Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
from the awkward-indeed dept
Brad Hubbard writes "One of my favorite sites, AwkwardStockPhotos.com received a legal nastygram claiming that by showing the stock photos from iStockPhoto.com (and linking back, with watermark in place), they were violating copyright. What they were actually doing was driving tens of thousands of hits directly to the iStockPhoto site, and there is at least anecdotal evidence that they increased the number of purchases of these otherwise humorously bad photos.Sounds to me like these are all perfect Fair Use examples, being stomped by a company that didn't like how its product was being used. That makes me sad, but it's the way things are in the world of harsh ownership."
The blog, if you didn't know, basically found awkward stock photo images, but did so in a very promotional way, linking back to the original, and always including the original watermark. In other words, it was helping to advertise some rather unique iStockPhoto images -- and as the site notes, lots of other sites have done the same -- and even received book deals for it. It seems like iStock's parent company, Getty Images, totally overreacted to a site that was only helping them, and not harming the company at all.
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, fair use, stock photo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mike, I think you keep making the same mistake. It might be nice that he was "helping" them, but it is up to them if they want the help or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not the way the law works, fortunately. There is no law against promoting others. But, then again, you've shown not to particularly care what the law says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and exactly which law do you refer to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Altough some webmasters do not like that practice as it uses their bandwidth, they do have the tools to prevent such activites, ".htaccess".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has all been a wonderful lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"There is no law against promoting others."
So just how is he supposed to provide you with a law that doesn't exist exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not debating the concept of promoting others (he could have written nice text with a link), but the use of the images (particularly hotlinking them, which essentially makes istockphoto pay for the "promotion") seems to be way past the line.
[ 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:
Sorry, it is illegal to say that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you please cite what portion of copyright law was violated. I can't seem to find anywhere language meaning 'you cannot use some else work without permission'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Otherwise even sites like Kelkoo would be illegal under current copyright laws. As they use pictures to show the products that are on sale on another site.
All this site did was point out awkward photos that can be found on stock photo sites. While keeping the pictures completely intact, including the original watermarks and giving links to the pictures on the original site.
You can try to pervert the copyright law all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true. If it was a TRUE copyright violation, Istockphoto would not have needed the DMCA to hit the site with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders.
Also, they PUBLISHED it to the internet. Someone else POINTS to it. They even cite it! If istockphoto (or anyone) doesn't want hotlinking, they could just turn it off. We have the technology.
I know you have to disagree with everything posted, but sometimes you're stretching it a bit too far.
Mike: Sky appears blue.
A-Mike: Sky is clearly plaid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The did in fact PUBLISH it on the web, BUT they published it inside a larger document, and not exclusively by it's self. By doing so the larger document (the page) is where the issue lies.
By extracting the photo and hot linking back to it, the infringer is doing two things, first changing the content that the photo is intended to be displayed, then making someone else pay for the bandwidth to display it in his content.
To me this both infringes on the owner of the photo's copyright rights, AND is also "theft of services" by taking the bandwidth as well. One criminal and one civil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The page is not a "work", that would be a perversion of the copyright law.
The photo is the work.
And if they didn't hotlink the picture, but instead host it themselves, the site'd cry foul as well, as that would be a copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theft of services my arse
http://www.eff.org/cases/kelly-v-arriba-soft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you forget the basics of the system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot People that don't understand the whole concept of laws
This is such idiocy. Where is the law that says you can eat cornflakes? Where is the law that says you can breathe without a permit? Where is the law that says you can write stupid uninformed comments on a website?
You don't need a law to ALLOW something. Laws restrict things. If you claim what the blog did was illegal, cite the law stating it is illegal. If there is no law preventing it, you've got no basis.
It sickens me that people are allowed to talk without any understanding of how society and laws work, but sadly, there's no law preventing people from being dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remind me never again to write a review of a product on Amazon!
Have you ever heard of "word-of-mouth promotion"?
I consider this site to be large-scale word-of-mouth promotion of these photos, and I'm sure the photographers were glad for the extra money they received from this site.
Don't forget the worst kind of attention you can get is 'no attention'. The biggest problem for the photographers on iStockphoto is obscurity and not this free promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he wanted to write about a product, if he wanted to discuss the product, if he even wanted to use a thumbnail of the product, I don't think there would be an issue.
he used the full sized image, and had the balls to hotlink it and make istockphoto pay the bandwidth to provide it.
Without using the images, it would be a discussion, and nobody would care. Adding the images generally would require permission, and hotlinking them only make it worse, causing the owners to incur costs for this "promotion" that they didn't ask for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It can be done civilly, without resorting to legal nastygrams and threats.
Incidentally without using the images, the site doesn't really have a point, now does it?
post 1: oh look at this funny picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 2: oh look at this embarrassing picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 3: oh look at this funny picture over at whateverelseforstockphotositesyouhave.something.
BTW, I'm almost 100% sure that this nastygram wasn't sent because of copyright violation, but because of the embarrassing nature of a number of those photos. Embarrassing to istockphoto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) No, he didn't hotlink.
2) The "full sized images" he used were...the reduced size thumbnails with obnoxious watermarks that iStockPhoto uses to...get people to purchase them.
3) I know reading is hard, but please try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow really? He used a picture that's several megabytes in file size and thousands of pixels of resolution? Because you know, purchased photos are really really big, something like 10,000 x 10,000 pixels or bigger. Or did you actually think that they just removed the watermark and emailed you a low quality JPEG for you to use commercially upon purchase?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's exactly what he did. To borrow a term you like to throw around, "fail."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Neither of those things are true, as the owner of the site explained well before your comment here.
Will you now take back your statements and support him?
As you said: " if he even wanted to use a thumbnail of the product, I don't think there would be an issue."
He did use a thumbnail of the product, and there was a problem.
Can you admit, just once, that you were wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for "full sized image", since I could not see the site because it was already taken down, I refer to the original quote on your story:
"claiming that by showing the stock photos from iStockPhoto.com (and linking back, with watermark in place)"
Notice he didn't say "showing reduced sized thumbnails".
So yes, I was wrong about one thing, and not so wrong about another, as I made an assumption based on your original post, which wasn't very clear. Thumbnails would have made a difference (depending on their size, as always).
I hope this clears things up, and apologies to the site owner. However, I am not comfortable with the idea of taking content off of a site and uploading it to another for your use. The thumbnails are part of the original site's content and design, so it isn't entirely clear that you had rights to them.
Again Mike, I hope this clears it up. I hope that you can admit that the original post wasn't entirely clear on the subject(s) either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Example, I can write a story about my car (GTI, I love it!). I can even take pictures of my car and use it to illustrate why I love my car, and why I think that everyone should enjoy a 2 liter turbo motor. I wouldn't recommend getting black, as it is hard to keep clean.
However, I don't get to go to the dealer and borrow cars to show off to people.
You don't get to use copyright material just because you are saying nice things about the copyright owner. That is their choice, not yours. Nobody is stopping you from saying nice things, but you cannot use their products without permission (or without paying, I bought my car, I can take pictures of it, although I might have to hide the company logos if I used it to sell something else).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is particularly dissapointing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing or sharing?
If Mike has copyrighted that picture you're in for your Master's medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stealing or sharing?
It is neither, it is parody.
I already answered this for you once. Do I have to keep repeating myself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
Oh, that's just precious!
Strike 3, you're out.
Sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
Now if you put a photo up somewhere, with a watermark in it, and I show it with attribution to you. How is that any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
I also considered the size of the image, it's use, and the clear indications of parody that exist when the modified image is used as a very small icon next to "the anti-mike".
I also considered the humor factor. Clearly, if someone involved with Mike Masnick sued for copyright violation, it would potentially be one of the most awkward moments in Techdirt history, with Mike either having to side with me on the issue of fair use, or support a photographer against his personal beliefs.
No matter what happened, it would be a win.
So yes, in answer to your question, parody would be a defense under fair use, where I would first have to admit to violating copyright in the strictest sense, as I am using someone else image. You see how the two step process works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
The Awkwardstock people poached files and links for their own profit to drive revenue via Google ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stealing or sharing?
That's totally legal.
Change an image by 20% and it's yours, buddy.
The only thing is that exactly what constitutes as to whether or not an image has been altered 20% or more is debatable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
Curious. Can you point me where in the law this 20% limit is?
I've not seen nor heard of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're not posting satire, please lurk before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's getty images, what did you expect?
getty is one of the most predatory content companies out there.
the company was founded by someone who gives copyright the same value as natural resources, so clearly that company will go to war over pretty much anything that it perceives as a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's getty images, what did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just thought of something
Partly to protect misuse of the photo and presumably also to advertise where the image came from, otherwise a white cross or some other watermark would be enough to prevent people from grabbing the image without paying, and they wouldn't need to add the advertisement "Istockphoto.com" on there.
So why do they object, when people use the watermarked image to drive customers their way? I simply don't get it, unless they just objected to the awkwardness of the photos in question. But then Istockphoto is acting in a childish way.
BTW, this bullish reaction from Istockphoto will make sure that I will never put my photos on their website ever, nor will I buy a photo from their website. Even if they'd offer it for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not....
Given the 10-20 per day, purchasing them all would seem prohibitively expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for fair use, I don't think it really applies in this situation. However, I am sure that it could be established either way by going to court. Anyone wont to pay those legal fees, I think Getty has deep pockets to pay its lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would you prefer they not advertise to others how to buy your photos?
Taking off the watermark actually does more harm to you in this situation, since the target audience are people who may be looking to buy stock photos, and under your rules, they'd have less knowledge of where to find your photos.
Do you really think the fraction of a dollar today is worth more than the free advertising?
As for fair use, I don't think it really applies in this situation.
Uh, what?!? It's a question of copyright, so yes, of course fair use applies -- and if we go through the four factors, I think a competent lawyer could make a very strong case for fair use. The case law certainly supports it... if you look at cases like the Perfect 10 case, or the case about a book of Grateful Dead posters... it seems pretty clear that putting together a collection of thumbnails for aggregation like this is, in fact, considered fair use. No matter what you "think."
Anyone wont to pay those legal fees, I think Getty has deep pockets to pay its lawyers.
Hence the problem. The fact that Getty can crush this blog because the legal fees are too expensive, despite a strong fair use claim?
You don't see that as an issue? You are honestly supporting a big company bullying a tiny site that was providing free advertising? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would you prefer they not advertise to others how to buy your photos?
Taking off the watermark actually does more harm to you in this situation, since the target audience are people who may be looking to buy stock photos, and under your rules, they'd have less knowledge of where to find your photos.
Do you really think the fraction of a dollar today is worth more than the free advertising?"
You miss understand. The advertising is not for the stock photo it is down the side of the page, affiliate adverts which the site owner gets money from per click.
We can agree to disagree on the other points. I sell though getty and they take 70% so I don't have to hire lawyers.
I just don't think a photographers work should be put onto a site that makes money from advertising but pays the photographer nothing. It would only cost $1-$2 per image. If it is not viable then don't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/106/1066150p1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by Anonymous Coward
Please explain how "stealing" (and please spend some money on a dictionary) thumbnail images (which anyone can easily do themselves anyway) that have absolutely ZERO purpose except to advertise for the full-size images and then using them to send free traffic to your stock site harms your business."
The images available on istock are available for purchase at different sizes. The smallest size of the image for sale is about the size of the thumbnail on the stock page. These smaller sizes are for use on websites, marketing emails etc. Larger sizes are for commercial printing.
Use of an image with a watermark on a website is against the terms of use with istock and is deemed to be stealing. However you can use a watermarked image for a mock up to see how it looks. Awkardstock was not a mock up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is done is illegal. Period.
Copyright holder has control. And the materials the person linked or sourced is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But it is almost certainly fair use. No one claimed it was public domain. Not sure why you are making it up.
You are incorrect that "copyright holder has control." They do in some cases, but fair use is an exception to that limited amount of control, and the case law on similar examples suggests very much this is fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could someone please explain how the photographers were losing money because of this? Did they expect the site to pay $10 a photo and thus be an unsustainable money sink? Or do they somehow think that people will see the photo (with the giant watermark) and decide they no longer need to buy it. Both propositions are absurd. Especially considered the images linked on the site are the exact same ones you can download for free from stockphoto.com (you know, with the big flaming watermarks).
Reading the forums at stockphoto shows why legal action was really taken. The pick photographers got all upset that their (horrible) work was being mocked. If you can't stand being made fun of, don't post things on the internet. Especially if they're bad. The best part is that the work will still be mocked. Now you just have to click a link.
Finally, only an illiterate moron would term it "stealing". Which apparently makes half of the istockphoto users illiterate morons. What exactly is being stolen. The credit? The blog made it pretty clear it didn't create any of the photos. It's copying, not stealing, no matter how much you try to revise the english language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Law is the Law.
As an artist, I have very little sympathy for those who try to pad their own websites with copyrighted material and intellectual property of others. The website concept is very much like Perez Hilton's site (which btw is being sued up the wazoo by X17 and getty for lifting images off other sites, linked or not.).
DCMA specifically gives rights to the copyright holders. You ought to familiarize yourself with the law.
Too bad bitches. This is poaching of copyrighted content. And the law is the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Law is the Law.
Quit familiar. So familiar that I know what fair use is and the case law around it. It appears, on the other hand, you do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And really what an arrogant wanker, where's his amazing portfolio full of absolutely perfect shots??? Not exactly worlds most downloaded photographer is he? poke shit at other people and he's too much of a cheapskate to spend the $1 or so to buy a blog sized image and then has a big sook when he gets his hand smacked. The guy who runs the site should be on the biggest loser...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any press is good press, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]