MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog  (Read 4717 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Donvanstaden

« on: August 06, 2013, 03:03 »
+1


« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2013, 03:35 »
-4
serves her right !

and why she's ranting about this * fair use ? everybody is talking about fair use and yet nobody ever read it !!

fair use is for NON PROFIT orgs, her blogs is selling books so how can it ever be fair use and no profit ?

why anyone is free to open a blog or post stolen images/video/warez ? i want to know.

in china you need to be registered to open a blog or buy a domain, that's the way it should be.
no freedom without responsability.

Ron

« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2013, 03:36 »
0
Thats an older story. I wrote about her in my own blog. I spoke to Roni about it, and was allowed to quote her.

http://semmickphoto.com/2013/01/23/the-positive-side-of-a-copyright-notice/

« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2013, 04:33 »
0
fair use is for NON PROFIT orgs, her blogs is selling books so how can it ever be fair use and no profit ?

Uh, no.  Making a profit or not is not a requirement for fair use.

And the article is more than a year old.

« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2013, 06:22 »
+3
It may be a year old, but it's well written, and the number of reactions shows that there were many ears listening.
What would you do if you caught a blogger, sent him/her a Take Down Notice and he/she immediately responded by removing the image?  Would you claim money?  Let's suppose it's a profit-blog, a blog that sells something like this woman does (books).  And how much would you ask for (for 1 image) ?
This blog gives me an idea :  suppose I catch a blogger, and I let him/her choose between paying me X dollars or writing a blog explaining the dangers of copyright infringement ...  ;)


EmberMike

« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2013, 08:07 »
+5

Yeah, old topic, already been discussed here.

But for those just reading about this now, I'd offer the same note of caution/concern/skepticism I offered last year. I don't believe that this blogger was completely ignorant of the fact that she couldn't just grab images from Google and publish them.

She is a writer, she knows what intellectual property is and she makes her living from selling her own IP. What writer doesn't have at least some basic understanding of the fact that what you create is yours and can't just be taken and republished?

Makes kind of wonder how original her writing is, if she takes such a casual attitude towards using other people's work when it comes to other media.

« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2013, 09:04 »
+1
fair use is for NON PROFIT orgs, her blogs is selling books so how can it ever be fair use and no profit ?

Uh, no.  Making a profit or not is not a requirement for fair use.

And the article is more than a year old.

she's selling her books on the same site so de facto the site is a commercial site.
no judge will downplay this, and she could not claim the stolen images are just for decoration
or to illustrate a point, the images are there exactly to catch the readers attention and to
make them interested in her articles and therefore in her books, they're an integral part
of the whole package so they're used for commercial purposes and since this the case they should
be paid to the author.

and in any case no one knows what a judge would rule, each case is different, but photographers can sue whenever they want, no matter what and that's exactly what happened to this girl .. letter or immediate removal + billing for the stolen photos, she talked with her lawyer and he told her better to pay ... game over !




« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2013, 09:12 »
+1
fair use is for NON PROFIT orgs, her blogs is selling books so how can it ever be fair use and no profit ?

Uh, no.  Making a profit or not is not a requirement for fair use.

And the article is more than a year old.

she's selling her books on the same site so de facto the site is a commercial site.
no judge will downplay this, and she could not claim the stolen images are just for decoration
or to illustrate a point, the images are there exactly to catch the readers attention and to
make them interested in her articles and therefore in her books, they're an integral part
of the whole package so they're used for commercial purposes and since this the case they should
be paid to the author.

and in any case no one knows what a judge would rule, each case is different, but photographers can sue whenever they want, no matter what and that's exactly what happened to this girl .. letter or immediate removal + billing for the stolen photos, she talked with her lawyer and he told her better to pay ... game over !

Let me rephrase that. "I didn't make any money" or "I'm a non-profit" does not qualify one for a "fair use" exemption from copyright infringement.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2013, 09:28 »
0
Let me rephrase that. "I didn't make any money" or "I'm a non-profit" does not qualify one for a "fair use" exemption from copyright infringement.

That's as may be, and 'fair use' in the UK is different from, for instance, the US.
The HuffPost/Google issue is being discussed on the Alamy forum:
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/777-huff-post-licensing-images-nope-they-just-need-google
Note in particular the post from the lady who got damages from HuffPost Canada and note the response from her US attorney. This woman says (in many previous posts) she pursues all the infringements she finds, apparently for well over the asking rate. She has a legal background and, possibly 'mates rates' but certainly personal contacts with legal representatives in the US, Canada, UK and Australia.

« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2013, 10:06 »
0
Let me rephrase that. "I didn't make any money" or "I'm a non-profit" does not qualify one for a "fair use" exemption from copyright infringement.

in many cases it does, why else fair use has been invented ? first of all for trivial, non-profit stuff like schools and education.

problem is, what is exactly accepted as fair use is a bit complex, there are the basic 4 required rules but lots of exceptions too and it only creates further confusion .. and for starters it was never meant to be used on digital.




« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2013, 10:20 »
0
Note in particular the post from the lady who got damages from HuffPost Canada and note the response from her US attorney. This woman says (in many previous posts) she pursues all the infringements she finds, apparently for well over the asking rate. She has a legal background and, possibly 'mates rates' but certainly personal contacts with legal representatives in the US, Canada, UK and Australia.

Actually she only pursues in western countries, in the old forum she said she doesnt even waste time with infringers from india, china, middle east, africa etc

As for the US, i think his lawyer reasoned that sueing AOL wasnt a good idea without being backed from photos registered to the copyright office but i remember she won many cases in the US despite the lack of CO registration, there was also another female photographer asking big bucks to bloggers and site owners, she was using ImageRights i think but they only deal with cases where the minimum billing is 3-400$, so cheap bloggers are out of question.




ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2013, 10:41 »
0
In the UK, it's 'Fair Dealing' and the main provisions are:

"What is fair dealing?
Fair dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are allowed without infringing copyright. Briefly these are as follows:

Research and private study
Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:
        The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
        The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
        The source of the material is acknowledged.
        The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people.

Instruction or examination
Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a sound recording, film or broadcast for the purpose of instruction or examination is allowed under the following conditions:
        The copying is done by the student or the person giving instruction.
        The copying is not done via a reprographic process.
        The source of the material is acknowledged.
        The instruction is for a non-commercial purpose.

Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
        The work has been made available to the public.
        The source of the material is acknowledged.
        The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
        The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.

News reporting
    Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:
        The work is not a photograph.
        The source of the material is acknowledged.
        The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.

Incidental inclusion
Incidental inclusion is where part of one work is unintentionally included in another. The incidental inclusion of a work in an artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast is not an infringement.
A typical example of this would be a case where a news broadcast inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to be on a wall in the background.

Accessibility for someone with a visual impairment
    It is considered fair dealing to make an accessible copy of a work for someone with an visual impairment if a suitable accessible version is not already available.

For further details on UK fair dealing rules please refer to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act; Section 28 onwards covers this area in full.

Those outside the UK should consult the fair dealing / fair use sections of their own national legislation."

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others
Although dated Nov 2009, it doesn't seem to have really considered digital use, as Xanox wrote, but the clause I highlighted in red above would seem to preclude all web/blog uses.

Ron

« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2013, 11:03 »
0
Sue, you would make a perfect match with Ruxpriencdiam  ;)

« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2013, 11:24 »
0
Let me rephrase that. "I didn't make any money" or "I'm a non-profit" does not qualify one for a "fair use" exemption from copyright infringement.


in many cases it does, why else fair use has been invented ? first of all for trivial, non-profit stuff like schools and education.

problem is, what is exactly accepted as fair use is a bit complex, there are the basic 4 required rules but lots of exceptions too and it only creates further confusion .. and for starters it was never meant to be used on digital.


Digital or not doesn't matter.

And, "stuff like schools and education" aren't the only non-profits out there.  Here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5660 Views
Last post August 30, 2006, 16:56
by hospitalera
11 Replies
6059 Views
Last post November 04, 2008, 15:08
by yingyang0
6 Replies
3238 Views
Last post September 07, 2009, 11:58
by hqimages
37 Replies
14621 Views
Last post July 24, 2012, 11:47
by Hummingbird
2 Replies
2306 Views
Last post September 30, 2012, 08:08
by digitalexpressionimages

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle