Forum Moderators: not2easy
The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in J. Greenberg & 1 handed down a very important copyright ruling. Greenberg v National Geographic Society (22nd March 2001) in which the Court ruled that National Geographic infringed copyright when it reproduced on a CD-ROM, copies of magazines which contained four photographs of a Miami photographer’s work without obtaining his permission. Writersworld [writersworld.tv]
And I also think The New York Times vs Tasini [caselaw.lp.findlaw.com] is interesting, in light of the online issues and copyright. Particularly interesting for freelancers. Everyman refers to this case briefly in the very interesting discussion PageRank of 8 from stolen content [webmasterworld.com]
My concern here is that as web developers in search of content, we need to be real clear that all our t’s are crossed and our i’s are dotted. Anyone know of other legal rulings we should be aware of that will help us professionally to not cross a line with regards to copyright issues. I’m also interested in comments folks may have on these legal rulings.
Using a search engine to locate stories on newspapers' sites violates European Union law, according to a recent ruling by judges in Munich's Upper Court...
The law in question is the "Database Directive," a piece of European Union legislation that grants copyright protection to database creators for "selecting and arranging" the information contained in a database...
I suspect many web designers are not really used to puchasing photography - instead, it is provided by the client. You know, "We shot these photos for our brochure - put them on the web site." Keep in mind the client may not have the right to use that photography on the Internet; in fact, they may not have the right to use it at all!
Many people don't realize that in most cases hiring a photographer to shoot something gives you ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to use the resulting proofs. Rights are usually released on a per photo, per usage basis. Mom and pops may not know this; the National Geographic certainly should have! It was more likely (I guess) a misunderstanding by NG staffers about specific photos than an attempt to use work in an unauthorized manner.
Broadcasters are facing this issue on streaming audio. Radio stations already pay for the right to broadcast songs; however, it has been held that those same rights don't extend to the putting those songs out over the Internet.
New use=new fees.
I've run into this more than once and have rewritten my contract several years ago to address these very issues.
appropriate photo credits and "used with permission" help substantiate the fact that permission was obtained prior to use
The only thing that substantiates that permission was obtained prior to use is a signed release from the photographer :)
I wouldn't suggest doing so otherwise. This was meant as "in conjunction with". Just giving credit does NOT mean - by any stretch of the imagination - it's all right to use without permission (though some people assume so). And just because so-and-so did it with or without getting permission doesn't mean another person can assume it's safe to do the same thing.
At any rate, I think we both agree that a signed release which spells out usage rights is the only way to show what every party to the agreement believes? At least, that's what I think :)
