# Are photos taken of TV screens copyrighted?



## Phillygirl (Nov 1, 2008)

I took photos yesterday of a city event, and want to use them with an article I'm writing.  Can I do this without breaking copyright laws?  I would appreciate an answer from anyone ASAP.  Thanks loads.  (pun intended.   )


----------



## Phranquey (Nov 1, 2008)

Well, I wouldn't do it. I'm not a lawyer, but you are taking pictures of something that someone else video taped, which I believe holds the same copyright as photographs. Those who video / photo something own it.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 1, 2008)

Phillygirl said:


> I took photos yesterday of a city event, and want to use them with an article I'm writing.  Can I do this without breaking copyright laws?  I would appreciate an answer from anyone ASAP.  Thanks loads.  (pun intended.   )



No.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 1, 2008)

Nope. Not without written permission.


----------



## skieur (Nov 1, 2008)

Violating copyright is defined as copying a work or a substantial part of a work which is also defined as 10%.  A still frame does not constitute a substantial part of a video, so you do not seem to be violating the rights of the video producer.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Nov 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> Violating copyright is defined as copying a work or a substantial part of a work which is also defined as 10%.  A still frame does not constitute a substantial part of a video, so you do not seem to be violating the rights of the video producer.
> 
> skieur



Not in the US it's not. Broadcasts may not be copied whole or in part with out the expressed permission of the owner of the property.  One frame is in part.


----------



## skieur (Nov 2, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Not in the US it's not. Broadcasts may not be copied whole or in part with out the expressed permission of the owner of the property. One frame is in part.


 
In the US, violation of copyright is defined in the same manner.  A substantial part and therefore a violation is 10%.  Don't confuse warnings on broadcasts as being the law. They are NOT.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2008)

I just looked around on th web for this 10% number.  I found it in a few Canadian documents, but not in any documents.  "... in whole or in part..." is the exact term that they use and the "in part" is not defined and is very likely at the discretion of the true owner's (and their lawyer... lol), interpretation.

In the USA, whether justifiable or not... they will sue your hiney for that 1 frame just as easily as for copying and abusing the whole show.  That's just a fact of life there.


----------



## Phranquey (Nov 2, 2008)

> In the USA, whether justifiable or not... they will sue your hiney for that 1 frame just as easily as for copying and abusing the whole show. That's just a fact of life there.


 
Unfortunately, the US is a litigation happy place, _but....._if someone swiped a frame from a video of mine for an article or publication, I would probably be a bit peeved, more so if they profited from it.


----------



## skieur (Nov 2, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I just looked around on th web for this 10% number. I found it in a few Canadian documents, but not in any documents. "... in whole or in part..." is the exact term that they use and the "in part" is not defined and is very likely at the discretion of the true owner's (and their lawyer... lol), interpretation.
> 
> In the USA, whether justifiable or not... they will sue your hiney for that 1 frame just as easily as for copying and abusing the whole show. That's just a fact of life there.


 
"In part" is not open to any discretionary interpretation because copyright laws are very similar among trading partners and subject to treaties as well as individual federal laws. Ten percent period is the agreed interpretation.

USA may be very litigous but copyright is a more complex area and the costs of prosecuting a law suit of any type are substantial. On one, I am prosecuting the costs for photocopying documents has reached $25,000 and disbursements for obtaining documents and records has reached $100,000. Legal costs will be about $400,000.

So in a failing economy, how many video producers or their companies have that kind of money to throw into a lawsuit if their chance of winning is extremely slight and their chance of collecting is even less.  Lawyers as well will not accept a law suit on a contingency basis either if their chance of winning is very slight.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Nov 2, 2008)

Considering that this guy is an Attorney at Law, might be good advise to consider. 

_Misconception #2: "I don't need a license because I'm using only a small amount of the copyrighted work."

It may be true that de minimis copying (copying a small amount) is not copyright infringement. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to tell where de minimis copying ends and copyright infringement begins. There are no "bright line" rules.

Copying a small amount of a copyrighted work is infringement if what is copied is a qualitatively substantial portion of the copied work. In one case, a magazine article that used 300 words from a 200,000-word autobiography written by President Gerald Ford was found to infringe the copyright on the autobiography. Even though the copied material was only a small part of the autobiography, the copied portions were among the most powerful passages in the autobiography. Copying any part of a copyrighted work is risky. If what you copy is truly a tiny and non-memorable part of the work, you may get away with it (the work's owner may not be able to tell that your work incorporates an excerpt from the owner's work). However, you run the risk of having to defend your use in expensive litigation. If you are copying, it is better to get permission or a license (unless fair use applies). You cannot escape liability for infringement by showing how much of the protected work you did not take._

The whole PDF.
http://www.up.edu/showimage/show.aspx?file=6651


----------



## skieur (Nov 2, 2008)

One frame represents about 1/54,000 or so of an half hour video production, so I don't think anyone would consider that as a substantial part of a work.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Nov 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> One frame represents about 1/54,000 or so of an half hour video production, so I don't think anyone would consider that as a substantial part of a work.
> 
> skieur



And 300 words out of 200,000 is 0.0015%.  Apparently the Court considered it a substantial part of the work.   That can get real expensive real fast.  Especially considering that if you loose you can also be forced to pay the legal expenses of the plaintiff as well.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> "In part" is not open to any discretionary interpretation because copyright laws are very similar among trading partners and subject to treaties as well as individual federal laws. Ten percent period is the agreed interpretation.



I see where you are coming from, but your logic is not exactly correct.

When saying "Agreed upon"...  By whom and written down in what law?  In Canada it may be 10% because this *is* written down, not agreed by the judge and lawyers on the spot.  

If the law is broken in the USA the only one who has discretionary rights to decide if they were stolen from is the original owner in their country.  And an "agreed upon interpretation" is just another way of saying another discretionary method with no fixed amount defined.  In this case it is not open to interpretation and is very clear.  "cannot reproduce in whole or in part..." means exactly what it says... you cannot "steal" all or even the smallest portion without breaking the law, there is no room for misinterpretation there.

Finally, irrespective of if it costs 1 dollar or 100 million dollars, bears no meaning of it it is illegal or not in the eyes of the law.  That is another discussion outside of what the OP is asking.


----------



## Dao (Nov 3, 2008)

What about if the article is for educational purpose?  Will that make a different?  Just wondering....


----------



## skieur (Nov 3, 2008)

Well, I have not found the exact part of the American copyright act which is very long, but summaries on the net related to education specify 10% as a substantial part and in video it is 10% or 3 minutes which ever is less.  

It should be noted also that ephotozine, washingtonpost.com, and PC World among others have articles on the net on How to take photos from the tv screen.  ephotozine even had a celebrity as the sample screen shot.  I would seriously doubt that these kinds of articles would be this common if it were illegal.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 3, 2008)

skieur said:


> It should be noted also that ephotozine, washingtonpost.com, and PC World among others have articles on the net on How to take photos from the tv screen.  ephotozine even had a celebrity as the sample screen shot.  I would seriously doubt that these kinds of articles would be this common if it were illegal.



You are assuming that they are doing it without permission, which I doubt very much.  

It is not hard for well known entities such as the Washington Post and others to ask for, and get written permission in a very short time, this is likely what happens all the time moreso than them openly breaking copyright laws.  

As far as "educational purposes"... I still think that this requires permission.  A legitimate educational institution will ask for permission to use any copywrwitten information and will likely get permission faster than someone that wants to do it for promotion or profit.  This is just my opinion, not known fact.

I think that if one is in doubt, just call a legal expert in this area and get a definite answer.  We're mostly hobbyists and professionals here... very few are legal experts.


----------



## skieur (Nov 3, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> You are assuming that they are doing it without permission, which I doubt very much.
> 
> It is not hard for well known entities such as the Washington Post and others to ask for, and get written permission in a very short time, this is likely what happens all the time moreso than them openly breaking copyright laws. .


 
Washington Post could certainly NOT get permission to demonstrate how copyright laws could be broken by showing people how to take photos of broadcasts, UNLESS no copyright laws are being broken.



JerryPH said:


> As far as "educational purposes"... I still think that this requires permission. A legitimate educational institution will ask for permission to use any copywrwitten information and will likely get permission faster than someone that wants to do it for promotion or profit. This is just my opinion, not known fact..


 
As someone who has advised schools in that area, it does not requre permission in either Canada or the United States and they won't get it expeditiously either.  As a matter of fact, they may be charged for using material that they have the rights to use under the law without permission.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 3, 2008)

Skieur, unless you have a shingle from a US aw school somewhere and are not telling us, I would still strongly advise people not to blindly follow such advice from an "unknown" on the internet.  Whether you recommended something or not doesn't make it legal or illegal.  

Get it straight from a local lawyer that knows for sure, people.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Nov 3, 2008)

It would also be advisable to look into laws that cover fair use.
If you are writing an article, and you are using the photo as a refrence material you can probably use it on terms of fair use.


----------



## skieur (Nov 3, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Skieur, unless you have a shingle from a US aw school somewhere and are not telling us, I would still strongly advise people not to blindly follow such advice from an "unknown" on the internet. Whether you recommended something or not doesn't make it legal or illegal.
> 
> Get it straight from a local lawyer that knows for sure, people.


 
I am not recommending any particular action. I indicated what the copyright act says and video is different from published works. The decision that you talked about related to former Gerald Ford and Harper Publications was interesting. My impression is that Harper Publications made an incorrect legal move in using fair use as a defense instead of countering that there was no prima facie case for prosecution because it involved less than a substantial part and therefore no violation took place. The difference is that an argument over no case for prosecution would relate to substantial part only, whereas the argument over fair use brought in other factors including commercial use etc. which acted against the defendants. Choosing a local lawyer does not always help unless he is an expert.

I indicated that 1 still frame was less than 3 minutes and less than 10% of a work and there is no indication at the moment that such action violates copyright or that any permission is required to take such a photo. As in photos taken in a public place, use of such a photo may be limited, depending on the nature of the individual photo and the manner of its use.

You implied that lawsuits are common whether warranted or not. I agree but also pointed out that they cost money to prosecute and will not be taken on by lawyers on a contingency basis unless they are sure they are going to win. This certainly doe not fall into that category.

So, copyright situations are like navigating through a minefield. Whatever you decide to do, might be right or wrong, win or lose, including how carefully you chose a lawyer. Know the law and ask the right, appropriate questions. that is my recommendation.

skieur


----------



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2008)

If it is in a public place and in veiw of the public isn't it fair game ?


----------



## skieur (Nov 4, 2008)

gsgary said:


> If it is in a public place and in veiw of the public isn't it fair game ?


 
In general terms, yes, it is fair game for taking pictures.  Use of such a photo for advertising purposes however, requires a model release. The nature of the shot could invoke the application of other laws such as defammation for example and lead to a lawsuit if the background of the shot or placement of the photo in a group or display implied or suggested something negative about the person who was the subject of the photo.
Another approach which led to a lawsuit was the shot of a property that a realtor used on his web site.  He had a right to take the picture, but putting it on his web site suggested it was FOR SALE and listed or that he had sold the house, all of which were untrue. The owner sued because he was being harassed by realtors and clients wanting to buy his house.

skieur


----------



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2008)

skieur said:


> In general terms, yes, it is fair game for taking pictures. Use of such a photo for advertising purposes however, requires a model release. The nature of the shot could invoke the application of other laws such as defammation for example and lead to a lawsuit if the background of the shot or placement of the photo in a group or display implied or suggested something negative about the person who was the subject of the photo.
> Another approach which led to a lawsuit was the shot of a property that a realtor used on his web site. He had a right to take the picture, but putting it on his web site suggested it was FOR SALE and listed or that he had sold the house, all of which were untrue. The owner sued because he was being harassed by realtors and clients wanting to buy his house.
> 
> skieur


 

I'm sure it could be used for editorial in the UK


----------



## skieur (Nov 4, 2008)

gsgary said:


> I'm sure it could be used for editorial in the UK


 
Editorial use is valid in Canada, US, UK and in most western countries.

skieur


----------



## abraxas (Nov 5, 2008)

Phillygirl said:


> I took photos yesterday of a city event, and want to use them with an article I'm writing.  Can I do this without breaking copyright laws?  I would appreciate an answer from anyone ASAP.  Thanks loads.  (pun intended.   )



You're kidding right?

Sounds sloppy. Too tired to go snap some shots yourself? What kind of publication would run something like that?  I'm thinking that if it's for your junior high newsletter, homework, or something like that, you shouldn't have a problem. Just tell them, some guy on the internet said it was okie-dokie.

You legal eagles are cracking me up.

& congrats on your second post!


----------



## ussearch (Nov 5, 2008)

Are the screens very visible? Can you make out what is on them or is it sort of in the background. If the screenshot is not identifiable, I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## Joves (Nov 5, 2008)

gsgary said:


> If it is in a public place and in veiw of the public isn't it fair game ?


 Technically yes it is. If she is speaking of a news article then she can use it. Especially if it was a public event. Now if she stepped into say private property and, shot things in that area, she needs permission to publish it. City events are open to media and, thefore open to being published.


----------



## skieur (Nov 5, 2008)

Joves said:


> Now if she stepped into say private property and, shot things in that area, she needs permission to publish it. .


 
Uh,NOOO! Private property is totally irrelevant. Anyone can publish an editorial photo taken on private property in Canada, US, Britain, or several other countries.

skieur


----------

