Forum Moderators: not2easy
Can you guys recommend me another path to take?
Thanks.
The worst thing is seeing pictures of these famous players in most of the fan sites (hundreds of sites) all the time. And it looks like they have no problem at all.
Based on the above I've just been having a quick browse of a few online football fanzines. You're right - they all have player pics galore!
From my own experiences, I know that photo agencies/libraries charge ridiculous amounts for sports pics. So, as you say, there must be a way.
Not knowing how they get their pics, I would be inclined to contact a few of the more respected fanzine sites and ask them exactly what you've asked here.
Syzygy
Is there any chance that the team(s) would have PR pics available for you to use?
In general, PR ( Press Release ) photo's are still protected by copyright... I personally wouldn't tread those waters.
The most lawsuit-proof way... take your own. Sure it's likely to be expensive, but you'll actually own the copyright... and you won't have to worry about receiving that dreaded certified letter from some zealous attorney.
Besides... it'll also add some tangible value to your site.
In general, PR ( Press Release ) photo's are still protected by copyright...
I think perhaps we had some "cross abbreviations" going there ;-) , as well as a misunderstanding about needing permission. I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't need permission (either blanket or specific) to use any photos. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
They will more than likely say "here ya go" and all your troubles are gone.
If it's a fan website, they are supportive. They may have stuff ready to go. Just make sure you save all your emails and write down who you talked to just in case you can't (after asked) get a written © realease from them. That's a hassle for them. They won't care about the stock pics though. Just ask them.
Later,
JD
Provided your website is providing (positive!) publicity for the players/teams, the clubs and PR co's are likely to be helpful supplying images, so long as the images aren't being used for commercial gain.
Believe it or not, the more you ask for, the more likely you are to get some respect and a prompt answer from them.
If you are planning on using any of their trademark logos, it is extra important to get permission to use those. Unlike copyrights, which they are free to ignore your use of the pictures, they are by law required to actively enforce their trademarks. But if they give you permission, then they do not have to enforce anything.
The other type of pics, however, are actual action shots - non-agency pics of players on the pitch and in a game.
This strongly suggests to me that some fanzines may have sought permission to act as 'unofficial official' photographers, and authorisation has been granted.
So, as is being reiterated here - ask.
Syzygy
and that is not necessarily a bad option..
1, using these images on a fan site could be seen as 'fair use'
2, Any person or agency would know that trying to get money from a fan site would be pointless.
3, The worst that would happen is they would ask for it to be removed.
4, As a non-commercial site you will be largely ignored.
5, You could include a credit and link in the code, although not visible.
6, You could ask permission, but I suspect this would give you more of a headache than just sticking them up would do.
7, Stop being such a pansy lol stick it up, if anyone even notices your non- commercial, un-official and niche fan site then I will personally pay any costs.. it wont happen ..
Syzygy
1, using these images on a fan site could be seen as 'fair use'...... 5, You could include a credit and link in the code, although not visible.
Unless the writer was joking, this is yet another example of ignorance regarding copyright. I've lost count of the times where a thief, when challenged, has said something along the lines of:
"oh, I thought it was ok to use your stuff, I don't make any money out of it/gave you a credit/linked to your site ..."
NO IT IS NOT OK. It's theft.
The OP quite rightly wants to create his/her website in an ethical and legal manner and the majority of advice in this thread will help him/her do so.
Eveyone wants to be Mr sparkly lawyer type with all the know how of legal jurisprudence ..
how long have you been working on the web .. wake up ..
The points I make are completely true and valid ..
"Theft is theft"? get a life .. are you also a member of the neighbourhood christian watchdog?
Now I've calmed down over your ignorance and arrogance.. If you can show just one example of a fansite being taken down or sued I will assure you I will personally take my life, praying for your forgiveness while doing it.. now that is pretty sure.. ;)
don't really want to get in to that old " it's just not right" argument .. at least be honest with the guy instead of being up your own selfrighteous ass.. just go for it mate, no one will give 2 shakes and that is the truth ..
I would add, if there is anyone here who has never, used and idea from another site, learned how it's put together, used a piece of code or image or content then they are either a liar or really really crap at their job ( or both) that's how you learn ..
There is no company policy to adhere to, there is no client to appease, just go out and have fun ..
Over time you can tighten it up, receive permissions etc etc but just get on with it and make it happen, build your site and use what ever you have to, to make it live ..
It's not like Fox TV would go after any fan sites for using screen captures of their shows. They are just fan sites after all.
And don't worry, you would never find anyone like the NFL [post-gazette.com] going after a fan site. They would never do anything like that.
</sarcasm>
Hey lobo, why don't you go back and read the original post where the poster voices obvious concern about the legalities and doing what it morally right "I don't want to fall into copyright infringement and I wont."
He didn't ask if he could get away with it, he asked if there were any strategies to getting the pictures legally.
And by the way, most all of those organisations spend the money to register those copyrights, so it may not be just a case of them making you take down the pictures. It can very well be a case of someone new living in what is currently your house.
It's fine with me if you decide to follow that path yourself, but what you are doing is giving seriously bad advice that can screw up someone else' life.
are you also a member of the neighbourhood christian watchdog?
Why bring religion into this? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.
Now I've calmed down over your ignorance and arrogance..
I, and others who have taken the time to give the OP good advice, am not the one who is ignorant, nor arrogant. Arrogance may be someone's inherent personality trait, but anyone's ignorance can be improved by reading and learning. I suggest in your case, you read up on copyright law before you suggest the posters in this thread are talking c*@p.
at least be honest with the guy instead of being up your own selfrighteous ass
Is the guy who steals my, or anyone else's content being honest with me? I think not. If you think it's self-righteous to protect what I've created, I'll happily take my self-righteous ass and any thief's ass to court any time, have done so and will do so again. No-one is going to make a fast buck out of something that belongs to me, unless I've given them permission to do so.
anyone here who has never, used and idea...are either a liar or really really crap at their job
Ideas are not subject to copyright, created work is.
There is no company policy to adhere to
Says you. The OP is quite aware that there are companies' policies to which he/she has to adhere, hence the post in the first place.
Mentioning religion is easy when you try to act like a priest... I wonder can you show me where Fox sued a fansite.. oopps opening up your mouth and nothing comes out .. typical..
The advice is sound ..
If the circumstances were different I would give other advice, so says me.. yes it is obvious that there is no company involved here, he already stated this, just read , it helps..
sren - it is nice and correct that you want to do things in a right way and it is good for you to know that right way, but do not allow the search for permission get in the way of what you are doing, and that is making a fansite for a few eager and interested people. enjoy the web, that's what it's there for ..
You will come across more people like the ones commenting here ( jobsworths is the technical term ;) ) it is easy to take some moral high road .. but there are more important things than worrying about permissions on this site .. go ahead with it .. get it up and let it serve it's purpose ..
a) the company
b) the author
c) the agency
d) the photographer
I will then happily contact the companies, authors, agencies and photographers to see whether they object to you breaching their copyright. If you are not prepared to share the URLs of sites where you have done this, one must wonder what you have to hide.
Your advice is encouraging, aiding and abetting the OP to commit a criminal offence.
I wonder can you show me where Fox sued a fansite
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (aka Fox) went after fan sites in 1997 [chillingeffects.org], 1999 [chillingeffects.org], 2002 [chillingeffects.org], 2004 [chillingeffects.org].
And those are just the ones submitted to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.
I could send you one now if you like, nothing to do with being sued ...
I am probibly in a unique position compared to most if not everyone here in that, not only have I experience of copyright infringement over my time in the business, but my wife is a lawyer working on copyright and trademark infringement with WIPO and other NGO's .. I'm guessing none of you have a copyright solicitor sitting next to you.
So when malachite says he's sued before etc .. I already know he is a liar, and just blustering, to begin with to actually get a case to court you are already looking at upfront cash of a minimum of $10,000 - $ 20,000 no point making stuff up to try and make a point on something you realy don't know about.. It's like you read a few documents on the web about what copyright means and that's it, when in fact court procedings and decisions are a little more complicated than that..
Don't want to get in to the symantics of it all so let's focus specifically on sren's situation.
The advice being given here is that he should ask permission on all the images of football players he wants to use on his site before going live, well that's just stupid.
Firstly anyone offering permission will want to see the site in order to make that decision an email promising to be nice simply wont do, so in this case the egg must specifically come before the chicken, so go ahead and build your site exactly as you want it to be.
Secondly, if given the slight chance that anyone would complain, they are oblidged to firstly inform sren they are not happy with it, where he can than either ignore it or simply change the image, given that these are famous people there will be hundreds to choose from.
Given what is being waffled here, google could be sued for every single image used on their website on their image search.. again that would be rediculous.
So let's look at 'fair use' and what the courts are looking for.
given that anyone would fork out the cash to take it that far, a court would consider, is sren making financial gain from using the image of that player on his site, (clearly not the case) is use of the image taking away revenue from the copyright holder, ( again not the case) is the image necessary to the subject matter being discussed, ( yes it is) is the image being use in an unflattering or derogatory manner compromising the person or the copyright holder, ( nope)
Could I also point out that these are all civil matters and not criminal .. it does not instantly become a criminal matter as has been suggested here.
For that to happen he would have to take the image stick it on a T-Shirt and resell them with that image, then perhaps there is a case for criminal damages..
for instance it is perfectly fine to put a companies logo on your site if you are then discussing the company, but you can not put up the logo and try to infer any connection with that company .. that is what copyright is there for .. to say it covers every image on the web is shows a complete lack of understanding on copyright issues.
To use a thumbnail or reduced image of the original.. 100% falls in to the 'fair use' domain.
So please get off your ill-informed soap box and let sren build his site .. telling him to get permissions before even begining is dumb, impracticle and unnecessary. not only would he have nothing to show the people he is asking permission from, it would add about 3 months to the build as the rejections came flooding in and he would get no where..
sren , it is unnecessary, just get on and build the site.. You can then work on building relationships with copyright and the players themselves, over the first year of life.
Before anyone takes Lobo's legal advice, see the U.S. Copyright Office's take [copyright.gov] on "fair use" and use your own best judgment. Or consult someone with an actual law degree.
You may have no respect for copyright law or copyright holders, you also have no respect for other people posting on this forum, as to resort to insults and malicious accusations rather than backing up your claims with any hard evidence shows little conviction in your own beliefs.
You know absolutely nothing about me, my business, my qualifications or what I used to do for a living, yet you accuse me, in writing, in a public forum, of lying. I do not have to justify myself or my actions to you, I know what I wrote was the truth, and that's all that matters, I know how much it costs to commence proceedings, and I know that the victor is always awarded costs. The OP however, would certainly have to justify him/herself to the copyright holders and the courts were he/her to follow your advice.
If you truly believe what you have said is correct, then you go ahead and carry out your business in the manner you have suggested. You may indeed have escaped notice for 12 years, but sooner or later you will come unstuck.
Other have been prepared to place links in this thread to hard evidence of fan sites being pursued for breach of copyright. I asked you once before to show us the URLs of sites where you have followed your own advice. All you could do in response was to insult me yet again.
To suggest to Sren that he/she should use someone's images, build up the site and THEN contact the copyright holder at a later date to begin building up a working relationship is laughable. Do you seriously think these large companies are going to welcome him/her with open arms when they realise he/she's already breachd their copyright? Get real.
Oh, and Google has already had action taken against it for publishing images without permission.
These observations are based on US law as well as the Berne Convention ..
I know you are having difficulty getting your head round it .. but then you can not be as sure as I am to be right.. and what I am conveying to sren is absolutely correct.. wether he takes that advice is his decision .. it is informed and backed by expert legal advice and not just the freaked out hopes of someone who hopes it was otherwise..
Oh and ditto.com also had a court case which defended the use of images and deeplinking.. that precedent is already done and dusted..
and there are no links to fan sites being sued, did you even check them all they are a emails and letters sent out, standard issue .. really read some more and learn some more ..
I'd rather end this conversation now as I have found that people like yourself can't quite grasp reality, and simply keep harping on about their interpretation of a law, rather than knowing how that law works in the real world...
ps: I have no respect for someone who lies just to make a point which is wrong ..
You can simply show the link..
haha don't worry i'm not expecting you to do this ..
You might also want to check out the posting guidelines for this forum, where you will notice that personal attacks and slanderous comments are not welcome. I fully uphold your right to your opinion, and request that you offer me the same courtesy. Calling me names and accusing me, twice, of being a liar just because I disagree with you, is unnecessary and uncalled for.
The OP may choose to follow the advice of whomever he/she wishes. To you sir, good day.
I am probibly in a unique position compared to most if not everyone here in that, not only have I experience of copyright infringement over my time in the business, but my wife is a lawyer working on copyright and trademark infringement with WIPO and other NGO's .. I'm guessing none of you have a copyright solicitor sitting next to you.
Oh you naive fool!
Spend a bit more time on these boards - read - learn!
Syzygy
If you can show just one example of a fansite being taken down or sued
But then when he is shown some of the actual cases he sings this song:
em! those are not court documents or intention to sue, they are emails or letters sent to an ISP?
Um, those letters cause sites to be taken down. They are valid examples.
I could send you one now if you like, nothing to do with being sued ...
You better go check with your wife on that one.
The DMCA takedown letters are definitley part of the lawsuit process. In fact they go well beyond a normal Cease and Desist letter. If you send that takedown and it is challenged, you are basically obligated to file suit, or the person you filed the DMCA against can file suit against you and get a very quick judgement against you.
And if you send a DMCA takedown on something where you do not even hold the copyright, I would love to see what happens to you.
So when malachite says he's sued before etc .. I already know he is a liar, and just blustering, to begin with to actually get a case to court you are already looking at upfront cash of a minimum of $10,000 - $ 20,000
Really? The last I checked, all the expenses run somewhere around $800. But if you aren't going pro se, then you can usually get your lawyer to write the letters and file the case for a couple of grand if it looks liek they are likely to settle before going to court.
And here's another shocker for you, for some content providers, $20k ain't all that much compared to the value of the content. In the case of sports franchises, they have the money, they have registed the copyrights, and there is a very good chance that they have IP attornies on staff or on retainer.
Secondly, if given the slight chance that anyone would complain, they are oblidged to firstly inform sren they are not happy with it,
Hmm, you better fire your wife. C&D nor DMCA are required. Mitigation is, but that does not affect the infringement that happened before the notice was sent.
Given what is being waffled here, google could be sued for every single image used on their website on their image search..
Nope, because of the transformitive natre of what they present. That is covered in the arriba decision.
is sren making financial gain from using the image of that player on his site, (clearly not the case) is use of the image taking away revenue from the copyright holder, ( again not the case) is the image necessary to the subject matter being discussed, ( yes it is) is the image being use in an unflattering or derogatory manner compromising the person or the copyright holder, ( nope)
It is not clear that the fan site will not be making money. Most fan sites run AdSense.
It is clear that the use of the image in it's original form could possibly affect the revenue of the copyright holder. It is well founded in caselaw that just because I would not have paid for it otherwise, does not mean my use without permission does not affect their revenue.
The image is not necessary to the subject matter, and that is not taken into account in Fair Use decisions. The content itself must be what is being discussed, and only for certain specific purposes, news, review, critisism, etc. Simple discussion is not part of that.
for instance it is perfectly fine to put a companies logo on your site if you are then discussing the company, but you can not put up the logo and try to infer any connection with that company .. that is what copyright is there for
Wrongo! The copyright on the artwork of the logo is sufficient to keep you from using it in a manner that is not covered under Fair Use. In most cases, the logo is either parodied (just about the most protected fair use) or used within the company's trademark grant. Either that or they simply use the name.
And you are also misinformed about what protects misrepresentation, that is Trademark law. Or didn't your wife ever teach you the difference.
To use a thumbnail or reduced image of the original.. 100% falls in to the 'fair use' domain.
Uh, no. If you read the Arriba decision, you might notice that there were MANY other factors taken into account. Including the specifics of it being a search engine, and that the images are not integral to the site, but are thumbnail results from a search.
In fact, they even took into account that the search engines send traffic to the site where the images can be purchased, which increases the revenue.
telling him to get permissions before even begining is dumb
But you are still ignoring that the OP specifically stated that he didn't want to infringe copyrights and refused to do so even if everyone else did it. The question was about specific advice to get pictures LEGALLY on the cheap.
Your advice has been totally againt what he asked for.
By the way, if your wife is a lawyer, why don't you ask her if all court decisions are available for free online as part of the public record. All recent federal cases are available via PACER, but the last I checked, only certain of those cases are available for free.
Oh yeah, I might point out that I am one of the most vocal Fair Use defenders on this board, but I refuse to tell someone that their use will qualify as Fair Use, when it obviously will not.
Fair Use is ethical. Personal use is ethical. Infringement that you can "get away with" is not ethical. Nor is recommending that someon risk their financial future because they are unlikely to sue.
