I applaud this only because of Getty and AFP's willingness to prosecute others for the same and their unwillingness to share photos for personal/noncommercial use.
But this is a sad day. I've been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are.
Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera? Why is a picture some sacrosanct object but what someone says worthless? You're pressing a button on a camera and then pressing some buttons on a computer later.
The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other "creatives" only shoot themselves in the foot by slathering watermarks, issuing crazy copyright notices, and using DRM on their photos/creative works.
If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared. Encouraging the sharing of photos I've taken for clients has only increased my business. It's better for society.
>Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera?
As a professional photographer (and programmer), I can easily answer that: because they are professionals, and they want to get paid for THEIR pictures.
How about someone steals your business' source code (which you didn't release as FOSS)? Why shouldn't he? Because you spent a couple thousand dollars on a laptop? (if I'm allowed to to use your reasoning).
Not to mention: it's not just the camera: it's also their being were they need to take the pictures (which has costs), they risks they went through, years of training etc. And their particular expression (composition, etc).
If you think their pictures are not worth what they ask for, then don't use them. If you think they are worth it, pay for them. It's that simple.
>I've been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are.
Well, if you're a wedding photographer, or a fine art photographer that makes his living from selling framed, signed and numbered prints, you don't qualify.
In the article we're talking about people that make their money from selling their pictures for print and online media and such (photojournalists). Though it also applies the same to stock photographers.
>The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other "creatives"
If you want to take their stuff and listen to it or use it on the front page of your newspaper then they are clearly creative -- and the quotation marks around that word are not helping your comment.
>If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared.
Thanks for pissing all over my profession.
To answer your idea: people in general don't say things as a business to make money. That's why they are quoted for free. Were "quote" also means "a small part of what they said".
Those that do say things to get paid (e.g comedians, writers, journalists etc), don't get their words reprinted for free.
>How about someone steals your business' source code [...]
Not a proper analogy. You don't sell software because of source code, you sell it based on what users see. Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing.
>[...] you don't qualify.
Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours.
>Thanks for pissing all over my profession.
Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them?
Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible.
Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA. A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale.
Photography is similar to music, so I'll quote from the article 'Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy':
>Several studies have shown that most artists actually profit from unauthorized sharing of files. They sell more albums because people have the opportunity to download songs and entire albums for free. A study by Blackburn (2004), a PhD student from Harvard, found that the 75% of the artist actually profit from piracy. Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing.
> Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing.
it can be, but that's a pretty large blanket statement. first, it's not free. it costs me something when a photo is used without an exchange of payment for a license to use that photo.
but even playing devil's advocate: marketing doesn't pay our mortgage. publicity doesn't put food on the table for my family.
Yes, you are correct. But going to college, or learning to code nights and weekends, or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either.
It's an investment. You do it in hopes that current work will yield a larger future gain, be it through experience, wisdom, exposure, or something else.
> ... or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either.
and there is the distinction: you are choosing to contribute. when a photo of mine is used without my consent, approval or of my choosing to have it be used, it has been stolen.
>Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing.
And not all people want fucking "free marketing" (ie. let me use your stuff for free, devaluing it as a salable item, and conpensate with "exposure"). That's like the oldest slimmest trick in the book anyway, from people who don't want to pay: and it amounts to "You should be thanking US for using your work".
>>[...] you don't qualify.
Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours.
No, if you're on one of those cases describes, then your business model is different.
>Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them?
That's not the definition of "sacred object". That's the definition of something you sell. And yes, a photograph can be something one sells. If you want to give your photographs for free, have a blast. Others wish to sell theirs for use should be respected from people wanting to use them.
>Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible.
That's your choice and more power to you. I, and others, don't want and don't value business and "exposure" gained by such use. That should be my choice.
>Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA.
So what? I don't disagree with all of their arguments. It's 2013. We don't only sell tables and cars, we also sell intagible objects like intellectual property. We've been doing it for centuries. Easy zero-cost copying doesn't mean you can't have an economy of intangibles.
I'm only against part of the current situation, like crazy long copyright times (should be way shorter), obvious patents (should only exist for non obvious inventions), etc.
>A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale.
Besides the point. I don't want unathorized use of my WORK, regardless of if it represents a lost sale or not.
>Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing.
I don't think large corporations like Getty and AFP should have the freedom to appropriate peoples' work for profit. When people are quoted, it's usually from an interview or press conference given with the expectation that the words spoken will be used. When someone takes a photo and posts it to Twitter, there is no such expectation. I believe in sweeping copyright reform, don't get me wrong, but I think that copyright reform should shift the balance of power away from huge corporations, not towards them. By allowing big companies to use peoples' work anywhere they want, just as long as they attribute it, you're allowing them to turn even more profit without sharing a dime of that with the people who actually did the work to make it possible (taking the photos). Instead, non-commercial use should be allowed with attribution for any reason, and a standard legal framework for licensing copyrighted works should be established so anyone can take part (sort of how song cover licenses have to be granted).
If I may get a little meta, the goal of copyright is to reward someone for sharing an idea while allowing those who consume the idea to turn around and share it themselves. Since one cannot truly "own" an idea, copyright uses the "expression" of the idea as a proxy, since (in theory) re-expressing the idea extracts an effort penalty. For example, if I read words you publish, I can't just republish your words without your agreement. I can however express your idea in my own words. I may choose to just pay you to use your expression if generating my own is too costly.
Photographs and "news" reveal the weakness of using "expression" as a mechanism for judging whether copyright exists. If I email my next door neighbor and tell him "garbage pickup is on tuesday" and he emails the exact words to his neighbor, has he violated copyright, or is he reporting news? If I attach a photo of the garbage pickup schedule, have I violated copyright? If I attribute the schedule to the trash company am I compliant?
My point is that copyright is complex and imperfect, and finding the balance of power is very difficult.
You are absolutely right, I don't disagree with you. That was a poor choice of words on my part.
Despite how it may appear in other comments I've made in this thread, I don't believe corporate entities are entitled to use a photographer's works for profit and without attribution.
This may seem contradictory, but that's because I have failed to make the proper distinction between sharing for personal use and using for profit.
It's not just purchasing a camera and pressing some buttons. It's having the knowledge of what equipment to purchase, how to compose the photo, how to capture a consistent set of photos, and so on. Experience takes time and money to gain, and no one has any right to that experience but you.
Now, you may chose to charge money for your photos, share them for free, or some mix of both, but the choice is ultimately yours. A news article may not appropriate your photo for their purposes without your permission and license unless it fits one of the fair use exceptions to copyright law.
I've been a professional photographer for close to the same amount of time you have. We own and regularly use approximately $50,000 worth of equipment, and the cost of that and our living has to be amortized over the amount we can realistically expect to sell in the lifespan of that equipment. I have absolutely no interest in someone else making money off my investment unless I get my cut. At no time has free work (e.g., magazines using photos with attribution) ever profited us either directly or indirectly. I'm not saying it couldn't ever, but in our experience, free or discounted begets more demands of the same.
In general, one cannot copyright short phrases or sentences. These are able to be trademarked. However, one CAN copyright the presentation of a sentence/phrase. For example, if it were to be in a painting, or a photo, the photo/painting would be able to be copyrighted. However, that does nothing to stop someone from copying the sentence.
The difference is that you can copyright presentation, but you can't copyright an idea.
Once someone strings together enough words, however, you can't copy it either. That is, after all, why we don't photocopy novels when we want to read them.
I'm not a legal expert. But to me it seems like If you say something in public, it being transcribed into a report is a statement of fact and belongs in what I guess would be called the commons. A photo on the other hand is something quasi tangible that a person put time, effort and resources into to create.
Also if you spoke to a reporter I suppose that would be an implied consent to have your words used.
The same could be said about a quote. Verbalizing the words is the easy bit, it's getting the education and life experience to come up with the words that costs the time/money/foresight.
I'm not taking sides with this comment, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
Thats true, but a photo leaves a lasting artifact. where as spoken words unless they are transcribed or recorded more or less evaporate. When you take the effort to transcribe or record those words, you have at least some claim to use those words. thats all based on I think montesquieu or adam smith.
How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say? Quoting them in a blog post? If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public.
Sharing images without attribution is the same as plagiarism. Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe. But it's the same issue.
EDIT: I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world.
I run a small publishing business that does a lot of Facebook Marketing. Our primary means of promoting our business is to use original content posted regularly to our Facebook pages. These are usually images that we create ourselves. Our competitors, however, use an endless stream of pictures, cartoons, photos, etc that were created by other people. They use other people's creative work to promote their business, for commercial gain. Their page is filled every day with content from other people, copied and posted directly on Facebook. Occasionally credit is given, occasionally it is not given.
Recently, they used one of our images on their page. They gave no credit, no links to our site, no compensation, or anything. They did, however, link the image to their Pinterest page, which in turn linked to their Tumblr. All giving the impression that they created the image, owned it, and had the right to use it.
A successful Facebook meme has significant monetary value. The 'response' of a good meme is predictable, and can easily reach hundreds of thousands of people. When they posted this image, it did very well. It got thousands of likes and shares. Of course, this happens every day, and not just to us. People steal images all the time. It seems to be "the Internet way."
It is easy to turn a blind eye to this. And usually, we don't mind. But when a direct competitor steals an image and uses it for their own gain, it really pisses me off. It also harms my business. Each time a Facebook image is posted, it loses some of its value. Once someone has "liked" it, they've already liked it, and are less likely to respond in the future.
But, that's just one small piece of the issue. The fact is this competitor has built their business on stealing other people's content, in order to build an audience for their Facebook page. They've become rather successful. We are more successful, but are fighting an uneven battle because of our unwillingness to steal.
My only question, now that they've stolen one of our images, is what to do next. My goal is to 'level the playing field', so that I don't have to compete against thieves. Perhaps a scary letter from a lawyer is in order? They're in South Africa, and I'm in the United States.
I have a feeling, though, that this simply isn't a fight that I can win. Respect for copyright is almost non-existent these days. Look at the rest of the posts on this discussion.
Register the copyright on all images you post. Sue for statutory & punitive damages. The reality of US law is you can probably make more money doing this than from your main business model.
I'm a South African. I worked a a dev shop and we have a sort of meme in our office, we call it "South African innovation". It came about from realizing how many start-up services from here are almost mirror-images of successful international start-ups. They don't just serve the same market, they're pretty much the same website, but for South Africans. Now whenever we spot a new service or an idea that is clearly an imitation of an existing thing, it is jokingly referred to as South African innovation. It's not dire, but it's a shame.
I don't think it's a bad thing, unless they are really stealing the source code/layout of the page. Most successful businesses are not original ideas, but just slightly better/different iterations of an existing idea. Now I am sure that building a website for South Africa has it's own challenges, e.g. number of languages spoken, slow internet connection to the rest of the world, different cultures, etc. Why not have an South African version of X?
The hypocrisy of major copyright holders never ceases to amaze me. Getty would go after a business that redistributed Getty's photos for profit in a heartbeat.
I found the same irony in this story. Getty and AFP would prosecute anyone trying to resell work. I'm not to familiar with Twitters privacy policy so I'm not sure who actually owns the pictures that are posted there, but I'm guessing from the ruling that it's the users.
The short of it is that you retain copyright over your photos, but grant Twitter a worldwide, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce them. You also authorize Twitter to extend that right to third parties via syndication agreements or APIs. This seems mostly intended to ensure that Twitter can set up APIs and feeds usable by third parties, although the permission as written would allow Twitter to engage in broader syndication agreements if they wanted.
But in any case, third parties can't just grab content and reuse it on their own. You could probably make some kind of photo-feed website scrolling recently tweeted photos, maybe even sort them into galleries (as long as your website complies with the Twitter API's own ToS). But you can't just right-click/save-as and upload the JPG to embed in your news article, because that removes it from the context where you're covered by the license the photographer has granted to Twitter.
The astounding thing about this case is how little due diligence Getty and AFP did. In my capacity as a Wikipedia admin, I've handled copyright-related issues with images and text.
We put an enormous amount of volunteer labour into tracking copyright violations and removing them: if a photographer complains that someone has uploaded a copyright violation, our volunteers will go and forensically examine EXIF data, look at upload metadata on sites like Flickr, check for digital watermarks, check on Google Images and other search tools to try and trace the upload history of the image. And even after all that work, it still feels like it's not quite good enough.
On image licensing, I've emailed government lawyers to verify that our interpretation of their national copyright policies is correct.
Meanwhile, I've worked with people in the commercial sector whose modus operandi for producing social media campaigns is "open up Google Images/Flickr/YouTube and pinch all the things!"
If I can trace the copyright claims on an image by using tools like Google Image Search, so can AFP and Getty. Not just for copyright purposes, but due diligence to make sure the metadata checks out with the photojournalistic claim made of the image. That they aren't doing so ought to give one pause before trusting agencies like AFP to report the news.
This ruling seems like a good thing to me. Just because a photographer's work is easier to copy and use doesn't mean we should be able to use it without proper compensation. It'd be similar to someone taking code from a website's source file and using it (In this hypothetical scenario the code is usable and not minified).
I get the point the OP is trying to make, it just may not be the best example. The web site code/design is not very valuable on its own without support/hosting/design iteration/backend design etc. It would be easy to steal web code and designs, but it's the "undercut to my potential customers" that's the hard part and already happens in this very competitive market.
AFP discovered the photos on a Twitter account other than the photographer's with their copyrights already stripped. It would have been interesting to see how much of the blame should lie with that Twitter user.
This was irrelevant however since the judge found that Twitter's TOS only allows retweeting and personal use, so commercially using the image was a violation of the TOS. I'm not sure how a Twitter TOS violation turns into DMCA damages. I suppose the judge didn't want to get into policing all the LOL cats on the internet.
In one sense this has parallels to the clip art wars. Lots of vendors sold misappropriated clip art in their collections. Buying it in good faith is not protection for the end user.
> I'm not sure how a Twitter TOS violation turns into DMCA damages.
It didn't directly. The photographer retains copyright of photos, and sued the companies for regular copyright violation. One of the companies' defenses was to claim that they actually had a license, and therefore it was not a copyright violation. Users who tweet photos do grant certain royalty-free reproduction rights to both Twitter, and third-party syndicators authorized by Twitter. See section 5 here: https://twitter.com/tos. Therefore, if AFP were using the photos in accordance with terms authorized by Twitter, they would be covered by this license, and they wouldn't be violating the photographer's copyright.
The judge ruled that their reuse was not within the scope of these terms, however, and therefore not covered by that grant of a royalty-free license. Therefore the defense fails, and they're assessed damages, not for the Twitter ToS violation, but for reproducing photos without a valid license from the photographer.
>> AFP discovered the photos on a Twitter account other than the photographer's with their copyrights already stripped.
It's not compulsory to state the copyright word. Also someone else using the photos is not a reason either. The company has to check the source of the images and ask for permission.
You can't "strip" copyrights, and I don't even think Twitters TOS has any bearing here at all. For a company like AFP to allow its editors to use pictures without information as to their origin and legal status is just a big no-no and business risk (as is evident by the ruling here).
I'm guessing the other twitter account retweeted the photo, apparently within bounds of twitter's license. AFP then took that photo claiming "the pictures were posted for public distribution." Although they should have known that wasn't the case. Even if the other user did something wrong, AFP also did something wrong, and the did it knowingly (or they should have known, as it is their job)
A comercial enitity cannot steal a copyright workd from a 3rd party, generally (#1) and certainly not an intermediary who used the work in a "personal use" (#2) capacity. A company the size of Getty Images in particular is well versed in sending out such legal notices, surely.
This is fantastic news. I always thought that the best way to undermine the stupid copyright regime was to make sure it was applied fully to big businesses. If only all of the other thousands of small rights holders whose works have been used without permission could also get million dollar payoffs, I think we'd see reform post haste.
Photography is in a strange place. For one thing, it's remarkable that that concepts that negatives are rarely sold, and that the print constitutes the artwork, have carried over to digital photography. Both the bits as they emerge from the camera, and the results of a photographer's digital darkroom work take the place of the developed film, and prints, which are often the output of an ink jet printer, have roughly the same value in the fine art market as as exposed emulsion on paper, and to some extent exist side by side.
The artificiality of shoehorning digital photography into the same rights framework as evolved for chemical photography creates these stresses. At least there ought to be different categories of images and rights.
But I'll bet that when it comes time to discuss IP rights, the company (as an entity) will have no hesitation speaking as if they have some sort of moral high-ground (e.g. people that 'steal' images are evil... except when we do it, then it's an accident and should be forgiven).
That is the policy of the company to follow that rule as a whole yes, but individuals can act alone. Just like individual cops can steal drugs from their busts, but this isn't the policy of the police or Getty to act in this way, so it is disingenuous to call out a single individuals act as a policy of the company across the board.
How does this effect the ability users have to embed Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook posts? If someone embeds a Tweet that contains a photograph is that considered fine under Twitters policy?
I thought that was a fair question which crossed my mind as well. Do your tweets belong to Twitter (e.g. can they delete/modify your content once it's on their servers)? If you post a work on a public site, without explicit copyright, are you granted an implicit copyright? If I post a jsfiddle, are people allowed to use that in their code? I don't think the questions are that obvious, at least for me with zero background in copyright law.
> Do your tweets belong to Twitter (e.g. can they delete/modify your content once it's on their servers)?
You are conflating physical control of something with control of copyright.
The right to delete or modify content isn't the same as copyright. If you write a Wikipedia article, you own the copyright. You license the copyright with a non-exclusive, royalty-free license (Creative Commons) and you put it in a form that practically invites deletion and modification. But that deletion and modification doesn't change your ownership of the original copyright.
On a much simpler level, if I buy a current pop music album on CD, I have the right to "delete/modify" the content. I could put the CD through a wood chipper or drop it from a very high building or any number of other things. None of these would change the copyright status of the album.
> If you post a work on a public site, without explicit copyright, are you granted an implicit copyright?
No. You grant whatever copyright the terms and conditions say you grant. If there is no explicit grant, there is no implicit grant either.
If you post a work on a public site, without explicit copyright, you are STILL granted copyright. You typically also give permission to the site (implied, or otherwise) to store and post that public work... But that permission isn't transitive. Twitter basically says "by posting to our site, you give us permission to republish it, as well as other users to republish (retweet) ON OUR SITE"
BUT it is generally considered that 140 chars isn't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. If that was a case, I could easily write a post to generate all possible tweets, and then no one would be able to tweet.
jsfiddle says "All code belongs to the poster and no license is enforced." Which means if you post to jsfiddle, you still own the copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect that if you posted something to a site like jsfiddle, you are actually giving implicit permission for people to use your code. This would be different than to you posting your code to your own personal blog.
I'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert on copyright law, and in particular, I know that I can't comment on things like whether there's a minimum level of creative effort necessary to merit copyright.
That said, my understanding is that when you write something that's eligible for copyright protection, it is automatic: you don't need to say "Copyright" explicitly at all. It doesn't matter how you use the work in question (although the protections for "unpublished" work are stronger than for "published" work).
Now, it sounds like one element of this trial involved the license implicitly granted to Twitter by posting there. But the very fact that licensing was an issue demonstrates that copyright was in force here. (And the trial evidently concluded that Twitter's license is not tantamount to placing content into the public domain.)
So, serious question, does this mean that users of Twitter/Facebook can sue CNN, Fox, and other news sites that lift pictures from their pages without permission?
On one hand I want to cheer since this is an example of David winning a small scuffle against Goliath.
But on the other hand, the legal tools being employed by David in this case are the same tools that Goliath uses to limit speech on the web today.
Let's not forget that the copyright system is an anachronism that needs to be dismantled/rebuilt to suit the modern world. Just because the result in this case leaves you satisfied doesn't mean that the system in its current form is unacceptable.
What is wrong with the system, and how should it be fixed? The main problem I see (other than the numbers of people breaking it) are copyright lengths.
But this is a sad day. I've been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are.
Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera? Why is a picture some sacrosanct object but what someone says worthless? You're pressing a button on a camera and then pressing some buttons on a computer later.
The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other "creatives" only shoot themselves in the foot by slathering watermarks, issuing crazy copyright notices, and using DRM on their photos/creative works.
If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared. Encouraging the sharing of photos I've taken for clients has only increased my business. It's better for society.