
Sued over screenshots of 59-year-old show - gk1
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/cbs-sues-man-for-copyright-over-screenshots-of-59-year-old-tv-show/
======
eveningcoffee
I think that big companies should be fined hard for the attacks on the fair
use.

Copyright law is important but it should be balanced such that it does not
interfere with the free speech.

~~~
divanvisagie
The article points out that they don't know much about the case so we don't
even know if it's fair use at this point.

~~~
delinka
GP still makes a good point. Righthaven is a good example of where attacks on
fair use lead. Sure, we don't know about this case, but odds are good that it
involves fair use. And even if not, GP's point is still relevant.

~~~
pc86
I don't think "odds are good" is the particular standard I want my legal
system to use.

~~~
skygazer
I don’t believe parent was remotely suggesting a legal standard, rather, an
appeal to conversational relevance.

------
vxNsr
Both cases look open-shut in favor of photographer. 1) He has right to fair
use. 2) they cannot just use his pics for profit

~~~
gspetr
Agreed. This seems like a slam dunk for him and creates bad optics of David vs
Goliath for the company.

That said, he did come off as a bit of an unhinged person in his twitter
tirade.

~~~
chesimov
Does 'bad optics' mean something like 'bad impression'? Sounds odd to me
(although I'm not in the US)

~~~
s_kilk
Pretty much. The 'optics' of a situation are the appearances, the visuals, the
perceptions. So when someone says a thing has "bad optics" they mean that it
looks bad to observers.

------
gumby
The way it is portrayed in the article (which may not be correct) this
photographer Tannen comes off as a jerk and CBS comes off as somewhere between
doing what anyone would and having a sense of humor.

Yes CBS used his photo and he didn't like it. He asked them to stop and they
did indeed (perhaps not on the first message) take the photo off. Seems like
they legitimately didn't know they didn't have the rights.

But the quoted language by Tannen is vitriolic for the use of two photos in a
minor article where the "breach" (legal term) was "cured" simply and
immediately. He definitely comes off as a committed member of the
"permissions" culture"

Yet he filed what looks like a nuisance suit. In such cases the defending side
almost always makes a counterclaim, and you know that they are spending more
than the 150K they ask on their defense.

(I am amazed to be saying anything even vaguely supportive about Big Media.
But here we are).

~~~
DanBC
CBS are also litigious members of the permissions culture. They're quick to
sue people infringing their property rights. They make extensive use of the
DMCA.

In that context they better try hard to avoid infringing other people's
rights, and it's fair enough to be angry when a huge company steals your work.

~~~
gumby
I don't deny that CBS is high on the pantheon of scum.

But "angry" over a couple of photos shared, when they took them down and when
their explanation seems quite plausible and in fact likely? I think there are
more important things to be _angry_ about.

~~~
mbrameld
They used his work on two separate occasions. The 2nd time was after they knew
they had used his work illegally in the past. At that point it's a pattern of
behavior. They were given the opportunity to fix it themselves (taking down
the pics is only part of fixing the issue, not repeating the theft is the
other part) and chose not to. How many chances should they get? What
motivation do they have to change the behavior if there are no repercussions?

------
tehwebguy
> Now, CBS has sued Tannen back, claiming that he "hypocritically" used CBS
> intellectual property "while simultaneously bringing suit against
> Plaintiff's sister company, CBS Interactive Inc., claiming it had violated
> his own copyright."

Wow CBS even admits that it's retaliation! Hopefully that comes up in court as
a strike against CBS.

~~~
macspoofing
Why would it be a strike against CBS? He's suing CBS for a dumb reason for a
crazy amount ($300k), and now they are suing him back for a dumb reason for a
crazy amount.

I suppose the photographer is probably more in the right. His use of the
stills feels like fair use, while theirs is less so (presumably they made some
money off of the article) - but the amount he's asking for is crazy (because
the copyright infringement law is crazy).

~~~
tehwebguy
Because they are using the courts, wrongly IMO (since his use was fair), to
attempt to stop him from using the courts rightly.

The statutory damages for their willful infringement are high to disuade bad
actors from simply asking forgiveness when caught instead of asking for
permission.

~~~
techdragon
The sheer volume of content created in the current day makes the permission vs
forgiveness model broken. We are rapidly losing track of who to even ask the
permission from in many cases (the entire orphan works mess) and unfortunately
it's going to mean much of the history of the last 25 years of the 20th
century, and perhaps even the entire history of the 21st, may be... for all
practical purposes... lost instead of the most well preserved and accessible.

~~~
stinkytaco
I think with safe-harbor, the model in many places is forgiveness rather than
permission. The burden in on the rights holder to remove content and, as you
say, there's so much content produced that you can see why they essentially
dragnet their copyright enforcement.

But the end result is the same, the model is broken and needs to be
reevaluated.

~~~
tehwebguy
Safe harbor protects the UGC facilitating site, it does not protect the user
that “generated” infringement.

For example, a copyright holder need not send a DMCA takedown notice to
YouTube before suing the uploader of their copyrighted material.

------
suyash
Copyright laws need to be amended in today's digital age.

~~~
Double_a_92
Why? Why sould it not be allowed to sell the right to use pictures that you
made?

~~~
lolc
Why should you need permission?

~~~
johannes1234321
Because a photographer (or other artist) needs to be able to earn his living
and pay for his equipment. Also they probably don't want to be associated with
all kinds of folks.

~~~
rwmj
Perhaps (and I realize I'm being devil's advocate here), "photo-journalist" is
no longer a profession where one should expect to make a living? Photographers
can still work for commissions or for the pure joy of it, but these days
everyone carries a camera and can take decent photos of news and sports
events.

~~~
cowsandmilk
That is an irrelevant argument.

If a news outlet wants to rely on images taken by the public, they are free to
do so. And many outlets have moved towards that. That doesn't mean that they
should be free to take images a professional photographer has taken at an
event and use them willy-nilly.

247 Sports likely used Tannen's photos because they were better than ones that
could be gotten for free from fans in the crowd. If you want the better
photos, pay up.

~~~
rwmj
> If a news outlet wants to rely on images taken by the public, they are free
> to do so.

In fact they're _not_ free to do so, not the way that copyright currently
works.

------
ada1981
It sounded like the author legitmately thinks that "giving credit" for the
photo is enough or even desirable. Like, "hey you should be happy I'm getting
you exposure."

~~~
mtgx
This is especially common among young YouTubers. To them it's common sense
that giving credit for something like this is enough to not get them into
trouble. Unfortunately, existing copyright laws are quite unforgiving.

~~~
twobyfour
Probably because in school they've been taught that not giving credit is
plagiarism. Unfortunately, they haven't been taught the difference between
plagiarism and copyright violation.

------
gesman
I don't get it - the guy made a pics of TV show and tried to sue TV show owner
for using his pics?

~~~
tehwebguy
For perspective each screen cap is something like 1/30,000th of the episode
(visual portion only), versus the photo CBS used is the entire creative work.

~~~
ada1981
Is this a standard they use? What if he had shot video of the whole game?

That photo might be 1/30,000 of the game.

~~~
Drakim
The amount of the original work used is a very important aspect of fair use.

If I write a movie review of The Matrix and include a screenshot of Neo
dodging bullets, that's your typical fair use. The reason for this is obvious,
the screenshot is there for review purposes, maybe to show off the thematic
feel of the movie in my review.

But if I do a YouTube video review of The Matrix and then include the entirely
of movie, it's not fair use. I could maybe show a scene or two, but I can't
just wholesale copy paste the movie and call it fair use.

After all, if that was okay, you could "legally pirate" anything by just
having a 5 second review before the movie.

~~~
tryingagainbro
_The amount of the original work used is a very important aspect of fair use._

After you spend a fortune helping a judge decide. CBS has the money, "you"
don't.

