OT: What are your thoughts regarding this copyright violation?

Came across this on DPR:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5778692

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5791062

 

I am posting this for more cooler head responses than many of those

on DPR. My understanding that under copyright law would make NASDAQ

a technical violator. But technical does not always meet reality. It

would appear that NASDAQ was mislead as to the use of the images.

They did not post the images for direct profit (ie, they did not use

in an annal report or such). When they were informed by the

photographer that they were violating copyright, they removed the

images. It was my understanding that in a case like this the removal

of images was sufficient.

 

So my questions:

 

Does the photographer have a basis to demand payment?

 

In this situtation, since the photographer seems intent on

protecting his property rights, how could he (or anyone of us) have

handled this better?

 

Thanks, hope this is not too off topic. But in this internet age,

copyright is a concern for all of us.

I think that there is a lot of miscommunication showing here! Just because NASDAQ is "deep pocket" doesn't give you the right to attempt blackmail. Most photographers would love having their photos used along with a link to their website. Oh well, the world is full of idiots...

These are always touchy questions..... It would have been smarter, to quietly contact the offending party and POLITELY inform them of the violation and ask for normal payment ($2,500.00) or removal from the site. Instead, he posts something on public site and demands $25,000.00 in payment. Had the photographer been polite, he may have gotten some money. Since it took it to a public forum before investigating what happen, he got the offenders all lawyered up and ready to fight. Legally, he is probably right (I'm no laywer) but practically he lost. Also, important to all this is the third party who passed on the photos and the deal the photographer made with him. This could easily leave him out in the cold. Happy Snaps, Sal

Once you make the image or write the words, you own the copyright to the work.

 

To protect yourself, place the public on notice of your copyright by placing the © symbol every time you show or post the work. The proper form of notice is © year your name - All Rights Reserved

 

Use the proper copyright symbol from your word processor instead of the ©.

 

Next, you should register the copyright with the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress. It's only $30 to file the form.

A collection of work can be registered on one form.

 

The forms and instructions can be downloaded as PDF documents from the Copyright Office Web Site:

 

http://loc.gov/copyright

 

Why register? 1) Registration entitles you to statutory damages, which lessens the need to prove the value of the work.

2) Registration document from the Copyright Office is prima facie evidence you own the copyright.

 

Bob Soltis, Registered Patent Attorney

 

Administrative & DMV Hearings

Military Law - Security Clearances,

Social Security Disability

 

San Diego, California

<p><i>Does the photographer have a basis to demand payment? </i></p>

<p>Yes. About the only use for which some form of permission/license from the copyright holder is not required is an editorial context in which the work is analyzed or critiqued. The NASDAQ site clearly doesn't fit that mold, and while the page was withdrawn, my assumption would be that they were using the images for entertainment value, driving traffic and interest in their site. The amount of payment owing, however, would be a different matter, I'd think. The $25K mentioned was a mis-step on the part of the photographer - not quite blackmail, but close.</p>

 

<p><i> . . . how could he (or anyone of us) have handled this better? </i></p>

<p>My guess would be the page was put up by one of their Web staff in response to a PR person's desire for more light-hearted, entertaining content on the site. Often, those folks fall into either of two groups - those who are simply ignorant of copyright, and those of the Napster mindset who feel it's perfectly OK to "share" the work of others. Either way, assuming that it is a reputable company's site using an image, a polite call to the head of the PR department is likely to get a more reasonable response. The PR manager will be quick to recognize the potential disaster from any negative press (in the NASDAQ case, particularly after recent stock-market scandals), and would likely be amenable to a reasonable, industry-standard payment for a usage license. The key, I think, is to be reasonable and non-threatening in the initial contact, working on the basis of an assumption that the "user" of the image would want to do the "right thing". If that doesn't work, <i>then</i> sue their butts and call a press conference. ;-) </p>

<p>For sites that aren't "reputable companies", first a contact with the webmaster is appropriate, requesting either payment or removal of the images. If that doesn't work, contacting the site's ISP usually does. More than one offending site has been shut down by various ISPs for copyright violations. Filing suit in this latter case is not likely to be fruitful.</p>

<p>In either situation, it's a good idea to document the violation by taking screen captures of the offending site's pages, including dates and whatever else might be available. That, of course, should be done <i>before</i> making contact. </p>

Certainly this incident was mishandled. If my photos were to be used without my permission, my first action would be to register the copyrights <i>before</i> contacting the user. In my <b>letter</b>-- not e-mail -- to the user I would ask to discuss compensation and note that the copyrights had been registered.<br><br>

 

I guess I would call this the iron hand in a velvet glove approach.<br><br>

 

Bob

Certainly, the place for a photographer to conduct business is through the proper channels -- in this case, seeking the advice of an attorney.

 

To do this through a public forum is ludicrous. And I probably wouldn't use his services, if I were searching for a freelance photographer.

 

Next, I certainly would hope that I have better things in life to do than troll the Internet, searching for copyright violations, as he explains.

 

If this photographer is so concerned about misuse, he shouldn't post hundreds of photos on his site. In this Internet age, it's the wild west, and eventually your stuff is going to be snapped up by others.

 

I notice that he slices up his photos to dissuade use. Any 14-year-old with a high-speed connection and basic knowledge of image editing can get around that problem. A better thing to do would be to hire (i.e., pay) a programmer to insert Javascript that would make the photos un-downloadable.

 

Finally, the Nasdaq should have known better. As big as they are, they should be well aware of copyright laws and should have first contacted the photographer. They do have a legal department, which sets guidelines for use of its logo.

Well, while everyone's getting heated about copyright violation, how about this from our own beloved forum...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005fuO

Thanks everyone for the replies. I knew that I could count on better info from our little family.

 

One thing that I noted was that this fellow seems to be one of those DIY types. Meaning that when an attorney is needed (and in this case it appears that an attorney was needed) he would rather save the money.

 

I guess the question for Bob Soltis is, when a photographer seems very intent on protecting his copyright (as this fellow seems to be), would a retainer be the way to go? It is my understanding that having a lawyer under retainer makes it easier to have that lawyer send out a quick letter to the offending party. Or is this something that a photographer do on their own, and use an attorney only when a lawsuit is needed?

Harvey,

 

You have a point about that thread. I am surprised that it is still posted. Though does the posting of "clippings" fit the fair use doctrine? Maybe another question for Bob S.?

Given that the event (or any other similar event) was "newsworthy" and held in a public space (hence the right of privacy is waived from my understanding) are releases needed for a photographer to sell these types of images?

Bob Soltis -- I'm looking for a patent attorney and tried emailing

you directly at your AOL address but it came back undeliverable.

If you're interested, please contact me at :

 

karlknize@ameritech.net.

 

Nice pictures on your web site!

Copyright is copyright. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that photos posted on the internet are fair game--and, thus, fair use--for people who don't mind pushing the evelope.

 

I'm a virtual computer illiterate. I don't know how to post my photos on this website and don't care how you do it. It avoids a lot of complications.