Online Photos Can’t Be Used Without Permission, EU Court Rules

P

PKR

Mentor
Local time
4:26 AM
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
2,702
Online Photos Can’t Be Used Without Permission, EU Court Rules

PetaPixel
Aug 08, 2018 Michael Zhang

A Virginia federal court sparked quite a controversy among photographers last month when it ruled that copying photos found on the Internet is fair use. Now a European Union court has just issued a landmark ruling that states you can’t simply republish a photo because it’s freely accessible online — you need the photographer’s permission first.

Unlike in the Virginia case, in which a photographer’s photo was used without permission on a commercial website, this latest EU case (Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff) involved a secondary school student downloading a photo from a travel website and using it in a school presentation that was also published on the school’s website.
The photographer who shot the photo, Dirk Renckhoff, discovered the unauthorized usage and sued the school seeking €400 in damages. And unlike in the Virginia case, the EU court has ruled in Renckhoff’s favor.
“The posting on a website of a photograph that was freely accessible on another website with the consent of the author requires a new authorization by that author,” the Court of Justice of the European Union writes. “Mr. Renckhoff claims that he gave a right of use only to the operators of the travel website and that the posting of the photograph on the school website is an infringement of his copyright.”
“[A]ny use of a work by a third party without such prior consent must be regarded as infringing the copyright of that work,” the court continues.

Basically, the court is affirming that you can’t simply republish a photo anywhere you’d like on the Internet just because it’s freely accessible elsewhere on the Web.
Also, the court strongly states that it’s not the photographer’s responsibility to protect his photo from copyright infringement, stating: “it is of little importance if, as in the present case, the copyright holder does not limit the ways in which the photograph may be used by internet users.”
Here’s the full statement released by the court:


“The directive aims to establish a high level of protection for authors, allowing them to obtain an appropriate reward for the use of their works, including on the occasion of communication to the public,” the court says.

More
read:https://petapixel.com/2018/08/08/online-photos-cant-be-used-without-permission-eu-court-rules/
 
PKR said:
Online Photos Can’t Be Used Without Permission, EU Court Rules

PetaPixel
Aug 08, 2018 Michael Zhang

A Virginia federal court sparked quite a controversy among photographers last month when it ruled that copying photos found on the Internet is fair use. Now a European Union court has just issued a landmark ruling that states you can’t simply republish a photo because it’s freely accessible online — you need the photographer’s permission first.

Unlike in the Virginia case, in which a photographer’s photo was used without permission on a commercial website, this latest EU case (Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff) involved a secondary school student downloading a photo from a travel website and using it in a school presentation that was also published on the school’s website.
The photographer who shot the photo, Dirk Renckhoff, discovered the unauthorized usage and sued the school seeking €400 in damages. And unlike in the Virginia case, the EU court has ruled in Renckhoff’s favor.
“The posting on a website of a photograph that was freely accessible on another website with the consent of the author requires a new authorization by that author,” the Court of Justice of the European Union writes. “Mr. Renckhoff claims that he gave a right of use only to the operators of the travel website and that the posting of the photograph on the school website is an infringement of his copyright.”
“[A]ny use of a work by a third party without such prior consent must be regarded as infringing the copyright of that work,” the court continues.

Basically, the court is affirming that you can’t simply republish a photo anywhere you’d like on the Internet just because it’s freely accessible elsewhere on the Web.
Also, the court strongly states that it’s not the photographer’s responsibility to protect his photo from copyright infringement, stating: “it is of little importance if, as in the present case, the copyright holder does not limit the ways in which the photograph may be used by internet users.”
Here’s the full statement released by the court:


“The directive aims to establish a high level of protection for authors, allowing them to obtain an appropriate reward for the use of their works, including on the occasion of communication to the public,” the court says.

More
read:https://petapixel.com/2018/08/08/online-photos-cant-be-used-without-permission-eu-court-rules/
Click to expand...
There's hope yet! Thanks for the link.

Cheers,

R.
 
Ridiculous decision.

Although I think an acknowledgement by the reposter of who took the photo and what website they got the photo from should be included in any reposting.

I also think any reposting should not be for commercial purposes, either by the reposter or the website.

Though that could probably run into few complications if the website gets revenue from adverts.
 
Ridiculous decision???? European court of justice sounds wrong???

I'm gonna go back to bed and restart this day later!
 
I was just amazed that a case involving €400 should get that high in the system as the court is the supreme court for Europe. I thought that it would only be a local court; no more.

But I see that a German Federal Court asked them for an opinion, which explains it.

Getting to the UK Supreme Court would cost something like - I don't know but I'd guess - about a quarter of a million or so. That was all.

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
I was just amazed that a case involving €400 should get that high in the system as the court is the supreme court for Europe. I thought that it would only be a local court; no more.

Getting to the UK Supreme Court would cost something like - I don't know but I'd guess - about a quarter of a million or so. That was all.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

To me it sounds like a good reason to love EU...
 
David Hughes said:
European Court of Justice? That sounds wrong to me...

Regards, David
Click to expand...

I think I have figured out why this name grated a bit with me. The name contains what seems to me to be a redundancy - which sounds as if they are protesting too much.

In the Australian tradition we do not refer to "courts of justice" The latter bit is just assumed. We have District Courts (or County Courts) Supreme Courts, a High Court etc. We all know that they are there to dispense justice though we also know they sometimes fail in our expectations. We certainly never refer to them as courts of justice.

It kind of put me in mind of what could be a Monty Python sketch:

"I have just filed a complaint in the court".
"Did you file in the Court of Justice?"
"No I filed in the Court of Injustice, its decisions are never very good, but its just down the road from my house and the filing fees are cheaper".

With that image in my mind I will move onto my actual question. Do they not have fair use laws in the EU? I can understand laws to prevent the theft of copyrighted materials but I thought most jurisdictions allowed "fair use" for certain restricted purposes.
 
"Do they not have fair use laws in the EU? I can understand laws to prevent the theft of copyrighted materials but I thought most jurisdictions allowed "fair use" for certain restricted purposes." Peter M.


I think the answer is that individual countries are expected to pass their own laws enforcing EU ones but somehow (isn't it strange?) they usually manage to leave out a little bit here and a little bit there and add a few other bits to compensate...

Then, I thought, the ECJ steps in as a sort of referee, if requested. The lawyers, interpreters and translators do well out of it and (just this once) the photographers.

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Then, I thought, the ECJ steps in as a sort of referee, if requested. The lawyers, interpreters and translators do well out of it and (just this once) the photographers.


Regards, David
Click to expand...


You're not quite right.... if a precedence (or highly doubtful) case concerns EU-law the national court has to ask the ECJ.
No european court (be it national or supranational) is a referee unlike in the common law countries (except for trade deals like CETA etc. - but in this cases they are not real courts with real judges anyway).

The case btw seems to be a bit controversial because of the fact that it was just a school website but imagine a global player using your picture on its website without permission.
I'm biased...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top