Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
from the you-don't-own-the-photos dept
Last week, we wrote about the International Olympic Committee's complaints concerning a guy, Richard Giles, who had posted some images he took at the Beijing Olympics on Flickr under a Creative Commons license. At the time, it wasn't entirely clear if the complaint was the license or that the photos were up, at all, but as we noted, either way, it didn't make sense. The IOC has responded and said the main complaint is with the Creative Commons license, but, again, it's difficult to see how the IOC has any argument at all. The photos were taken by Giles, and thus he has every right to license them as he sees fit -- including under CC licenses. Furthermore, as Thomas Hawk points out in the link above, once you license something CC, you can't go back on it. It's still not clear why the IOC sees this as a bad thing. Giles is helping to promote their event. For free. Next time, maybe he should just send them a bill.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: creative commons, licensing, olympics, photos, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
2) Not everyone want or needs your oh-so valuable free advertising.
Basically, the IOC are the ones who get to decided, not you and not Giles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Example, even with the IOC's permission, you can sell images of the Olypmics, but if you use them to endorse a product and there is an athlete identifiable in the image, then you also need their release.
The laws for such things are actually fairly clear. Why do you think that images used in advertising are often so clearly generic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, here's an area where I need some edumacation on the law. It sounds like what you're saying is that there are things in the pictures that are covered by other's copyright and/or licensing agreements, e.g. locations during the olympic events are basially licensed to the olympics and they control depictions of those locations. Is that correct? Because if it is, I'm going to have some issues with that type of thing ocurring on ANY land in any part funded publically. Or am I not understanding to what you're referring?
"Example, even with the IOC's permission, you can sell images of the Olypmics, but if you use them to endorse a product and there is an athlete identifiable in the image, then you also need their release."
That sounds like a trademark issue. What does that have to do w/a DMCA, which I thought was copyright only?
"The laws for such things are actually fairly clear."
Clear to the average Joe snapping photos while enjoying the olympics he ostensibly paid a ticket to see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those would be issues (if there were any issue -- and in most cases there would not be) between the athlete/location and the photographer, not the IOC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't sell pics through Flickr, it's only a gallery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what isn;t commercial by your definition
So then my question to you is: Do you view any on-line presentation of the photos as non-commercial? An actual example (as opposed to a hypothetical that you are so fond of) would be nice.
It sounds to me like you pretty much defining any and all on-line use as commercial, which is completely ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what isn;t commercial by your definition
You are correct. Someone is making money off the use of the image. It doesn't matter if it is the photographer or someone else. By putting images on Flickr, you are putting them into a commercial domain, even if you don't profit from them.
Remember, it wouldn't be any different from publishing them in a magazine or selling them on the street corner. There isn't a magic amount of money that makes something commercial, just intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like no problem then
Sounds like there shouldn't be any problem with the images or the fact that Giles made them CCL. Creative Commons License has a specific clause saying that the images can only be used for non-commercial purposes unless additional permission is obtained from the original rights holder (person who took the photograph).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like no problem then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pure fiction, invented by entertainment companies and advertisers for their own convenience with no legal standing whatsover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It may be a breach of contract. The back of the ticket to an Olympic event might well say that the IOC reserves any right to commercial use of any photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't have to own the rights to the Washington monument to take and publish pictures of that.
What business in their right mind would object to free advertising? That's just bad business.
If I take a picture of a building or a sporting event or a crowd of people that are/happens in a PUBLIC space, it should be public property and I don't need rights to publish the pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They have elided together contract law (which governs TV coverage and possibly ticket sales), copyright law (which controls the TV coverage once it has been created) and trademark law to construct a legal Frankenstein monster which really doesn't exist.
For clarity if I fly over the stadium in a hot air balloon I can photograph what I like. I own the copyright and I can release the result under any license I like.
If I entered the stadium with a ticket I might be bound by the conditions on the back - but the legal status of this is unclear. For a regular event the sports authorities could probably ban me in future but for a one off event they would have to sue me for breach of contract before they could do anything else.
As far as trademarks are concerned, unless I am competing directly with one of the trademark holders there is no case regardless of what I do.
That is the law - everything else is pure wishful invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The items you listed (Eiffel tower, Washington Monument) are public areas, and thus you don't need a release. However, if you used either of them to sell soap, example, you actually might need a use of image release.
Sporting events, the Olympics, whatever... they are not "public" events. They are private events. It's a whole different legal world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
releases
There are also a lot of things like "location releases" that people get signed in an abundance of caution to avoid lawsuits, but which are probably not needed in most cases if something is normally visible to the public. People participating in public events also have a weak case for the need of model releases. Some of this dispute would come down to whether the Olympic event is considered a public event.
Basically we need a law that says anyone making a false assertion of copyright may be held liable for the defendant's court costs, plus additional punitive damages if the claimant took action knowing that the claim had no merit. This would put the burden of proof back on the copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Just Curious
Unless I have explicitly agreed to take no photos, and cameras are explicitly forbidden for everyone (inside the Biltmore House for example) then I own my pictures and will do whatever I want with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:re:re
nothing more, nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Model releases are required to "sell" or "license" any image of an identifiable person, whether it's an athlete or some person on the beach. There are exceptions, though, like editorial use.
As for buildings, there are some that you may not sell or license images of as well, according to the owners, but the actual laws on this are unclear.
You may, actually, take a photo of and sell this photo of a person's home without breaking copyright laws, as long as the street name and street number is not in the image, and as long as you are not on the person's property when you take the image and as long as you aren't invading their privacy by shooting in through windows and so on.
Copyright law is too big a discussion for this, but in the OP, if there are signs with the Olympic Symbol or athletes in the photos wearing the official olympic symbol on clothing, then it's possible that a trademark complaint might come into play, though give the image wasn't being sold, they might have a difficult time with that. If the olympic symbols are both copyright protected and trademarked, then you may not use the symbol in images without permission for licensing or selling.
The Creative Commons is a form of licensing, which might be what they are trying to hang their hat on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, by posting images of the Olympics that include the Olympic symbol, he might confuse someone into believing that those pictures were of the Olympics?
I'm so confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueless
What laws and facts do you base this statement on?
If i take a picture from the street of your house with the number showing and a street sign off to the side and a caption "A pretty house in YourTown USA" you say I'm violating the law, a copyright or a trademark? NOT!!!
This thread and subject in general has many partial facts interspersed with myth interspersed with self interest interspersed with laziness. There are many GOOD resources that cite law and fact. Go find them before stating how it is.
Soon no one will be able to do anything without paying for the right our forefathers created and our fathers fought to keep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Maps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Maps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google Maps
Ever notice creative commons has no commercial aspect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google Maps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Model releases are required by a publisher (not nessesarily the photographer) when the images suggest a model is endorsing an ideal that may not actually be one the model holds. Portaying someone in a way that's not who they really are is a form of slander which can result in a civil lawsuit. A model release is for releasing liability against the publisher, it clearly states in what manner the photographs taken are to be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if i take a picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]