Could I be sued for breach of copyright?

[tintin99]

I maintain a site for a guy who manages musicians. He's asked me to copy a review and photos of one of his band's concerts from a newspaper's site onto his band's site. I've pointed out this is breach of copyright but he's told me to do it anyway. If I do it would I be held responsible and (in a worst case scenario) sued, or would my client be responsible?

I'd guess that as it's me committing the crime I would be in the firing line even though I was acting under my client's instructions.

[digitalghost]

>>I'd guess that as it's me committing the crime I would be in the firing line even though I was acting under my client's instructions.

Correct.

[Paras]

Hi,

If you take that, don't forget to add courtsey and link to the original site at the end of your article.

I have seen this really working.

[zulu_dude]

You could always contact the newspaper and ask them whether you could place the article on the website (with a link back to the newspaper's website).

They might be quite willing to let you use it, especially if you scan in the article so that people can still see which newspaper it came from.

[stapel]

tintin99 said:

I've pointed out this is breach of copyright but he's told me to do it anyway.

"Infringement" of copyright, actually, and, yes, you could be held responsible.

I would either lose the client, or else request that he put in writing that he is aware that what he is instructing you to do is a potential violation of law, that he will hold you faultless and blameless, and that he will reimburse you for any legal or other expenses you may incur as a result of any action taken in response to what he is telling you to do.

I have a feeling that he may back off if you make the liability explicit.

Eliz.

P.S. For the best advice, however, consult with an attorney.

[Iguana]

Truth is, nearly every band copies the text of the review to their website. Review sites (remember sonicnet/wall of sound?) go offline and others redesign their site regularly or take reviews offline (Q and NME) so the URL no longer works. Also some newspaper sites only hold a limited back catalogue of reviews or change URL when articles go into the archive.

I review lesser known bands and they nearly all do this and also give a link to my site (often the homepage). As long as I get a link I'm happy. I wouldn't worry about it - you will be contacted if anyone regards you reprinting as a breach of contract and ask you to remove the text first. I wouldn't reprint articles from the big music websites though (Rolling Stone, Yahoo Launch, AMG, BBC) because they may be more sensitive about duplication of content.

[Iguana]

I've just re-read your post and I would say never copy a photo from another site without explicit permission - the photographer may well work for an agency or be freelance but will hold copyright (as in get paid for every reprint). You need explicit permission for photos. The text of the review (not the HTML) may not be legal but I wouldn't worry about that so much.

[Lorel]

I've pointed out this is breach of copyright but he's told me to do it anyway.

This sounds a lot like the guy driving the get away car during a bank robbery, i.e., it won't hold up in a court of law.

[sparticus]

I think you'd be better off quoting from the article - choose the more favourable comments. You can do this as long as you attribute the source - also make sure that the quoted sections are not more than 50% of the article itself. This is of course, not legal advice, nor a substitute for legal advice.

The media outlet may even appreciate the publicity.

[mike1977]

paraphrase the article, link to the article and give them credit and site your source. If you do that then you can always argue fair use.

[tintin99]

Thanks everyone for your replies which have been very helpful.

Although the law is quite clear regarding copyright I did have the impression that 'normal practice' was a bit more relaxed in some circumstances. I think it's a question of knowing where to draw the line, and your comments have helped me a lot in this respect.

Best wishes,

Bob.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I'd guess that as it's me committing the crime I would be in the firing line even though I was acting under my client's instructions.

I don't know about this and I'm not so sure that you would be held responsible.

Surely a webmaster cannot be held reponsible for what content the site owner puts on the site? Isn't this a bit like a printing company being sued for breaches of copyright in magazines that it printed for publishers? I accept all the content that clients give me in good faith. I have no idea whether or not it has been copied from elsewhere and I have no real way of checking this.

If it were me I would just make sure that your client's contact details were on the site and not yours. In that case the offended party could only contact your client about it. You would be out of the picture.

(Note that this is just an opinion. I have no idea how the law would look at it.)

[tintin99]

I'd imagine you're right assuming that the client gives the webmaster the content to put on the site. In my case the client suggested I get the content myself from another website.

[crescenta]

If the client directly instructs you to violate someone else's copyright, then you better not do it. If asked later about it, it isn't as if you could plead ignorance about the copyright violation—you helped participate in it.

But I don't think you should be held responsible for verifying that all the material your client hands you is really his (legally) to publish. If such an expectation were to be put upon webmasters, it would be an absolute nightmare.