3 ms·

AFP 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 m

by jws 13y ago

AFP 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 ago
A 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 ago
You 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.
chrismcb 13y ago
I'm guessing the other twitter account retweeted the photo, apparently within bounds of twitter's license. AFP then took that photo claiming "the pictures were posted for public distribution." Although they should have known that wasn't the case. Even if the other user did something wrong, AFP also did something wrong, and the did it knowingly (or they should have known, as it is their job)

by jws 13y ago

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 ago

A 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 ago

You 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.

chrismcb 13y ago

I'm guessing the other twitter account retweeted the photo, apparently within bounds of twitter's license. AFP then took that photo claiming "the pictures were posted for public distribution." Although they should have known that wasn't the case. Even if the other user did something wrong, AFP also did something wrong, and the did it knowingly (or they should have known, as it is their job)