

That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing? - koevet
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/23/6703177-that-famous-space-shuttle-photo-when-is-sharing-stealing

======
rheide
There's a bit of an undertone in the article, stating that "if you don't let
yourself get paid for photos you publish online then you must be doing
something wrong". Or at least that's the feeling I get from it.

It's just a photo. The photos that the article refers to are not works of art.
They were not meticulously planned, they were not taken by experienced
professionals using expensive professional equipment. They're just photos made
by people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. They then
decided out of their own volition to share their photo online, an act that
takes less than 1 minute of their time. If commercial organizations start
(ab)using the photos then I think it's good to point that out, as they are
making money off of it. Otherwise I'd say: happy sharing.

Personally, I don't take photos for money. Every photo I publish on my blog I
consider to be in the public domain, and I'd be glad if people use it. If I
enjoyed making it or if it didn't take me any effort to make it, then I'm
happy to share it for free.

~~~
NickPollard
If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals',
using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned',
the world would be a far less interesting place.

~~~
PakG1
Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not
produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional
equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just
curious what you might have in mind.

If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's
cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur
art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really
good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on
equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid
via Youtube ads to boot.

~~~
devinj
"Fountain", by Marcel Duchamp. You might argue that Duchamp was an experienced
professional at art in general (being 30 and the producer of less-famous
works), but it's a urinal that he purchased in a store and signed.

It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and
his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition
of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with
who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you
buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Apparently Duchamp actually went to great lengths to create or to modify the
items he "found", and then denied changing them at all, in what is perhaps yet
another level of irony. Or so I've read.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Do...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Doubts_over_readymades)

------
joblessjunkie
On the same morning, HN promotes the tale of John Perry Barlow lambasting the
G8 over copyright protection, but then also promotes the tale of a randomly
tweeted photo getting used without permission on numerous news outlets.

Is the HN community split down the middle on copyright issues, or simply not
clear in its thinking? Is the morality of copyright purely decided by which
side of the coin a big corporation is sitting?

Or is one of these news posts meant to be interpreted ironically?

~~~
dmlorenzetti
As you point out, it's news. An upvote can imply newsworthiness or
professional interest, rather than personal approval.

~~~
lotharbot
More simply stated: upvotes imply that it's worth discussing.

------
metageek
> _"I think the problem is that photo-sharing services don’t allow you to
> easily provide copyright information,” said Sullivan, who operates
> SearchEngineLand.com._

Flickr's done that for years. The problem is with the social networks where
photo-sharing is an incidental function.

> _He thinks photo sharing services could offer users simple options like,
> "Would you be interested in selling images?" -- and could even act as agents
> for consumers._

Flickr does that, too.

~~~
martinpannier
Flickr doesn't exactly act as an agent for customers; they do however have a
partnership with Getty to sell pictures, but as far as I know only a very
small percentage of pictures are concerned.

~~~
delano
Flickr allows you to choose a license when you upload an image, including
limiting commercial uses. How you charge is a separate issue.

------
MichaelApproved
He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90
days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I
don't believe that's true. Copyrights are instantly granted to the creator.
There is no requirement that you file with the fed, it's just a service
offered. By uploading to the web, she created a public record that she was
claiming to be the owner.

The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would
try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here.

So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it
matter if she does or doesn't file?

~~~
jasonlotito
> He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within
> 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights
> but I don't believe that's true.

He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things
easier.

"Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if
they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office."

The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon
could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15
minutes of fame subside."

Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I
think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to
pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what
was said previously).

"So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it
matter if she does or doesn't file?"

Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going
after copyright violations easier.

~~~
prodigal_erik
If you don't register your copyright within three months of first publishing a
work, you can't claim (ludicrously excessive) statutory damages from more than
30 days before registration.

<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412>

------
gnoupi
That story reminds me of a more personal anecdote. Some day in the past year,
my girlfriend found a picture of herself (taken from her Flickr) used as the
"anchor" for some article on a online magazine's portal.

No mail to ask her about it. Nothing.

When she asked to get it removed, they assured that they always take their
photos from paid stocks, or free of rights, so that it's not their fault. They
didn't give more details, but eventually removed the picture.

The problem is that we live in an age when most people just use Google image
to illustrate their stories, and assume that they can use just anything,
because they found it there.

~~~
timmaah
Why does Google Images get a free pass then?

~~~
kbutler
> Why does Google Images get a free pass then?

Google Images gets a "free pass" because their use is a "fair use" as defined
in US copyright law.

""" Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also
sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a
particular use is fair:

1\. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2\. The nature of the copyrighted work

3\. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole

4\. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the
copyrighted work """ <http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html>

Google Images uses the copied images to guide users to the original (#1), uses
a reduced-resolution thumbnail (#3), and in general may have a neutral or even
positive effect on the value of the work (#4).

Of course, a simpler answer is that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit said Google gets a free pass because Google's use was highly
transformative.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.com%2C_Inc)

You can argue about what definition of "free" includes defending against a
lawsuit carried through the US Court of Appeals...

------
ravivyas
The irony is,if they had not shared it,it would not be famous, this article
would not exist.

------
rglover
I think the author of the photo took a great stance on the situation. There
was no value placed on the image until it became popular and like she said,
there was no intent to make money from the image. The various news outlets
that were mentioned, though, definitely should have tracked her down and at
least requested usage rights. Until the internet as a whole develops its own
form of copyright law, people will continue to abuse things like this.

------
lostbit
A system to reward the photo taker would be nice. In one minute, photo is
taken and published. It sould take no more than another minute for news
companies use the photo by paying a small standard fee to the person who made
it available. It could be like a 'donate' button or a more serious fee just to
provide some benefit to the person who was in the right place/time. Usually,
they don't expect anything. Maybe a Flattr like system?

------
chadgeidel
Is there a "watermark" application that you can place the copyright on a
picture taken from your phone? Sure, it could be edited out, but I assume that
would provide a little better protection.

------
retube
Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public
domain? Aren't you consciously and knowingly injecting it out into the ether?
You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?

<b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a
valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the
quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and
interesting debate.

~~~
masklinn
> Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public
> domain?

Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even
_make sense_ legally (under french copyright law, it is _not possible_ to put
something in the public domain until the term is due).

You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it
does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without
compensation.

> You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?

That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.

~~~
retube
Legal definitions of "public domain" aside, if you're putting something onto
twitter you presumably want it to be shared. Isn't that the point of twitter?
If you do retain the copyright, does this mean that people have to pay for
retweeting?

This image only became famous but virtue of the fact that it went viral on
twitter and the wider web. If she'd not tweeted it - and as someone with no
press contacts - had attempted to sell it directly to media organisations I'm
betting she wouldn't have had much success.

I think it's pretty hypocritical to try and leverage free services like
twitter for self-promotion and personal brand-building then completely back-
track on that ideology and claim some kind of restriction on a particular post
cos it suddenly has been delivered to a wider audience and may suddenly have
value.

~~~
eftpotrm
Putting an image onto Twitter or other such services is clearly putting the
image for distribution, but under the common terms of that service; you're
saying the image is available to see _as you posted it_.

The issue here is separate, for-profit redistribution in other media, which
definitely requires prior consent from the originator.

~~~
retube
Sure. Selling it for cash I can understand the argument against that. But has
anyone done that? And why would anyone pay given that it's available anyway?

So you can make the argument that publishing the image forms part of a
publisher's content proposition from which they benefit (more viewers, more
magazine sales or whatever). But you can make the same argument for twitter
itself: twitter's value and the wealth of it's owners is derived exclusively
from content it's users post. So can a user claim compensation from twitter
for the value it has derived from their posts?

The same argument applies to say StackOverflow. I've spent countless hours
answering questions and helping people out. SO sell ads against this content,
and my content drives search engine click-throughs. Do I have a claim against
SO?

~~~
martinpannier
Sorry, but you're wrong.

> But has anyone done that?

Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the
Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed
in the Hudson.

> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?

Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the
picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire
rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload
pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how
MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they
can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.

You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a
magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO
would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO
and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.

~~~
retube
I'm not trying to make an argument that fits within or agrees with current
legislation. I am making a purely logical argument - I'm sure for example
there's stuff in twitters ToS that give them rights over whatever you post so
that you couldn't claim compensations from them, and ditto SO.

~~~
masklinn
> I'm sure for example there's stuff in twitters ToS that give them rights
> over whatever you post so that you couldn't claim compensations from them,
> and ditto SO.

Gives _them_. If you're posting pictures on Twitter or putting comments on SO,
you can hardly fault them for displaying those.

But when AP starts selling your twitter pictures or SO comments on its feed,
it's a whole different bucket of filth, and a very, very different situation.

We're discussing the second case here, not "I put a comment on news.yc and
news.yc displays it".

------
phlobot
many of these websites people use to freely host photos strips the uploader of
copyright privileges in the first place.

~~~
MichaelApproved
I don't believe that's true. Can you cite one service that does this?

~~~
martinpannier
The TwitPic debacle recently—TwitPic changed their TOS to state that TwitPic
could sell their users' pictures without authorization from or revenue sharing
with, said user. So, TwitPic?

~~~
adestefan
TwitPic doesn't strip your copyright. Their TOS states that you grant them the
right to sell the image uploaded to them, but you still hold the original
copyright. It was clearly described in the linked article.

~~~
martinpannier
I think the question was whether there were sites which stripped you of your
copyright _privileges_ , not of your copyright. I've argued elsewhere in the
thread that these services cannot strip your copyright. However, if you give a
license to a website to profit from your content, I think we can agree that
the website stripped you from your copyright privileges (at least a big part
of them).

------
sbierwagen
What a surprise, an old media outlet is in favor of old-style copyright.

~~~
leviathant
I think the 'surprise' here, if there is any, is that so-called old media
claims to be in favor of so-called old-style copyrights, except for when they
want to copy something, and then all bets are off.

------
aquarin
Nobody talks about the copyright owned by the creators of shuttle. In some
countries you have to pay to use photographs of buildings (taken by you). Why
should a photograph of shuttle be different?

~~~
kbutler
US copyright law has a couple of impacts: 1) not recognizing a copyright on
scenery 2) works created by the government are public domain

