Forum Moderators: not2easy
Can I use this picture on my site under any circumstances, without their permission? It seems to me that people who satirize things are immune to anybody using their material for any purpose, while everybody else is subject to having their material stolen and "satirized" on comedy sites.
I'm really at a loss when it comes to some very popular sites using pictures, videos, etc. that are obviously not theirs, nor have they received permission to use them. Are these sites breaking the law?
There seem to be an awful lot of adult-themed "comedy" sites that take pictures/video from implicitly copyrighted sources, slap their own logo on it, then write a one-liner which is more of an observation than actual satire, and they get away with it. What am I missing here?
Here's a fictitious example which would probably answer all my questions. I have a fascination with funny license plates. I want to go out to other peoples' sites, find pictures of funny plates, and put them on mine. Is this against the law?
What if my site is a satire of license plates?
What if I write an accompanying description of what I find humorous about this particular license plate?
What if I don't get permission, but I cite the source of the picture?
What if I put a line at the bottom of my site in size -2 font which states "If you are the copyright owner of any of these pictures, contact me and I'll immedately remove them. I thought they were all public domain, so you can't sue me. blah"
I can't speak to your general question about "popular sites" that may or may not be doing one thing or another. For specifics, consult with an attorney. But the general rule, I think, is "If in doubt, don't."
If the work is truly satiric, then the use is allowed, so I understand, under "Fair Use" guidelines. I wouldn't put a notice saying "If you can prove that you own this, then maybe I'll take it down", because that opens you up to charges that you knew, or at least had good reason to suspect, that you were doing something improper.
Just my $0.02....
Eliz.
As to sites that have clearly stolen content, well, just because someone else does it doesn't mean it's a good idea. They might get caught eventually. Or they may be such small potatoes that they will never be noticed.
Do your best to learn what the law is in this area, not what you think it should be. And get legal advice before setting off on your path, even if you think you're safe.
You brought up pictures of license plates, which ironically is an example of photographs that might not be able to receive copyright protection. I don't know of any caselaw on this, but if the photo is totally about the public domain information (the license plate) with no additional artistic expression, then it seems that it might be awful close to that line where you would have no copyright protection.
That said, I wouldn't personally take the chance on copying it.
Person puts picture on their web site. I take picture and put it on my web site which specializes in making jokes about this type of picture. Is this legal? I didn't take the content that surrounded the picture - I merely satirized the picture. Regardless of the fact that, in its original context, the picture was being satirized in much the same way.
Or is it only legal if I take the picture and their content, and satirize the *way* they satirized the picture?
So what I'm asking is, could I go to comedy central's website, take some funny looking picture of some politician, and make much the same joke they did but in my own words?
The reason I ask these questions is because some of my pictures have been taken and used on other sites. If I contact these site(s), I'd like to know I have some kind of standing. I understand most if not all of us are not lawyers, and I don't intend to take legal action here; I just wanted to know what others thought before I fired off a couple emails.
ALL IMAGES ARE COPYRIGHTED - PERIOD.
The minute the camera button clicks and the shutter snaps, the photographer has a copyright.
Images come in 3 types based on the owners descretion:
a) 100% Free
b) Royalty-Free
c) Rights Managed
If the image doesn't expressly say "use freely", then assume it's B or C.
Many photographers charge a $1500 minimum usage fee per image (or more) and your using it without permission gives the photographer the right to invoke his usage fee. If the photographer actually bothered to register the image with the copyright office you can kiss your bank account goodbye.
If it's a drawing, same thing.
Ask before you take - simple as that - unless you like paying the image owner over a thousand dollars per image just to avoid spending much more money on a lawyer defending yourself. Since the DMCA came out the most likely first action would be your web site would simply vaporize when your host gets notice of your infringement.
Does this all sound fun yet?
How can fan sites post screenshots of movies, video clips, etc? Are these thousands of sites breaking the law or is there some kind of fair use doctrine that states people can do so when they are reviewing something? Or are the movie studios simply not going to sue people who are giving them free publicity? At 1500 a pop I'd think Gigli's producers would have been better off just suing everybody.
How do sites which allow users to upload things to their online portfolios (i.e. flickr, and dozens of other sites with money to lose) avoid lawsuits? I could upload my buddy's pictures without his consent, then he could sue them, apparently, for thousands of dollars.
The problem I have is that my pictures have been taken from my site without my consent. Then that person uploaded them to a site which has a "user submitted" section, along with a few words that could, I suppose, be considered satire. Has he not satirized my copyrighted photo, thus making this fair use?
Or is there something I'm missing in this whole fair use / satire thing?
Are these thousands of sites breaking the law?
Yes, and it depends on the owner of the images what happens.
Copyright law is very specific, whether it's enforced is optional.
Many TREK sites were beat up by UPN, try your luck....
And Amazon too?
And every store on the net which sells movies, and has pictures of the box cover or a few screenshots?
So can I assume that Blockbuster payed for/received some kind of special right to post video clips of the movies it rents on its site?And Amazon too?
Yes, licensed images are made available to help retailers sell their wares.
However, when someone doesn't have an agreement to use those images it can get ugly. One of my customers got in a fight with a distributor and lost his ability to sell a specific product line and they sent the lawyers after him to get all images, logos and brand names off his web site.
Did they have the right to do that before he cleared out his stock?
Who knows, but at $250/hr for IP lawyers it's cheaper just to go along with the request than fight it.
A different customer of mine uses NO images provided by the vendors, they shoot their own catalog. Some competitor incorrectly assumed those were vendor supplied shots and lifted images from their online catalog.
Would you like to guess what happened to the guy that took their images?
That's right, their legal dept. took him for a wild ride.
So can I assume that Blockbuster payed for/received some kind of special right to post video clips of the movies it rents on its site?
Eliz.
Fair Use is intentionally a grey area in copyright law with the intention that it be defined by the courts in a case by case basis.
Of the various forms of fair use, educational, news, review and commentary, satire and parody receive, by far, the greatest ability to copy a larger percentage of the work.
The biggest question would be on whether the commentary meats the transformitive requirement.
If they are replacing your commentary with their own similar commentary, it is probably not transforming the work enough to give them much protection.
I would recommend that you read the decisions in SUNTRUST v HOUGHTON MIFFLIN and CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. They are parody cases, but parody is closly related to satire.
The Suntrust decision is based on the Campbell decision. You would want to read the parts dealing with the Fair Use analysis. Suntrust starts at "b. Fair Use and Campbell starts at "A". They will give you an idea about the steps that the court goes through in making a Fair Use determination.
So, certainly none of us could ever tell you whether or not what was done was Fair Use. And you can often shut someone down with a treat of a suit, even if they are involved in Fair Use of your work.
Don't be scared of reading difficult legal decisions. These are actually written in fairly understandable english.
As for
ALL IMAGES ARE COPYRIGHTED - PERIOD.The minute the camera button clicks and the shutter snaps, the photographer has a copyright.
That is simply incorrect. Replace "ALL" with "Most" and it is correct.
There are many, many ways that the photographer, nor anyone else would have the copyright on a picture, but just as an example, here is just one example of a set of images that have no copyright and are in fact unable to be copyrighted:
[vulcan.wr.usgs.gov...]
