Author Topic: lawyer advice needed: COPYRIGHT removed? is it fair? (Read 15379 times)

zorba · « **on:** December 14, 2016, 18:12 »

from the contributor newsletter:

"ADP Copyright Name
In the very near future we will be changing the term 'Copyright' to 'Credit Line' on all Asset Detail Pages. "

do we agree?

Is this fair?

kaboom · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2016, 18:18 »

This looks like the final nail in the coffin...

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2016, 19:11 »

I agree. I think the word copyright is essential on the ADP.

Are they going to make credit lines mandatory? If so, are they going to police it? I'd say at least half of my found in-uses of editorial are uncredited, although credit is required for editorial.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2016, 02:27 »

Can anyone advise what practical difference this makes?

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2016, 03:16 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2016, 19:11

I agree. I think the word copyright is essential on the ADP.

I don't see © at Alamy.

ravens · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2016, 03:19 »

If we let them remove Copyright, other agencies will follow. Image buyers may understand what Copyright means but to many Credit Line is nothing. This may just be the time to leave this devil agency.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2016, 03:43 »

Is any independent contributor with an ounce of self respect still unloading to IStock anyway?

Thomas from France · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2016, 03:47 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 15, 2016, 03:43

Is any independent contributor with an ounce of self respect still unloading to IStock anyway?

No.

tickstock · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2016, 09:38 »

On Adobe it says "by", I don't see "copyright" anywhere.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2016, 09:53 »

Quote from: tickstock on December 15, 2016, 09:38

On Adobe it says "by", I don't see "copyright" anywhere.

That doesn't make it right, even though Adobe seems to be the current flavour of the month with many suppliers?

I'm sure you were just pointing out that it isn't just iS who do this. But what's wrong is wrong, even if Adobe do it. Many people don't know about copyright. Before I started supplying, I thought that if a photo didn't say copyright, it wasn't. What harm can the word 'copyright' do, compared to the possible good.
With the new wording, some people may genuinely think that so long as they give credit, they're good to go. I'm sure I thought that at one time also, even if copyright was also stated. It is vaguely implied by that wording. (Luckily 'fair use' also applied to my purposes, so I wasn't actually acting illegally.)

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2016, 10:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 15, 2016, 09:53

Quote from: tickstock on December 15, 2016, 09:38
On Adobe it says "by", I don't see "copyright" anywhere.
That doesn't make it right, even though Adobe seems to be the current flavour of the month with many suppliers?

I'm sure you were just pointing out that it isn't just iS who do this. But what's wrong is wrong, even if Adobe do it. Many people don't know about copyright. Before I started supplying, I thought that if a photo didn't say copyright, it wasn't. What harm can the word 'copyright' do, compared to the possible good.
With the new wording, some people may genuinely think that so long as they give credit, they're good to go. I'm sure I thought that at one time also, even if copyright was also stated. It is vaguely implied by that wording. (Luckily 'fair use' also applied to my purposes, so I wasn't actually acting illegally.)

Yeah I wasn't making a judgement just pointing it out. It looks like even Stocksy isn't using "copyright".

jodijacobson · « **Reply #11 on:** December 15, 2016, 15:12 »

Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture

ravens · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2016, 15:26 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on December 15, 2016, 15:12

Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture

Yes it should, and probably for most of us it is, but who is going to look there?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #13 on:** December 15, 2016, 15:51 »

as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** December 15, 2016, 17:47 »

Quote from: ravens on December 15, 2016, 15:26

Quote from: jodijacobson on December 15, 2016, 15:12
Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture

Yes it should, and probably for most of us it is, but who is going to look there?

Absolutely. People who ignorantly genuinely think pics which aren't marked copyright aren't copyright probably don't have a clue where to look for copyright, or even that it can be sought in metadata - they might not even have a program which can find it even if they knew. Also, files can extremely easily be orphaned.

Jodi: what possible good can come of not having the word 'Copyright' on the ADP?

nazlisart · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2016, 04:50 »

"Credit Line" doesn't mean anything to artists and users/buyers of artwork but means a ton to bankers and financiers...
THIS IS SCARY!!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2016, 09:02 »

Quote from: nazlisart on December 16, 2016, 04:50

"Credit Line" doesn't mean anything to artists and users/buyers of artwork but means a ton to bankers and financiers...
THIS IS SCARY!!!

It would be good if they were going to require buyers to credit us on all uses, but I haven't seen any indication that that's their intention.
Even if so, it should still say copyright to prevent the reasonable inference that if you credit an image that's OK.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2016, 10:01 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 15, 2016, 15:51

as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.

Alamy list me as Contributor

Karimala · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2016, 11:20 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2016, 10:01

Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 15, 2016, 15:51
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.

Alamy list me as Contributor

I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.

BD · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2016, 14:11 »

Quote from: Karimala on December 18, 2016, 11:20

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2016, 10:01
Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 15, 2016, 15:51
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.

Alamy list me as Contributor

I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.

I don't know much about copyright law, but there may be precedent now in Germany: http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/facebook-photo-metadata-lawsuit/

"A photographer has won a lawsuit filed against Facebook in Germany. The suit claimed that Facebook’s practice of removing EXIF metadata from photos uploaded to the service violated German copyright law. Now, Facebook may be forced to stop the practice or risk paying a fine to photographers in Germany, according to a report in PetaPixel."

And later...

"Wiedulwilt said the case could have an effect on Facebook’s policies even outside of Germany. “This is good for photographers since it makes it easier for them to pursue copyright infringement. And since it is technically unlikely that Facebook will create a technical solution only for Germany, this might have global consequences,” he told PetaPixel."

And more information here: http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/german-photographer-sued-facebook-removing-exif-data-won/

"The ruling also sets a precedent, and since Facebook is not the only service online that removes EXIF data on upload, we could hope that Germany will act as the first domino that finally eliminates the widespread practice of stripping out identifying information."

PixelBytes · « **Reply #20 on:** December 19, 2016, 14:46 »

Good for Germany. Hope the rest of the world, including the US follows suit.

ravens · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2016, 10:43 »

Quote from: Karimala on December 18, 2016, 11:20

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2016, 10:01
Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 15, 2016, 15:51
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.

Alamy list me as Contributor

I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.

Something wrong with this line of reasoning. No such cases in US courts does not make the conduct legal or acceptable.
There just hasn't been any court cases as yet.

ravens · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2016, 15:08 »

The question still remains, WHY is Istock changing 'Copyright' to 'Credit Line'?
What do they gain from it? (They are NOT doing this for nothing)

Copyright is clear. Credit Line is fuzzy. Do they want to blur terms in their advantage to rob more rights from us? (My guess is YES THEY DO)

What are we going to do about it?

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #23 on:** December 20, 2016, 21:27 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on December 19, 2016, 14:46

Good for Germany. Hope the rest of the world, including the US follows suit.

Needs someone to pay for the lawyers, but right, this needs to change. No matter how small we are, we deserve the rights to be associated with our creative works, just like everyone else.

Karimala · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2016, 17:46 »

Quote from: ravens on December 20, 2016, 10:43

Quote from: Karimala on December 18, 2016, 11:20
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2016, 10:01
Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 15, 2016, 15:51
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.

Alamy list me as Contributor

I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.
Something wrong with this line of reasoning. No such cases in US courts does not make the conduct legal or acceptable.
There just hasn't been any court cases as yet.

Right. And until there is a court case, the agencies can do whatever they want with the metadata. He explained to me that agencies started removing metadata in the early days of the web, because bytes took up precious server space, and they were trying to save space. But now, there's absolutely no reason for them to continue doing that.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: lawyer advice needed: COPYRIGHT removed? is it fair? (Read 15379 times)

zorba

kaboom

ShadySue

Pauws99

bunhill

ravens

Justanotherphotographer

Thomas from France

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

jodijacobson

ravens

Microstockphoto

ShadySue

nazlisart

ShadySue

YadaYadaYada

Karimala

BD

PixelBytes

ravens

ravens

YadaYadaYada

Karimala

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors