# Court decides snatching online phots OK



## MartinCrabtree (Jul 5, 2018)

Careful if you want to earn a living with them.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

Wow....


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 5, 2018)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Careful if you want to earn a living with them.
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/



The burglar wasn't breaking the law when he stole your tv because you didn't have a sign on it saying "property of"


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

BananaRepublic said:


> The burglar wasn't breaking the law when he stole your tv because you didn't have a sign on it saying "property of"



Stealing a TV is not the same thing as reproducing copyrighted work (in the view of the law).


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...



It _has _to be a federal court. Copyright laws are federal. There are no state, county/parrish or civic copyright laws.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

> ...found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted...


This is the part with which I have the greatest issue; the fact that it exists means that there is a copyright; the terms of use are a different matter, but does this idiotjudge expect that we are to publish a copyright & use document with every image?  As me old Mum used to say, "You may not know whose property it is, but you damn sure know whose it is not!"


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 5, 2018)

Here's another take on the judge's ruling. I'm wondering if the judge took the stance of considering the image chattel rather than intellectual rights. Several of the points brought up in the ruling seemed to be leaning toward property rights. This could be a dangerous direction if so, because in this country there are laws that state if someone sends you property without your consent you can keep it and are under no obligation to pay for it. Then the question will become at what point does the image (property) change hands, and does viewing it on you personal computer  constitute an unauthorized transfer. 

Here's a similar argument if I post a program on the internet for analyzing the optimum entry and exit points on a stock trade, with no use restrictions, and a 3rd party uses it to make a million dollars in the market. Is that 3rd party obligated to pay me anything for my program?


----------



## limr (Jul 5, 2018)

The ruling can be appealed, and it's also fairly narrow in scope. I am not saying it will have NO effect, but I am also not convinced that this will have the far-reaching effects that people fear.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...
> ...



let me rephrase:  the fact that it made it to court after the festival removed the image from the site is more shocking...


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jul 5, 2018)

It does however set a dangerous precedent. And yes sparky it's *a federal court**.*


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

tirediron said:


> > ...found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted...
> 
> 
> This is the part with which I have the greatest issue; the fact that it exists means that there is a copyright; the terms of use are a different matter, but does this idiotjudge expect that we are to publish a copyright & use document with every image?  As me old Mum used to say, "You may not know whose property it is, but you damn sure know whose it is not!"



that's only (1/2) point out of (4) to determine fair use.

Even if they were lying about the copyright, they immediately removed the image when they were contacted -- the judge determined that to be in good faith.

the second half of that point, quoted two cases where the creative elements of the image didn't matter if it was an argument of depicting historical fasts.  Since the Festival was using it as an image to depict Adam's Morgan on their site the judge concluded the creative elements didn't matter.

I really don't see the problem with the judge here, the problem is, like with most laws, the law itself. In this case: U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



You can sue any one, any time.  At least in 'Murica.  All you need is the money to pay your lawyer.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



They only ones who really made out here were the lawyers.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> I really don't see the problem with the judge here, the problem is, like with most laws, the law itself. In this case: U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107


The laws may well need amendment, but the problem with the judge is that he is saying, in part, is, "Ignorance of the law *is* an excuse!"  There's no sign at the corner intersection directing pedestrians to only cross at the cross-walk; can I therefore walk through traffic and successfully dispute the "jay-walking" ticket I receive based on my ignorance of the law?


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 5, 2018)

tirediron said:


> There's no sign at the corner intersection directing pedestrians to only cross at the cross-walk; can I therefore walk through traffic and successfully dispute the "jay-walking" ticket I receive based on my ignorance of the law?



That depends on #1 If there was no LE to see or write the ticket, and #2 There was no harm to you or anyone else as a result of you ignorance. Shy of the these would it not be a victimless crime? In the court case the judge used somewhat the same analogy when he said there was no harm caused the copyright holder.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

I suspect the perceived degree of harm differs significantly between the judge and the photographer; that aside, my point was that the judge appears to be stating that ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse for having broken the law, which is in yours, I assume, as it is in ours, stated very clearly at the most basic level, not the case.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jul 5, 2018)

It places the burden on the owner. Instead  of seeking permission the violator is only suggested to seek forgiveness. NO.


----------



## limr (Jul 5, 2018)

No, it's not the same as saying someone can be ignorant of the law. It's saying  that there needs to be reasonable warning that a law would be broken. This isn't a case of "I didn't know there was a copyright law." It's "I know there is copyright law but had no indication that I was actually breaking that law." As Martin said, it's shifting the burden to the copyright owner to warn people that they would be breaking the law if they use the image without permission, rather than putting the burden on the person to check if there are any restrictions on the usage of the image (which may be easy in many cases, but not so clear in other cases.)


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

They way I'm reading the judge's decision, had the website used this image to sell product, it would have gone the other way.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

limr said:


> No, it's not the same as saying someone can be ignorant of the law. It's saying  that there needs to be reasonable warning that a law would be broken. This isn't a case of "I didn't know there was a copyright law." It's "I know there is copyright law but had no indication that I was actually breaking that law." As Martin said, it's shifting the burden to the copyright owner to warn people that they would be breaking the law if they use the image without permission, rather than putting the burden on the person to check if there are any restrictions on the usage of the image (which may be easy in many cases, but not so clear in other cases.)


I'm sorry Lenny, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.  Copyright is created simultaneously with the work; irrespective of the nature of the work, the copyright comes into being as soon as the work does.  That is the law.  Extrapolating that point to a logical conclusion, saying that "there was no indication of copyright" is a valid excuse is indeed allowing ignorance of the law to be used as justification for breaking the law, since there doesn't need to be an indication of copyright; the fact that the work exists means that copyright exists.  The holder of the copyright can choose to do a wide range of things with it, including license it under the 'creative commons' umbrella, or other 'free use' doctrine, but in this case the creator did not do that.  Placing the burden on the creator to protect his work with signs is no different than saying to someone whose house has just been burgled, "Well... you didn't manage to keep the thief out, and you didn't have any "No burglary" signs, so... it's your fault.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

how to "properly" handle this:






take notes on how much of that $60,000 he actually recovered.
bonus points: take notice how he achieved that valuation.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 5, 2018)

tirediron said:


> Placing the burden on the creator to protect his work with signs is no different than saying to someone whose house has just been burgled,



Actually you've brought up an interesting analogy, to the photo. At least here in our state if someone walks across my property, they can't be charged with trespassing unless I've already notified them that they can't cross, and/or the property is posted with signage around the perimeter. I can ask them to leave, and if they don't --then they can be charged, but up to that point, ignorance of property lines is a defense. If they do damage or other harm then they can be charged for that.

I reread the article again, and one thing I couldn't find is "IF" the original photo had a watermark and "WHERE" the defendant  got the photo. The article shows the photographer's photo on Flickr. Typically Flickr photos contain information as to copyright regardless of watermark, so if the defendant didn't read the information available and downloaded the photo, then I'd say the plaintiffs attorney slipped up in not presenting the judge with the facts. However if the defendant pulled it from another website, and there was no watermark or other restrictions noted, then it might be like the trespass  law noted.


----------



## limr (Jul 5, 2018)

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not the same as saying someone can be ignorant of the law. It's saying  that there needs to be reasonable warning that a law would be broken. This isn't a case of "I didn't know there was a copyright law." It's "I know there is copyright law but had no indication that I was actually breaking that law." As Martin said, it's shifting the burden to the copyright owner to warn people that they would be breaking the law if they use the image without permission, rather than putting the burden on the person to check if there are any restrictions on the usage of the image (which may be easy in many cases, but not so clear in other cases.)
> ...



Read more carefully. I did not say "no indication of copyright." I said that the ruling suggests that there should be reasonable warning of _any restrictions on usage_. There are a lot of images on the internet that are copyrighted but which are also, for example, labled for "re-use" or "re-use with modification" or "re-use with/without permission." Is a person supposed to always assume that no mention of usage rights = no rights at all? Or all rights? 

And as Braineack said, the issue of warning is only 25% of the decision. If the facts of the case had been that the website did NOT remove the image (failing to prove good faith), or profited from the image, the ruling could very well have been different.

These cases depend on a lot of things, and this one happened to fit the standard for fair use. It doesn't mean that the case now become binding precendent. 

Trespassing would be a more apt analogy than burglary.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 5, 2018)

From what I understand the best way to deal with copyright infringement is to issue a DMCA takedown notice. You could consider contracting/licensing usage, but I don't know if this photographer did that or not. Most likely you'd spend more in legal fees than you'd ever get back in a lawsuit (unless maybe you make a lot of money with your photography to put into legal costs, such as people who sell instructional videos... lol). Maybe in some cases it would be worth it, but in this case the festival did what he'd requested and had stopped using the photo. I don't think you can assume the general public knows anything about copyright, and it's probably better to register copyright if you're going to use a photo 'out there', as well as indicating or displaying your copyright to inform people of it.

I did a quick search and this mostly shows up on clickbait sites shared from Petapixel, where the headline says "... Copying Photos Found on Internet is Fair Use" which seems generalized and inaccurate. The tone seems to have been set in the first paragraph - "... a decision that photographers won't be happy to hear." Why listen to what the self proclaimed 'editor' of Petapixel says to think or feel? He seems to set the framework for people to be unhappy and share it. I've read that people sharing something negative, that they don't like, actually gives it more attention than if they hadn't read and shared the article in the first place.

The photo had already been published, so I think that makes a difference; it's already 'out there' and the photographer was already compensated. So what further usage is acceptable, I don't know... to me it seems sort of like when I had a photo used in a brochure; it was already distributed in thousands of copies. If someone had saved a copy and scanned in the brochure and shared it online, then, so what? plenty of people already had it and probably tossed it in the trash years ago! lol 

So I'm not sure on this one, but the photographer's probably out some money. I looked him up quick and found what I thought were two photographers with the same name but it turned out to be the same guy who'd relocated across the country. The most recent social media seemed to be from over a year ago, although if he's no longer a working photographer wouldn't matter as far as copyright. But it did make me wonder what his motivation was to sue the festival when they'd already stopped using the photo.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2018)

Or this: Wrong Lady Liberty on Stamp to Cost US Postal Service $3.5M


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

limr said:


> Read more carefully. I did not say "no indication of copyright." I said that the ruling suggests that there should be reasonable warning of _any restrictions on usage_.



Apologies; I did not mean to suggest you were making a statement; I'm simply disagreeing with what I interpreted as your contention (and that of the ruling magistrate) that not knowing there were restrictions was a viable defence.



limr said:


> There are a lot of images on the internet that are copyrighted but which are also, for example, labled for "re-use" or "re-use with modification" or "re-use with/without permission." Is a person supposed to always assume that no mention of usage rights = no rights at all?


  Yes, that's exactly what they should assume.  I'm not naive enough to believe that they would/will, but it is what they should.  That digital image that I post [insert location where I have made a conscious decision to post >here>] is my property, and someone else's use of it is NO different than had they walked into my studio, taken the print out of my window display and put it up on the counter of their business.  People are determined to believe that because an image exists as a digital file, it's value is diminished.  



limr said:


> And as Braineack said, the issue of warning is only 25% of the decision. If the facts of the case had been that the website did NOT remove the image (failing to prove good faith), or profited from the image, the ruling could very well have been different.


  In all likelihood they did profit from the use of the image; possibly not by much, but I'm willing to bet they did.  Don't forget "profit" can be more than a direct monetary benefit.  Additional traffic, even so much as a single extra hit on the website is profit.  



limr said:


> These cases depend on a lot of things, and this one happened to fit the standard for fair use. It doesn't mean that the case now become binding precedent.


Putting aside the fact that there is no way that anyone can justify the "fair use" of someone else's property from a moral point of view, how anyone can justify use of someone else's IP on a commercial website without permission is beyond me.



limr said:


> Trespassing would be a more apt analogy than burglary.


I don't believe so, in part for exactly the reason that Smoke stated.  Enforcing trespass statutes on property, particularly unmarked property is difficult.  It is also a completely different category of crime; what this case is about is theft.  Plain and simple theft.  It's unfortunate that the magistrate doesn't understand the concept.


----------



## limr (Jul 5, 2018)

tirediron said:


> In all likelihood they did profit from the use of the image; possibly not by much, but I'm willing to bet they did.  Don't forget "profit" can be more than a direct monetary benefit.  Additional traffic, even so much as a single extra hit on the website is profit.



The court ruled based on the facts of the case that there was no commercial benefit, nor was there monetary loss by the copyright author. Do you know otherwise, or are just assuming, based on...?



> Putting aside the fact that there is no way that anyone can justify the "fair use" of someone else's property from a moral point of view, how anyone can justify use of someone else's IP on a commercial website without permission is beyond me.



Of course there is justification for fair use, which has been written into copyright law for a very long time. You can believe until the cows come home that the law is immoral, but until it's challenged or changed, it's still the law, and that is what this case was based on: its legal, not moral, merits.

I happen to disagree with the law being immoral, but it's again beyond the scope of this court ruling, so I for one am not going down that dead-end street.



> I don't believe so, in part *for exactly the reason that Smoke stated*.  Enforcing trespass statutes on property, particularly unmarked property is difficult.  It is also a completely different category of crime; what this case is about is theft.  Plain and simple theft.  It's unfortunate that the magistrate doesn't understand the concept.



Um...Smoke was arguing the same point that I was - that trespass is a more apt analogy. The point is not what the crime is, but whether or not there was a reasonable way to determine that one was even committing a crime. Fences and signs? Yeah, you're not allowed. Flickr, copyright symbol? Yeah, okay, it's not allowed to use.

But no fence or no sign? No structures? Ambiguous. No markings or notices about usage rights? Ambiguous.

And we don't have magistrates.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 5, 2018)

@tirediron in some respects I can agree with your assessment of the crime as theft and I'm not condoning it. On the other hand would you leave a valuable car on the street with the keys in it? As the owner of the property you have some responsibility in securing your property. The internet makes it so easy to steal images, movies, music, that posting an image is like leaving your keys in your car. Sooner or later someone's going to borrow it. The way to solve the problem is to either don't post your images on the internet or come up with better methods of securing images in the cloud.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> @tirediron in some respects I can agree with your assessment of the crime as theft and I'm not condoning it. On the other hand would you leave a valuable car on the street with the keys in it? As the owner of the property you have some responsibility in securing your property. The internet makes it so easy to steal images, movies, music, that posting an image is like leaving your keys in your car. Sooner or later someone's going to borrow it. The way to solve the problem is to either don't post your images on the internet or come up with better methods of securing images in the cloud.


You're right' the Internet makes it far too easy to steal images, but with respect to your car analogy, the difference is, in today's environment, the Internet is where we NEED to display our wares; I don't actually need to leave my car on the street with the keys in it!    It is the storefront of the world today, in much the same way that an actual brick and mortar store was in 1970.  There is no way to secure images; if it can be seen, it can be stolen.  Don't misunderstand me, I'm am not a rabid "Though shall not use my images"; I give away a lot of images; what I am absolutely dead-set against is people using my work without permission.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 5, 2018)

tirediron said:


> There is no way to secure images; if it can be seen, it can be stolen.


 Actually the encryption technology already exists but most aren't willing to spend the time or money to follow through.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 5, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way to secure images; if it can be seen, it can be stolen.
> ...


Can't encrypt against "PRT SCN"


----------



## Derrel (Jul 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> Or this: Wrong Lady Liberty on Stamp to Cost US Postal Service $3.5M



Briefly...."
A stamp that mistakenly featured the image of a Statue of Liberty replica in Las Vegas instead of the original New York Statue will cost the U.S. Postal Service $3.5 million in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Las Vegas sculptor Robert Davidson, who created the replica Lady Liberty in the facade at the New-York-New York casino-resort on the Las Vegas Strip, sued the Postal Service five years ago over its 2011 "forever" stamp design."


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 6, 2018)

tirediron said:


> Can't encrypt against "PRT SCN"



Going back to the trespass example, not only am I required to put up signage, if I have on my property an "attractive nuisance" (IE a creek with a swimming hole or a bluff that photographers might want to take photographs from), I'm also required to put up fencing to keep people out, so they don't get hurt. The point is that the photographer as the owner of the image rights has to take responsibility for protecting his work, which includes control of where he posts those images on the internet, the signage, legalese, and locks as best he can. Like my swimming hole example, people will still walk past the signs, and even climb the fence, sorry that's the way people are. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a giant world without fences or signs) are it's greatest dangers, yet people will not only blindly share their images with the misguided belief that they are safe from theft. Not saying it's right, but it's the way it is. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a big world without signs or fences) are also the biggest dangers.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 6, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Here's another take on the judge's ruling. I'm wondering if the judge took the stance of considering the image chattel rather than intellectual rights. Several of the points brought up in the ruling seemed to be leaning toward property rights. This could be a dangerous direction if so, because in this country there are laws that state if someone sends you property without your consent you can keep it and are under no obligation to pay for it. Then the question will become at what point does the image (property) change hands, and does viewing it on you personal computer  constitute an unauthorized transfer.
> 
> Here's a similar argument if I post a program on the internet for analyzing the optimum entry and exit points on a stock trade, with no use restrictions, and a 3rd party uses it to make a million dollars in the market. Is that 3rd party obligated to pay me anything for my program?



By posting to the internet you are doing the same thing as publishing in a newspaper, its not my fault your a dope for not realising that, is what they say.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 6, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Or this: Wrong Lady Liberty on Stamp to Cost US Postal Service $3.5M
> ...



Will he get the cheque posted to him I wonder.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 6, 2018)

tirediron said:


> > ...found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted...
> 
> 
> This is the part with which I have the greatest issue; the fact that it exists means that there is a copyright; the terms of use are a different matter, but does this idiotjudge expect that we are to publish a copyright & use document with every image?  As me old Mum used to say, "You may not know whose property it is, but you damn sure know whose it is not!"



Apple or Facebook dont send anything out with layers of T's & C's


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 6, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Like my swimming hole example, people will still walk past the signs, and even climb the fence, sorry that's the way people are.



This is where laws need to change.
We have similar ones in Canada.
Personally if I put a sign up stating private property and you walk through and get hurt die what ever, then too bad shouldn't have been there.

On the same front the law should be if you steal someone's photo/art that the artist didn't give usage rights for you should have to immediately pay their standard limited use licence fee. Seems like the ONLY fair way to deal with it.

The current interpretation boils down to is "You didn't say I couldn't" which is a pile of crap. I'd probably have spent a few week in jail for what I would have said to the judge after the ruling.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 6, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> This is where laws need to change.



Agree wholeheartedly, but to what???  Canada can change their laws, the US can change their laws, other countries change their laws, but if I grab your image how do you enforce Canadian law on me in the US, or vice versa. Hell we can't even get  universal world wide enforceable copyright laws.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 6, 2018)

The EU where trying to double down on copyright laws but it failed to get through.

GDPR Consent


----------



## tirediron (Jul 6, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Going back to the trespass example, not only am I required to put up signage, if I have on my property an "attractive nuisance" (IE a creek with a swimming hole or a bluff that photographers might want to take photographs from), I'm also required to put up fencing to keep people out, so they don't get hurt. The point is that the photographer as the owner of the image rights has to take responsibility for protecting his work, which includes control of where he posts those images on the internet, the signage, legalese, and locks as best he can. Like my swimming hole example, people will still walk past the signs, and even climb the fence, sorry that's the way people are. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a giant world without fences or signs) are it's greatest dangers, yet people will not only blindly share their images with the misguided belief that they are safe from theft. Not saying it's right, but it's the way it is. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a big world without signs or fences) are also the biggest dangers.


While I find it ludicrous that I have to tell people to stay off of my property, I accept that it is the reality and I agree with all of your points.  My issue is that the ruling is essentially saying "It's okay to take what isn't yours" and that it's going to make it even more difficult for artists and other producers of IP to defend their position as it is setting a precedent.  Regardless of whether or not future magistrates accept it, they will have to consider it.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 6, 2018)

tirediron said:


> My issue is that the ruling is essentially saying "It's okay to take what isn't yours" and that it's going to make it even more difficult for artists and other producers of IP to defend their position as it is setting a precedent. Regardless of whether or not future magistrates accept it, they will have to consider it.



As Zombiesniper said, "Laws need to change". First and foremost there needs to be a universal world wide copyright agreement between all countries, because without one there will never be protection. Second there needs to be clearly written laws regarding violations and compensations, because otherwise judges have nothing but opinion to rule on.


----------



## limr (Jul 6, 2018)

Once again, the lack of notice *is only a portion of one standard the defendant has to prove* in order to claim fair use*.
*
"In the United States, whether or not a use of copyrighted material without permission can be considered fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107) depends on *four main factors*: (1) the purpose and character of the use (including whether it’s “transformative” and commercial vs. non-commercial), (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) how much of the work is used, and (4) how much the use affects the market and/or value of the work."

You're all acting as if the entire case hinged on this issue, and that now it's going to go all post-apocalyptic anarchy. It's not. The sky is not falling.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 6, 2018)

My photos are all people and pretty much useable commercially (would love to see them try) 

I’m not so fussed about copyright. They wanna use my photos...whatevs. If I can sue for money, sure... more money for me. If I can’t, oh well. It wasn’t my money to begin with.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 6, 2018)

limr said:


> You're all acting as if the entire case hinged on this issue,



I'm ignoring the rest because if this one aspect was changed then the whole use case is a mute point if you ALWAY have to get the artist permission no mater what.

I realize the way it is today there is more involved.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 6, 2018)

limr said:


> Once again, the lack of notice *is only a portion of one standard the defendant has to prove* in order to claim fair use*.
> *
> "In the United States, whether or not a use of copyrighted material without permission can be considered fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107) depends on *four main factors*: (1) the purpose and character of the use (including whether it’s “transformative” and commercial vs. non-commercial), (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) how much of the work is used, and (4) how much the use affects the market and/or value of the work."
> 
> You're all acting as if the entire case hinged on this issue, and that now it's going to go all post-apocalyptic anarchy. It's not. The sky is not falling.



are we the only two people who actually read the decision?   and i hate reading, and there were no illustrations taking up the pages!!!!


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 6, 2018)

I read the decision but by the time I posted, the conversation I had responded to had taken a turn away from directly discussing the decision. Therefore the results of the decision had no bearing on what I was stating.

P.S. nice condescending post.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 6, 2018)

i self-disparaged at least!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 6, 2018)

I read it as well.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 6, 2018)

So did I. A dry sense of humor doesn't usually come thru too well online Braineack but that's how I took it (otherwise no LOL for you!).

The thing is, whether we like it as written or not, the judge had to take into account all four factors that exist. I'm not sure I agree with this judgement because the promoter should have gotten permission to use any photo found online. It would be fine to use something for study or educational purposes, etc. but this to me seems iffy. It's a for profit event, but some proceeds go to charity and it's a community event so that to me makes it less clear cut.

I agree that people shouldn't take others' property, but obviously peeps don't see it that way. Online the photos only exist in a virtual way, it would be different taking someone's prints and tossing 'em out in the street. But I don't think they seem as real or like they belong to someone, they're just out there, they don't exist in a real tangible, physical way. I think you gotta deal with putting your photos online and how to protect them.

The guy seems to have had other choices, and - he got what he requested with one option, the takedown notice - the promoter took down the photo and stopped using it. I don't know if the photographer sent a contract to license usage or not but that would be another option. With a lawsuit you never know the outcome and need to think about if it's worth your cost in legal fees.


----------



## bogeyguy (Jul 6, 2018)

U.S. Post Office to pay $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on stamp
for what it's worth


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 6, 2018)

vintagesnaps said:


> Online the photos only exist in a virtual way, it would be different taking someone's prints and tossing 'em out in the street. But I don't think they seem as real or like they belong to someone, they're just out there, they don't exist in a real tangible, physical way.



There have been several studies on how the anonymity of the internet can cause people to do things they otherwise would never consider in real life. Would Braineack be condescending in real life..........never mind bad example (LOL just kidding man). It's also easier to do things that are questionable, because as you mentioned things on the internet "don't seem as real".


----------



## KmH (Jul 6, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> First and foremost there needs to be a universal world wide copyright agreement between all countries, because without one there will never be protection.


There has been such since 5 December 1887.
Currently 176 countries are signators.

Each copyright infringement suit filed in US Federal court is judged independent of other copyright infringement suits.
Or put another way, a claim of "fair use" is adjudicated on the merits of each case.

So, *the court did not say* "snatching online phots [sic] OK".
The court said _snatching *the one photo the case was about*_ was fair use.
However, don't be surprised if the judge is reversed on appeal, if there is an appeal.
It would not be the first time a federal judge made a poor legal decision.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 6, 2018)

KmH said:


> Currently 176 countries are signators.



Should have included "enforceable". Quick search will pull up the worst offenders of pirating online media.


----------



## KmH (Jul 6, 2018)

Don't forget that each country makes their own copyright laws, and note how the Berne Convention works.


----------

