
$5100 penalty for unintentionally using a copyrighted photo - lun4r
http://afflante.com/
======
onion2k
_I always try my best to give credit to the artists, designers, and architects
whose work I admire and try to support_

I have very little sympathy. If you don't have permission to use a photograph
the proper course of action is not to use it. To use it without permission is
definitely _not_ trying your best to give credit.

~~~
1024core
Without knowing the full details, how can you be so quick to cast judgment?

There is a wide spectrum between actively stealing photos and mistakenly using
photos because they seemed to be in the public domain. The key questions are:
was the intent malicious? And how soon was it rectified?

And I say this as someone whose photo was used by a highly read tech blog
without attribution; and when I pointed this out, they quietly put a link to
my original photo in there, but still did not attribute it to me.

~~~
onion2k
_...they seemed to be in the public domain._

There's no such thing as "seemed" to be in the public domain. Either they are
or they aren't. If you don't know then you assume they're not. If you assume
they are when they're not, or you assume the attribution attached is correct
when it isn't, then the photographer is entirely within their rights to sue
you for approximately $5100.

This is why running a website properly is actually quite a lot of work.

And I say this as someone who's been running websites for 20 years, and I've
seen _lots_ of my content reused without permission. It's really annoying. I
used to be on the side of "if it's online then it's fair to reuse it", but as
more and more sites have appeared that do nothing more than repost content
from /r/<some subreddit> I've changed my mind.

------
Veen
I'm not sure I'd have made this particular blogger the target for my ire if it
was my work, but in principle I agree with the penalty. Copyright sustains the
people who create the art that this blogger was curating. Without copyright,
there would be nothing for him / her to curate in the first place because
there would be no such thing as professional photographers, designers, or
writers.

~~~
singularity2001
I'd agree if the blogger made any money from it. Like this it is nuts!

~~~
Veen
People don't usually make money from the art or the books they buy. If "making
money" was the only condition on which the requirement to pay or give credit
was predicated, there would be no photography industry.

The creator has the right to license their work in any way they see fit. That
work doesn't automatically become community property just because it's been
published online.

