Bloggers stealing photos

tonylong wrote in post #10092746
Hey Derek, sorry that this hassle has been occupying your time!

Now, a serious question: where does the line fall concerning fair/editorial use and use that is out of bounds? For instance, every day we see on Cable News and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, etc, clips from another news network or some other show, photos lifted from the newspaper/net, etc, etc. How does this compare with a blogger lifting a screen shot from a Web page? Do you consider it illegal, or merely inethical, especially since there was some nefarious "interpretations" going on that didn't match the facts?

In other words, did you have legal grounds in that this use violated the limits to fair/editorial use, whereas Jon Stewart playing a lifted clip from MSNBC or Fox for comic effect would not?

I'm curious, both to know how one would interpret the difference, and as to whether blogs are by nature some kind of "gray area" that hasn't been legally defined, or what?!

Curious to hear your thoughts!

There is no actual hard legal definition of fair use. Unfortunately, only a judge can decide whether a usage was "fair" or not.

Fair use is treated differently through different mediums. Using a 30 second clip from a one hour newscast may be considered fair, while using that entire newscast would almost certainly be determined not to be.

The real crux of fair use is the "usage". If I make a copy of a movie and watch it by myself in my home, there would likely be no legal action that the studio could take against me. If I sold copies of that movie or showed that copy to a movie theater full of paying customers, they would certainly have reason for legal action.

With photographs, it is an entirely differant ball of wax. Since you cannot play a "clip" of a photograph, it is much more difficult to "fairly" use someone's photograph.

Section 107, Title 17 of the US Code outlines some criteria for determination as to whether a use is considered "fair". It can be found on page 19 of the PDF file at the top of this list (Complete version...):

http://www.copyright.g​ov/title17/

There was a fairly recent court case where the judgment fell on the side of the photographer that I feel is about the closest example of case law that there is on a matter like this.

http://www.gannett.com …tch/2007/aug/nw​0802-2.htm

I do not feel that the usage of my photograph meets the criteria of fair use and I would hardly classify it as news reporting.

That's about as much as I'm willing to comment on my specific situation, but here is a great resource on copyright issues for photographers:

http://www.photoattorn​ey.com/


Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, or a judge. These are simply my personal opinions based on a lot of research in the last several days.

CAHeidelberger wrote in post #10079385
@JulieNick: "idiot"? I thought the rules of this forum forbade personal attacks.

Minor corrections:
1. "15 feet" appears to be an exaggeration.
2. "obviously not paying attention" is a rather subjective interpretation.
3. "my photo as nearly the only thing in the frame" is an overstatement. By my measurement of the 1024x600 pixel screenshot, the photo occupied 42% of the image.
4. "character assassination" is another remarkably subjective interpretation, suggesting DDCSD's negative opinion of the politician under consideration.
5. "personal Facebook account" -- when will people learn to use privacy settings?
6. "venom"? I have yet to see evidence of that. Again, subjective interpretations made in the heat of upset about something else.

I'd invite you to view the photo yourselves and make your own assessments, but DDCSD has removed all available copies from public view. Darn, that copyright, getting in the way of allowing people to decide for themselves. Alas.

I have previously invited DDCSD to add his explanation to each blog post mentioned in the comment sections, which are open to every user willing to leave his or her name.

(By the way, DDCSD did not obtain permission to use my original text in his above forum post, in apparent violation rules of this very forum. Copyright violation? Fair use? Goose and gander? Discuss.)

just noticed this. Wasn't directed at the OP it was directed at the crazy blogger

JulieNick wrote in post #10098395
just noticed this. Wasn't directed at the OP it was directed at the crazy blogger

Don't worry, I think everyone knew whom you were referring to.

Great info, thanks

Wow, that guy is really a wacko.

The best part? Comments are edited or moderated by s/he/it.

SkedAddled wrote in post #10101830
Wow, that guy is really a wacko.

The best part? Comments are edited or moderated by s/he/it.

What a tool.

Sorry you've become mixed up in this, Derek.

That's not so bad. I know some people who run potentially enraging blogs, and they require that everyone who post a comment attach their name to it (the argument: If you're not willing to put your name behind what you're saying, you shouldn't be saying it).

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #10102633
That's not so bad. I know some people who run potentially enraging blogs, and they require that everyone who post a comment attach their name to it (the argument: If you're not willing to put your name behind what you're saying, you shouldn't be saying it).

I agree, I don't blame him for general moderation and require posters to use their names. It eliminates the usual 50 advertisement posts and the random drive-by vitriol.

A quick look at the comments section at youtube when the video is even remotely political and you'll know why this is necessary.

With that said, there is something to be said for anonymous speech as long as it isn't malicious or untrue. Putting your name on something doesn't automatically make a statement true or civil. Just like not putting your name on something doesn't automatically make it invalid. In fact, people tend to be more honest when they have less fear of reprisal.

But that is neither here nor there. What does concern me is what I have read about him not allowing some comments to be posted that did have the poster's name attributed.

I hate when bloggers and/or other people online would steal your photos and use it without giving a photographer credit. When I have my photo uploaded on the web, I simply disable the download link and the right-click option (including the click and drag image).

alonsovcsusb wrote in post #10105211
I hate when bloggers and/or other people online would steal your photos and use it without giving a photographer credit. When I have my photo uploaded on the web, I simply disable the download link and the right-click option (including the click and drag image).

I had someone use Print Screen and steal 5 photos off of my website. I found out when an on line newspaper called and asked for a copy without my © across it.

Mike R wrote in post #10106147
I had someone use Print Screen and steal 5 photos off of my website. I found out when an on line newspaper called and asked for a copy without my © across it.

That's why large identifying watermarks are necessary. Many people on here complain when someone posts a photo on here with a watermark claiming it "ruins viewing the photo". Got to think of the bigger picture! News organizations will do anything for free content!

alonsovcsusb wrote in post #10105211
I hate when bloggers and/or other people online would steal your photos and use it without giving a photographer credit. When I have my photo uploaded on the web, I simply disable the download link and the right-click option (including the click and drag image).

In this case the blogger used the "print screen" method and used the resulting screen on his blog. Disabling right-click and not having a download link doesn't really do anything to stop anyone from stealing your photos. If they can see it, they can steal it.

He also credited the photograph to me, but that does not make the usage OK. It is theft if I walk into a museum and pull a painting off the wall to hang in my office. It doesn't matter if I put a little card underneath it that tells everyone who painted it.

I also forgot to mention that this shows how important it is to register your images (if in the US). If I didn't have a usual practice of registering my images and didn't notice the infringement until after the 3 month "grace period" for image registration, my legal options (compensation) would be very limited.

Register your images regularly!!!