Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet is Fair Use

P

PKR

Mentor
Local time
11:30 AM
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
2,702
Just a heads up for those who may have missed this..

From: Michael Zhang at PetaPixel

Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet is Fair Use

A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won’t be happy to hear: the court ruled that finding a photo on the Internet and then using it without permission on a commercial website can be considered fair use.


The Backstory

The copyright battle started when photographer Russell Brammer found one of his long-exposure photos of a Washington, D.C. neighborhood cropped and used by the website for the Northern Virginia Film Festival on a page of “things to do” in the D.C. area.

Snip


Stephen Carlisle, the Copyright Officer of Nova Southeastern University, has written up a lengthy rebuttal of the opinion and writes that the ruling passed down on June 11th, 2018, is one that “has the potential to seriously erode the copyright protections afforded photographers.”

“The Court [ignores] key components of the Copyright Act, disregards readily apparent facts, and once again totally botches the ‘transformative use’ test,” Carlisle writes.

Attorney David Kluft of the law firm Foley Hoag has also written up a rebuttal titled “No, Virginia, You Can’t Just Copy Stuff You Find On the Internet, Even if You Don’t Notice the Copyright Notice.”



Full story
https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/

X
 
charjohncarter said:
I assumed it was a California court. But I guess there are other denizens of craziness on the East Coast.
Click to expand...

There is a good chance this will catch on.

I removed my stuff (for the most part) from the web years back. The students at the local art colleges, just across the bay from you, are taught that it's okay to rip photos.
 
So I guess it's fair use if I download Gone With the Wind or Clockwork Orange and put it up on a commercial site? One could argue that films, or at least movies that are shot on film, are nothing more than photographs on a roll of film. The court might have a different view of this sort of thing, which would invalidate it's original ruling.
 
Interesting that one key point is that significant cropping weighed into the decision.
 
With all seriousness though, that is disappointing. I removed any of my images that have value about five years ago when I found a few people lifting them from Flickr and using them without permission or compensation. I still find images I've sold to publications being used without their or my permission, but I figure they have bigger pockets than I do and I let them deal with it.

Had a Photography Instructor at an NPPA conference a few years ago tell us pretty much, "If you put it up on the internet, you've just given it away." It sucks, but for all practical purposes, once it's out there, it's really hard to control who and how someone uses it.

Best,
-Tim
 
I do agree with the instructor that Timmyjoe mentioned about putting images on the internet. It is a shame that everyone feels justified in taking creative works away. Such is life!

I have only had one infringement (in print) that I know of and the publisher dealt with me directly to resolve it.
 
My gal is a fashion blogger who has over 527K followers. My shots get "lifted" all the time. Pretty much I know that I'm give away this photography for free.

For my own B&W fine art work I am offline.

Cal
 
If you don't want your stuff copied, don't post it.

The law only works for you if you've got the money to fight...
 
I'm a realist: regardless of the law, people will re-use photos from the internet.

Small time users will be impractical to stop; we can't chase all of them.

The real bad cases will be stopped, sued, or embarrassed (e.g. stopStealingPhotos.com).
 
Back in 2000 I took a few photos of an historic diner, printed the photos, had them framed and gave them to the owner with the written and signed agreement as to terms of use. The owner passed away and a few months later I saw numerous copies of these photos in the restaurant for sale. I told the new owner this was not in our agreement to which she replied "It's my restaurant, these are my photos." After which I said I'd be back with an attorney. A JAG officer on board my ship (I was in the Navy at the time) looked at our prior agreement, wrote a letter of his own which was basically the precursor to a cease and desist order. I delivered the letter, took all of the copies from the restaurant and the original prints. They now hang in my parents' house.

While my example is from the days of film it's still the same now, even worse. News outlets are posting stock photos which are years old in order to show drama in current events instead of sending a reporter to the scene. I'm sad for the way the media, the internet and what fair use has become, and I'm glad I'm out.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Back in 2000 I took a few photos of an historic diner, printed the photos, had them framed and gave them to the owner with the written and signed agreement as to terms of use. The owner passed away and a few months later I saw numerous copies of these photos in the restaurant for sale. I told the new owner this was not in our agreement to which she replied "It's my restaurant, these are my photos." After which I said I'd be back with an attorney. A JAG officer on board my ship (I was in the Navy at the time) looked at our prior agreement, wrote a letter of his own which was basically the precursor to a cease and desist order. I delivered the letter, took all of the copies from the restaurant and the original prints. They now hang in my parents' house.

While my example is from the days of film it's still the same now, even worse. News outlets are posting stock photos which are years old in order to show drama in current events instead of sending a reporter to the scene. I'm sad for the way the media, the internet and what fair use has become, and I'm glad I'm out.

Phil Forrest

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Phil,

This experience is very disheartening. Sad to hear, but I'm glad that you were able to recover and enforced your rights.

This type of vigilance can cause one to waste their life energy, and is too demanding and depleting to constantly maintain.

Cal
 
This is now like the halcyon days of the Napster free for all, but in the photographic image world. It may not last .
 
This is nothing new. Years ago, a photographer took a black and white photo of a mare and her foal running side by side. The state of Kentucky took the image and used it on license plates. The state eventually paid the photographer. I had an insurance company use a photo I took of a fire in its advertising and I had to pursue them for months just to get them to desist. Never paid for it. We put our digital images on our newspaper website. My black and white film work goes from negative to wet print. I would love to share some of them, but I don't want them picked up and have them become 'fair use.' The above advice is excellent - if you don't want them stolen, don't post them.
 
Just because images are out there doesn't mean it is right to use them at will. If I have a house with big bay windows and the actual Mona Lisa is hanging in my living room in plain sight of the sidewalk, you can't simply take an image of my living room, crop the photo have it printed on canvas and sell it as a genuine Mona Lisa.
The internet is not quite a public place and rules exist or existed to protect the work of those who made it.

Phil Forrest
 
xayraa33 said:
This is now like the halcyon days of the Napster free for all, but in the photographic image world. It may not last .
Click to expand...

Yes, and yes, get the software (Napster), move to Virginia (or California), set it up, have suckers buy ads. And as the English say, 'Bob's your uncle'. At least until it winds its way through the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top