5 ms·

That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?

57 points by koevet 15y ago

gnoupi 15y ago
That story reminds me of a more personal anecdote. Some day in the past year, my girlfriend found a picture of herself (taken from her Flickr) used as the "anchor" for some article on a online magazine's portal. No mail to ask her about it. Nothing. When she asked to get it removed, they assured that they always take their photos from paid stocks, or free of rights, so that it's not their fault. They didn't give more details, but eventually removed the picture. The problem is that we live in an age when most people just use Google image to illustrate their stories, and assume that they can use just anything, because they found it there.
- timmaah 15y ago
  Why does Google Images get a free pass then?
  - Joakal 15y ago
    Google links to source. You can't even view the full size from Google cache (it's an ugly compressed thumbnail). If you see a publisher not give credit for article and/or media used then they are cheap. She should have sent them an invoice for using the picture. I heard it's the standard for photojournalists to do this, except charge 5x the rate (for publishers not initially asking).
  - kbutler 15y ago
    > Why does Google Images get a free pass then? Google Images gets a "free pass" because their use is a "fair use" as defined in US copyright law. """ Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work """ http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Google Images uses the copied images to guide users to the original (#1), uses a reduced-resolution thumbnail (#3), and in general may have a neutral or even positive effect on the value of the work (#4). Of course, a simpler answer is that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said Google gets a free pass because Google's use was highly transformative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.com%2C_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.co... You can argue about what definition of "free" includes defending against a lawsuit carried through the US Court of Appeals...
retube 15y ago
Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Aren't you consciously and knowingly injecting it out into the ether? You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? <b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and interesting debate.
- darklajid 15y ago
  I mostly agree. It should be this way, in legal terms, as far as I'm concerned. But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others. Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
  - tghw 15y ago
    > There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady. Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due). You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation. > You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.
  - 15y ago
rheide 15y ago
There's a bit of an undertone in the article, stating that "if you don't let yourself get paid for photos you publish online then you must be doing something wrong". Or at least that's the feeling I get from it. It's just a photo. The photos that the article refers to are not works of art. They were not meticulously planned, they were not taken by experienced professionals using expensive professional equipment. They're just photos made by people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. They then decided out of their own volition to share their photo online, an act that takes less than 1 minute of their time. If commercial organizations start (ab)using the photos then I think it's good to point that out, as they are making money off of it. Otherwise I'd say: happy sharing. Personally, I don't take photos for money. Every photo I publish on my blog I consider to be in the public domain, and I'd be glad if people use it. If I enjoyed making it or if it didn't take me any effort to make it, then I'm happy to share it for free.
- NickPollard 15y ago
  If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned', the world would be a far less interesting place.
  - PakG1 15y ago
    Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just curious what you might have in mind. If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.
    - ciex 15y ago
      First thing to pop into my mind is xkcd. Certainly Munroe didn't need professional equipment of any kind when he started the site, still I'd argue that it is a work of art. By making a distinction between 'professionals' and 'amateurs' you stipulate that nobody can cross this border by chance, it would always require a directed effort; and that's nothing I'd call constructive.
metageek 15y ago
>"I think the problem is that photo-sharing services don’t allow you to easily provide copyright information,” said Sullivan, who operates SearchEngineLand.com. Flickr's done that for years. The problem is with the social networks where photo-sharing is an incidental function. >He thinks photo sharing services could offer users simple options like, "Would you be interested in selling images?" -- and could even act as agents for consumers. Flickr does that, too.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- martinpannier 15y ago
  Flickr doesn't exactly act as an agent for customers; they do however have a partnership with Getty to sell pictures, but as far as I know only a very small percentage of pictures are concerned.
  - delano 15y ago
    Flickr allows you to choose a license when you upload an image, including limiting commercial uses. How you charge is a separate issue.
phlobot 15y ago
many of these websites people use to freely host photos strips the uploader of copyright privileges in the first place.
- MichaelApproved 15y ago
  I don't believe that's true. Can you cite one service that does this?
  - martinpannier 15y ago
    The TwitPic debacle recently—TwitPic changed their TOS to state that TwitPic could sell their users' pictures without authorization from or revenue sharing with, said user. So, TwitPic?
    - adestefan 15y ago
      TwitPic doesn't strip your copyright. Their TOS states that you grant them the right to sell the image uploaded to them, but you still hold the original copyright. It was clearly described in the linked article.
      - martinpannier 15y ago
        I think the question was whether there were sites which stripped you of your copyright privileges, not of your copyright. I've argued elsewhere in the thread that these services cannot strip your copyright. However, if you give a license to a website to profit from your content, I think we can agree that the website stripped you from your copyright privileges (at least a big part of them).
ravivyas 15y ago
The irony is,if they had not shared it,it would not be famous, this article would not exist.
lostbit 15y ago
A system to reward the photo taker would be nice. In one minute, photo is taken and published. It sould take no more than another minute for news companies use the photo by paying a small standard fee to the person who made it available. It could be like a 'donate' button or a more serious fee just to provide some benefit to the person who was in the right place/time. Usually, they don't expect anything. Maybe a Flattr like system?
MichaelApproved 15y ago
He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. Copyrights are instantly granted to the creator. There is no requirement that you file with the fed, it's just a service offered. By uploading to the web, she created a public record that she was claiming to be the owner. The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here. So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?
- Joakal 15y ago
  Probably confused with trademark/patents in that lack of defence constitutes giving it away.
- tghw 15y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I do moonlight as a photographer, and my best understanding is that, yes, you have the copyright as soon as you create the photo, and it enforceable at that point, but it is more enforceable (in the form of attorney’s fees and statutory damages) if it is registered with the copyright office. If it is not registered, you can only get actual damages, which would be what they would normally pay for the photo. See http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_copyr.html http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_c... for more.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  > He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier. "Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office." The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside." Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously). "So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?" Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.
aquarin 15y ago
Nobody talks about the copyright owned by the creators of shuttle. In some countries you have to pay to use photographs of buildings (taken by you). Why should a photograph of shuttle be different?
- kbutler 15y ago
  US copyright law has a couple of impacts: 1) not recognizing a copyright on scenery 2) works created by the government are public domain
sbierwagen 15y ago
What a surprise, an old media outlet is in favor of old-style copyright.
- adestefan 15y ago
  What is "old-style copyright" and how does it compare to new-style copyright?
- leviathant 15y ago
  I think the 'surprise' here, if there is any, is that so-called old media claims to be in favor of so-called old-style copyrights, except for when they want to copy something, and then all bets are off.
joblessjunkie 15y ago
On the same morning, HN promotes the tale of John Perry Barlow lambasting the G8 over copyright protection, but then also promotes the tale of a randomly tweeted photo getting used without permission on numerous news outlets. Is the HN community split down the middle on copyright issues, or simply not clear in its thinking? Is the morality of copyright purely decided by which side of the coin a big corporation is sitting? Or is one of these news posts meant to be interpreted ironically?
- adestefan 15y ago
  I promote the idea of a limited copyright. A creator should have the opportunity to do what they want with their work for a limited time. However, the current notion that copyright extends to what is almost an indefinite time (manly since it keeps being extended every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is close to expiring ) is ludicrous.
- te_platt 15y ago
  Speaking for myself, these stories show how the copyright system is broken. Especially with the ease of copying digital content. The interest for me is thinking of changes that could improve the system. At this point I don't support a complete repeal of copyrights but I lean that direction.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Don't forget you have the DMCA being used to pull Eve Online code from Github. But no. John Barlow wasn't didn't seem to be suggesting flagrantly violating copyrights (at least, nothing I read suggested that). And this story is about people violating copyright. The difference is one has to do with copyright protection, the other with violating copyright. Basically, don't violate copyright, but we don't want more copyright protection. Additional protection would come at a price. The morality of copyright isn't at issue here on HN. Do not confuse the arguments as being one in the same. They aren't. Companies have the same rights as little people when it comes to copyrights. What we don't want happening is companies getting more rights, and being able to trounce all over due process.
- dmlorenzetti 15y ago
rglover 15y ago
I think the author of the photo took a great stance on the situation. There was no value placed on the image until it became popular and like she said, there was no intent to make money from the image. The various news outlets that were mentioned, though, definitely should have tracked her down and at least requested usage rights. Until the internet as a whole develops its own form of copyright law, people will continue to abuse things like this.
chadgeidel 15y ago
Is there a "watermark" application that you can place the copyright on a picture taken from your phone? Sure, it could be edited out, but I assume that would provide a little better protection.

57 points by koevet 15y ago

That story reminds me of a more personal anecdote. Some day in the past year, my girlfriend found a picture of herself (taken from her Flickr) used as the "anchor" for some article on a online magazine's portal. No mail to ask her about it. Nothing. When she asked to get it removed, they assured that they always take their photos from paid stocks, or free of rights, so that it's not their fault. They didn't give more details, but eventually removed the picture. The problem is that we live in an age when most people just use Google image to illustrate their stories, and assume that they can use just anything, because they found it there.

timmaah 15y ago
Why does Google Images get a free pass then?
- Joakal 15y ago
  Google links to source. You can't even view the full size from Google cache (it's an ugly compressed thumbnail). If you see a publisher not give credit for article and/or media used then they are cheap. She should have sent them an invoice for using the picture. I heard it's the standard for photojournalists to do this, except charge 5x the rate (for publishers not initially asking).
- kbutler 15y ago
  > Why does Google Images get a free pass then? Google Images gets a "free pass" because their use is a "fair use" as defined in US copyright law. """ Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work """ http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Google Images uses the copied images to guide users to the original (#1), uses a reduced-resolution thumbnail (#3), and in general may have a neutral or even positive effect on the value of the work (#4). Of course, a simpler answer is that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said Google gets a free pass because Google's use was highly transformative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.com%2C_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.co... You can argue about what definition of "free" includes defending against a lawsuit carried through the US Court of Appeals...

retube 15y ago

Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Aren't you consciously and knowingly injecting it out into the ether? You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? <b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and interesting debate.

darklajid 15y ago
I mostly agree. It should be this way, in legal terms, as far as I'm concerned. But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others. Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
- tghw 15y ago
  > There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady. Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.
masklinn 15y ago
> Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due). You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation. > You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.
- 15y ago

rheide 15y ago

There's a bit of an undertone in the article, stating that "if you don't let yourself get paid for photos you publish online then you must be doing something wrong". Or at least that's the feeling I get from it. It's just a photo. The photos that the article refers to are not works of art. They were not meticulously planned, they were not taken by experienced professionals using expensive professional equipment. They're just photos made by people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. They then decided out of their own volition to share their photo online, an act that takes less than 1 minute of their time. If commercial organizations start (ab)using the photos then I think it's good to point that out, as they are making money off of it. Otherwise I'd say: happy sharing. Personally, I don't take photos for money. Every photo I publish on my blog I consider to be in the public domain, and I'd be glad if people use it. If I enjoyed making it or if it didn't take me any effort to make it, then I'm happy to share it for free.

NickPollard 15y ago
If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned', the world would be a far less interesting place.
- PakG1 15y ago
  Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just curious what you might have in mind. If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.
  - ciex 15y ago
    First thing to pop into my mind is xkcd. Certainly Munroe didn't need professional equipment of any kind when he started the site, still I'd argue that it is a work of art. By making a distinction between 'professionals' and 'amateurs' you stipulate that nobody can cross this border by chance, it would always require a directed effort; and that's nothing I'd call constructive.

metageek 15y ago

>"I think the problem is that photo-sharing services don’t allow you to easily provide copyright information,” said Sullivan, who operates SearchEngineLand.com. Flickr's done that for years. The problem is with the social networks where photo-sharing is an incidental function. >He thinks photo sharing services could offer users simple options like, "Would you be interested in selling images?" -- and could even act as agents for consumers. Flickr does that, too.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
martinpannier 15y ago
Flickr doesn't exactly act as an agent for customers; they do however have a partnership with Getty to sell pictures, but as far as I know only a very small percentage of pictures are concerned.
- delano 15y ago
  Flickr allows you to choose a license when you upload an image, including limiting commercial uses. How you charge is a separate issue.

phlobot 15y ago

many of these websites people use to freely host photos strips the uploader of copyright privileges in the first place.

MichaelApproved 15y ago
I don't believe that's true. Can you cite one service that does this?
- martinpannier 15y ago
  The TwitPic debacle recently—TwitPic changed their TOS to state that TwitPic could sell their users' pictures without authorization from or revenue sharing with, said user. So, TwitPic?
  - adestefan 15y ago
    TwitPic doesn't strip your copyright. Their TOS states that you grant them the right to sell the image uploaded to them, but you still hold the original copyright. It was clearly described in the linked article.
    - martinpannier 15y ago
      I think the question was whether there were sites which stripped you of your copyright privileges, not of your copyright. I've argued elsewhere in the thread that these services cannot strip your copyright. However, if you give a license to a website to profit from your content, I think we can agree that the website stripped you from your copyright privileges (at least a big part of them).

ravivyas 15y ago

The irony is,if they had not shared it,it would not be famous, this article would not exist.

lostbit 15y ago

A system to reward the photo taker would be nice. In one minute, photo is taken and published. It sould take no more than another minute for news companies use the photo by paying a small standard fee to the person who made it available. It could be like a 'donate' button or a more serious fee just to provide some benefit to the person who was in the right place/time. Usually, they don't expect anything. Maybe a Flattr like system?

MichaelApproved 15y ago

He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. Copyrights are instantly granted to the creator. There is no requirement that you file with the fed, it's just a service offered. By uploading to the web, she created a public record that she was claiming to be the owner. The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here. So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?

Joakal 15y ago
Probably confused with trademark/patents in that lack of defence constitutes giving it away.
tghw 15y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I do moonlight as a photographer, and my best understanding is that, yes, you have the copyright as soon as you create the photo, and it enforceable at that point, but it is more enforceable (in the form of attorney’s fees and statutory damages) if it is registered with the copyright office. If it is not registered, you can only get actual damages, which would be what they would normally pay for the photo. See http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_copyr.html http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_c... for more.
jasonlotito 15y ago
> He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier. "Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office." The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside." Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously). "So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?" Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.

aquarin 15y ago

Nobody talks about the copyright owned by the creators of shuttle. In some countries you have to pay to use photographs of buildings (taken by you). Why should a photograph of shuttle be different?

kbutler 15y ago
US copyright law has a couple of impacts: 1) not recognizing a copyright on scenery 2) works created by the government are public domain

sbierwagen 15y ago

What a surprise, an old media outlet is in favor of old-style copyright.

adestefan 15y ago
What is "old-style copyright" and how does it compare to new-style copyright?
leviathant 15y ago
I think the 'surprise' here, if there is any, is that so-called old media claims to be in favor of so-called old-style copyrights, except for when they want to copy something, and then all bets are off.

joblessjunkie 15y ago

On the same morning, HN promotes the tale of John Perry Barlow lambasting the G8 over copyright protection, but then also promotes the tale of a randomly tweeted photo getting used without permission on numerous news outlets. Is the HN community split down the middle on copyright issues, or simply not clear in its thinking? Is the morality of copyright purely decided by which side of the coin a big corporation is sitting? Or is one of these news posts meant to be interpreted ironically?

adestefan 15y ago
I promote the idea of a limited copyright. A creator should have the opportunity to do what they want with their work for a limited time. However, the current notion that copyright extends to what is almost an indefinite time (manly since it keeps being extended every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is close to expiring ) is ludicrous.
te_platt 15y ago
Speaking for myself, these stories show how the copyright system is broken. Especially with the ease of copying digital content. The interest for me is thinking of changes that could improve the system. At this point I don't support a complete repeal of copyrights but I lean that direction.
jasonlotito 15y ago
Don't forget you have the DMCA being used to pull Eve Online code from Github. But no. John Barlow wasn't didn't seem to be suggesting flagrantly violating copyrights (at least, nothing I read suggested that). And this story is about people violating copyright. The difference is one has to do with copyright protection, the other with violating copyright. Basically, don't violate copyright, but we don't want more copyright protection. Additional protection would come at a price. The morality of copyright isn't at issue here on HN. Do not confuse the arguments as being one in the same. They aren't. Companies have the same rights as little people when it comes to copyrights. What we don't want happening is companies getting more rights, and being able to trounce all over due process.
dmlorenzetti 15y ago

rglover 15y ago

I think the author of the photo took a great stance on the situation. There was no value placed on the image until it became popular and like she said, there was no intent to make money from the image. The various news outlets that were mentioned, though, definitely should have tracked her down and at least requested usage rights. Until the internet as a whole develops its own form of copyright law, people will continue to abuse things like this.

chadgeidel 15y ago

Is there a "watermark" application that you can place the copyright on a picture taken from your phone? Sure, it could be edited out, but I assume that would provide a little better protection.