4 ms·
As others have said, the publishers opt in to it... but I wondert whether litigious photographers could argue that their contracts never indicated their photos
by joegahona 8y ago
As others have said, the publishers opt in to it... but I wondert whether litigious photographers could argue that their contracts never indicated their photos could exist anywhere but on the specific domain in the contract.
- taytus 8y agoIn any case, that wouldn’t be google’s fault.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoDepends. If Google seek permission from the page owner and the owner warrants the fact that photos are licensed for AMP use, then it's all good. If Google don't bother, just assuming they have the rights, then they're infringers. In copyright law the distributor is usually down for the largest punishment, that would be Google. "I didn't bother to check if it was an infringement for me to distribute the work" doesn't seem like it would negate a claim of tortuous infringement?
- Retric 8y agoThey did check. Now, that’s not nessisarily enough but it is a defense.
- d2wa 8y ago> [...] contracts never indicated their photos could exist anywhere but on the specific domain in the contract I doubt many contracts are written for specific domain names. I expect most contracts allow for a publisher to use it in their publications without specifying exactly whether that publication is a website, magazine, publisher branded app, or an Apple News article.
- joegahona 8y agoYou would think so, but with publications on the ropes, it gets sliced and diced more than you might think. Photo rights are cheaper to obtain by the publication if they limit the platforms (and the time frame of rights, and a bunch of other factors), and savvy photographers will call out pubs on that.