pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Can watermark images be legally used in articles?  (Read 16900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

memakephoto

« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2018, 17:36 »
0
Furthermore, the only way ANY stock photo could be used without payment as fair use with any news article is if the photo itself is the centre of the story.

Imagine you took a photo of a model and sold it through i-stock to a company that uses it in an ad campaign. It's discovered, through that use, that the model is a wanted fugitive. That makes the photo news and news agencies can use it without payment because it's the centre of a breaking story. That's fair use.

You still don't get it do you?


« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2018, 18:33 »
0
you said: "the only way ANY stock photo could be used without payment as fair use with any news article is if the photo itself is the centre of the story."

wrong.

http://archive.cmsimpact.org/sites/default/files/documents/pages/principles_in_fair_use_for_journalism.pdf

"USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF STARTING OR EXPANDING A PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF NEWS"

"The use of copyrighted material to promote public discussion and analysis can qualify as fair use. "

"The use of textual, visual and other quotations of cultural material for purposes of reporting, criticism, commentary, or discussion constitutes fair use. "

« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 18:55 by unnonimus »

« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2018, 18:50 »
0
copyright law is designed to give the copyright owner the right to earn money from his work. its all about protecting your right to profits.

however, it has been determined that some uses are more worthy than your right to profit. the general education of humanity, the newsworthiness, and the right for people to create new works have more legal precedence than an individual's right to profit from his creativity.

the original post falls under the case of newsworthiness and supercedes the copyright holder's rights.


« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2018, 19:08 »
0
Imagine you took a photo of a model and sold it through i-stock to a company that uses it in an ad campaign. It's discovered, through that use, that the model is a wanted fugitive. That makes the photo news and news agencies can use it without payment because it's the centre of a breaking story. That's fair use.

Yes.  This.  The story is literally about the image itself.

« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2018, 19:19 »
0
imagine that a guy wants to write a story about dreadlocks. he gets a copyrighted image with a watermark on it of a person who has dreadlocks, and uses it to illustrate his news story. that is fair use.

« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2018, 05:24 »
+1
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
"Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors to resolve fair use disputes, as discussed in detail below. Its important to understand that these factors are only guidelines that courts are free to adapt to particular situations on a case‑by‑case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination, so the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict." Oddly enough Courts often apply a test of reasonableness. So it could end up being tested in Court....good luck

memakephoto

« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2018, 07:57 »
+4
imagine that a guy wants to write a story about dreadlocks. he gets a copyrighted image with a watermark on it of a person who has dreadlocks, and uses it to illustrate his news story. that is fair use.

If what you are saying were actually true one would have to question why stock agencies even allow editorial images or any images for that matter. There would be no money in it if anyone could use a photo with even a tangential relation to a news article for free under the fair use clause. Why are there editorial photographers at all? Why are there paparazzi? Why would anyone chase down celebrities in a car to get a photo if anyone could use that photo for free by associating it with a "news" article.

And if it were technically legal, which it's not, it still raises ethical questions. News agencies don't report the news for the good of the world, they do it for money. News is a business and I would not trust any news source that believes they should be able to use photos for free while generating income from their news articles.

Ultimately, I think you realize you're wrong. I think you knew it several posts ago but are maintaining this farce because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Which makes you a troll. I won't waste anymore of my time on you. What I might do though is track down your portfolio and start using your images for free. As fair use of course.

« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2018, 08:30 »
+2
imagine that a guy wants to write a story about dreadlocks. he gets a copyrighted image with a watermark on it of a person who has dreadlocks, and uses it to illustrate his news story. that is fair use.

No, it isnt.

« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2018, 14:49 »
0
you said: " one would have to question why stock agencies even allow editorial images or any images for that matter."

whether something is editorial comes from use. stock agencies do not know how the buyer is going to use the image, and it is therefor it is wrong for a stock agency to declare an image as for editorial use because the stock agency is at the point of sale, before it is used.

all photos can be used for commercial purposes, and all photos can be used for editorial purposes. again, it is the point at which it is used, not the point of sale, that makes the determination. some agencies do not classify photos as for editorial use only, so they do not create the market confusion as to whether something is  editorial or not.

last of all, editorial use is only one of many conditions whereby a photo can be used under Fair Use. declaring a photo as 'editorial only' at the point of sale (which is what stock agencies are doing) is a mistake.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2018, 15:00 »
+6
you said: " one would have to question why stock agencies even allow editorial images ...
whether something is editorial comes from use. stock agencies do not know how the buyer is going to use the image, and it is therefor it is wrong for a stock agency to declare an image as for editorial use because the stock agency is at the point of sale, before it is used.

You really haven't a clue.

The point of declaring a file as 'editorial only' is so that the buyer needn't waste their time considering that image if they need to use an image commercially. So the agency is helping to protect the buyer and photographer, as well as covering their own backs.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 16:27 by ShadySue »

« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2018, 15:51 »
+5
Last of all, editorial use is only one of many conditions whereby a photo can be used under Fair Use. declaring a photo as 'editorial only' at the point of sale (which is what stock agencies are doing) is a mistake.

Good lord.  Declaring it editorial is because it comes with a specific set of rights and usage allowances that is different from the commercial license.

Please, just stop.

« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2018, 16:26 »
0
you said: "The point of declaring a file as 'editorial only' is so that the buyer needn't waste their time considering that image if they want to use an image commercially."

only the buyer can determine what the use is. the seller cannot.

second, there are non-commercial uses that are not editorial only. the licensing system created by many stock agencies is confusing, and doesn't even apply to every country's laws worldwide.


« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2018, 16:27 »
+5
I give up.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: May 27, 2018, 16:33 »
0
only the buyer can determine what the use is. the seller cannot.
Many buyers would prefer not to be sued, and would be grateful for an advance headsup, though some take the risk and (presumably) hope they won't be discovered.
I've had to take up several editorial-only images from iS being used commercially, because I, also, would prefer not to be sued. I haven't the time, money or inclination for that circus.

« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2018, 16:38 »
0
you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale. there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.

« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2018, 17:09 »
+5
you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale. there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.

Hey, can you give me the URL to your portfolio? I'm writing a news article but I don't like paying for images, so I would like to use one of yours for free. Completely editorially of course. Surely you don't mind?

« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2018, 17:19 »
0
you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2018, 17:31 »
0
you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale.

How would the buyer know they were infringing if the image weren't designated as 'editorial only' in the agencies where that works, or 'no releases' in the agencies where that is the designation?

Quote
there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.
Au contraire, e.g.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/20/greeting-card-teasing-gets-this-farmers-goose
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 18:26 by ShadySue »

« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2018, 04:05 »
+1
a response to my tweet from Pixsy ,
"Replying to @rushay @GettyImages
Hey! Fair use varies by jurisdiction but we would say no, this doesn't qualify. Fair use for news reporting is for topical news stories. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions - Hannah

« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2018, 13:00 »
+5
you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.

Could you give me your portfolio URL then?

« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2018, 13:15 »
+4
you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.

Could you give me your portfolio URL then?


Yes, please post it. We all could use some free images to use for whatever we think is fair use.


« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2018, 13:17 »
+2
a response to my tweet from Pixsy ,
"Replying to @rushay @GettyImages
Hey! Fair use varies by jurisdiction but we would say no, this doesn't qualify. Fair use for news reporting is for topical news stories. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions - Hannah


This article is kind of on this same subject.


https://blog.photoshelter.com/2018/05/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-images-anyway/




« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2018, 15:31 »
+6
This guy must be the biggest troll out there, and hes just sitting back and laughing

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2018, 15:40 »
+4
This guy must be the biggest troll out there, and hes just sitting back and laughing
He absolutely is and I'd block him, except I hate to think that some poor newbie might actually believe his drivel.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2018, 09:04 »
0
I am sure this image was not purchased hence the visible watermark. Could this be considered a infringement?

http://www.thefamuanonline.com/news/view.php/1033479/Are-dreadlocks-appropriate-for-the-workp


The first answer from Sean was the right answer, the rest of this discussion has gone into and absurd distortion of the facts by one U person.

Allowed for non-commercial use, a small size image, obtained from Getty... with the Getty watermark embedded. Getty allows this for non-commercial use, like a news story. Since 2014

https://www.gettyimages.com/resources/embed

Yes it's legal.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
20689 Views
Last post December 29, 2012, 21:54
by Noedelhap
3 Replies
6076 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 11:00
by John W.
6 Replies
4183 Views
Last post August 28, 2013, 15:44
by cidepix
14 Replies
5173 Views
Last post June 15, 2017, 01:26
by DallasP
2 Replies
2292 Views
Last post April 14, 2021, 09:33
by alexandersr

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors