pictures to promote a cause I disliked or even hated -- I'd have been after them. Preferably to make them pay money to a charity of my choice -- one that was opposed to their views, whose help I'd cheerfully enlist in chasing 'em. Whether the thieves are profit or non-profit is irrelevant to what I will put up with/support. There are 'non-profit' thieves and liars, just as there are for-profit thieves and liars.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Beemermark]

Using a photo from the web is fair game (or seems to be anyway), using a photo of people and then editing it to suit your advertising is something else. It is advertising, for profit or not.

I think this is an interesting case and forget the political or social controversy.

 

[Damaso]

I was not trying to stir up controversy and I did offer an opinion, that I don't think their claim of fair use will stand up. Regardless of what you think of the defendants the issue is whether or not their unauthorized usage is legal. Lots of people claim fair use to get out of paying the photographer and in several recent cases they have been forced to pay, here's one: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/arti...ase+against+Richard+Prince+and+Gagosian/23387

That case was different for sure but some of the arguments were the same. I am interested to see how the courts will rule on this case since I don't think it is as clear cut as the Richard Prince case...

 

[kxl]

The indisputable fact that they modified an image (thus changing context) without permission and without any explicit fair use statement (such as flickr) clearly violates copyright laws and should precede any claims of protection under the First Amendment. Whether or not the couple in the image suffered emotional distress and are thus entitled to compensation is debatable.

 

[sevo]

I was not trying to stir up controversy and I did offer an opinion, that I don't think their claim of fair use will stand up.

From an outside perspective it is a bit hard to tell, as the US is pretty much alone with North Korea in its deviations from the Berne treaty - if the latter applies to 100%, it certainly would not hold up, as a use in direct opposition to the authors intention would violate of the authors personality rights. But as far as I can make out, the latter are only moral, not legal obligations in the US.

 

[Elektrojänis]

Using a photo from the web is fair game (or seems to be anyway),

Is it really? I don't think so, even though I know it's very hard to protect anything once you put it on the web. Even if something is easy and gettin caught is unlikely, it doesn't make it fair or right.

 

[seanbonner]

Using a photo from the web is fair game (or seems to be anyway)

That's ridiculous. A license applies to a photo regardless of the medium it's published in. If the photo was copyrighted it makes no difference if it was on the web, no one can use it for any other purpose without permissions/licensing.

 

[Damaso]

That's ridiculous. A license applies to a photo regardless of the medium it's published in. If the photo was copyrighted it makes no difference if it was on the web, no one can use it for any other purpose without permissions/licensing.

You are correct sir. And work is copyrighted the moment it is fixed in a medium, not when it is registered in Washington. The difference applies to damages but the moment you make an image it is technically copyrighted. The courts seem to be very protective of political speech (as they should be) so this case is far from clear cut. It will be interesting to read the rulings as they come down over the next few years....

 

[seanbonner]

You are correct sir. And work is copyrighted the moment it is fixed in a medium, not when it is registered in Washington.

Correct. What I meant by "if it was copyrighted" was that the assumption being some other license hadn't been applied to it. Meaning, if the photographer had applied a creative commons attribution non commercial license then he'd have a much more difficult time with the case arguing that he'd OK other usage but just didn't like this *particular* usages. But if no other license was applied so that copyright was, then it can't be used by anyone without the photographer's OK, non-profit or not. Political or not.