5 ms·

I've always wondered what the copyright law was surrounding these sites. These sites get submissions from artists who are granting them a license to distribute

I've always wondered what the copyright law was surrounding these sites. These sites get submissions from artists who are granting them a license to distribute and offer these images royalty free. Great. But what if an artist uploads an image to which they don't actually own the copyright. I presume that these sites are protected under copyright laws because they're not liable for content distributed on their networks but what happens to the person who used the image? I understand that they wouldn't be protected and still be liable.

moron4hire 13y ago
Well, the site would have to react to any DMCA takedown notices immediately, but wouldn't be liable for any infringement (so-called "safe harbor" rule). But you ask a very good question with regards to the spread from there. I suppose, as long as you complied with an cease-and-desist orders, you'd be demonstrating a good-faith ... aaah, I'm just throwing words at a screen now. I'm not a lawyer. The law is often arbitrary and confusing from my perspective. Caveat emptor seems to always be on order.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >but wouldn't be liable for any infringement // You're apparently assuming the sites are all hosted in USA, not an entirely terrible assumption. [Though there is a similar Electronic Commerce Directive in Europe and probably other similar laws in other jurisdictions] As I understand it DMCA Safe Harbour is for sites where they transmit media without interaction, users upload but the site is there to simply serve the media. If the site were selling the media (direct financial benefit) or offering a commercial license for it then Safe Harbour doesn't seem valid? Applying a license would possibly be considered transformative? Similarly if the site is selecting the images to meet their requirements - using a [partially] manual method then it seems DMCA Safe Harbour wouldn't cover it. Similarly IANAL. --- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

moron4hire 13y ago

Well, the site would have to react to any DMCA takedown notices immediately, but wouldn't be liable for any infringement (so-called "safe harbor" rule). But you ask a very good question with regards to the spread from there. I suppose, as long as you complied with an cease-and-desist orders, you'd be demonstrating a good-faith ... aaah, I'm just throwing words at a screen now. I'm not a lawyer. The law is often arbitrary and confusing from my perspective. Caveat emptor seems to always be on order.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>but wouldn't be liable for any infringement // You're apparently assuming the sites are all hosted in USA, not an entirely terrible assumption. [Though there is a similar Electronic Commerce Directive in Europe and probably other similar laws in other jurisdictions] As I understand it DMCA Safe Harbour is for sites where they transmit media without interaction, users upload but the site is there to simply serve the media. If the site were selling the media (direct financial benefit) or offering a commercial license for it then Safe Harbour doesn't seem valid? Applying a license would possibly be considered transformative? Similarly if the site is selecting the images to meet their requirements - using a [partially] manual method then it seems DMCA Safe Harbour wouldn't cover it. Similarly IANAL. --- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512