Your opinion please...

I received a Flickrmail a few days ago requesting the use of one of mu photos. That in itself is not the issue. In the e-mail, it was disclosed to me that the reason why they want to use my photo is because it was used in a presentation at a convention given by a non-profit organization called TED and they want to keep my picture, with credits, in their archives. This is part of the e-mail I received...

"One of the speakers at the TED Global 2013 conference used the image in a presentation. We would like to request permission to archive this image as part of the recorded video of his presentation that would be posted to TED.com.

The image is used as one of the visual slides that appear on the stage monitor during his 10-minute talk. TED is a non-profit devoted to ideas worth sharing, and the videos on our site are free for everyone to watch."

The problem I have with this is multi-faceted. Firstly, my photos are copyrighted and downloading of them is disabled. That means the only way the speaker could have acquired my photo was by making a screen shot of it, which IMO amounts to theft. Secondly, the picture was used before asking for my permission. I would have gladly allowed them to use it (for a small price) and provided them with the digital file, which would be far better than the screen-shot. They say it is sometimes easier to ask for forgiven than for permission, and I think this is the logic that is being used here. I have a friend who's an attorney and have asked her to look at this for me. I haven't heard from her yet but should shortly. Even though it is after the fact, I would probably let them use it for the stated purpose as long as I get paid and proper credits are given. Non-profit or not, they are not entitled to steel copyrighted material. Plus it appears that they charge attendees a pretty decent admission fee for attending these conferences and I am quite sure that the other service providers are getting paid. I haven't found the video yet, but I am looking for it.

What is your opinion? BTW, I have no intention to sue them for $1.6M.

Thanks,
Jim

Well I think you have misunderstood how TED works. They have guest speakers and the guest speaker used the image. TED video taped the speach and now wants permission to use the photo in their video archive. That or archive the images from the speaches in a database or something.

Either way I think your case is against the speaker. I actually think TED is bad ass for asking for permission just because your image showed up in their video. They didn't just assume the speaker got permission - they actively sought you out in order to do what is right.

Which TED talk was it?

Which image?

jecottrell wrote in post #16445768
Which TED talk was it?

Which image?

October 2013, an areal photo of the highways. Were you there?

Jim

If I were you, I would thank TED for seeking you out (remember, they didn't borrow the image, they brought it to your attention that one of their presenters did). Then request to watch the presentation and make sure it isn't something weird that you don't want to be associated with. The rest is up to you, but remember that TED presenters don't get paid, so take that into account when deciding how to confront the speaker. Maybe just grit your teeth and let this one go with a warning to contact for licensing next time?

It may fall under fair use and can be used legally without your permission regardless of your opinion.

Visinate wrote in post #16445898
If I were you, I would thank TED for seeking you out (remember, they didn't borrow the image, they brought it to your attention that one of their presenters did). Then request to watch the presentation and make sure it isn't something weird that you don't want to be associated with. The rest is up to you, but remember that TED presenters don't get paid, so take that into account when deciding how to confront the speaker. Maybe just grit your teeth and let this one go with a warning to contact for licensing next time?

By that way of reasoning... If a jobless person were to steal your wallet and spend all of your money, do you think he should be let go with a warning and told to ask permission to steal your wallet next time.
The presenter (or whoever created the slideshow) purposefully stole the image. He couldn't right-click and save it (a further indication the OP didn't want anyone to have it), so he took a screen shot of it. Why should his lack of pay for this presentation have any bearing on the OP's approach to him? Photographers' lack of aggressive enforcement of copyright violations is, IMHO, the main reason it keeps occurring.

jwhite65 wrote in post #16445947
By that way of reasoning... If a jobless person were to steal your wallet and spend all of your money, do you think he should be let go with a warning and told to ask permission to steal your wallet next time.
The presenter (or whoever created the slideshow) purposefully stole the image. He couldn't right-click and save it (a further indication the OP didn't want anyone to have it), so he took a screen shot of it. Why should his lack of pay for this presentation have any bearing on the OP's approach to him? Photographers' lack of aggressive enforcement of copyright violations is, IMHO, the main reason it keeps occurring.

Not quite the same. I haven't seen the presentation, but could it be possible that the image was just pulled up through the web browser to where the image was legally hosted? Maybe it was found somewhere else and they are seeking out the owner after realizing that they may not have obtained permission as they thought they had. Copyright laws aren't taught in school and it isn't something everyone is aware of still.

jwhite65 wrote in post #16445947
By that way of reasoning... If a jobless person were to steal your wallet and spend all of your money, do you think he should be let go with a warning and told to ask permission to steal your wallet next time.
The presenter (or whoever created the slideshow) purposefully stole the image. He couldn't right-click and save it (a further indication the OP didn't want anyone to have it), so he took a screen shot of it. Why should his lack of pay for this presentation have any bearing on the OP's approach to him? Photographers' lack of aggressive enforcement of copyright violations is, IMHO, the main reason it keeps occurring.

Except in this case it may very well not be stealing (i.e. fair use)

http://www.copyright.g​ov/fls/fl102.html

As far as I know, the only place this photo was located was on my Flickr page. I never up loaded it anywhere else. That is not to say that it isn't in other places as I have found more than a few of my photos on tumblr, on Eastern European travel web sites, etc. tumblr may be a different story, but I have even seen one of my photos (of the pre-911 WTC) used on a financial blog. The bottom line in this case, the way I see it, is that the present liked and wanted my picture for his presentation and used whatever means he could to get it... without asking for permission.

It has become a moot point now anyway. I wrote back and told them that I was considering their request and in reply was advised that they were in a time crunch and rather than waiting had already used a replacement photo.

I think this is an interesting subject, however. And IMo fair use has nothing to do with it. I took the picture. I copyrighted the picture. And I took whatever steps were available to me (on Flickr) to protect it from being downloaded.

In case you're interested, here's the picture...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/a_roadbiker/5​688803723/

a_roadbiker wrote in post #16446303
I think this is an interesting subject, however. And IMo fair use has nothing to do with it. I took the picture. I copyrighted the picture. And I took whatever steps were available to me (on Flickr) to protect it from being downloaded.


Jim

Unfortunately the law doesn't care much about your opinion.

Just because you protect it doesn't somehow make it more special than anyone elses content that gets used as parodies/education/cri​tique etc.

a_roadbiker wrote in post #16446303
I think this is an interesting subject, however. And IMo fair use has nothing to do with it. I took the picture. I copyrighted the picture. And I took whatever steps were available to me (on Flickr) to protect it from being downloaded.

Benji is right. Your image is covered by copyright law just like any other, and just like any other can be subject to fair use, regardless of what you d to try and stop it.

Having said that we have not established if the usage was indeed fair. The discussion so far seems to have focused on TED and the fact that it is a not for profit. However, as mentioned earlier in the thread it wasn't TED that used the image but the person speaking at the event. That person may in fact have been their representing a for profit commercial venture and, as such their usage wouldn't have been fair use. You would need to investigate who used it and why before deciding what action to take. It is likely that TED isn't the only place they will be using your image.

jwhite65 wrote in post #16445947
By that way of reasoning... If a jobless person were to steal your wallet and spend all of your money, do you think he should be let go with a warning and told to ask permission to steal your wallet next time.
The presenter (or whoever created the slideshow) purposefully stole the image. He couldn't right-click and save it (a further indication the OP didn't want anyone to have it), so he took a screen shot of it. Why should his lack of pay for this presentation have any bearing on the OP's approach to him? Photographers' lack of aggressive enforcement of copyright violations is, IMHO, the main reason it keeps occurring.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I was thinking more along the lines of the "fair use" argument. From what I understand (I could be wrong), legally it is fair use to take a copyrighted photo without permission and use it in a presentation in an education setting. It is also fair use to use it in a news report, etc. But without knowing the content of his presentation, I couldn't say for sure whether he could have made any monetary gain from using the photo. Thus, fair use is implied without knowing all the info.

Therefore, even if you did get up in arms about it, you could make a fuss for nothing. A court could easily rule it fair use and even make you pay his legal fees (see various youtube fair use court cases over music). So that's where gritting your teeth and reminding him that he should ask permission next time is a good idea.

Since it is TED, I think it probably does fall under fair use.

I understand Fair Use differently. For the educational use exception, I think the work has to be the subject of the education. For example, if a photograph is used in a presentation to be able to discuss the composition and lighting of the image then it is Fair Use. However, I think if it is just an illustration, even if the subject of the talk is the specific subject of the image, then it is not fair use. At least, that is the explanation used by my university. Exceptions might be made for private, not distributed, educational uses (university lecture), but this has not, to my knowledge, been tested in court.