7 ms·

$5100 penalty for unintentionally using a copyrighted photo

15 points by lun4r 9y ago

onion2k 9y ago
I always try my best to give credit to the artists, designers, and architects whose work I admire and try to support I have very little sympathy. If you don't have permission to use a photograph the proper course of action is not to use it. To use it without permission is definitely not trying your best to give credit.
- lun4r 9y ago
  The source that was credited turned out not to be the rights owner, nor did they have a license to publish that photo.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    Wow, so this is a case where trying to follow the law exposes you to legal risk anyway, on a non-commercial pursuit? I can see why she'd shut her blog down.
    - Veen 9y ago
      It's simple to follow the law. If you don't have positive proof that you have the right to use an image, don't use it.
      - lostmsu 9y ago
        How can you obtain a positive proof? If you take from intermediary, the intermediary claims you have the right. They do not usually disclose how did they obtain it in the first place.
- eecc 9y ago
  You can switch to the Lynx browser then... I don’t get how people are ostentatiously intransigent to people that don’t do any harm. What is it? Frustration, general resentment, vindictiveness?
  - onion2k 9y ago
    In this particular case it's specific resentment. I don't like it when people create websites that do nothing more than present content they've taken from other sites without permission in return for ad revenue.
    - lun4r 9y ago
      No revenue was made from this blog. Do you resent Pinterest and Tumblr then as well?
      - onion2k 9y ago
        No revenue was made from this blog. That may be true, but the site owner certainly tried to make money from it - https://web.archive.org/web/20171225065956/http://afflante.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20171225065956/http://afflante.c... - Note the Donate button and sidebar advert. This is from 6 weeks ago. Do you resent Pinterest and Tumblr then as well? Yes, although less so. Those sites at least have a valid use case as personal curation tools.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        WillReplyfFood 9y ago
        I dread the world that people like you aspire to. A thousand foxholes with legal snipers each out to get one another. All that, so one grumpy webdesigner can live from glueing together some 2nd tier stockfootage. I licensend all my content under the GPL and similar Licenses. I wish there was a way to seperate that hell of a internet you want to live in from the web i work to archieve every day. I work hard on my hobby, but i do not feel entitled too money for it.
        dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
        > I work hard on my hobby, but i do not feel entitled too money for it. It's not that simple. What is just a hobby for you might be a source of income for someone else. You can't turn tables around and say they can't make money only because you don't expect a payment for your hobby.
- overcast 9y ago
  Agreed, I wish those Instagram aggregators would get closed down as well. I've had to deal with copyright claims a bunch of times already. IG is very good with swiftly resolving it. But those accounts do nothing but profit off of stealing others work. Just because you "give credit" doesn't mean shit. 99/100 times, no one is going to go visit your work, because someone copied your name in on the post. I put in tons of hours of work, money, networking, photographing, post production, marketing, etc. Only for someone to swoop in, repost my work with a tap of their finger, and profit off of it. Millions of eyeballs for doing nothing but theft.
- 1024core 9y ago
  Without knowing the full details, how can you be so quick to cast judgment? There is a wide spectrum between actively stealing photos and mistakenly using photos because they seemed to be in the public domain. The key questions are: was the intent malicious? And how soon was it rectified? And I say this as someone whose photo was used by a highly read tech blog without attribution; and when I pointed this out, they quietly put a link to my original photo in there, but still did not attribute it to me.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    A simple rule: if there's no visible film grain, the photo is almost certainly copyrighted. If there is grain it might be copyrighted. Copyright in the US lasts for the life of the author + 70 years, or the shorter of 95 years after publication / 120 years after creation for works made for hire. Digital photography hasn't been around that long. Copyright is automatic. There's no need to register it. Willful infringement can increase the penalties, but is not required for there to be penalties. Your key questions are not particularly important from a legal standpoint.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    ...they seemed to be in the public domain. There's no such thing as "seemed" to be in the public domain. Either they are or they aren't. If you don't know then you assume they're not. If you assume they are when they're not, or you assume the attribution attached is correct when it isn't, then the photographer is entirely within their rights to sue you for approximately $5100. This is why running a website properly is actually quite a lot of work. And I say this as someone who's been running websites for 20 years, and I've seen lots of my content reused without permission. It's really annoying. I used to be on the side of "if it's online then it's fair to reuse it", but as more and more sites have appeared that do nothing more than repost content from /r/<some subreddit> I've changed my mind.
Veen 9y ago
I'm not sure I'd have made this particular blogger the target for my ire if it was my work, but in principle I agree with the penalty. Copyright sustains the people who create the art that this blogger was curating. Without copyright, there would be nothing for him / her to curate in the first place because there would be no such thing as professional photographers, designers, or writers.
- singularity2001 9y ago
  I'd agree if the blogger made any money from it. Like this it is nuts!
  - Veen 9y ago
    People don't usually make money from the art or the books they buy. If "making money" was the only condition on which the requirement to pay or give credit was predicated, there would be no photography industry. The creator has the right to license their work in any way they see fit. That work doesn't automatically become community property just because it's been published online.

15 points by lun4r 9y ago

I always try my best to give credit to the artists, designers, and architects whose work I admire and try to support I have very little sympathy. If you don't have permission to use a photograph the proper course of action is not to use it. To use it without permission is definitely not trying your best to give credit.

lun4r 9y ago
The source that was credited turned out not to be the rights owner, nor did they have a license to publish that photo.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  Wow, so this is a case where trying to follow the law exposes you to legal risk anyway, on a non-commercial pursuit? I can see why she'd shut her blog down.
  - Veen 9y ago
    It's simple to follow the law. If you don't have positive proof that you have the right to use an image, don't use it.
    - lostmsu 9y ago
      How can you obtain a positive proof? If you take from intermediary, the intermediary claims you have the right. They do not usually disclose how did they obtain it in the first place.
eecc 9y ago
You can switch to the Lynx browser then... I don’t get how people are ostentatiously intransigent to people that don’t do any harm. What is it? Frustration, general resentment, vindictiveness?
- onion2k 9y ago
  In this particular case it's specific resentment. I don't like it when people create websites that do nothing more than present content they've taken from other sites without permission in return for ad revenue.
  - lun4r 9y ago
    No revenue was made from this blog. Do you resent Pinterest and Tumblr then as well?
    - onion2k 9y ago
      No revenue was made from this blog. That may be true, but the site owner certainly tried to make money from it - https://web.archive.org/web/20171225065956/http://afflante.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20171225065956/http://afflante.c... - Note the Donate button and sidebar advert. This is from 6 weeks ago. Do you resent Pinterest and Tumblr then as well? Yes, although less so. Those sites at least have a valid use case as personal curation tools.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - WillReplyfFood 9y ago
        I dread the world that people like you aspire to. A thousand foxholes with legal snipers each out to get one another. All that, so one grumpy webdesigner can live from glueing together some 2nd tier stockfootage. I licensend all my content under the GPL and similar Licenses. I wish there was a way to seperate that hell of a internet you want to live in from the web i work to archieve every day. I work hard on my hobby, but i do not feel entitled too money for it.
        dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
        > I work hard on my hobby, but i do not feel entitled too money for it. It's not that simple. What is just a hobby for you might be a source of income for someone else. You can't turn tables around and say they can't make money only because you don't expect a payment for your hobby.
overcast 9y ago
Agreed, I wish those Instagram aggregators would get closed down as well. I've had to deal with copyright claims a bunch of times already. IG is very good with swiftly resolving it. But those accounts do nothing but profit off of stealing others work. Just because you "give credit" doesn't mean shit. 99/100 times, no one is going to go visit your work, because someone copied your name in on the post. I put in tons of hours of work, money, networking, photographing, post production, marketing, etc. Only for someone to swoop in, repost my work with a tap of their finger, and profit off of it. Millions of eyeballs for doing nothing but theft.
1024core 9y ago
Without knowing the full details, how can you be so quick to cast judgment? There is a wide spectrum between actively stealing photos and mistakenly using photos because they seemed to be in the public domain. The key questions are: was the intent malicious? And how soon was it rectified? And I say this as someone whose photo was used by a highly read tech blog without attribution; and when I pointed this out, they quietly put a link to my original photo in there, but still did not attribute it to me.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  A simple rule: if there's no visible film grain, the photo is almost certainly copyrighted. If there is grain it might be copyrighted. Copyright in the US lasts for the life of the author + 70 years, or the shorter of 95 years after publication / 120 years after creation for works made for hire. Digital photography hasn't been around that long. Copyright is automatic. There's no need to register it. Willful infringement can increase the penalties, but is not required for there to be penalties. Your key questions are not particularly important from a legal standpoint.
- onion2k 9y ago
  ...they seemed to be in the public domain. There's no such thing as "seemed" to be in the public domain. Either they are or they aren't. If you don't know then you assume they're not. If you assume they are when they're not, or you assume the attribution attached is correct when it isn't, then the photographer is entirely within their rights to sue you for approximately $5100. This is why running a website properly is actually quite a lot of work. And I say this as someone who's been running websites for 20 years, and I've seen lots of my content reused without permission. It's really annoying. I used to be on the side of "if it's online then it's fair to reuse it", but as more and more sites have appeared that do nothing more than repost content from /r/<some subreddit> I've changed my mind.

Veen 9y ago

I'm not sure I'd have made this particular blogger the target for my ire if it was my work, but in principle I agree with the penalty. Copyright sustains the people who create the art that this blogger was curating. Without copyright, there would be nothing for him / her to curate in the first place because there would be no such thing as professional photographers, designers, or writers.

singularity2001 9y ago
I'd agree if the blogger made any money from it. Like this it is nuts!
- Veen 9y ago
  People don't usually make money from the art or the books they buy. If "making money" was the only condition on which the requirement to pay or give credit was predicated, there would be no photography industry. The creator has the right to license their work in any way they see fit. That work doesn't automatically become community property just because it's been published online.