pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet is Fair Use  (Read 5424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2018, 17:51 »
+1
and then people wonder why we should not upload our good stuff to fliqr.you want fame? exposure ? thats what you get in the end.and these idiots sorry for the language but THEY ARE they didnt even give him a credit   

« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2018, 00:56 »
+2
The company . . . ."responded by immediately taking the photo down." Why did he still have to sue?

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2018, 09:13 »
+10
The company . . . ."responded by immediately taking the photo down." Why did he still have to sue?

We as copyright holders shouldn't need to waste uncompensated time asking every infringer to stop infringing. I have found thousands of infringements of my work where these people should be paying for use. My single-use RM license ranges from $20 to $1,000. That's at minimum over $20,000 in ingringed revenue. Should I just ignore this? Should I spend waste months or years full time contacting all of them just requesting take-downs?

When a store finds someone has stolen from them is their response "good sir/madam, could I kindly ask you to please bring back the items you removed from our store?". No, there is usually a consequence that deters people from doing bad or illegal things. This ruling sets the tone that there is no legal consequence for infringing on our work and as a result effectively encourages infringement.  I hope this ruling causes a sh*tstorm otherwise this is just another nail in the coffin for a profession that is already on life support.

« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2018, 10:14 »
+5
The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2018, 10:28 »
+1
The company . . . ."responded by immediately taking the photo down." Why did he still have to sue?

We as copyright holders shouldn't need to waste uncompensated time asking every infringer to stop infringing. I have found thousands of infringements of my work where these people should be paying for use. My single-use RM license ranges from $20 to $1,000. That's at minimum over $20,000 in ingringed revenue. Should I just ignore this? Should I spend waste months or years full time contacting all of them just requesting take-downs?

When a store finds someone has stolen from them is their response "good sir/madam, could I kindly ask you to please bring back the items you removed from our store?". No, there is usually a consequence that deters people from doing bad or illegal things. This ruling sets the tone that there is no legal consequence for infringing on our work and as a result effectively encourages infringement.  I hope this ruling causes a sh*tstorm otherwise this is just another nail in the coffin for a profession that is already on life support.


And we have whatever BS attorney decided to come up with this fare youz (misspelling intended) BS to thank, and every person who reads about it, then decides their use falls under it. Dont hold your breath for a sh*tstorm...that should have happened when this BS first started. But I hope I am wrong because this is just stealing, pure and simple.

« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2018, 11:03 »
0
What a discgrace. I'd be furious...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2018, 12:37 »
0
The company . . . ."responded by immediately taking the photo down." Why did he still have to sue?

We as copyright holders shouldn't need to waste uncompensated time asking every infringer to stop infringing. I have found thousands of infringements of my work where these people should be paying for use. My single-use RM license ranges from $20 to $1,000. That's at minimum over $20,000 in ingringed revenue. Should I just ignore this? Should I spend waste months or years full time contacting all of them just requesting take-downs?

When a store finds someone has stolen from them is their response "good sir/madam, could I kindly ask you to please bring back the items you removed from our store?". No, there is usually a consequence that deters people from doing bad or illegal things. This ruling sets the tone that there is no legal consequence for infringing on our work and as a result effectively encourages infringement.  I hope this ruling causes a sh*tstorm otherwise this is just another nail in the coffin for a profession that is already on life support.

Thank you, as I am in complete agreement. DMCA is a toothless dog that doesn't even bark. Meaning, there's nothing to fear and to reason why crooks should worry if they are caught. It's ineffective and there's no fear of prosecution or consequences.

The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

As we all probably learned as children, "I didn't know that was illegal" is not a defense and ignorance is not a free pass to commit a crime and then say, OH I didn't know that was illegal. Sorry, but if someone claimed good faith and didn't know, that's weak and a fail.

I have a friend or two who believe, seriously, that anything on the web is free to copy. I tried to explain, but there we are. These are fairly intelligent (otherwise?) people.

Back to the other part about consequences. Someone gets caught shop lifting, they should use the same defense. "Oops, sorry you caught me, here's your goods back." And then they should be patted on the head, for returning the product and, sent away. Keys in the car, "OH I though someone left it as a gift..."  >:(

There needs to be something, a fine, reasonable fine. When the record companies wanted to stop music piracy, there was an absurd $250,000 fine, against a kid in gradeschool, for sending files to his friends. Not a major distribution, just someone small that they could nuke and make the news. We can't even get a simple $50 fine, like a parking ticket, that's payable and enforceable? Because as soon as people started having to reach into their pockets and pay, the word about copyright would spread fast.

Yes I know, we can't get the US court to fine someone, possible anonymous, in Timbuktu Africa, or Shanghai, when China doesn't seem to care. There's no way, but if countries that care, at least there would be some possible repercussions.

What's the point if there are no laws to protect us or no legal means to at least try to stop these thieves? An accidental use, should be a lesson, but repeat offenders should get fines and that should be published so anyone who doesn't know or understand will see that they are breaking a law. Education will bring awareness of the truth.

« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2018, 14:41 »
0
The DMCA was written by lobbyists for the big internet providers, with the intention of shielding them from responsibility and, naturally, liability for copyright infringement.  It works well.

« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2018, 15:26 »
+3
If you find music on the radio or internet you automatically think "it's copyrighted".  Why would anyone think photos are any different.  The mind set needs to be everything is copyrighted by someone somewhere.  Even creative commons has a (foolish) copyright holder... who may demand attribute if nothing else.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2018, 16:50 »
+1
If you find music on the radio or internet you automatically think "it's copyrighted".  Why would anyone think photos are any different.  The mind set needs to be everything is copyrighted by someone somewhere.  Even creative commons has a (foolish) copyright holder... who may demand attribute if nothing else.

Because Apple and other companies have implemented copy protection that prevents misuse. Plus high profile Napster and other situations made the general public aware that copying music is illegal. Getty tried doing this and they had infringers take to social media with widespread shaming campaigns about "Getty blackmail letters". Getty backed off when they should have stood their ground.

Imagine thieves who steal from major stores shaming them when the stores ask them to pay for what they took. And then having the general public side with the thieves to where the stores have to stop asking thieves to pay for what they took. This is where we're at in 2018. The year common sense went away and the logical thinking majority gives in to small vocal social media mobs.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2018, 17:06 »
+1
The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

Watermarks aren't the answer. First, they can easily be removed. Second, once your image is legally licensed and put on the web without the watermark by your client, it is wide open to infringement. I have one image that was sold in microstock a couple dozen times but is used on hundreds of websites. Which ones are clients vs infringers? Thanks to RF, I have no idea.

And yes ignorance is no excuse. Imagine if ignorance applied to everything. "Oh well the keys were in the ignition so I figured I could take the car.". "The bike was on the sidewalk so I figured they didn't want it anymore". "The door on the house was unlocked so I figured I could take everything". Ohhhh, well in that case if you were ignorant then the court feels you were totally right in taking these things..

« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2018, 17:19 »
0
who submitted your photos under an rf licence?

MilanStojanovic

  • I sample life
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2018, 18:40 »
0
Santa  ::)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2018, 22:55 »
+3
who submitted your photos under an rf licence?

Yes I know, me. I learned a while ago that was a bad decision. Now a ton of my work submitted as RF is being infringed and theres nothing I can do about. All of my new work starting a few years ago is RM so I have complete control over it. That is unless courts start deciding infringement is fair use then copyright and all licenses are meaningless.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2018, 10:05 »
+1
Now that I read the quoted parts of the decision, I can see that one judge doesn't understand copyrights or photography and creative images. I can understand that the image was not displayed with any copyright notice on various sites over time. Still, and a great point...


Because Apple and other companies have implemented copy protection that prevents misuse. Plus high profile Napster and other situations made the general public aware that copying music is illegal. Getty tried doing this and they had infringers take to social media with widespread shaming campaigns about "Getty blackmail letters". Getty backed off when they should have stood their ground.


Even without the outrageous "blackmail" letters and the mistakes, like writing to the original authors in some cases, they could have kept up the program with a little less of a storm trooper attitude.

The DMCA was written by lobbyists for the big internet providers, with the intention of shielding them from responsibility and, naturally, liability for copyright infringement.  It works well.

Yes, correct, but does nothing for us.  :(

I used to put a on photos, simple enough there's notice, but also as pointed out here, once used, purchased, anyone can right click and copy from a paid use and steal them. In fact if you can see an image in your browser, it's already in the cache on your computer, or a thief's computer. There's no protection except law. That works for music and other works, I don't know why drawings or photos aren't protected the same?

ps the judge also saw this as a non-commercial use.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2018, 12:38 »
+1
Now that I read the quoted parts of the decision, I can see that one judge doesn't understand copyrights or photography and creative images. I can understand that the image was not displayed with any copyright notice on various sites over time. Still, and a great point...


Because Apple and other companies have implemented copy protection that prevents misuse. Plus high profile Napster and other situations made the general public aware that copying music is illegal. Getty tried doing this and they had infringers take to social media with widespread shaming campaigns about "Getty blackmail letters". Getty backed off when they should have stood their ground.


Even without the outrageous "blackmail" letters and the mistakes, like writing to the original authors in some cases, they could have kept up the program with a little less of a storm trooper attitude.

The DMCA was written by lobbyists for the big internet providers, with the intention of shielding them from responsibility and, naturally, liability for copyright infringement.  It works well.

Yes, correct, but does nothing for us.  :(

I used to put a on photos, simple enough there's notice, but also as pointed out here, once used, purchased, anyone can right click and copy from a paid use and steal them. In fact if you can see an image in your browser, it's already in the cache on your computer, or a thief's computer. There's no protection except law. That works for music and other works, I don't know why drawings or photos aren't protected the same?

ps the judge also saw this as a non-commercial use.

The judge needs their vision checked. On their website there are things like sponsors and also paid admission tickets. Regardless of all of the philanthropy listed on the website that shouldn't give them a free pass on infringement.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 13:20 by PaulieWalnuts »


Shelma1

« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2018, 13:18 »
+1
The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

Watermarks aren't the answer. First, they can easily be removed. Second, once your image is legally licensed and put on the web without the watermark by your client, it is wide open to infringement. I have one image that was sold in microstock a couple dozen times but is used on hundreds of websites. Which ones are clients vs infringers? Thanks to RF, I have no idea.

And yes ignorance is no excuse. Imagine if ignorance applied to everything. "Oh well the keys were in the ignition so I figured I could take the car.". "The bike was on the sidewalk so I figured they didn't want it anymore". "The door on the house was unlocked so I figured I could take everything". Ohhhh, well in that case if you were ignorant then the court feels you were totally right in taking these things..

Ignorance is no excuse, but in this case there's no ignorance whatsoever. Their ugly logos are trademarked. They have a copyright line at the bottom of their website. They knew what they were doing.

« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2018, 15:40 »
0
heres the truth 80% of all Images used are stolen....80%!... who do you guys think Makes a fortune? 90 Billion Just last year on Images,Movies and Music alone.......The Wireless carriers Thats who. theft on stock sites is small potatoes compared.

« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2018, 15:45 »
0
heres the truth 80% of all Images used are stolen....80%!... who do you guys think Makes a fortune? 90 Billion Just last year on Images,Movies and Music alone.......The Wireless carriers Thats who. theft on stock sites is small potatoes compared.

Huh?  :o
Wireless carriers are stealing your photos, now?
Wow! That's a new one for this forum, indeed!

« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2018, 17:24 »
0
heres the truth 80% of all Images used are stolen....80%!... who do you guys think Makes a fortune? 90 Billion Just last year on Images,Movies and Music alone.......The Wireless carriers Thats who. theft on stock sites is small potatoes compared.

Huh?  :o
Wireless carriers are stealing your photos, now?
Wow! That's a new one for this forum, indeed!
How wireless carries steal photos?

« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2018, 18:55 »
+1
Brush up on your reading skills. He didnt say the wireless carriers were stealing photos, he said they are the ones making all the money.


« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2018, 19:57 »
0
Brush up on your reading skills. He didnt say the wireless carriers were stealing photos, he said they are the ones making all the money.

Oh yeah? Just like this, in a sentence and thread about photo theft?

Maybe he just has hard time expressing his thoughts coherently in writting.

Maybe he only wanted to say that wireless carriers facilitated the growth of the internet.

Maybe he just wanted to say that billions of new users, accessing the internet wirelessly, are very hungry for media these days (photos included).

Maybe he just wanted to say that this increased demand has also incentivized thieves to steal more.

But between these potential interpretations and his unfounded claims about wireless carriers "making a fortune" as a consequence of this theft, there is a huge difference.

Mind you:
Sprint has 33 Billions of debt. Billions with B.
T-Mobile has 15 Billions of debt. Billions with B.
AT&T has 151 Billions of debt. Billions with B.
Verizon has 117 Billions of debt (at the end of 2017). Billions with B.

It costs many Billions to build those high speed wireless networks.

Maybe he should have said that, as a better example, when looking at these mountains of debt: banks "make a fortune"?

But again, this is a thread about photo theft, not profitability of certain industries.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 20:39 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2018, 21:23 »
0
Wow, so much hate. Or jealousy. Let it go dude. He shared his opinion, something everyone here has a right to do. Why you gotta call him out on every single thing he says? It is just a discussion. If you dont understand what he means, or you just dont like what he says, why dont you put him on ignore. Geez.  ::)

« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2018, 21:39 »
+1
Wow, so much hate. Or jealousy. Let it go dude. He shared his opinion, something everyone here has a right to do. Why you gotta call him out on every single thing he says? It is just a discussion. If you dont understand what he means, or you just dont like what he says, why dont you put him on ignore. Geez.  ::)

"A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven"

Everyone is free to express their emotions and opinions, indeed.

However, his statement is false or misleading (in the best case scenario).

I called it out and used facts in my argument, not opinions.

What is this, kindergarten, where we have to protect some kid's sensitivity and play along, even when proven wrong?

Jeez!

 
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 04:21 by Zero Talent »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
7957 Views
Last post June 28, 2011, 12:50
by cthoman
6 Replies
2754 Views
Last post March 24, 2013, 17:30
by Batman
9 Replies
3998 Views
Last post December 13, 2016, 19:14
by Sean Locke Photography
0 Replies
560 Views
Last post July 11, 2018, 06:34
by cathyslife
0 Replies
490 Views
Last post July 11, 2018, 06:35
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors