Discussions
Copyright law and photography
Posted by ender • 2/13/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: copyright, law, photo, Photography
Yes, taking someone else's image off of their site and using it on your own, even with a linkback, can be considered copyright infringement.
jafabrit on another thread asked for specifics in the code ... and you won't find the law only in the code, but also in case law.
here's one person's story:
www.saugus.net/Photos/copyright_notice.shtml
i'm sure if people google this and look up not just the code, but case history, they'll find that stealing is stealing.
EDIT:
oh ... and anymore, you need to find a lawyer who specializes in online intellectual property issues to get an accurate legal opinion on anything web-based.
User Comments
-
There seems to be many schools of thought on the issue. I think that generally speaking fair use applies, but common courtesy and how an image is used makes a huge difference.
As an administrator for an arts council blog I always try to get permission from an artist, however there have been a times I haven't been able to. Since the purpose of our site is to PROMOTE artists, it has never been an issue in all the years I have been doing this. It would be an odd thing for an artist NOT to appreciate having an arts organization showcase their work on their website which included a link to their exhibit, gallery, website or blog.
I am sorry we don't agree on this, but that doesn't mean I would dismiss a lack of courtesy or decorum in handling another artists images. I am after all an artist myself and wouldn't appreciate people using my image for the purpose of reproducing and selling, as part of their design, or for commercial use. If people want to use it to show my work on their blog or website, and credit me with a link-back, GO AHEAD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use -
"A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use -
thumbnails, as noted in the other thread, are different.
-
I got a photography blog. I have the C symbol at the bottom of that blog and all of my other blogs.
With permission I would not totally reject the idea of someone using one of my pictures if they are describing my site which they like, as long as they link back to it.-
mike, the only time I ever had a photographer email me is when a link I had provided didn't work but otherwise they were pleased as punch that I showed their image and referenced them with a link back.
ender, from what I have read fair use has general guidelines and is rather fluid,which why we sometimes go head to head on this issue or there is confusion. In the end though if a copyright holder cannot prove they were hurt financially or professionally, and that the use was NOT for commercial purposes, that it fit in the general guidelines it is hard to prove copyright infringement. I would say better to try and use common courtesy, follow the copyright and fair use guidelines, and be respectful.
-
-
speaking of copywrite lawyers, anyone ever check out this blog?
blog.copywrite.org
There's a relevant post on "fair use" here:
blog.copywrite.org/2007/10/09/do-not-steal-images-on-the-internet/
Plus tons of other useful information.-
Very interesting article on fair use.
I really think that the way most of us use images--post the image, give proper credit, and link back to the original--would fall under "fair use".
In the example under the original post by Ender, the examples that I read were of they guy's photos being used where his "copyright notice and contact info had been cropped off the image." I think most of us are smart enough to know that we should give full credit, and link back.
Also, according to the US Copyright Office website, one of the four criteria for determining "fair use" is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." If you link back properly, and give proper credit, then the original owner would have difficulty claiming that your use of that photo has caused a decrease in the market for, or the value of the copyrighted work. Instead, as stated in the case posted above by jafabrit, posting a photo and giving proper credit with link back could increase exposure of the originals, and would therefore profit the original owner.
www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
-
-
Any new pictures I take I was going to anyway start putting my web address on the pictures themselves. I know you can get around that but at least it will be on there.
Im not sure if I can do it to the pictures already on my blog. I would have to upload them all again. About 100 hours worth of time? ha-
I have several friends do this and I think it helps or they have a watermark program to watermark their images.
-
A great example of how that could work:
www.kotybear.com
She puts her copyright info through the middle of each image. To get that off would take a great deal of work--probably more time than most people would want to invest. But the copyright info is also light enough that you can still see the image clearly.
-
-
Lawyer, Ender? I thought that's what Wikipedia was for.
-
Wikipedia sucks citizendium is the future of wiki. -
Of course, I was just joking, but thanks for the tip. Still, it looks to me like the thing can only talk about the future. Too darn small for the present, and when's the last time you searched Google and had one of it's articles pop up? FYI, we have a Wikipedia group here, if you feel like sharing your experiences there with this other wiki. www.blogcatalog.com/group/wikipedia
-
Stoneman -I remember you mentioned that. I'll join right now.
I'm just being sarcastic Wikipedia has it's advatages and flaws. Alternative are always nice.
Citizendium is small but worthy.
-
-
Nothing on my blog is copyrighted. Although I would like proper credit for my words, thoughts, and ideas - I still would not go after someone who used my things. (OK, maybe I would if they did it, and then totally flubbed it up, or used it in some manner that was so poorly done it ends up making a mess of the whole point, in which case I would resort to Anok's copyright infringement laws - you fake it, I break it. It being your knees!)
Anyway, etiquette is much appreciated.-
Everything on your blog is copyrighted, whether you choose to see it that way or not. You might want to use a Creative Commons License. I use one that doesn't allow commercial retooling and that asks for attribution. creativecommons.org/
-
No, it's not copyrighted, as I have not applied for a copyright. Legally speaking if I haven't applied for an actual copyright or at the very least used a poor man's copyright than I don't really stand a chance in court, unless there is an absolute way I can prove that everything on my blog is inherently mine, and original.
That said, I do not want a copyright. I am an Anarchist, and allow my works to be used by all. My ego still requires recognition for my work - but the use of it by any one is celebrated - not legally punished by me. -
Copyright is automatic. But yes you are right, in order to bring a lawsuit for copyright violation you are better served to register it.
"Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works."
www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what -
That's something I didn't know until I researched it yesterday. I always thought a copyright was something that one had to apply for. But you're right...it's automatic as soon as a work is completed. But I'm not sure what good it does, since you DO have to register a copyright in order to bring a lawsuit.
-
Kristi, why would you have to register it to bring a lawsuit? I would imagine that all you need to do is prove its yours.
Anok, of course you might not recognize the copyright law that protects your own work. I was just pointing out that it protects your work nonetheless. I'm curious though. Would a Creative Commons license be antithetical to your anarchist sentiments? -
I don't know why it's that way, but I read it directly from the US Copyright Office website yesterday.
"Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect -
I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that the need to register for this situation is not as clear as these FAQs suggest.
-
Stoneman, yup it does go against Anarchist sentiments.
-
-
-
I am glad this subject was brought up, it really informed me I was doing so much wrong! Including snagging images from google, and using them in my posts without linking back. So I am going to fix that soon. Thanks! -
The fair use is more limited than you might think, it is usually illegal to use other people images..plain and simple.
" What is Fair Use?
From the text of the Copyright Act of 1976, as Amended, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Fair Use is a common defense in copyright infringement lawsuits. It is important to understand that the law does not grant individuals the right to determine if they are making a fair use of a copyrighted work, rather, it provides guidelines for courts to make this decision on a case by case basis. Fair Use analysis is not simple and the outcome of a Fair Use defense is not predictable. It is unwise to assume that you are not infringing a copyright unless the specific use has been determined by case law to be non-infringing based on Fair Use, such as video taping television broadcasts for home use or copying a portion of a work to provide comment or criticism. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered include:
* the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
* the nature of the copyrighted work
* the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
* the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
The Supreme Court has established the effect on the market value of the work to be the most important of these factors. It is important to understand that just because you may wish to use a work for educational purposes, it is not automatically a fair use of the work. For example, recent litigation has found that copying a work in its entirety rather than buying the book or journal, is not a fair use, even if it is copied for educational purposes. In another case, it was found to be infringing to copy and distribute copies of journal articles for many people in an organization when only one copy of the journal was purchased.
For UC guidelines on determining Fair Use for printed materials used for educational purposes, see the UC Policy and Guidelines on the Reproduction of Copyrighted Materials for Teaching and Research. For more general information on Fair Use see "Reproduction of copyrighted works by educators and librarians," Circular 21, Copyright Office, Library of Congress. "
People really would have hard time explaining taking a personal image off of someone's blog.
www.ucsc.edu/matman/BusCon/copyrightothers.htm-
I think I'm just going to take my chances.
Considering that, when I use someone's photo, I always give credit to the source, as well as link back to the original source, I think anyone would have a very difficult time proving that my use had somehow affected the market value of the work. If anything, it's increasing exposure of the work.
All examples of infringement that I've read include someone taking someone's photo and removing the copyright and source information, OR copying a work in its entirety for personal use or distribution, OR copying a work, removing the copyright information, and re-selling the work. All of those examples would obviously affect the market value of the original work.
-
-
just for education (academic book), there isn't any copyright or authorsright... this regulated on grownth country like indonesia.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
