8 ms·
Photographer wins $1.2M from companies that took pics off Twitter
- michaelhoffman 13y agoThe hypocrisy of major copyright holders never ceases to amaze me. Getty would go after a business that redistributed Getty's photos for profit in a heartbeat.
- joeblau 13y agoI found the same irony in this story. Getty and AFP would prosecute anyone trying to resell work. I'm not to familiar with Twitters privacy policy so I'm not sure who actually owns the pictures that are posted there, but I'm guessing from the ruling that it's the users.
- _delirium 13y agoIt's in section 5 of the ToS here: https://twitter.com/tos https://twitter.com/tos The short of it is that you retain copyright over your photos, but grant Twitter a worldwide, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce them. You also authorize Twitter to extend that right to third parties via syndication agreements or APIs. This seems mostly intended to ensure that Twitter can set up APIs and feeds usable by third parties, although the permission as written would allow Twitter to engage in broader syndication agreements if they wanted. But in any case, third parties can't just grab content and reuse it on their own. You could probably make some kind of photo-feed website scrolling recently tweeted photos, maybe even sort them into galleries (as long as your website complies with the Twitter API's own ToS). But you can't just right-click/save-as and upload the JPG to embed in your news article, because that removes it from the context where you're covered by the license the photographer has granted to Twitter.
- Oculus 13y agoThis ruling seems like a good thing to me. Just because a photographer's work is easier to copy and use doesn't mean we should be able to use it without proper compensation. It'd be similar to someone taking code from a website's source file and using it (In this hypothetical scenario the code is usable and not minified).
- welder 13y agoAnd what is wrong with taking someone's code from a website and using it? I'm a programmer and I say NOTHING is wrong with that!
- coldtea 13y agoHow about I steal your web code and designs and undercut you to your potential customers? We're not talking about stealing some CSS idea on some site...
- foobarian 13y agoI get the point the OP is trying to make, it just may not be the best example. The web site code/design is not very valuable on its own without support/hosting/design iteration/backend design etc. It would be easy to steal web code and designs, but it's the "undercut to my potential customers" that's the hard part and already happens in this very competitive market.
- welder 13y agoCode re-use & improvement is good for all humans.
- alextingle 13y agoThis is fantastic news. I always thought that the best way to undermine the stupid copyright regime was to make sure it was applied fully to big businesses. If only all of the other thousands of small rights holders whose works have been used without permission could also get million dollar payoffs, I think we'd see reform post haste.
- RexRollman 13y agoI am glad to see this result. Getty and AFP seek to control their own material with an iron-clad hand but don't respect the rights of others.
- roozbeh18 13y agoditto
- res0nat0r 13y agoGetty isn't a single hivemind, it is made up of many individuals.
- pyre 13y agoBut I'll bet that when it comes time to discuss IP rights, the company (as an entity) will have no hesitation speaking as if they have some sort of moral high-ground (e.g. people that 'steal' images are evil... except when we do it, then it's an accident and should be forgiven).
- res0nat0r 13y agoThat is the policy of the company to follow that rule as a whole yes, but individuals can act alone. Just like individual cops can steal drugs from their busts, but this isn't the policy of the police or Getty to act in this way, so it is disingenuous to call out a single individuals act as a policy of the company across the board.
- strict9 13y agoI applaud this only because of Getty and AFP's willingness to prosecute others for the same and their unwillingness to share photos for personal/noncommercial use. But this is a sad day. I've been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are. Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera? Why is a picture some sacrosanct object but what someone says worthless? You're pressing a button on a camera and then pressing some buttons on a computer later. The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other "creatives" only shoot themselves in the foot by slathering watermarks, issuing crazy copyright notices, and using DRM on their photos/creative works. If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared. Encouraging the sharing of photos I've taken for clients has only increased my business. It's better for society.
- ericcumbee 13y agoI'm not a legal expert. But to me it seems like If you say something in public, it being transcribed into a report is a statement of fact and belongs in what I guess would be called the commons. A photo on the other hand is something quasi tangible that a person put time, effort and resources into to create. Also if you spoke to a reporter I suppose that would be an implied consent to have your words used.
- ollysb 13y agoYeah, pressing the button is the easy bit, it's getting there that costs the time/money/foresight.
- MichaelApproved 13y agoThe same could be said about a quote. Verbalizing the words is the easy bit, it's getting the education and life experience to come up with the words that costs the time/money/foresight. I'm not taking sides with this comment, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
- Zigurd 13y agoPhotography is in a strange place. For one thing, it's remarkable that that concepts that negatives are rarely sold, and that the print constitutes the artwork, have carried over to digital photography. Both the bits as they emerge from the camera, and the results of a photographer's digital darkroom work take the place of the developed film, and prints, which are often the output of an ink jet printer, have roughly the same value in the fine art market as as exposed emulsion on paper, and to some extent exist side by side. The artificiality of shoehorning digital photography into the same rights framework as evolved for chemical photography creates these stresses. At least there ought to be different categories of images and rights.
- JacobJans 13y agoI run a small publishing business that does a lot of Facebook Marketing. Our primary means of promoting our business is to use original content posted regularly to our Facebook pages. These are usually images that we create ourselves. Our competitors, however, use an endless stream of pictures, cartoons, photos, etc that were created by other people. They use other people's creative work to promote their business, for commercial gain. Their page is filled every day with content from other people, copied and posted directly on Facebook. Occasionally credit is given, occasionally it is not given. Recently, they used one of our images on their page. They gave no credit, no links to our site, no compensation, or anything. They did, however, link the image to their Pinterest page, which in turn linked to their Tumblr. All giving the impression that they created the image, owned it, and had the right to use it. A successful Facebook meme has significant monetary value. The 'response' of a good meme is predictable, and can easily reach hundreds of thousands of people. When they posted this image, it did very well. It got thousands of likes and shares. Of course, this happens every day, and not just to us. People steal images all the time. It seems to be "the Internet way." It is easy to turn a blind eye to this. And usually, we don't mind. But when a direct competitor steals an image and uses it for their own gain, it really pisses me off. It also harms my business. Each time a Facebook image is posted, it loses some of its value. Once someone has "liked" it, they've already liked it, and are less likely to respond in the future. But, that's just one small piece of the issue. The fact is this competitor has built their business on stealing other people's content, in order to build an audience for their Facebook page. They've become rather successful. We are more successful, but are fighting an uneven battle because of our unwillingness to steal. My only question, now that they've stolen one of our images, is what to do next. My goal is to 'level the playing field', so that I don't have to compete against thieves. Perhaps a scary letter from a lawyer is in order? They're in South Africa, and I'm in the United States. I have a feeling, though, that this simply isn't a fight that I can win. Respect for copyright is almost non-existent these days. Look at the rest of the posts on this discussion. Sigh.
- DanBC 13y agoDMCA request to Facebook.
- underwater 13y ago
- jws 13y agoAFP discovered the photos on a Twitter account other than the photographer's with their copyrights already stripped. It would have been interesting to see how much of the blame should lie with that Twitter user. This was irrelevant however since the judge found that Twitter's TOS only allows retweeting and personal use, so commercially using the image was a violation of the TOS. I'm not sure how a Twitter TOS violation turns into DMCA damages. I suppose the judge didn't want to get into policing all the LOL cats on the internet. In one sense this has parallels to the clip art wars. Lots of vendors sold misappropriated clip art in their collections. Buying it in good faith is not protection for the end user.
- csomar 13y ago>> AFP discovered the photos on a Twitter account other than the photographer's with their copyrights already stripped. It's not compulsory to state the copyright word. Also someone else using the photos is not a reason either. The company has to check the source of the images and ask for permission.
- 001sky 13y agoA comercial enitity cannot steal a copyright workd from a 3rd party, generally (#1) and certainly not an intermediary who used the work in a "personal use" (#2) capacity. A company the size of Getty Images in particular is well versed in sending out such legal notices, surely.
- revelation 13y agoYou can't "strip" copyrights, and I don't even think Twitters TOS has any bearing here at all. For a company like AFP to allow its editors to use pictures without information as to their origin and legal status is just a big no-no and business risk (as is evident by the ruling here).
- _delirium 13y ago> I'm not sure how a Twitter TOS violation turns into DMCA damages. It didn't directly. The photographer retains copyright of photos, and sued the companies for regular copyright violation. One of the companies' defenses was to claim that they actually had a license, and therefore it was not a copyright violation. Users who tweet photos do grant certain royalty-free reproduction rights to both Twitter, and third-party syndicators authorized by Twitter. See section 5 here: https://twitter.com/tos https://twitter.com/tos. Therefore, if AFP were using the photos in accordance with terms authorized by Twitter, they would be covered by this license, and they wouldn't be violating the photographer's copyright. The judge ruled that their reuse was not within the scope of these terms, however, and therefore not covered by that grant of a royalty-free license. Therefore the defense fails, and they're assessed damages, not for the Twitter ToS violation, but for reproducing photos without a valid license from the photographer.
- mrcactu5 13y agoI don't understand. Isn't anything we tweet public domain?
- Steuard 13y agoYou're kidding, right? (Just in case you aren't: no, it's emphatically not.)
- rza 13y agoI thought that was a fair question which crossed my mind as well. Do your tweets belong to Twitter (e.g. can they delete/modify your content once it's on their servers)? If you post a work on a public site, without explicit copyright, are you granted an implicit copyright? If I post a jsfiddle, are people allowed to use that in their code? I don't think the questions are that obvious, at least for me with zero background in copyright law.
- dublinben 13y agoMany tweets would not rise to the level of creativity required to earn copyright protection.
- summerdown2 13y agoHow do you suggest we measure creativity to know this?
- Steuard 13y agoI'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert on copyright law, and in particular, I know that I can't comment on things like whether there's a minimum level of creative effort necessary to merit copyright. That said, my understanding is that when you write something that's eligible for copyright protection, it is automatic: you don't need to say "Copyright" explicitly at all. It doesn't matter how you use the work in question (although the protections for "unpublished" work are stronger than for "published" work). Now, it sounds like one element of this trial involved the license implicitly granted to Twitter by posting there. But the very fact that licensing was an issue demonstrates that copyright was in force here. (And the trial evidently concluded that Twitter's license is not tantamount to placing content into the public domain.)
- husein10 13y agoOn one hand I want to cheer since this is an example of David winning a small scuffle against Goliath. But on the other hand, the legal tools being employed by David in this case are the same tools that Goliath uses to limit speech on the web today. Let's not forget that the copyright system is an anachronism that needs to be dismantled/rebuilt to suit the modern world. Just because the result in this case leaves you satisfied doesn't mean that the system in its current form is unacceptable.
- chrismcb 13y agoWhat is wrong with the system, and how should it be fixed? The main problem I see (other than the numbers of people breaking it) are copyright lengths.
- sixQuarks 13y agoSo does this mean that Buzzfeed.com is going to be sued for $1 trillion?
- cddotdotslash 13y agoSo, serious question, does this mean that users of Twitter/Facebook can sue CNN, Fox, and other news sites that lift pictures from their pages without permission?
- ctingom 13y agoHow does this effect the ability users have to embed Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook posts? If someone embeds a Tweet that contains a photograph is that considered fine under Twitters policy?
- tommorris 13y agoThe astounding thing about this case is how little due diligence Getty and AFP did. In my capacity as a Wikipedia admin, I've handled copyright-related issues with images and text. We put an enormous amount of volunteer labour into tracking copyright violations and removing them: if a photographer complains that someone has uploaded a copyright violation, our volunteers will go and forensically examine EXIF data, look at upload metadata on sites like Flickr, check for digital watermarks, check on Google Images and other search tools to try and trace the upload history of the image. And even after all that work, it still feels like it's not quite good enough. On image licensing, I've emailed government lawyers to verify that our interpretation of their national copyright policies is correct. Meanwhile, I've worked with people in the commercial sector whose modus operandi for producing social media campaigns is "open up Google Images/Flickr/YouTube and pinch all the things!" If I can trace the copyright claims on an image by using tools like Google Image Search, so can AFP and Getty. Not just for copyright purposes, but due diligence to make sure the metadata checks out with the photojournalistic claim made of the image. That they aren't doing so ought to give one pause before trusting agencies like AFP to report the news.