8 ms·
A couple of messages about changes to ianVisits
- mwenge 3y agoMy wife received one of these threatening notices. In her case she had simply retweeted someone's tweet that contained the offending image. This enforcement activity is definitely the wrong side of abusive.
- lambertsimnel 3y agoThat's shocking. I wonder whether Twitter users are really legally liable for copyright violation in tweets they retweet, or whether the enforcers just believe they can get away with it. I suppose it might differ from one jurisdiction to another. Are enforcers of this kind usually in the same jurisdiction as the supposed infringer?
- mwenge 3y agoThis particular operation seemed to be in Germany - we're in another European country. She got two notices and ignored both. Nothing has come of them so far. Whatever about tweeting an infringing image, retweeting it seems like a bit of a reach.
- lambertsimnel 3y agoI suspect a lot of images on Twitter are unintentionally infringing, and that Twitter users typically remain ignorant, because not many are targeted for enforcement. If copyright enforcement against tweeted images takes off, maybe that will change. However, doesn't Twitter itself add images in some cases (especially where a user tweet a link, but probably also retweets of an image)? If Twitter still does that, does it suggest Twitter itself isn't being targeted for enforcement? If so, is that only because enforcers prefer smaller prey? Anyway, best of luck to you and your wife!
- 6510 3y agoCan fictional persons (usernames) own anything or be held responsible for anything? (licence content)
- lambertsimnel 3y agoI don't see why not, but presumably it's the person (or people) controlling the username that would be held to account, if they can be identified
- 6510 3y agoWouldn't that be the platform?
- lambertsimnel 3y agoCan't websites that host user-generated content take steps (under the DMCA?) to ensure that users alone (and not the site) are liable for any copyright-infringing user-generated content? If the users are sufficiently anonymised, or share accounts, prosecution might be difficult, but I'm not sure that makes them any less liable. I don't imagine that accounts themselves could be prosecuted, but I'm not a lawyer.
- liminalsunset 3y agoThis is one space where I think generative AI would be helpful - generate pictures that look mostly right and fill a thumbnail or something on a webpage that doesn't necessarily provide indispensable information but nevertheless fills a void, and costs little. You could probably describe what was in the original photograph and/or draw a representation of it crappily in Paint and use generative AI to fill in the blanks, such that it wouldn't be considered a derivative work but rather just a representation of facts.
- userbinator 3y agoCurrently most AI-generated images still have a "not quite right" look to them, that perhaps not everyone will notice, but those who do will be turned away by it, so I don't think that's a good idea.
- lambertsimnel 3y agoI expect that will change over time. Until then, it would be nice to have some Fair Dealing exceptions for image copyright. Something like allowing non-profit use of a thumbnail to link to a licensed use of the corresponding image could help.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- joegibbs 3y agoI think the thing that makes AI images (from Midjourney especially) look a bit off is that they're too shiny and professional. All the people have suspiciously flawless skin, like they've been edited in Photoshop, there's no grain, and the colours are too vivid and dramatic. It looks great but it just doesn't seem real. I gave it a try just then and the results tended towards cool-looking sunsets, reflective puddles, big dramatic stormy clouds and trees in bloom. I think this is a result of selecting images for how aesthetic they are, and you could probably train a model on more average-looking pictures to get more realistic results.
- ies7 3y ago
- chilmers 3y agoPhotographers using these kinds of copyright enforcement services are only hurting themselves in the long run. Most aren’t going to risk multiple thousands of pounds worth of fines for a few content images. They’ll switch to AI-generated content, or won’t use images at all, and licensing revenue will eventually decline. If these enforcement services were legitimate entities instead of parasitic trolls, they would start by providing the infringer with options to either remove the image or purchase a royalty free license at a reasonable price, and only impose punitive fees if they continued to infringe.
- blitzar 3y agoThe daily mail et al will continue to pay them - £150 for the first photo £50 for each additional [1] of "celebrity walking into a party" or "royal shakes hand". Are people with blogs really paying Getty Images £150-£450 to have one of their images on their blog post? I suspect nobody else was paying the photographers for the images before this and nobody will after, it changes nothing. 1. http://www.londonfreelance.org/rates/index.php?work=Photography§=news&arch=N http://www.londonfreelance.org/rates/index.php?work=Photogra...
- gnopgnip 3y agoA blogger might pay $5-$10 per image to license through Shutterstock(owned by Getty) or another microstock site.
- denton-scratch 3y agoCan you explain the phrase "purchase a royalty free license" please? Honest question: I don't know the difference between a licence-fee and a royalty.
- toyg 3y agoRoyalties are typically calculated by quantity: you do N transactions, you pay N x Y to the rightsowner. For photos it could be the number of magazines you print, or a percentage of sale on each magazine, or the number of impressions on a website, etc. "Royalty free licenses" are typically one-offs. You pay a fixed amount and then are free to reproduce the work as many times as you want. Some of these contracts might be limited, i.e. you can only do it in one magazine issue etc.
- gameofcode 3y agoIgnore the trolls and remove the alleged infringing image. Paying them £400 every time is just an invitation for more trolling.
- tsak 3y agoThe problem is that the infringement has already happened and that the fee that is being asked is for not bringing this to small claims court (which would be fee plus court fees).
- justinclift 3y ago> which would be fee plus court fees But only if the copyright troll wins yeah?
- michaelterryio 3y agoAnd only if they file, which is a big risk to the debt collector since a lot of folks would fail to pay up regardless of judgment.
- cpach 3y agoFrom TFA: What he did is that he removed the ability for event organizers to provide images to him. The risks involved was simply too big, since many event organizers failed to clear permissions before submitting images to him.
- avereveard 3y agoI wonder if we'll see a startup selling an api for "finding the nearest open equivalent of a closed licensed photo" for these use cases. with 400$ per image liability, there seems to be some margin for indexing open collections and running search queries on top.
- blitzar 3y agoThis is reminiscent of the youtube / twitch music copyright wars - 5 seconds of music gifts the revenue for an 8 hour stream to the copyright holder (or someone claiming to be the copyright holder). Some observers saw opportunity in these; and there are now more than enough providers of Royalty / DMCA Free Music.
- chrismorgan 3y ago> or someone claiming to be the copyright holder This was the problem I ran across in 2020, which I detailed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004892. Public domain hymns were being claimed, and they simply ignored my disputes so that they lapsed in my favour after 30 days, but next time we used the same hymn it still got automatically claimed and I had to dispute it again. They should have lost the ability to claim at least those hymns, and preferably just been booted from the platform for dishonesty (copy fraud).
- avereveard 3y agoI mean is it copyright trolling if the organizers are actually infringing on copyrighted photos? I wonder what people living off selling photos think about that.
- advisedwang 3y agoIt is "trolling" in the sense of the original metaphor of troll fishing - make small demands from a huge number of small cases and get a decent total payment. It may also be trolling in that it's not the photographer making the claim, but some company that buys rights specifically to do this kind of bulk demand. Finally there is a sense that it is a very minor infringement - one where there would never have been a chance of a photographer making money off it in the first place. I don't think this is really a good justification, but might make the site a bit more miffed about the demands.
- wackget 3y agoYou're thinking of "trawling", not trolling.
- compiler-guy 3y ago"Trawling" and "Trolling" are both fishing terms, and trolling fits here just fine. ===== https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/trolling https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/troll... trolling noun [U] (FISHING) the act of trying to catch fish by pulling a baited line through the water behind a boat:
- ryandrake 3y agoFor the cases of copyright trolling and patent trolling, the metaphor comes from the “Three Billy Goats Gruff” story: a troll just sits there under “his” bridge until someone walks over the bridge, then he jumps out and threatens them. That’s more akin to what goes on with copyright trolling.
- michaelterryio 3y agoIt’s trolling because the photos are easy to substitute or not use at all. No one is going to knowingly post a blog photo costing them 400 quid. It’s a gotcha.
- tothrowaway 3y agoIf you are the target of automated copyright trolling, inspect your server logs whenever you get a notice. Some troll bots will (surprisingly) use an honest HTTP user agent so you can easily block it.
- mattl 3y agoHow do you block a legit user agent without blocking a ton of visitors?
- Kwpolska 3y agoThe OP meant the trolls use a user-agent that clearly indicates they’re a copyright trolling bot.
- michaelterryio 3y agoA good samaritan among the staff of their IT consultants and the owners will never know.
- infinityio 3y agoI'm assuming by honest they mean it explicitly states "Image Enforcement Bot" or similar - so it can be filtered out with very minimal risk to real users
- TheRealPomax 3y agoOf course, one can easily argue that knowingly blocking user agents that are entirely legal themselves, in order to prevent being caught violating copyright, is an entirely new crime. (Remember that this site is considered a publishing business, they don't have the same luxuries when it comes to blocking visitors that individual have)
- isaacfrond 3y agoI really object to using the term ‘trolls’. There are real people on the other end trying to earn an honest living from their chosen profession. Just because it’s ’only’ a blog, or my website is soo useful, doesn’t make it right to infringe on other people’s rights. It’s a good thing that techonology enables photographers to enforce their rights more efficiently. A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y agoTfa suggested he was provided the images by a third party - how do I know the image I paid for on a stock image site is authentic and what’s to stop copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not? Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked.
- fortran77 3y ago> copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not? > Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked. Actually, it's "copyright" As in the "right" to "copy" something.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y agoI’m not going to validate the profession by caring how it’s spelt, nor do I care for nit picky responses like yours.
- lionkor 3y agoYeah, this isn't trolling, it's enforcing
- michaelterryio 3y agoEven enforcing has a dumb ring to it.
- 3y ago
- thih9 3y agoDoes anyone have an example of a copyright troll like this? I.e. a company that offers this kind of copyright enforcement services? I'm trying to understand how this works. E.g. what is their business model, is this something that would be used by individual photographers, by agencies or by corporations, etc
- mwenge 3y agohttps://www.copytrack.com/ https://www.copytrack.com/
- deepfriedbits 3y agohttps://www.pixsy.com/ https://www.pixsy.com/
- sberry 3y agoPixsy is the worst. Cory Doctorow explains it in detail. https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-licenses-has-enabled-a-new-breed-of-superpredator-5f6360713299 https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-...
- ben30 3y agoAs a software engineer with a keen interest in photography, I've been using a method to allow others to benefit from my work, while also enjoying the spread of my photos in various public forums. I upload my pictures to Flickr and tag them with a Creative Commons license. This makes it easy for anyone to search and use these images without worrying about licensing fees; they just need to provide a link back to the original source. This practice has brought me a lot of joy over the years. My photos have appeared on Wikipedia, in concert promotions, and even in a special Ibiza edition of Monopoly. The Monopoly team didn't have to, but they sent me two copies of the game as a thank-you, which was a lovely touch. For those of you who are like-minded and have photos that could be of public interest, consider setting a Creative Commons license on platforms like Flickr. Doing so could ease the burden for small publishers like ianVisits, allowing them to use high-quality images without worrying about legal repercussions.
- morrbo 3y agoThat's really cool of you, nice one :-)
- 0xblinq 3y ago[flagged]
- 0xblinq 3y ago[flagged]
- iandanforth 3y agoCan you please name and shame the orgs doing the trolling?
- tehwebguy 3y agoIt’s wild to me that these photo copyright trolls are apparently able to make money off the often zero-dollar-value earned from the use of copyrighted photos but nobody can get money out of the thousand t-shirt & merch printing companies claiming the DCMA protects them when actually selling, manufacturing & delivering bootleg products.