Couple Claims That Merely Talking About A Photo Is Copyright Infringement

from the good-luck-with-that-theory dept

Fri, Jan 15th 2010 8:48am — Mike Masnick

Bert Reyntjens writes "Some time ago, the (nude) photograph of the wife of Helmut Lotti, a Belgian singer, was used in a famous Flemish quiz 'de slimste mens ter wereld' (or in English 'the smartest man in the world'). Several newspapers and magazines reported on this, some displayed the photograph, others didn't. Now Lotti and his wife are suing several of these publishers for copyright infringement because they didn't have the permission to show this picture.

Everything so far seems more-or-less normal, except that one magazine (Story) was also sued even though it didn't publish the photograph (that link is in Dutch -- here is the Google translation), it only mentioned it. According to the lawyer for Lotti -- 'a mere reference to an image should be considered a reproduction of the image'!"

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: copyright, discussing, photos

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 8:50am

Power solution:
I shall mention the sun--thereby reproducing it. I shall encase my newly reproduced sun with solar panels. And the world will have power forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:16am

And some folks wonder why the "younger" generation has no respect for copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scarr (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:16am

I hope that statement wasn't on record, or the court may be in trouble!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:22am

Shouldn't the lawyer be suing himself for mentioning the photo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:27am

American Sports
Weren't the American Sports leagues trying something similar - essentially trying to prevent people describing the game to their friends the next day around the water cooler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burgos, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:29am

So "http://techdirt.com/images/topic_legal.gif" is a reproduction of the image at the top-left?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yellowjester, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:41am

1000 words
Was the description of said picture equal to a thousand words? No? I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BAReFOOt, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:22pm
  
  Re: 1000 words
  About a 1000 words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GvR8t2HDys
  That guy has no trouble painting a picture is your head with a 1000 words, that breaks that rule. ^^
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 6:33am
  
  Re: 1000 words
  As techs say, a picture is worth a thousand words. It also takes up a thousand times more memory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
William Dodder, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:43am

So a picture isn't worth a thousand words.
So either the picture wasn't very good or the woman was ugly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:46am

didnt you mention it mike
so you could be added to yhe list lol
i think i will blog about it,they are Belgium we have to pity them for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: didnt you mention it mike
  The only pity Belgium gets from me is that they're next to France... but they DO have, IMNSHO, the best beers in the world, so pity only goes so far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:47am

Some help here
Google Images Jelle Van Riet The pic is not so hot.
It is nude though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:54am

http://www.sentimento.nl/uploads/jelle-lotti.jpg (not the nekkid pic)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  Yikes...she looks like she should could be the next lead singer for Aerosmith....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
interval, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:05am

I went blind after seeing her clothed portrait. Let them keep their imagined copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd Howe, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:10am

Exactly what I was worried about
That's exactly the philosophical problem I was trying to get across about in my submission to the Ecopyright Consultation. http://tehowe.blogspot.com/2009/09/cost-copyright-and-embodiment.html

We used to tell each other stories - the bardic or minstrel tradition was all about mix and match, roll your own, mashup etc. It's not as though Homer actually wrote the Odyssey. And we need the story to know what's going on around us in the world, or over in the next village.

So where does modern copyright get off on telling us that we can't trade descriptions of things. Which, on the internet, is all we're doing. When you divorce a work from some physical media in which it's been instatiated, it's just a number. And *nobody* owns numbers. Yet. (Counterfeit is an entirely different matter IMHO)

Information wants to be free. /rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Exactly what I was worried about
  "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine — too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better." - Stewart Brand, 1984
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 6:36am
    
    Re: Re: Exactly what I was worried about
    "It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away"
    
    It wants to be expensive because selfish evil people, the top one percent who are too lazy to compete in the free market and thus must rely on government intervention, want to charge for it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:20am

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
That is what I call stretching of the law.

Historians will out of a job soon I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:54am

Soooo,..
If I mention a nude photo of a minor, does that make me guilty of producing child porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC, 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:14am
  
  Re: Soooo,..
  The police will be at your residence shortly to answer that question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:34pm

I wouldn't want people talking about a picture like that either... there's no way I can say something nice about it, and that's quite a feet considering I'm male and it involves a nude woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 12:45pm

"According to the lawyer for Lotti -- 'a mere reference to an image should be considered a reproduction of the image'!"
In the US, you'd be laughed right out of the court room under the constitutional right to free Speech. So, nobody really cares what the lawyer or his/her client says anyway. ;p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 15 Jan 2010 @ 2:43pm

That lawyer is a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:19pm

Anti-Mike
Too bad Anti-Mike has taken a powder. It would be amusing watching the leaps of illogic he would have to engage in to justify this-- and he would have to try and justify it because Mike criticized it. He can't help himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TFP, 16 Jan 2010 @ 1:12am

#36521
All copyrighted material is theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB, 16 Jan 2010 @ 5:48am

Interesting Theory, Bad Example
With defenses like merger of idea and expression, it's hard to imaging that describing a photograph verbally, in a newspaper, rises to making an infringing expression.
But -- suppose one described it with symbols for 0 and 1, going line-by-line, or pixel by pixel, until the entire content is reduced in writing to a series of 0s and 1s? That could be seen as a "written" "derivative work"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm, 16 Jan 2010 @ 8:34am

'a mere reference to an image should be considered a reproduction of the image'

This guy said the word 'Image' therefore he's just reproduced every single image ever created (copyrighted or not) and since movies are just a series of images this means he just pirated every movie ever made...go get him MPAA!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vitezslav Valka, 17 Jan 2010 @ 12:16am

Crazy
Well, the world is getting more and more crazy. It's great that the rest of the world is not like USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]