9 ms·
Sued over screenshots of 59-year-old show
- vxNsr 9y agoBoth cases look open-shut in favor of photographer. 1) He has right to fair use. 2) they cannot just use his pics for profit
- gspetr 9y agoAgreed. This seems like a slam dunk for him and creates bad optics of David vs Goliath for the company. That said, he did come off as a bit of an unhinged person in his twitter tirade.
- tryingagainbro 9y agoCBS doesn't care about optics...relatively very few people will read or get interested in this. Plus, megacorps do a gazillion worse things each day. CBS is doing what it can to settle the first case, so maybe both sides will drop them. If that 24sports site had run it by CBS lawyers I'm almost certain they would have told him not to use his images. But in the end they were used so CBS has to defend itself. To me using photos of a photog without permission is 100 times worse than posting a screenshot of a TV show but lawyers will milk it.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoIt's enough of a slam dunk and he's been an active enough critic on twitter that I really want to see an anti-SLAPP petition for pulling this.
- chesimov 9y agoDoes 'bad optics' mean something like 'bad impression'? Sounds odd to me (although I'm not in the US)
- fcbrooklyn 9y agoIt means it "looks bad".
- s_kilk 9y agoPretty much. The 'optics' of a situation are the appearances, the visuals, the perceptions. So when someone says a thing has "bad optics" they mean that it looks bad to observers.
- ClassyJacket 9y agoI'd never heard that phrase before ~2 months ago, suddenly I'm hearing it everywhere.
- chris_wot 9y agoI feel a great deal of sympathy for the photographer, but how do you know the use of the screenshots are fair use?
- cowsandmilk 9y agobecause it trivially meets factors for fair use. It is a very small portion of the copyrighted work and is not a substitute for the work. A couple screenshots from a TV show does not lower the market value for the TV show. TV Land isn't going to stop airing Gunsmoke because someone posted a couple screenshots online.
- chris_wot 9y agoI must have missed something somewhere - doesn’t the article say the lawsuit doesn’t state how the images were used?
- Rotten194 9y agounless the images were a screenshot of each frame of the episode, how exactly they were used doesn't matter for the cited clause of fair use. in what way could a small number of screenshots ever be a substitute for an episode of a tv show?
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoSmall and "in-substantial" are different. If you're selling screenshots as memorabilia, say (posters, tshirts, mugs), then they're likely to be substantial in that context and IMO even with USA's relatively liberal fair use a court is likely to rule against it. Of course trademark may also come in to play depending on the content of the screenshots themselves. Your substitution test is useful, and interesting, but it's not a test that determines copyright infringement.
- chris_wot 9y agoThen you misunderstand fair use. Fair use doctrine is far more complicated than just meeting one of the tests. I used to have to adjudicate Fair Use images on Wikipedia, and believe me the grounds for valid Fair Use is more complex than you appear to believe.
- baldfat 9y agoI don't see the photographer having an open and shut case especially for $150,000 for photography. 1) The player gave the photo to the writer claiming it was his property 2) The writer gave credit (Which doesn't allow for use and they should have contacted for use), but normally if there would be a cost a different photo will be used These crazy copyright claims are the issue. The photographer suing for $150,000 is wrong and the CBS is wrong for the same $150,000 claim. It should be market value of a photo and legal fees. This would make it easy for a photographer to get his money since the company would not want the added legal fee charge. Instead in US it is a all or nothing and usually both parties lose. Per Image Fee is the best way to move forward. http://www.roshsillars.com/2017/02/15/much-photographers-charge-2017/ http://www.roshsillars.com/2017/02/15/much-photographers-cha...
- electrichead 9y agoThe problem with that though is that it becomes a precedent (not in legal sense) and it might be tempting to just use images without paying the copyright owner, since you just need to settle for market value or a little more at the time that you're sued. It is a huge effort to go through media to make sure that your content is not being used without your consent and most independent people won't be checking it vigorously since they need the time to actually work.
- baldfat 9y agoThey would be paid for the picture at a fair market value and if not and found out some lawyer is going to get rich off of enforcing this rule. I am sure lawyers would turn this into the new ambulance chaser.
- mickronome 9y agoI'm certainly not a lawyer, but my experience is that in copyright law - for better or worse - it generally doesn't matter if you believe you have rights to use some property, the only thing that really matters is if you actually have those rights. Applying that perspective CBS is absolutely in the wrong corner in that regard. As for the photographer, we don't know the circumstances of his use, but as the article noted, it's not unlikely to be considered fair use. A single frame from a movie/series can reasonably be seen as a quote, whereas their wholesale use of the photographers entire picture clearly is not. But whatever the circumstances in either case, CBS suing for a screenshot of an old movie/series seems to be a perfect way to get bad publicity, and no pity whatsoever if they would loose in court. Almost nobody wants it to be illegal/fineable to post screens and clips from TV-series, and pushing it that way is trying to get the cat back into the bag. It's part of our culture now, and that cat isn't going back anytime soon.
- suyash 9y agoCopyright laws need to be amended in today's digital age.
- Double_a_92 9y agoWhy? Why sould it not be allowed to sell the right to use pictures that you made?
- lolc 9y agoWhy should you need permission?
- johannes1234321 9y agoBecause a photographer (or other artist) needs to be able to earn his living and pay for his equipment. Also they probably don't want to be associated with all kinds of folks.
- rwmj 9y agoPerhaps (and I realize I'm being devil's advocate here), "photo-journalist" is no longer a profession where one should expect to make a living? Photographers can still work for commissions or for the pure joy of it, but these days everyone carries a camera and can take decent photos of news and sports events.
- chris_wot 9y agoWell, no... many photojournalists spend a huge amount of money in equipment and go to places others won’t venture. Copyright get, limits, however, are way too long. They should be maximum 25 years IMO.
- rwmj 9y agoI'm guessing that's more of a commission basis, rather than journalists going on-spec to warzones and hoping to sell the photos. And if not, then they could move to a commission / work-for-hire model and still make a living.
- eveningcoffee 9y agoI think that big companies should be fined hard for the attacks on the fair use. Copyright law is important but it should be balanced such that it does not interfere with the free speech.
- divanvisagie 9y agoThe article points out that they don't know much about the case so we don't even know if it's fair use at this point.
- delinka 9y agoGP still makes a good point. Righthaven is a good example of where attacks on fair use lead. Sure, we don't know about this case, but odds are good that it involves fair use. And even if not, GP's point is still relevant.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gesman 9y agoI don't get it - the guy made a pics of TV show and tried to sue TV show owner for using his pics?
- cookingrobot 9y agoFrom my reading - the guy is a sports photographer, and CBS used his pictures in a news cast without his permission, so he is suing for $150k. In retaliation, CBS found some old social media post he made that included an image from one of their old cowboy shows. So they’re suing back for $150k, and calling him a hypocrite.
- tehwebguy 9y agoFor perspective each screen cap is something like 1/30,000th of the episode (visual portion only), versus the photo CBS used is the entire creative work.
- ada1981 9y agoIs this a standard they use? What if he had shot video of the whole game? That photo might be 1/30,000 of the game.
- tehwebguy 9y agoYeah it is a factor, among others.
- Drakim 9y agoThe amount of the original work used is a very important aspect of fair use. If I write a movie review of The Matrix and include a screenshot of Neo dodging bullets, that's your typical fair use. The reason for this is obvious, the screenshot is there for review purposes, maybe to show off the thematic feel of the movie in my review. But if I do a YouTube video review of The Matrix and then include the entirely of movie, it's not fair use. I could maybe show a scene or two, but I can't just wholesale copy paste the movie and call it fair use. After all, if that was okay, you could "legally pirate" anything by just having a 5 second review before the movie.
- tehwebguy 9y ago> Now, CBS has sued Tannen back, claiming that he "hypocritically" used CBS intellectual property "while simultaneously bringing suit against Plaintiff's sister company, CBS Interactive Inc., claiming it had violated his own copyright." Wow CBS even admits that it's retaliation! Hopefully that comes up in court as a strike against CBS.
- macspoofing 9y agoWhy would it be a strike against CBS? He's suing CBS for a dumb reason for a crazy amount ($300k), and now they are suing him back for a dumb reason for a crazy amount. I suppose the photographer is probably more in the right. His use of the stills feels like fair use, while theirs is less so (presumably they made some money off of the article) - but the amount he's asking for is crazy (because the copyright infringement law is crazy).
- tehwebguy 9y agoBecause they are using the courts, wrongly IMO (since his use was fair), to attempt to stop him from using the courts rightly. The statutory damages for their willful infringement are high to disuade bad actors from simply asking forgiveness when caught instead of asking for permission.
- techdragon 9y agoThe sheer volume of content created in the current day makes the permission vs forgiveness model broken. We are rapidly losing track of who to even ask the permission from in many cases (the entire orphan works mess) and unfortunately it's going to mean much of the history of the last 25 years of the 20th century, and perhaps even the entire history of the 21st, may be... for all practical purposes... lost instead of the most well preserved and accessible.
- stinkytaco 9y agoI think with safe-harbor, the model in many places is forgiveness rather than permission. The burden in on the rights holder to remove content and, as you say, there's so much content produced that you can see why they essentially dragnet their copyright enforcement. But the end result is the same, the model is broken and needs to be reevaluated.
- ada1981 9y agoIt sounded like the author legitmately thinks that "giving credit" for the photo is enough or even desirable. Like, "hey you should be happy I'm getting you exposure."
- mtgx 9y agoThis is especially common among young YouTubers. To them it's common sense that giving credit for something like this is enough to not get them into trouble. Unfortunately, existing copyright laws are quite unforgiving.
- twobyfour 9y agoProbably because in school they've been taught that not giving credit is plagiarism. Unfortunately, they haven't been taught the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation.
- Joeboy 9y agoDo they get into trouble for uploading copyrighted work to youtube? Except maybe in unusual circumstances I think all that happens is the video gets removed or demonetized. Which I would say is pretty forgiving.
- gumby 9y agoThe way it is portrayed in the article (which may not be correct) this photographer Tannen comes off as a jerk and CBS comes off as somewhere between doing what anyone would and having a sense of humor. Yes CBS used his photo and he didn't like it. He asked them to stop and they did indeed (perhaps not on the first message) take the photo off. Seems like they legitimately didn't know they didn't have the rights. But the quoted language by Tannen is vitriolic for the use of two photos in a minor article where the "breach" (legal term) was "cured" simply and immediately. He definitely comes off as a committed member of the "permissions" culture" Yet he filed what looks like a nuisance suit. In such cases the defending side almost always makes a counterclaim, and you know that they are spending more than the 150K they ask on their defense. (I am amazed to be saying anything even vaguely supportive about Big Media. But here we are).
- DanBC 9y agoCBS are also litigious members of the permissions culture. They're quick to sue people infringing their property rights. They make extensive use of the DMCA. In that context they better try hard to avoid infringing other people's rights, and it's fair enough to be angry when a huge company steals your work.
- gumby 9y agoI don't deny that CBS is high on the pantheon of scum. But "angry" over a couple of photos shared, when they took them down and when their explanation seems quite plausible and in fact likely? I think there are more important things to be angry about.
- mbrameld 9y agoThey used his work on two separate occasions. The 2nd time was after they knew they had used his work illegally in the past. At that point it's a pattern of behavior. They were given the opportunity to fix it themselves (taking down the pics is only part of fixing the issue, not repeating the theft is the other part) and chose not to. How many chances should they get? What motivation do they have to change the behavior if there are no repercussions?