Stealing photos is LEGAL? Fair Use Law in Action
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2018
- squarespace.com/tony, coupon code 'portfolio'.
We explain Fair Use which allows people to use pictures for free under some conditions. Specifically, it provides exemptions for commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news, research, and scholarship. While it's never black-and-white, courts make fair use judgment calls based on four criteria:
1) Purpose of use (such as commercial, nonprofit, or educational). Uses can be more than one of these, such as both commercial and educational. Being commercial doesn't prevent fair use, and being educational or nonprofit doesn't give you fair use under all conditions.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work. The more creative it is, the harder it is to claim it under fair use. For example, a strictly informational picture of a skyline would be easier to claim under fair use than a creative model photoshoot or light painting.
3) The amount of the copyrighted work that's used. If you only show a small portion of a video, for example, odds are you can claim Fair Use. If you show an entire movie, you probably can't claim Fair Use.
4) The effect on the market for the copyrighted work. If you publish a movie for free and that stops people from paying to see that movie, it's almost certainly not fair use. However, if using a copyrighted work doesn't reduce the value of the work commercially, then it's more likely to be fair use.
I'm pretty safe..... My photos are way too crappy to be stolen. I can't even give them away 😭😭😂😂😂😂
lmao..mine too 😊😂 but I still enjoy taking them.
You won't be laughing if a "modern art" creator uses them and makes millions. The crappier they are, the better for that use :-)
I've said it a dozen times, I'll say it a million - try not to upload high res copies on the internet. If you want to show high res, crop 5% of the image as "sample of high res", and put it next to the low (very low) res copy of the entire image.
Straight Out of Camera If one day, by some sort of miracle I manage to actually take a brilliant photo I will cherish it and allow no one in the world to ever see it 🤓 It will become my precious 😂🤣😂
Susanne I Keep taking them 📷 90% of the fun is taking them and pretending you know what your doing 😂🤣😂
*I hate when people steal someone's else's photos that's why I always crop out the watermark when I do it*
I always steal photoes, it is great XD
Dont even need an expensive camera
Thats why i put my mark in the actual focal point of the photo. Go ahead and crop it, you lose the whole fucking picture. 👍
@@Tbonyandsteak there are copyright free images i recommend that it makes things less stressful in my opinion
Hey! Somebody asked me a question about using pictures in there article, but the comments gone now. I decided to respond like this maybe they'll see it... From my understanding when it comes to articles and such things one must always ask for permission, however I haven't looked that far into it AND we can't forget people act like the second you use copyrighted content your done for... When it comes to videos you can use images, videos and all that as long as your adding to it and it is that simple, however with articles and websites I've seen people make the claim you can't use any, but they also say that about UA-cam videos which isn't true... And I do find it odd that you always have to ask for permission, especially when you look at these smaller websites that aren't IGN and so on. For now stay on the safe side and do research... Classic Boring answer I know.
LoL Good Words Of Advice Uncle Fester.
I think this photographer was a bit over zealous about his photo given that the website took it down when asked.
the website probably won because they took the photo down
This is my exact thought.
I agree. It was vindictive, and that probably affected the outcome.
I met a guy in advertising who told me they routinely steal photos. The penalty of getting caught ( having to pay photographer ) is built in to their bid price. If they don’t get caught, it’s just more money they make. So they play the odds. I was shocked
That's sad....The reality is that for a lot of photographers (especially the small independent ones), they simply decide that it's not worth the hassle of dealing with legal battles 😕
The person who Chelsea was referring to who had a gallery show using other people's photos from Instagram was Richard Prince. The person they were already talking about.
I love Chelsea's setup and delivery sooooo much at 25:11 - 25:23.
I think I have to sue Chelsea because she stole my heart.
Finally a picture this episode! Instant like before I watch! Also you guys are almost at that 1 million mark!
The most creative guy in the story was the judge!
Guys great video as always. wildly educational..as always. however i just wanted to call to your attention an issue wih the audio, it could be the cutoff filter but its super rough ..when you guys speak its fine but theres some background "noise" which would be fine ish but when you pause even for a second the audio completely mutes and then when you start again it just calls attention to it that much more. hope it helps for next videos. i just found it odd since your quality is always outstanding. keep up the good work ;)
Thank you! It was an excellent discussion of some really confusing, inconsistent situations. Some of my photos have been ''stolen'' or ''used'' without my consent but I cannot really do anything about it since I don't have the resources to pay a lawyer, so my attitude has to be to just let it go.
Interesting conversation. I've had many of my images stolen over the years. I have also had other photographers use them and claim them as their own!
Which means that your photos are awesome. Therefore, you should probably not publish high-res copies. To give you an idea, I scanned an artistic creation (fantasy are photo painting) from a 6x8 inch page of a book I bought, and metal-printed it to 28x36 to use on my wall. Most people would not go into such trouble, but if that copy had been high-res on the internet, it would have been even easier. The artist would have made a lot of money selling posters of the specific artwork (which I would have bought, for the better quality, instead of trying the whole thing myself).
I am watching this for that reason. Mine however is because I was with a major agency that sold the company to another major agency, which went out of business and sold to another who claim not to have my work. Saw one of mine last week with guess what, their water mark. Have found mine in mags, newspapers, and several tv (MTV, VH-1, etc) docs. I was in this stuff before and getting paid till they changed owners the first time. By the way mine are of rockstars and celebrities. And no I am not a paparazzi. Hell I'm poor those guys make money..lol
That's because most people assume that all you need to do to capture a great photo is to get the best camera phone you can and press the snap button.
What if you're using the photo of a model or celebrity in a for-profit documentary and interviewees are commenting about the designer who designed the clothes they are wearing?
What are those on Tony's shirt, pretend pocket buttons and a pretend pen holder opening?
Best lines :
“Sorry artist but I win”
“I wake up in the morning and I start from a place of satire”
Smiling “Just to give you a peak into the artist's mind “
“I don’t explain my work I just put it out there “
Chelsea you (and Tony) always make me smile. I love your videos.
Your best work on your portfolio and not on Instagram you say!? Have you read your own captions, it elevates the work!
I am so glad you addressed this case. This story was in one of my Facebook groups and I was livid!
Great discussion! I love the fact that the only purchased use in Chelsea's eagle-osprey-pizza image was of the pizza! I am an attorney (nearing retirement and hoping to spend much more time on photography--all copyrighted, of course) and can only tell you what I say to all of my clients who are deciding whether to settle their cases: Once you go to a jury trial, there is no telling what the outcome will be. Yes, court trials are different, at least in the sense that the courts sometimes state the basis for their rulings in enough detail that the cases can be distinguished, or easily reversed, but there is still an aspect of rolling the dice. In my opinion (not copyrighted), individual courts often get it wrong, both in their understanding of the facts and in their application of the law to the facts. Also, I wouldn't feel entirely safe relying on precedent--for example, publishing photos of people in their apartments (through the windows) even though one photographer won in court on that issue. As you noted, anyone can sue, or be sued. Finally, keep in mind that many, if not most, court rulings are not precedent in the sense that other courts must follow them. That generally applies to published decisions by courts superior to the subsequent courts. Courts of the same level often reach different results, which then can only be ultimately decided by the highest courts in that system (state or federal). And, as we are reminded constantly, even the highest court can toss out precedent, especially if there is a change in the makeup of the court. I wonder what would happen if an artist changed Warhol's Campbell's Soup image to another brand of soup and then published it. Fair use? Commentary?
Where does creativity starts and ends? what about the architects and designers that design the structures that are in the photograph, do the photographer has a right to sell that creativity?
I have spent 30 years on both sides of this equation. For the first 20 years I was a graphic designer that licensed tons of images for composites sold to my clients for their use in advertising and on products they were selling, and the past 10 years I have "also" been creating my own photographs that I sell to clients.
Most of the clients (and people in general) I deal with believe that if they find an electronic image on the Internet, they can just use it (fair use) - right or wrong, that is what they think. Their viewpoint is, if someone wants to protect an image, why would they put it on the Worldwide Web where anyone in any Country around the world can just copy it with a click? I have even seen some major stock photo houses put images out there which show up in Google Searches without a watermark, in hopes that they WILL get stolen (legal bait) - I have had two clients that were already served papers from one stock photo house asking for thousands of dollars in settlement fees with no warning just for images my clients posted on their websites! At $10,000 per settlement that is more lucrative than a $10 stock image license!
I know in my own photography that if I post anything on the web, it will most likely be copied without my permission and in most cases I will never know about it. Therefore I never post any images I have created on the web that I would sue for. In my case I only post low-resolution versions of everything on the web - to me the only enforceable copyright is for actual high-res prints which they can only get from me - so to me the only enforceable value is attached to "prints".
I usually only take photos I am contracted in advance to take for a particular client and I transfer the rights of use and reproduction to them - that way if the client then posts those images and they get stolen, then I will let my client try to sue (good luck)! Of course, in my case I feel like I am charging my client a fair price up front to yield me an acceptable profit. If I were just roaming around taking random images without a client contract in advance then I am not sure how I would expect any financial rewards without selling them for stock?
I have one small business client (not a photographer) that took a photo of his son using a product he sells to the public and it appears on his website. Two of his competitors liked that photo so much that they simply copied his photo and put it on the home page of their competing websites implying that it was their product. My client called me and said, "They can't do that can they?" I said, "You mean legally, No. But do you want to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and your time in a effort to prove they once displayed your photo on their website with little chance of success?" My advice to him is "Don't post anything on the web you want to retain rights to - just not worth pursuing". It would be like taking nude photos of your wife and posting them for the whole world to view and getting mad when someone copies them! Just don't post things you value highly!
I'm from Australia, so I really enjoyed your last video on IP, I was surprised you had to argue the case in Australia. Based on this video, you could go into an Old building or concert even though they say no photography and take a photo claiming fair use to make comment on the architecture or concert performance?
I just need to know can you use images that you merge and take pieces til you make a completely unrecognizable image. I'm finding a lot of "kinda no's" while looking for one yes. I'm a photographer and realistic artist that both uses Photoshop to make any image I want but being able to use pieces would make work a lot quicker easier. Or I will just build my image and then draw it lol. That's my final way around it all.
Is there a good way to find the Original copyright owner of a image? I have a image I want to use on a EP cover photo for a music release- I have been looking everywhere on google for the owner but I can’t find anything. The image is just on google and various websites on the web! Any assistance would be greatly appreciated
Can I use images that I altered in Photoshop? By altered I mean, I assembled several images, therefore creating a new image with several layers of those pictures.
I am sorry if this is confusing. I am just not that familiarized with this type of vocabulary in English.
What is the name and court of this case? (A proper citation would be good if you have it.) I would like to read the case. Please advise. Thanks.
Hey. Just wanted to say thanks for making this ! I'm always looking to educate myself more on this topic and this was really insightful.
Kind of surreal to see H3H3 mentioned here. They've got a great channel, I remember them talking about the lawsuit and giving updates every so often. They'd mention how it was taking a huge emotional toll on them. Other than the financial costs, the stress of these kinds of lawsuits seems to be huge. As an aside, Tony, if you're concerned about this type of thing you may want to consider umbrella insurance, which will protect you if you get sued. Lots of different companies offer it.
The Judge got it right. A picture of a public street seen isn't really art. I mean the beauty of the image was created by the people who designed the buildings and put up the lights. I see this a very different to stealing Chelsea's image and using her to sell phone cases without consent.
While getting my BA in Art Studio we talked about Fair Use on and off. It's so frustrating as a grey area, that it is easily one of the most contentious subjects in the art world. I feel their should have been a mandatory course in this subject for every art major.
UA-cam is horrible with "fair use". I talk about movies and TV shows on my channel and UA-cam flags me for copyright all the time.
Sometimes I can get away with using 30sec clips, sometimes 10sec, sometimes any use gets flagged. It's quite irritating. And this is regardless of cropping or altering the image in some way.
I actually be proud to see my photo out there ... i would contact the ones who used it and let-’em know that i can shoot photos specifically for them. Also seen your photo out there is better branding than stored in a SD.
Same
I have a question for you, I know of a photograph that was used worldwide a number of years ago, (22 nearly) which was taken by a member of a studio of photographers that I used to work for, I didn't take the picture but it is iconic in the UK as part of an awful event at a primary school. The fact that this picture was used without the consent of the studio in the aftermath of the event caused the studio a lot of bad feeling in the locality, how would you view that?
"Fair use" should go both ways. How about "fair practice"? ... meaning that in my opinion, the very least that any publication should do is to credit the photographer, and perhaps provide a link to their site. Even without payment, that at least shows a little simple human consideration. People write to me fairly often, and ask if they can use my images for publications, presentations, etc.. If they've taken that considerate step, then I'll either allow them to use them for free, or very inexpensively. People today should know that whether they're judged right or wrong in court, they still have a little common courtesy.
"Can't afford to defend myself in court" sums it up. Rich, richer, richest ... Much less to do with photos and more to do with elitism and power tripping. We truly cannot win at anything unless we amass wealth on a grand scale.
It’s so much fun just listening to your banter.
I think the first pictured discussed the photographer had seen his photo be stolen you said thousands of times. Maybe her sued someone he thought would be an easy win so he could go after the other thought thieves. Great video guys!
One does have to be careful with photos. Kim Komando talked about her experience with posting what seemed to be an innocent puppy photo only to be contacted later about infringement to the tune of an $800 charge. Her legal team verified it was a real notification and she had to pay the $800. Be careful what you copy/post.
Good video thanks. What if I use a photo that I found on the internet ,then, I take that
image and modify it slightly, like e.g. changing the background.
Wouldn't that be a new image that I have copyright ownership of?
the copyright?
Good question would love to know the answer
Everything you are talking about today is the reason I only do projects under contract. I deliver, the customer pays, and in most cases I keep the copyright. No websites, no internet posting, no putting my work out there where it can be stolen. Only an occcastional snapshot on Facebook.
I am a digital artist, I am wondering if I do a painting of a copyrighted piece but The painting is not an exact representation of the copyrighted photo. Is this legal?
So, if I accidentally leave my grandmother's monetarily near worthless (and non-commercial) hand mirror (yet irreplaceable to me) at a mall kiosk, and someone takes it, that person is not a thief? Wrong! If you report it and that mirror is found on some punk thief, they will be charged with stealing. This whole issue is because the legal system cannot imagine how to get it's arms around the scale of ownership of photos.
In the UK Fair use is a defence for copyright infringement, and not a law as Chelsea stated, which echoes what the Northrups' said about the subject matter being more complicated than black and white.
13:00 I'm having the exact same issue. It's so hard for me to discern the legitimate from the illegitimate usage of my images on websites. For example, I recently found out that a ton of retailers like Walmart, Target and Wayfair have been selling one of my images as an 8x12ft "wall mural" for $600. However, I don't have a stock sale for that image worth more than $4. I've tried contacting my stock agency about it and they have been dead silent. Guess the next step is contacting those huge companies myself...
It's like a case of who regulates the regulators. Those companies including your stock company should really have a paper trail here. Maybe someone in China is providing those images to these corporations so the likes of Walmart can claim no "knowledge of Infringement" (which could most likely be a lie). They could just say, "my provider did it, not us". Crappy stuff.
Good info. One question: I'm an artist; can I paint (in oil or acrylic etc.) a copyrighted photo, exactly the way it is, and post the painting (not the photo) on Facebook as a background, just for display--no money or profit involved whatsoever?
In Soviet Russia photo steals you.
Juan Quispe Soviet Russia?
Hahaha!
In the USSR all intellectual property rights belonged to all of the people. So there was no private copyright ownership.
@@lyfandeth Its a family guy reference and thus a joke
If you have camera NKVD comes to you.
that is whats wrong with your judicial system. because you have to pay your lawyer no meter if you win or lose people are afraid to go to court. in slovenia the person that loses the case has to pay the opposite attorney (its calculated with base hourly wage, so if you get really expensive attorney you will still have to pay some of it) and legal fees
Can you guys make a video about the legal side of photography when starting your business such as what documents do you need to start, contracts, filing with the state as a business, what insurance do you need to cover gear, how you deliver your photos to clients, etc.? That would be grand! Thank you
'Fair use' is something I think about a great deal, both because I do make use of other people's photos and videos and because others make use of mine. Because my main website (and YT channel) is all about a place I don't have a hope of exploring every inch of, I need pics and video of places I have not yet managed to film and photograph. I do ask permission to use what could be regarded as 'iconic' shots but for general place pictures I do pics with credit and a link to the source. As for videos, I embed YT videos in my pages also with credit and links to the channels involved. If people make their videos embedable, then the assumption has to be, that they don't mind other sites embedding them with proper accreditation. As I run a non-profit educational site, it is impossible to pay for images, but if asked to remove anything I have used, I would always comply - although this has not happened yet. I do think that if a picture or video is used commercially (IE. with the primary aim to make money) then the owner of copyright should be entitled to earn something from it.
I want to make a business page for painting. Can I find a picture of a house that I painted on say the contractors webpage and use it? What if I say on my page that some photos are jobs that I did while working for other companies?
27:52 - More specifically; The judge said something to the effect of their video being a prime example of being fair use. - Like it was a perfect way of using someone's video without straight up ripping their complete work unedited. - It was an important case for UA-cam and videos, and also the entire definition of fair use and copyright. It probably cleared up some of that grey area.
Chelsea was as cute and smart as ever -- and nailed the humor!
Great info. Have you, or can you do a video about US copyright laws, etc in regards to selling pic you take in public? Ex. Street photography, car shows, etc.
In the US there is a freedom of panorama about buildings under the USC 17 §120(a), but it doesn't cover statues. For example in Irland, UK, Germany and Israel the freedom of panorama covers also statues.
Questions:
1.) Is my photo better than the guitar Rasta guys?
2.) should I visit Tony in jail?
Chelsea Northrup just leave him there so he will appreciate your company later on
Interesting subject so you can take anyone's picture or you could take anyone's picture and mess with it and like say it's yours that's kind of sad I like the old-fashioned way film
1) Yes, clearly you were more committed to your art than Rasta. Who buys stock for satire?!??! 2) Gonna miss Tony. Hope he maintains his chill.
Chelsea good try...but you clipped the wing ;) And yes you need to visit Tony..who else will smuggle tech into the jail for him?
love that shirt Chelsea! pretty
I love your (sarcastic) “bending of rules” Chelsea! The sarcastic tone is exactly how I am! This is BS.
- "So Bob, how do we convince millions of people to create content for us, for free, no salary or fees, so that our pages are frequently visited to increase ad revenues?"
- "How about we call them social media sir?"
- "Good idea Bob".
I am an unpublished songwriter- I have produced music but nothing big time. However, other singers have performed my songs at gigs and weddings, even recorded my songs and Nashville "songwriters" have been indirectly plagiarizing my lyrics for years. SO WHAT! Now I am online building websites and I am finding a bunch of wining "artist" and image bandits- makes me sick. Get a real job just like us real artist have had to do since the beginning of time. If I had had the magic I would have outshined those who used my stuff wholly or in part, and if you had any salt your work would transcend your petty little lawsuits. "The judge was so rude" lol
I have a friend who took a picture of a sunset in Michigan on Lake Michigan, which ended up in the “sample photos quoteon Microsoft windows 95. He could not do anything about it even though he had the original image still on his memory card he had posted it on a forum and it got snatched.
LOVE your videos, question your use of the breaking bad still shows a logo and is part of a work that had to spend money to clear the use of that brand's logo; so as a photographer and a video producer when is ok to use a brand in your work?
My only concern is that the damages rewarded tend to be far in excess to the damages the photographer/copyright holder is out financially. If the cost of using a stock photo is $500 that is the amount they should be allowed to sue for. It should not be a financial windfall. Recovery of real damages is the norm for all other property related civil lawsuits.
Any chance you guys can provide the citation to the case you discuss here in which the court found that the fair use doctrine was applicable?
Re: The statue in the park or a building on the street. I haven't heard too much about the term used where objects are in the "pubic domain". I've had a hard time finding an attorney who has a good knowledge of copyright law. Amongst attorneys in the area I knew more than they. Go to ASMP or APA for a referral to a specialist.
Hey Tony & chelsea! till now (8:40), the funniest part was, that factor 3- Amount of work used. So if I make a song, and you use my song as background music, "just for 2 Mins", it is not "That much" infringement of copyrights as it would have been if the full song would have been used. What a B.S. rule for copyrights.
It means I crop people's photos, music, do plagirism in research papers and so on, and it would be taken into consideration how much of the work is stolen.
Sorry for the vulgur example, but the law says, that if I am selling my body and show-casing it on the street (prositituting it, as it is legal here in Germany), and someone just comes from behind, and without my permission and without paying me for it the agreed price, takes me a little bit for 30 seconds (which could have enough for him to get his 'work' done), it would not be that much infringement of my ass, as it would have been if he would taken me home for the whole night without my permission or having to pay my price?
If yes, what a non-sense Job the judges are doing in US regarding IPR. As far as I know, lawyers and judges must be able to logically reason, as logically reasoning is a fundamental requirement in this profession. If they cannot make sense, or think straight to get the clear logic out of this, then God bless America.
Kind regards,
Armaghan
Where a photographer could call it a loss is if the image in question was if the photographer used that image in a limited edition print series. Then if the image got spread all over the internet, it could effect the value of those limited editions. Also another issue would be if the use of an image misrepresents the photographer. Say if an image stolen was use to promote a religion, or political belief that might be diametrically opposed to the photographers business persona.
Am I allowed to pause a movie and use screenshots captured from it in my monetized youtube videos? Will that infringe youtube’s copyright regulations?
Chelsea and Tony,
here's an interesting little anecdote for you: in 2010 i had to go to Washington D.C. for a job interview and during my free time i went out on a photo safari on the capitol mall and smithsonian. as i was setting up my camera on the tripod to get a selfie of me in front of the capitol building, the capitol police came over and told me to pack up and leave as such pictures were not allowed due to copyrights of the capitol building.
what's the real skinny on this?? i've been told there are no copyrights on the public features of the nations capitol and they can be photographed by anyone. anyone out there in youtubeland got a different take on this question?
cheers
mike
When it comes to statues, or other works of architecture, there is something known as Freedom of Panorama that would protect you, so long as the work is visible from public property. In other words, I can take pictures of your home without permission as long as I remain on public property while doing so.
True but the problem w this is usually ppl have no clue where property lines actually start and end. I did surveying last year and its a major issue ppl dont think about. A lot of homes have their stuff on neighbors property but they dont know it. A realtor may have told them the line starts and ends here but in sll reality realtors have no clue where the property lines are. Cops dont even know. Thats why ppl pay to have surveyors come and mark the exact locations. Corners. Ive seen houses where literally 1/2 of the actual house is not even on the homeowners property lol. Ppl have no clue where private property and public property start or end.
Also an issue w billboards. We have had to tell ppl they will have to literally take their billboard down if the landowner says so. Not just the sign they put up but the actual structure that costs 6 digits to build. 🥶
Simply bc the structure is 3 ft on other property. Ppl dont pay attention to property lines when building lol.
That is the point of judges. They not only apply the law, but also in the grey areas they do apply own judgement to make a decision. I think it was Fair Use to some degree. It would be different, if the picture would be a main part of promptions, or also on posters and tickets for example. The web page owners took the picture down. Sure, you could be bitter, but really that is all you can do, beyond asking them to be more careful and ask permissions first next time. Was the photo good? Yes. Has it artistic merits? Yes. Was it out of this world? No. I agree it would be decent for them to ask, "Ok sorry, how about we pay you some small amount for it so you and we are happy?".
I believe when someone steals your photo, you do loose the exclusivity of that photo, and it becomes generic.
By putting together images (let's say from google) to make a bigger piece of art, is that fair use? I know it's not cut and dry. Also, I'd be selling it so I know that doesn't' help. Any advice?
I saw that product with your book cover pic in a target store a few weeks ago. I took a pic because it was just after I had seen your video about the copyright issues you had with it 😮
At one time a picture of mine for a famous Las Vegas landmark that itself never was copyrighted ranked #1 in Google Images. When I've found this stolen photo on other websites either filing a DCMA with Google would get it deindexed on Google and/or contacting their web hosting provider would get their host to send them a copyright notice. All but one time was this approach effective immediately. In the case that it wasn't it took me some back and forth to get it eventually taken down.
What if your name is in the Metadata of the photo file? And some company is making money off it? Would it be better just to post extremely low resolution photos, if your worried about it being stolen? Or better yet not post photos you feel is of high quality from your time and work?
what rights does the (rasta) subject have in regards to prince(photog) use ? was there a models release signed with the 1st photographer that did not extend to Prince ?
Regardless if using someone else's work is fair use, isn't it usually better to just ask instead of gambling on the outcome of a court case. In my opinion it's also much more polite, especially when a small content creator is involved. I think it's plain rude when people use your work without asking. And when you think using the picture is fair use, chances are the creator is much more likely to permit itanyway. Of course this approach is not practical with big corporations.
unless litigation is a hobby of yours.. then I say .. bring it.. and watch me sap your funds away by appeals and reschedules and jurisdiction changes... getting default judgments without you knowing there was a case...
maybe not such a good idea all the time to say "go to court" because some people know how to do this better than your bar garbage "attorney"
Ehm, did you read my comment? My suggestion was to ask permission before anything else. When you have written permission, not only are you doing the polite thing, you also vastly diminish the chance of getting sued... Personally I always ask, and if the copyrightholder refuses I will find or make an alternative, there is always an alternative. I never gamble on fair use.
Kelkschiz I am a newbie photographer but i would do something like this “Hey! The image you are using is mine and is copyrighted. Can you please take it down or give me some credit and pay me a small royalty fee? Please respond within 5 days. Thanks!
I was writing from the perspective of the person who wants to use a picture that isn't mine. Perhaps that isn't clear? So when I want to use a picture that isn't mine I always ask. Asking for permission is polite and can save a lot of frustration, money and stress. If someone is using my images without permission then I would likely do the same as you. Of course it would depend a bit on who is using it and for what purpose. But the least they should do is credit my work properly.
Carl James has excellent points Kelkschiz. For example, I could form a lawsuit against you rather easily AND in my complaint, I can show how much it costed me. THEN, I use public knowledge or even buy a copy of you credit report and use a last known address to instruct the court to send the complaint to. Normally, the court will attempt 2 tries to send the complaint certified mail and if it comes back undelivered, it is considered proper service. Now because you are not even aware of a lawsuit against you, you don't show up to court. As a result, I automatically win by default.. Further, even if I did send it directly to you and your most current address, I would suggest researching what a summary judgement is, which for this post, I do not need to prove my case, but I make a motion to the court that I have supplied enough evidence to prove the case. Should the Court agree and side with me, of course you can appeal it, with in 15 days in my state. Just because I am awarded a judgement against you, that does not mean you are required to pay. It's a judgement and big deal. If you go to buy something you may have to pay higher interest if a creditor will extend you credit.
However, say I am awarded judgement against you in this bogus lawsuit. If you fail to pay up in 30 days, I can then petition the court for garnishment and oh by the way, have you ever looked close at your credit report? Ever notice how they show your current or last employer? Ahhh! So again, you were not aware of the lawsuit against you. You don't show up and I am awarded a default or summary judgement against you. You still don't pay and 30 days after judgement I include your employer in my petition of wage garnishment. I can then contact your employer and with the court documents, your company is force to garnish your wages to pay me.
Sound like complete B.S??? Good because it is NOT! This actually happened to me back in 2010, after Bank of America sought to buy Merrill Lynch back in 2008. Read www.creditlaw.com/blog/bank-of-america-and-cach-llc-involved-in-suspicious-debt-collections-happenings
It cost me thousands to proven I have never had any account with or associated to Bank of America! And if you research this, you will find this happened to millions of people! Moreover, the lawyer who file this complaint against, me here in Ohio was once an ambulance chaser who lost his butt. So he took on a franchise patternship with Cach, LLC. who pays their franchise attorneys a percentage of what they are able to collect. So, you are able to search public court records and in Ohio, we have 88 counties and I did a search of this lawyer's name. Sure enough, he filed this exact same lawsuit on 65 people in Ohio with the same name by employing the same tactics above. Not worth it? I beg to differ! My bogus case was for $50,000, which Cach, LLC added added another $15,000 in what they called legal and collection fees since 2008. $75,000 x 65 = $4,875,000. EASY money if you know how to play the system!!!
Now because law in the U.S. is rather easy and simple, I did prove my case and filed grievances against my attorney, this other attorney and the judge who was assigned the case. The attorney lost their licenses here in Ohio indefinitely and the judge was suspended for 5 years.
So am I worried if if I stole your images? Not really! Now that I know how to play the system and how it works, I would do as Carl stated and bleed you dry! Now bear in mind, while dealing with this case, you could counter sue me as the attorneys did in my case and I countered sue them for fraud. It took 5 yrs to resolve and there a total of 5 lawsuits with the first being a bogus one to begin with!
HellO! I want to start a new Art Channel, and I really want to know: If I use already existing images as reference and I make my own drawings based mostly on those reference images, but I have no intention to sell or commercialize whatsoever:
Can I Upload a Video on UA-cam of the process of me making the drawing as well as showing the final result? (Sped-up time lapse / "Speedpainting" of me making the drawing based on the reference, and final product shares High resemblance with the original photo, except for the fact that it is a Drawing I made).
Is that Okay?
I also plan to mention where I found the images and mention the owner if I can find who they belong to.
(Example: I find an Image of an Athlete taken at a Sports Event, and I make a Portrait of that Athlete mentioning where the Reference Photo comes from and by whom it was taken. I film the process of me making the Portrait, and then Upload the video on UA-cam as a sped-up time lapse with some music.)
Love your videos so helpful and informative for all photographers. 👍👍👍
Maybe the judge was more lenient becauss a small town festival would be crippled by someone being a jerk and suing after the website already complied with a take down request.
It's a shame the photographer was that petty.
Interesting and important discussion.
One thing that you didn't mention is the length of time a work remains in copyright. My understanding is that in the USA and so any other country with a free trade agreement with them is life plus X years. So the majority of early photos etc are likely to have fallen out of copyright. Historically painters have learnt to paint by copying the works of the masters so there has always been some forms of fair use.
With the first case you discussed, I think it also depends a little on if they have as you guys do acknowledged the photographer on the website. If they didn't then I am not sure how the judge made his decision. I guess he did have a point too with how much of the work was used but my understanding is you can only use maybe 20% of a work. What they should have done is offer him some free tickets and possibly a small amount of money.
An enlightening video, to say the least.
If someone "cartoonized" your image (via pixelate or some other filter) in Photoshop and used the resulting image commercially, would that be considered "fair use?"
Don't we as a photographer need to have permission from the city to even take a picture of their city in order to use it as copyright material, it is in many countries city's, so in fact, many of photographer is wrong at the first place by pretending that they own a copyright on a picture that they do not had previously get a legal authorization from the city authority to take and use them for commercial use.
What happens if. Use a photo for my real estate listing and other business USE the photos I have professionally taken?
The photo of a sculpture/architecture thing doesn't apply because buildings are in public, and you're allowed to take photos of anything in public (including people). Many sculptures are also in public. Other sculptures that are very old are too old to be legally protected, too. I think that's why we see that differently. But if someone sets up a gallery for themselves, with their own, newly created art, I don't think taking a photo of their work and selling it would be in any way okay. The Eiffel Tower light show issue would never fly in the USA, again because it's in public.
I’m going to be the dissenting opinion. I don’t think he should have won the lawsuit. However I don’t think the judge made appropriate rulings about fair use.
Why do I think he should not have won? Well, what was he suing for?
1) Did he want the photo to be taken down? Well they took the photo down the first time they were asked to.
2) What about sales of the photo? Well the company wasn’t selling the photo so no profit was made directly from the photo. Sure they were making money selling tickets to the music festival but getting part of that money would be very difficult because how do you determine how much of an affect did that photo have on people buying a ticket.
3) What about the loss of marketability of the photo? Well the photographer said he sold the photo after it had been on the site so it didn’t hurt the marketability.
Now on the flip side for the fair use aspect. I think the judge made a massive error in judgement and set a precedence that has the potential to effect creators of all types. According to this judge as long as you claim you didn’t know the work was copyright (even if don’t do your due diligence) it can fall under fair use if it’s deemed non-commercial, you made no money directly from the photo, and you only use a portion of the work. I feel this will open the floodgates to people using the “we didn’t make money” and "we only used part of the photo" so there’s nothing that you can do excuse. This ruling potentially could be used to bypass the protections afforded by copyright law in future lawsuits.
Tony, Chelsea, how about a video / podcast related to what one should do to restrict access or unfair use of an image by "protecting" it online.What are best practices for Instagram, Web Portfolio, Photo sharing sites which might discourage images being copied or used? Given that your audience is international, US registration of copyright isn't relevant, so my question is, how do you get your work "out there" while retaining control of an image - prevention vs cure?
In my country, the costs of civil proceedings are paid by the person who lost the case, and I am sure that in every other Member State of the European Union it is the same. But in my country, although a member of the European Union, copyright has no value, you can use movies, music games, software photos without paying and no one will stop you. There are laws that prohibit it, but the state simply does not enforce them.
This is, unfortunately, a very 'local' issue, since these laws differ in various countries.
What about if you post a picture for the purpose of selling products or driving traffic?
In the first example, the Judge probably sided with the Defendant because they took it down when confronted and the Plaintiff took it much further into the legal system and maybe the Judge decided for the Defendant in recognition of that. People need to work together.
Unless it's a unique moment that is unrepeatable and singular, I'd probably rather just be credited with the photo and let them put it up. It could generate sales leads for that picture and other portfolio pictures. A general long exposure shot of a New York neighborhood at night can probably be shot similarly under any similar circumstance and is likely not unique.
Nothing wrong with contacting somebody first and working it out if you want to publish their stuff for your purposes.
Of course, I am no lawyer and could be very wrong about all that.
I know that Facebook is a completely different animal but I had posted a picture recently from an album and then someone then used the picture. They said they found the picture on google images, I looked and could not find it.
The same law applies to writing. A person writes a novel, you take that book and change I think it is 25%, changes character names and places etc, you can sell as your own novel. I think it is crazy. Why bother having copy write law if nothing applies? I would never sell the digital copy, too easy for a person to ruin the work I have done and then pass off the changed photo off as my work. Not Cool. And The guy who stole the Rasta pic, he is a crappy artist, a 7 year old child could have taken a picture of a guitar and copy and pasted over the photo. so tacky. Keep up what you do, always love learning something new.Cheers Mates & "Keep On Clicking!"
11:00 about them being decent: Well after he contacted them , they did remove the image without discussion which is quite decent to me compared to others and despite them removing it, and basically admitting that they did not know the rules or were sloppy or cheap he still decided to sue. So the notion of them not being decent is not fully correct in my eyes
On the screen behind you factor 2 should have read nature of the copyrighted work not natural of the copyrighted work. Love your channel. I have been shooting photos for close to 40 years and have learned quite a bit from your videos.
So the movie Industry had been cracking down on UA-cam folks using even released Trailers as copyright violations (thru UA-cam only no court trials). Which is a little ridiculous that the movie industry is basically telling movie critics you can't use any footage of my video even if it has been released for news media to use.
I have a question for you.
If I were to take photos of people at a public event is it legal to use/sell them?
I've hear two side so far an am not sure what's right.
Dan Swan generally if there is “no expectation of privacy” you can use/sell the photos. Hence why vloggers walking down the street showing people dont have to compensate those people nor get a release. But check your local laws as well as only REALLY take legal advice from a lawyer
A stock photo company won't buy them without a model release from each identifiable person.
There are "restitutionary damages." Not what you lost, but what the other person gained. Still hard to prove but might be more easily proved.
Can some use the Facebook public photo for UA-cam channel ?
Well, things are pretty extreme between US & Europe. Europe law is an example of how not to enforce copyright on arts and US is an example of what not to do with respect to copyrights. Copyright is not easy to enforce and reactive-based enforcement is economically viable rather than giving such blatant statement (anything in internet is public domain or platform provides must ensure the photo posted is original - to make this happen, you need the library of verified original works which is not possible)
All I want is the credit. When photos are used without giving credit, that's what gets me upset. It's so easy to just give a credit in little type at the bottom of photo.