That story reminds me of a more personal anecdote.
Some day in the past year, my girlfriend found a picture of herself (taken from her Flickr) used as the "anchor" for some article on a online magazine's portal.
No mail to ask her about it. Nothing.
When she asked to get it removed, they assured that they always take their photos from paid stocks, or free of rights, so that it's not their fault. They didn't give more details, but eventually removed the picture.
The problem is that we live in an age when most people just use Google image to illustrate their stories, and assume that they can use just anything, because they found it there.
Google links to source. You can't even view the full size from Google cache (it's an ugly compressed thumbnail).
If you see a publisher not give credit for article and/or media used then they are cheap. She should have sent them an invoice for using the picture. I heard it's the standard for photojournalists to do this, except charge 5x the rate (for publishers not initially asking).
Google Images gets a "free pass" because their use is a "fair use" as defined in US copyright law.
"""
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Google Images uses the copied images to guide users to the original (#1), uses a reduced-resolution thumbnail (#3), and in general may have a neutral or even positive effect on the value of the work (#4).
Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Aren't you consciously and knowingly injecting it out into the ether? You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?
<b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and interesting debate.
I mostly agree. It should be this way, in legal terms, as far as I'm concerned.
But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others.
Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
> There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.
> Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain?
Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due).
You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation.
> You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?
That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.
That's not exactly true. American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning. And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.
> American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning.
Yes.
> And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.
Sure, but the fact remains that, under french IP laws, it is legally impossible to put something in the public domain yourself, as the creator of that thing.
And checking SQLite's "copyright" page (which made me realize this nit of french IP law) there seem to be places where the very concept of "public domain" does not exist.
Legal definitions of "public domain" aside, if you're putting something onto twitter you presumably want it to be shared. Isn't that the point of twitter? If you do retain the copyright, does this mean that people have to pay for retweeting?
This image only became famous but virtue of the fact that it went viral on twitter and the wider web. If she'd not tweeted it - and as someone with no press contacts - had attempted to sell it directly to media organisations I'm betting she wouldn't have had much success.
I think it's pretty hypocritical to try and leverage free services like twitter for self-promotion and personal brand-building then completely back-track on that ideology and claim some kind of restriction on a particular post cos it suddenly has been delivered to a wider audience and may suddenly have value.
Putting an image onto Twitter or other such services is clearly putting the image for distribution, but under the common terms of that service; you're saying the image is available to see as you posted it.
The issue here is separate, for-profit redistribution in other media, which definitely requires prior consent from the originator.
Sure. Selling it for cash I can understand the argument against that. But has anyone done that? And why would anyone pay given that it's available anyway?
So you can make the argument that publishing the image forms part of a publisher's content proposition from which they benefit (more viewers, more magazine sales or whatever). But you can make the same argument for twitter itself: twitter's value and the wealth of it's owners is derived exclusively from content it's users post. So can a user claim compensation from twitter for the value it has derived from their posts?
The same argument applies to say StackOverflow. I've spent countless hours answering questions and helping people out. SO sell ads against this content, and my content drives search engine click-throughs. Do I have a claim against SO?
Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed in the Hudson.
> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?
Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.
You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.
I'm not trying to make an argument that fits within or agrees with current legislation. I am making a purely logical argument - I'm sure for example there's stuff in twitters ToS that give them rights over whatever you post so that you couldn't claim compensations from them, and ditto SO.
> I'm sure for example there's stuff in twitters ToS that give them rights over whatever you post so that you couldn't claim compensations from them, and ditto SO.
Gives them. If you're posting pictures on Twitter or putting comments on SO, you can hardly fault them for displaying those.
But when AP starts selling your twitter pictures or SO comments on its feed, it's a whole different bucket of filth, and a very, very different situation.
We're discussing the second case here, not "I put a comment on news.yc and news.yc displays it".
Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed in the Hudson.
> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?
Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.
You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.
You WANT it to be distributed and concede the necessary rights to TwitPic, but that's very different from putting it out in the public domain. You still retain copyright, and normally the picture host shouldn't be able to sell it nor journalists to use it (this is precisely the reason there was such a kerfuffle about the TwitPic TOS recently).
I hate being self-promotional, but this issue is exactly the reason we created Picuous, which is a Vimeo/SoundCloud/Scribd for pictures: pictures can be embedded legally, carry automatic attribution, and can be tracked by the picture owner. Using the pictures in the player is free, using them in other contexts is pay-for.
We want to change this traditionnal diffusion/monetization/ownership Bermuda Triangle… People interested in this problem should check it out: http://picuous.com. All feedback is welcome on martin@picuous.com.
"You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?"
Authors want their books distributed. Musicians want their music distributed, too. They just want to make money, as well.
Honestly, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, which is interesting. I just think we have to work on the terminology. Because anyone can see that there's a big difference between snapping a picture and putting it on Twitter, vs. writing a book and trying to sell it.
(+1, by the way. You made a good argument. You might want to remove the "<b>" though, that kind of formatting doesn't work here).
You are badly confusing publishing with copyrights. Most photographers like their work published. Some publish through art galleries, some through newspapers, some through billboards, and some through twitter. None of these make it public domain, however.
Public domain means anyone can use the photo as they see fit, which is not why the photographer put it out there. She is exercising her copyrights by licensing the photo (royalty free) to whatever service she uploaded it to. (It's always in the ToS that by uploading, you give them some sort of license, but you usually do not give them the copyright.)
Now, it is possible that she uploaded to Twitpic, which specifies in its ToS that by uploading, you give them license to publish and relicense the photo. If that's the case, then it is possible the various news agencies went to Twitpic to get a license to use the photo (for free or for some fee paid to Twitpic), but my guess is that is not what happened.
Think of it this way: if you wrote a book and posted a link to it on twitter, would you be happy if someone else started selling it on Amazon?
I'm not talking about the issue of someone else selling her picture. Obviously that is not on. Maybe I missed this, but has her picture been sold by others? I though the issue was that various media organisations had published it on their own networks?
It seems like everyone is determined to give you a legal answer to what what I interpreted as a moral question. The overwhelming response has established that legally she still owns the copyright to the photo. The quesiton that's worth discussing, in my mind, is should she be able to go after people for damages for using her photo in ways other than attempting to plagarize it or just straight up sell copies?
When you post a picture to twitter you are essentially saying Hey everyone look at my photo!. In my view it is then impossible to justify later freaking out and saying Holy shit everyone is looking at my photo!
After reading the article, I think the "victim" here may even agree with me. Her quotes didn't give the impression that she felt particularly wronged in the whole affair.
There's a bit of an undertone in the article, stating that "if you don't let yourself get paid for photos you publish online then you must be doing something wrong". Or at least that's the feeling I get from it.
It's just a photo. The photos that the article refers to are not works of art. They were not meticulously planned, they were not taken by experienced professionals using expensive professional equipment. They're just photos made by people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. They then decided out of their own volition to share their photo online, an act that takes less than 1 minute of their time. If commercial organizations start (ab)using the photos then I think it's good to point that out, as they are making money off of it. Otherwise I'd say: happy sharing.
Personally, I don't take photos for money. Every photo I publish on my blog I consider to be in the public domain, and I'd be glad if people use it. If I enjoyed making it or if it didn't take me any effort to make it, then I'm happy to share it for free.
If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned', the world would be a far less interesting place.
Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just curious what you might have in mind.
If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.
First thing to pop into my mind is xkcd. Certainly Munroe didn't need professional equipment of any kind when he started the site, still I'd argue that it is a work of art.
By making a distinction between 'professionals' and 'amateurs' you stipulate that nobody can cross this border by chance, it would always require a directed effort; and that's nothing I'd call constructive.
Go back to the start of XKCD and it mostly sucks (IMO). And he currently makes his living from XKCD so he is clearly a professional today. Where each of those lines crossed is difficult to say, but at best I think it demonstrates the transition.
Agreed. As well, the art in XKCD is not in the drawings, it's in the wit. Bet you guys the wit takes a lot of effort and doesn't just come bubbling out of his head. Look at what professional comedians say about how they make their jokes. Bet the process is pretty much the same.
"Fountain", by Marcel Duchamp. You might argue that Duchamp was an experienced professional at art in general (being 30 and the producer of less-famous works), but it's a urinal that he purchased in a store and signed.
It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).
Apparently Duchamp actually went to great lengths to create or to modify the items he "found", and then denied changing them at all, in what is perhaps yet another level of irony. Or so I've read.
That's not what s/he is saying. He says the pictures are neither art (defined as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” by the New Oxford American dictionary) nor the work of a professional photographer (such a photo-journalist) that will use expensive equipment and maybe plan the photo (such as a fashion photographer).
Missing the point. These people simply took their phone, snapped a picture and put it on the internet.
And then after the fact, are reacting this way. They're not shooting for a project, to build their portfolio, etc. They simply took a picture of something they saw.
That's exactly what great photojournalism is, simply being there. Being in the right place at the right time often pays very well. The idea that great photos are meticulously planned is, generally, incorrect. Most of the iconic photos of the 20th century were not in any way planned. John Filo, a photo j student at Kent State, won a Pulitzer for essentially being in the 'right place at the right time:'
I'd never heard of John Filo before so I followed your link. His account implies his picture didn't result from merely being in the right place at the right time.
- He had been shot at once (by a representative of his own government), began running (for his life?), but had the presence of mind to return and take pictures.
- Being a photographer, he had useful equipment at the ready. Many other people were around, but they didn't have the equipment. This was 1970 -- not everyone had a camera in their pockets.
- Being a photojournalism student, he may have sought and framed pictures differently than the average person. He said he was running out of film, implying he had to choose wisely. An untrained person may have run out of film or taken images that wouldn't become iconic.
I'm not arguing for or against the main issues in this thread. I was just impressed by the photograph, what it took to take it, and wouldn't characterize it as the result of just being in the right place at the right time. Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.
Despite the disagreement on that characterization, thanks for sharing that link. I'm glad to have seen the photograph and learned the story.
It is a great story, isn't it? But I think we're actually kind of agreeing on this, albiet from slightly different perspectives:
>Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's not -necessairly - about the quality of equipment or technical training or 'meticulous' planning.
More than any other single factor, it's about the photographer's location. Photojournalists are trained and paid to actively seek out news and choose their locations so they -might- be there to capture that perfect moment, but if someone with an iPhone just happens to be in that ideal spot instead, it doesn't mean their photo is worth any less.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away your photo, but I think people should be aware that, if they happen to find themselves in a newsworthy situation, they could choose to get paid for what they record, sometimes quite a bit.
The point is more "the photo was taken from Twitter without permission and now hundreds if not thousands of media organisations are using it to make money, without any compensation to the photographer."
Those organisations are used to paying for content. They make money from its distribution. Often they charge for their own.
By taking the picture without paying they are essentially being hypocritical, and the lowest form of pirate, without even the "it might mean I buy some other pictures in the future" or "she needs a new business model, not my problem" defences.
It has nothing to do with the photo's intrinsic value, whatever that is.
I think it would be a mistake to confuse the artistic value of something with its monetary value—the two are only loosely coupled.
The monetary value here is tied to the rarity of the picture. Sure, it sucks, and it was taken in 2s. But it's still unique. And interesting. So it's worth a lot.
>"I think the problem is that photo-sharing services don’t allow you to easily provide copyright information,” said Sullivan, who operates SearchEngineLand.com.
Flickr's done that for years. The problem is with the social networks where photo-sharing is an incidental function.
>He thinks photo sharing services could offer users simple options like, "Would you be interested in selling images?" -- and could even act as agents for consumers.
Flickr doesn't exactly act as an agent for customers; they do however have a partnership with Getty to sell pictures, but as far as I know only a very small percentage of pictures are concerned.
The TwitPic debacle recently—TwitPic changed their TOS to state that TwitPic could sell their users' pictures without authorization from or revenue sharing with, said user. So, TwitPic?
TwitPic doesn't strip your copyright. Their TOS states that you grant them the right to sell the image uploaded to them, but you still hold the original copyright. It was clearly described in the linked article.
I think the question was whether there were sites which stripped you of your copyright privileges, not of your copyright. I've argued elsewhere in the thread that these services cannot strip your copyright. However, if you give a license to a website to profit from your content, I think we can agree that the website stripped you from your copyright privileges (at least a big part of them).
A system to reward the photo taker would be nice. In one minute, photo is taken and published. It sould take no more than another minute for news companies use the photo by paying a small standard fee to the person who made it available. It could be like a 'donate' button or a more serious fee just to provide some benefit to the person who was in the right place/time. Usually, they don't expect anything. Maybe a Flattr like system?
He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. Copyrights are instantly granted to the creator. There is no requirement that you file with the fed, it's just a service offered. By uploading to the web, she created a public record that she was claiming to be the owner.
The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here.
So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?
I'm not a lawyer, but I do moonlight as a photographer, and my best understanding is that, yes, you have the copyright as soon as you create the photo, and it enforceable at that point, but it is more enforceable (in the form of attorney’s fees and statutory damages) if it is registered with the copyright office. If it is not registered, you can only get actual damages, which would be what they would normally pay for the photo.
> He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true.
He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier.
"Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office."
The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside."
Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously).
"So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?"
Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.
If you don't register your copyright within three months of first publishing a work, you can't claim (ludicrously excessive) statutory damages from more than 30 days before registration.
Nobody talks about the copyright owned by the creators of shuttle. In some countries you have to pay to use photographs of buildings (taken by you). Why should a photograph of shuttle be different?
I think the 'surprise' here, if there is any, is that so-called old media claims to be in favor of so-called old-style copyrights, except for when they want to copy something, and then all bets are off.
On the same morning, HN promotes the tale of John Perry Barlow lambasting the G8 over copyright protection, but then also promotes the tale of a randomly tweeted photo getting used without permission on numerous news outlets.
Is the HN community split down the middle on copyright issues, or simply not clear in its thinking? Is the morality of copyright purely decided by which side of the coin a big corporation is sitting?
Or is one of these news posts meant to be interpreted ironically?
I promote the idea of a limited copyright. A creator should have the opportunity to do what they want with their work for a limited time. However, the current notion that copyright extends to what is almost an indefinite time (manly since it keeps being extended every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is close to expiring ) is ludicrous.
Speaking for myself, these stories show how the copyright system is broken. Especially with the ease of copying digital content. The interest for me is thinking of changes that could improve the system. At this point I don't support a complete repeal of copyrights but I lean that direction.
Don't forget you have the DMCA being used to pull Eve Online code from Github.
But no. John Barlow wasn't didn't seem to be suggesting flagrantly violating copyrights (at least, nothing I read suggested that). And this story is about people violating copyright. The difference is one has to do with copyright protection, the other with violating copyright.
Basically, don't violate copyright, but we don't want more copyright protection. Additional protection would come at a price.
The morality of copyright isn't at issue here on HN. Do not confuse the arguments as being one in the same. They aren't. Companies have the same rights as little people when it comes to copyrights. What we don't want happening is companies getting more rights, and being able to trounce all over due process.
My observations (please stop down-voting) is that NH is slowly dying as a place for smart people who like to share opinions. It becomes a place of voting "gangs".
I think the author of the photo took a great stance on the situation. There was no value placed on the image until it became popular and like she said, there was no intent to make money from the image. The various news outlets that were mentioned, though, definitely should have tracked her down and at least requested usage rights. Until the internet as a whole develops its own form of copyright law, people will continue to abuse things like this.
Is there a "watermark" application that you can place the copyright on a picture taken from your phone? Sure, it could be edited out, but I assume that would provide a little better protection.
71 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 71.3 ms ] threadNo mail to ask her about it. Nothing.
When she asked to get it removed, they assured that they always take their photos from paid stocks, or free of rights, so that it's not their fault. They didn't give more details, but eventually removed the picture.
The problem is that we live in an age when most people just use Google image to illustrate their stories, and assume that they can use just anything, because they found it there.
If you see a publisher not give credit for article and/or media used then they are cheap. She should have sent them an invoice for using the picture. I heard it's the standard for photojournalists to do this, except charge 5x the rate (for publishers not initially asking).
Google Images gets a "free pass" because their use is a "fair use" as defined in US copyright law.
""" Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work """ http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Google Images uses the copied images to guide users to the original (#1), uses a reduced-resolution thumbnail (#3), and in general may have a neutral or even positive effect on the value of the work (#4).
Of course, a simpler answer is that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said Google gets a free pass because Google's use was highly transformative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.co...
You can argue about what definition of "free" includes defending against a lawsuit carried through the US Court of Appeals...
<b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and interesting debate.
But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others.
Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.
Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due).
You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation.
> You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?
That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.
Yes.
> And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.
Sure, but the fact remains that, under french IP laws, it is legally impossible to put something in the public domain yourself, as the creator of that thing.
And checking SQLite's "copyright" page (which made me realize this nit of french IP law) there seem to be places where the very concept of "public domain" does not exist.
This image only became famous but virtue of the fact that it went viral on twitter and the wider web. If she'd not tweeted it - and as someone with no press contacts - had attempted to sell it directly to media organisations I'm betting she wouldn't have had much success.
I think it's pretty hypocritical to try and leverage free services like twitter for self-promotion and personal brand-building then completely back-track on that ideology and claim some kind of restriction on a particular post cos it suddenly has been delivered to a wider audience and may suddenly have value.
The issue here is separate, for-profit redistribution in other media, which definitely requires prior consent from the originator.
So you can make the argument that publishing the image forms part of a publisher's content proposition from which they benefit (more viewers, more magazine sales or whatever). But you can make the same argument for twitter itself: twitter's value and the wealth of it's owners is derived exclusively from content it's users post. So can a user claim compensation from twitter for the value it has derived from their posts?
The same argument applies to say StackOverflow. I've spent countless hours answering questions and helping people out. SO sell ads against this content, and my content drives search engine click-throughs. Do I have a claim against SO?
> But has anyone done that?
Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed in the Hudson.
> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?
Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.
You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.
Gives them. If you're posting pictures on Twitter or putting comments on SO, you can hardly fault them for displaying those.
But when AP starts selling your twitter pictures or SO comments on its feed, it's a whole different bucket of filth, and a very, very different situation.
We're discussing the second case here, not "I put a comment on news.yc and news.yc displays it".
> But has anyone done that?
Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed in the Hudson.
> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?
Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.
You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.
I hate being self-promotional, but this issue is exactly the reason we created Picuous, which is a Vimeo/SoundCloud/Scribd for pictures: pictures can be embedded legally, carry automatic attribution, and can be tracked by the picture owner. Using the pictures in the player is free, using them in other contexts is pay-for.
We want to change this traditionnal diffusion/monetization/ownership Bermuda Triangle… People interested in this problem should check it out: http://picuous.com. All feedback is welcome on martin@picuous.com.
Authors want their books distributed. Musicians want their music distributed, too. They just want to make money, as well.
Honestly, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, which is interesting. I just think we have to work on the terminology. Because anyone can see that there's a big difference between snapping a picture and putting it on Twitter, vs. writing a book and trying to sell it.
(+1, by the way. You made a good argument. You might want to remove the "<b>" though, that kind of formatting doesn't work here).
Public domain means anyone can use the photo as they see fit, which is not why the photographer put it out there. She is exercising her copyrights by licensing the photo (royalty free) to whatever service she uploaded it to. (It's always in the ToS that by uploading, you give them some sort of license, but you usually do not give them the copyright.)
Now, it is possible that she uploaded to Twitpic, which specifies in its ToS that by uploading, you give them license to publish and relicense the photo. If that's the case, then it is possible the various news agencies went to Twitpic to get a license to use the photo (for free or for some fee paid to Twitpic), but my guess is that is not what happened.
Think of it this way: if you wrote a book and posted a link to it on twitter, would you be happy if someone else started selling it on Amazon?
When you post a picture to twitter you are essentially saying Hey everyone look at my photo!. In my view it is then impossible to justify later freaking out and saying Holy shit everyone is looking at my photo!
After reading the article, I think the "victim" here may even agree with me. Her quotes didn't give the impression that she felt particularly wronged in the whole affair.
It's just a photo. The photos that the article refers to are not works of art. They were not meticulously planned, they were not taken by experienced professionals using expensive professional equipment. They're just photos made by people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. They then decided out of their own volition to share their photo online, an act that takes less than 1 minute of their time. If commercial organizations start (ab)using the photos then I think it's good to point that out, as they are making money off of it. Otherwise I'd say: happy sharing.
Personally, I don't take photos for money. Every photo I publish on my blog I consider to be in the public domain, and I'd be glad if people use it. If I enjoyed making it or if it didn't take me any effort to make it, then I'm happy to share it for free.
If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.
It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Do...
And then after the fact, are reacting this way. They're not shooting for a project, to build their portfolio, etc. They simply took a picture of something they saw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Filo
Another example: the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination, shot by a private citizen on a spring-wound Bell & Howell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film
- He had been shot at once (by a representative of his own government), began running (for his life?), but had the presence of mind to return and take pictures.
- Being a photographer, he had useful equipment at the ready. Many other people were around, but they didn't have the equipment. This was 1970 -- not everyone had a camera in their pockets.
- Being a photojournalism student, he may have sought and framed pictures differently than the average person. He said he was running out of film, implying he had to choose wisely. An untrained person may have run out of film or taken images that wouldn't become iconic.
I'm not arguing for or against the main issues in this thread. I was just impressed by the photograph, what it took to take it, and wouldn't characterize it as the result of just being in the right place at the right time. Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.
Despite the disagreement on that characterization, thanks for sharing that link. I'm glad to have seen the photograph and learned the story.
>Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's not -necessairly - about the quality of equipment or technical training or 'meticulous' planning.
More than any other single factor, it's about the photographer's location. Photojournalists are trained and paid to actively seek out news and choose their locations so they -might- be there to capture that perfect moment, but if someone with an iPhone just happens to be in that ideal spot instead, it doesn't mean their photo is worth any less.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away your photo, but I think people should be aware that, if they happen to find themselves in a newsworthy situation, they could choose to get paid for what they record, sometimes quite a bit.
Those organisations are used to paying for content. They make money from its distribution. Often they charge for their own.
By taking the picture without paying they are essentially being hypocritical, and the lowest form of pirate, without even the "it might mean I buy some other pictures in the future" or "she needs a new business model, not my problem" defences.
It has nothing to do with the photo's intrinsic value, whatever that is.
The monetary value here is tied to the rarity of the picture. Sure, it sucks, and it was taken in 2s. But it's still unique. And interesting. So it's worth a lot.
Flickr's done that for years. The problem is with the social networks where photo-sharing is an incidental function.
>He thinks photo sharing services could offer users simple options like, "Would you be interested in selling images?" -- and could even act as agents for consumers.
Flickr does that, too.
The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here.
So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?
See http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_c... for more.
He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier.
"Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office."
The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside."
Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously).
"So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?"
Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412
Is the HN community split down the middle on copyright issues, or simply not clear in its thinking? Is the morality of copyright purely decided by which side of the coin a big corporation is sitting?
Or is one of these news posts meant to be interpreted ironically?
But no. John Barlow wasn't didn't seem to be suggesting flagrantly violating copyrights (at least, nothing I read suggested that). And this story is about people violating copyright. The difference is one has to do with copyright protection, the other with violating copyright.
Basically, don't violate copyright, but we don't want more copyright protection. Additional protection would come at a price.
The morality of copyright isn't at issue here on HN. Do not confuse the arguments as being one in the same. They aren't. Companies have the same rights as little people when it comes to copyrights. What we don't want happening is companies getting more rights, and being able to trounce all over due process.