Author Topic: When can copyrighted images be used without concent (Read 8086 times)

malamus · « **on:** July 27, 2012, 03:24 »

Hi, I would like to ask "When can copyrighted images be used without concent" (assuming all images are copyrighted as soon as they are taken, that means all/any image)

I'm not interested in your opinions here, just facts, and I am talking about the UK.

I read that one could use (take from the web) images, of a playstation for example, without concent from the copyright owners, sony for example, and provided the image is used in the context of reporting in a newsworthy fashion in newspapers and the like, about exploding playstations for example, that fell into some kind of allowable use.

I understand that for advertising and promotional this is not allowed, but for reporting and newsworthy content do other rules apply and where can i find them

Links to creditable sources of information are very much appreciated

Thank you

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2012, 05:23 »

You seem to be asking two different things.
1. When can a copyrighted image be legitimately used (i.e. the copyright of the photographer)
2. When can images of copyrighted things (e.g. something made by Sony) be legitimately used.

For 2, generally anywhere in editorial or educational usage.

For 1, see Fair Use UK: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
and
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others

In the first link, the 'incidental inclusion' clause is interesting, whereby in the UK at least, you're in no danger of being sued e.g. by YKK because you can read the name on a zip pull at 200%.

malamus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2012, 06:10 »

Thank you for you time, I also came across:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

#30 Criticism, review and news reporting. answers what I was trying to ask and yes, 31 Incidental inclusion of copyright material. is interesting, but as with all things, defining incidental opens more questions.

For my purpose, I have to now define news reporting ie, if I simply say "these new playstations are black" or "We played on this and it was great" will that constitute news reporting and reviewing therefore I can use the Play Station image (extream I know, but these lines are hard to define)

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** July 27, 2012, 06:39 »

Quote from: malamus on July 27, 2012, 06:10

Thank you for you time, I also came across:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

#30 Criticism, review and news reporting. answers what I was trying to ask and yes, 31 Incidental inclusion of copyright material. is interesting, but as with all things, defining incidental opens more questions.

For my purpose, I have to now define news reporting ie, if I simply say "these new playstations are black" or "We played on this and it was great" will that constitute news reporting and reviewing therefore I can use the Play Station image (extream I know, but these lines are hard to define)

Do you mean to put them on a blog or website or something?
Yes, that's fine. It's not 'news reporting' but editorial. OTOH, it could be news if you were talking about 'New release of pink and white polka-dotted playstations'.
You or I, or a newspaper or magazine can use a photo of a commercial item to illustrate an article on how bad they are (which is editorial). Most articles maligning e.g. the Coca-cola company will have at least one photo of their signature product or logo on the page.

click_click · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2012, 10:39 »

I'm very confused right now.

If you take a picture created by another photographer than you and post it in any way (without obtaining a license or getting the photographer's consent) it's already copyright infringement, regardless if there is a Playstation in the picture.

As mentioned before there is a copyright of the picture itself which lays with the photographer and then you might have to clear the rights for contents shown in the image (Playstation).

I mean what would the point be of selling licenses of editorial images (IS, Getty, Alamy, Corbis, AP etc.) if you can just grab a photo off the internet (for free) and post it on your site even if it's not commercially used?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question correctly...

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** July 27, 2012, 14:23 »

Quote from: click_click on July 27, 2012, 10:39

I mean what would the point be of selling licenses of editorial images (IS, Getty, Alamy, Corbis, AP etc.) if you can just grab a photo off the internet (for free) and post it on your site even if it's not commercially used?

They are pixel perfect, for those who need such.

What else do you need to know?
Other countries may have different laws or nuances, but the OP asked specifically about the UK, and I linked to UK law on the subject.
A playstation photo is not copyright infringment in the UK, as a 2D photo of a 3D object does not count as copyright infringement, but there may be trade dress issues in certain cases, probably including Playstation.
http://www.itma.org.uk/download/1_Nathan_Abraham.pdf

But I don't think that's what the OP was meaning anyway. I think they were wondering under what conditions they could use a purchased image of a Playstation on their website or blog.

click_click · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2012, 15:31 »

For some reason I'm dying to know what the OP's intentions are...

OP posted in another thread whether IS's editorial images have to be credited or not when published.

When the response came in: "Yes", OP posted "...I'll stop that FTP upload right now!" - which sounds to me like that OP was in the progress of uploading an editorial image to a server.

I could be very wrong with all that but that's how it sounds like to me.

Now, I just can't make anything of it (and I don't have to, it's just rubbing me funny...) that OP apparently wants to use one/any editorial image without consent AND has a problem giving credits for an editorial image from IS.

It just sounds off.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2012, 15:41 »

Quote from: click_click on July 27, 2012, 15:31

For some reason I'm dying to know what the OP's intentions are...

OP posted in another thread whether IS's editorial images have to be credited or not when published.

When the response came in: "Yes", OP posted "...I'll stop that FTP upload right now!" - which sounds to me like that OP was in the progress of uploading an editorial image to a server.

I could be very wrong with all that but that's how it sounds like to me.

Now, I just can't make anything of it (and I don't have to, it's just rubbing me funny...) that OP apparently wants to use one/any editorial image without consent AND has a problem giving credits for an editorial image from IS.

It just sounds off.

I think something has gone missing in translation, as they say.
I'm guessing s/he bought an image of a Playstation from iStock wanting to use it in a blog or something to illustrate an article about Playstations and was checking that that use was OK.
S/he hadn't checked out the conditions of use, but since I find that by far the most of my images in editorial use aren't credited to me or iStock, I'm guessing very few people actually read that, which is a worry (I bet we miss loads of ELs), but the OP is by no means the only one.
Seemed to me they were just checking that they were proceeding correctly.

click_click · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2012, 18:42 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 27, 2012, 15:41

...
I'm guessing s/he bought an image of a Playstation from iStock wanting to use it in a blog or something to illustrate an article about Playstations and was checking that that use was OK.
S/he hadn't checked out the conditions of use, but since I find that by far the most of my images in editorial use aren't credited to me or iStock, I'm guessing very few people actually read that, which is a worry (I bet we miss loads of ELs), but the OP is by no means the only one.
Seemed to me they were just checking that they were proceeding correctly.

OK I can see what you're explaining here. But why would s/he stop the FTP transfer after (apparently) purchasing an editorial IS image just because the of the credit?

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2012, 20:07 »

Quote from: click_click on July 27, 2012, 18:42

Quote from: ShadySue on July 27, 2012, 15:41
...
I'm guessing s/he bought an image of a Playstation from iStock wanting to use it in a blog or something to illustrate an article about Playstations and was checking that that use was OK.
S/he hadn't checked out the conditions of use, but since I find that by far the most of my images in editorial use aren't credited to me or iStock, I'm guessing very few people actually read that, which is a worry (I bet we miss loads of ELs), but the OP is by no means the only one.
Seemed to me they were just checking that they were proceeding correctly.
OK I can see what you're explaining here. But why would s/he stop the FTP transfer after (apparently) purchasing an editorial IS image just because the of the credit?

I was assuming they had written their page and started to upload it without putting in a credit, so they stopped the page from going up so that they could put in the credit.
Admittedly, that's inference, but if they didn't want to put in the credit, why did they ask?

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2012, 20:29 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 27, 2012, 20:07

I was assuming they had written their page and started to upload it without putting in a credit, so they stopped the page from going up so that they could put in the credit.
Admittedly, that's inference, but if they didn't want to put in the credit, why did they ask?

I think this would be the point where I would say: "I rest my case."

Anyway let the weekend come. Enough of this nonsense.

cascoly · « **Reply #11 on:** July 28, 2012, 17:10 »

Quote from: click_click on July 27, 2012, 10:39

I'm very confused right now.

If you take a picture created by another photographer than you and post it in any way (without obtaining a license or getting the photographer's consent) it's already copyright infringement, regardless if there is a Playstation in the picture.

As mentioned before there is a copyright of the picture itself which lays with the photographer and then you might have to clear the rights for contents shown in the image (Playstation).

I mean what would the point be of selling licenses of editorial images (IS, Getty, Alamy, Corbis, AP etc.) if you can just grab a photo off the internet (for free) and post it on your site even if it's not commercially used?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question correctly...

right - when i sell, eg, a camera on ebay, i can use the stock image that ebay provides for that camera, which is authorized by the manufacturer; but i CAN't grab the image some ofther seller has taken of that same camera and use it in my auction.

malamus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:12 »

OK, just for Click.

The two posts are unrelated, so what ever assumptions you have made are just that. Sue is correct, I was uploading an editorial image I purchased from IS to the printers when her fast reply saved my bacon, I stopped the FTP upload inserted the credit and continued with the upload. (again many thanks)

The thread relating to the use of an image without consent is unrelated to the editorial image. But again, just for you… A collegue purchased an xbox image (nothing special, isolated on white from IS) microsoft have an image libruary which is free to use and I wanted to check UK law on using their "official" image as well as the microsoft Ts & Cs.

It turns out we wasted our credits as the image supplied by microsoft was perfect, legal and free, and came with less restrictions on usage.

PS I will not be asking for a refund

malamus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:15 »

Quote from: cascoly on July 28, 2012, 17:10

Quote from: click_click on July 27, 2012, 10:39
I'm very confused right now.

If you take a picture created by another photographer than you and post it in any way (without obtaining a license or getting the photographer's consent) it's already copyright infringement, regardless if there is a Playstation in the picture.

As mentioned before there is a copyright of the picture itself which lays with the photographer and then you might have to clear the rights for contents shown in the image (Playstation).

I mean what would the point be of selling licenses of editorial images (IS, Getty, Alamy, Corbis, AP etc.) if you can just grab a photo off the internet (for free) and post it on your site even if it's not commercially used?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question correctly...

right - when i sell, eg, a camera on ebay, i can use the stock image that ebay provides for that camera, which is authorized by the manufacturer; but i CAN't grab the image some ofther seller has taken of that same camera and use it in my auction.

According to uk law, if you are using any image in accordance referenced in the formentioned link that is legal, which, amoungst others, is why editorial images we see in neswpapers can contain logos without consent

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:43 »

Quote from: malamus on July 31, 2012, 11:15

Quote from: cascoly on July 28, 2012, 17:10

right - when i sell, eg, a camera on ebay, i can use the stock image that ebay provides for that camera, which is authorized by the manufacturer; but i CAN't grab the image some ofther seller has taken of that same camera and use it in my auction.

According to uk law, if you are using any image in accordance referenced in the formentioned link that is legal, which, amoungst others, is why editorial images we see in neswpapers can contain logos without consent

The issue of using pictures with logos is different to the issue of using other people's pictures.

As well as 'fair use' which includes 'artwork', inter alia, there is also 'fair dealing', which specificaly excludes photos. I'm not sure which one trumps which:
Fair Dealing
"(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement [F1 and provided that the work has been made available to the public].
[F2(1A)For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, including—
(a)the issue of copies to the public;
(b)making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c)the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d)the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e)the communication to the public of the work,
but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.]
(2)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(3)No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film [F3 or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise].
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30
(Section 29 covers fair dealing for personal, private study, which AFAICS does not exclude photos)

click_click · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:19 »

Quote from: malamus on July 31, 2012, 11:12

OK, just for Click.

The two posts are unrelated, so what ever assumptions you have made are just that. Sue is correct, I was uploading an editorial image I purchased from IS to the printers when her fast reply saved my bacon, I stopped the FTP upload inserted the credit and continued with the upload. (again many thanks)

The thread relating to the use of an image without consent is unrelated to the editorial image. But again, just for you… A collegue purchased an xbox image (nothing special, isolated on white from IS) microsoft have an image libruary which is free to use and I wanted to check UK law on using their "official" image as well as the microsoft Ts & Cs.

It turns out we wasted our credits as the image supplied by microsoft was perfect, legal and free, and came with less restrictions on usage.

PS I will not be asking for a refund

Thanks for the insight. No idea though why you downloaded/purchased an image first and checked the licensing terms AFTER...

In that case, I would ask for my money back since you didn't use the image... unless you plan on using it in the future at some point.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2012, 18:55 »

Quote from: click_click on July 31, 2012, 12:19

Thanks for the insight. No idea though why you downloaded/purchased an image first and checked the licensing terms AFTER...

As I've pointed out, that was better than the huge proportion of (presumed) buyers who don't check the terms ever (or deliberately ignore them, assuming that iStock don't have the resources to chase them up) and don't attribute images used editorially.

malamus · « **Reply #17 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:54 »

Quote from: click_click on July 31, 2012, 12:19

Thanks for the insight. No idea though why you downloaded/purchased an image first and checked the licensing terms AFTER...

"A collegue purchased an xbox image…"

Any how, thats enough, thanks for your help

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: When can copyrighted images be used without concent (Read 8086 times)

malamus

ShadySue

malamus

ShadySue

click_click

ShadySue

click_click

ShadySue

click_click

ShadySue

click_click

cascoly

malamus

malamus

ShadySue

click_click

ShadySue

malamus

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors