

Ask HN: Does Startupquote.com infringe copyright? - tled

By using people's quote and face on their site without permission, what if someone gets annoyed?
======
rexreed
On the quotes: If the quotes have not been published by those who spoke them
(the author), then they are not copyrighted. In fact, Startupquotes.com could
claim copyright ownership of the quotes (and the photos if they took them) as
they are the originating author, even if they are quoting someone else. A book
of quotes is copyrightable.

On the photos: Yes and no. Using a private person's face for commercial gain
without their permission might be problematic. The "public figure" statement
doesn't apply here, as that is only relevant in libel / slander cases. If you
remember, Obama was able to take down an ad in Times Square that used his
photo / image without his permission. And he's definitely a public figure.Of
course, if you are using someone else's photo without permission, then you are
violating the photographer's copyright on the photo.

Here's the rules on whether or not you need permission to use someone's photo
(image):

    
    
        Photographing People in Public
        Q: Can I photograph people in public places without their permission?
    
        A: Absolutely. People get really muddled about this issue, but the reality is that you have a virtually unrestricted right to use a camera in public. One big caveat: It’s common courtesy to get verbal permission. Nonetheless, people don’t have the right to bar you from photographing them in public, where they would not ordinarily have an expectation of privacy.
    
        Q: Can I publish pictures of people I’ve photographed without permission?
    
        A: That depends upon the purpose of the picture. If it’s artistic or editorial in nature, or can be characterized as to inform or educate, then you do not need your subject’s explicit permission.
    
        If the picture or any associated text may be libelous, defamatory, or fall outside of what courts have described as "the normal sensibilities" of the target audience, then you may need permission from the subject for your own protection. You also need permission from the subject if the picture is used for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement.
    
    

IANAL, but I sure can pretend pretty well.

------
msredmond
The quotes are really nothing to do with copyright.

Quotes are like reporting -- they (the people) can't copyright something just
because they said it. I can quote what you say, you can quote me -- there's
nothing there actionable. (People do sometimes trademark quotes, but those are
for limited use scope -- must definite usage -- and again, trademark, not
copyright, so can still quote them).

Was the quote from a magazine article? Well then yes, the magazine has the
copyright to the ARTICLE, but a quote from it would (I think most lawyers
feel) be perfectly fair use.,

In no way on that site do I see an actionable copyright claim on the people
being quoted (standard I'm not a lawyer though clause here)

~~~
tled
What about quotes from a movie, like this one:
<http://startupquote.com/post/4234103411>

~~~
msredmond
The copyright issues are exactly the same -- nonexistent. This is really basic
stuff.

Why all of the sudden do I feel that this whole thread is just an attempt to
get notice/attention for these sites?

------
michaelpinto
The copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer — so that's the only
real issue I can see (although there are plenty of creative commons photos out
there). On the other hand if they attempted to sell t-shirts or posters there
could be issues. (and I'll add to this that I'm not a lawyer)

~~~
tled
What if they can make money from ads on their site instead of selling t-shirts
or posters?

------
rhizome
Public figure exception.

~~~
rexreed
Incorrect with regards to using their photo / image. Irrelevant with regards
to quoting them. See above.

~~~
rhizome
I'm pretty sure public-figure factors into paparrazi as well, not just
libel/slander.

