# Interesting Copyright Decision



## KmH (Feb 16, 2018)

This is a copyright infringement case worth following towards its conclusion:
Judge Rules News Publishers Violated Copyright by Embedding Tweets of Tom Brady Photo

Mentioned in the article are the following copyright infringement cases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos._v._Aereo,_Inc.
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. - Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.


----------



## vin88 (Feb 17, 2018)

so - photos, and tweets need copy rights?  if i wanted to sell one of my pix.  how is copy right used?  vin


----------



## KmH (Feb 17, 2018)

It depends on what country you are in.
There is no location info in your profile.

US Copyright Office - www.copyright.gov
Photograph Use Licensing
Photo Attorney


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2018)

It's too bad the reporting in the news story ends as follows, without providing any significant insight into what these statements mean.


"_This doesn't mean the news organizations have necessarily lost the case.

In response to a warning from defendants that a loss would "cause a tremendous chilling effect on the core functionality of the web," she notes a number of unresolved strong defenses to liability.

"In this case, there are genuine questions about whether plaintiff effectively released his image into the public domain when he posted it to his Snapchat account," she writes. "Indeed, in many cases there are likely to be factual questions as to licensing and authorization. There is also a very serious and strong fair use defense, a defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and limitations on damages from innocent infringement._"


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 17, 2018)

I noticed that too, was the photo put into public domain by posting it on Snapchat? I don't think people look at Terms on a site to know what they've agreed re: usage of their photos.


----------



## KmH (Feb 17, 2018)

vintagesnaps said:


> . . . was the photo put into public domain by posting it on Snapchat?


No.

Terms of Service – Snap Inc.


> *6. Respecting Other People’s Rights*
> Snap Inc. respects the rights of others. And so should you. You therefore may not use the Services, or enable anyone else to use the Services, in a manner that:
> 
> 
> violates or infringes someone else’s rights of publicity, privacy, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual-property right.


Snapchat Support - Copyright


----------



## vin88 (Feb 17, 2018)

KmH said:


> It depends on what country you are in.
> There is no location info in your profile.
> 
> US Copyright Office - www.copyright.gov
> ...


   thanks for the info.  ill try to fix the profile.   i am not uist with forums and spell check.. vim


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2018)

KmH said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > . . . was the photo put into public domain by posting it on Snapchat?
> ...



here's part of what Snapchat tells users:

"
 For all content you submit to the Services other than Public Content, *you grant Snap Inc. and our affiliates a worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license to host, store, use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, publish, and distribute that content.* This license is for the limited purpose of operating, developing, providing, promoting, and improving the Services and researching and developing new ones.

Because Public Content is inherently public and chronicles matters of public interest, the license you grant us for this content is broader. In addition to granting us the rights mentioned in the previous paragraph, *you also grant us a perpetual license to create derivative works from, promote, exhibit, broadcast, syndicate, sublicense, publicly perform, and publicly display Public Content in any form and in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)*."

As mentioned in the *original news article*, Fair Use arguments can easily be made for what happened in the case at hand.

Publishing something ALSO grants Fair Use rights to subsequent re-publishers...something KMH repeatedly has tried to ignore in his more or less ongoing campaign over the last more or less 10 years, in _what appears to me to be_ an ongoing and repeated campaign to instill fear among TPF readers that ANY use of ANY content by subsequent posters constitutes a copyright violation....this post he's made continues in that pattern of repeated fear-mongering and ignoring of Fair Use provisions in US copyright law and jurisprudence.

As the judge HERSELF wrote: "....*There is also a very serious and strong fair use defense, a defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and limitations on damages from innocent infringement*.""


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 18, 2018)

To make everything more complicated, you might well be a USA citizen, posting from an address in the USA, but I am reading your post in the EU, and my usage of your post is governed by EU copyright law - which does not include Fair Use provisions. And vice versa for my posts - I am posting under EU copyright law which has no Fair Use provisions - are you good people in the USA  allowed to make Fair Use of my posts?


----------



## vin88 (Feb 18, 2018)

john.margetts said:


> To make everything more complicated, you might well be a USA citizen, posting from an address in the USA, but I am reading your post in the EU, and my usage of your post is governed by EU copyright law - which does not include Fair Use provisions. And vice versa for my posts - I am posting under EU copyright law which has no Fair Use provisions - are you good people in the USA  allowed to make Fair Use of my posts?


     I did not know about EU  law.  I am in the US and don't know its photo law - I just keep taking pix., thanks for the info. vin


----------



## BananaRepublic (Feb 18, 2018)

KmH said:


> This is a copyright infringement case worth following towards its conclusion:
> Judge Rules News Publishers Violated Copyright by Embedding Tweets of Tom Brady Photo
> 
> Mentioned in the article are the following copyright infringement cases:
> ...



Dont all this platforms, facebook twitter et al. state that once a picture is uploaded then it becomes there property in some technical sense as you have agreed to there T&Cs


----------



## KmH (Feb 18, 2018)

> . . . For all content you submit to the Services other than Public Content, you grant Snap Inc. and our affiliates a worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license to host, store, use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, publish, and distribute that content.*This license is* *for the limited purpose of operating, developing, providing, promoting, and improving the Services and researching and developing new one*s. . . "


 Emphasis added.

Fair use is not a cut & dried doctrine.
Section 107 US Copyright Act deals with fair use.
Read the *Notes* section of Cornell Law Schoo'ls "General Background of the Problem" of determining if a use might be fair, or not.


> . . . Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and *each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts*. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities. . .


Emphasis added.

The Copyright.gov web site is down for weekend maintenance. The site has a section, US Copyright Office Fair use Index, that addresses the complexities of determining if a use is fair or not.
One can also look at Columbia University's Fair Use information to see how involved determining if a use might be fair or not.


> Fair use may not be what you expect. Whether or not you are within the boundaries of fair use depends on the facts of your particular situation.



US Copyright Office Fair Use Index
Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center
Center for Media and Social Impact


----------



## jeffW (Feb 18, 2018)

Derrel said:


> "_This doesn't mean the news organizations have necessarily lost the case._"



Hopefully one of their accountant realizes in the future that just offering to purchase one time editorial licensing rights to a social media pic is more cost efficient for publishing images along with their stories than hoping their lawyers will scare away any court cases.  (Thinking that a lawyer billing a lunch meeting might be a bit more than a photographer's editorial licensing cost)


----------



## vin88 (Feb 18, 2018)

my  grandfather left me a whole lot of negatives.   in his day, that was all you needed to win a court case.?  vin


----------



## KmH (Feb 19, 2018)

That would depend on what the copyright laws were wherever he was in his day.

Here in the US copyright law has changed over the years.
I imagine it has changed in other countries too.

The first copyright law in the US was the Copyright Act of 1790.
The last major changes made to US copyright law were codified in the Copyright Act of 1976 - Wikipedia.
That has since been added to/modified with the Copyright Term Extension Act - Wikipedia of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia (also in 1998).


----------

