As Expected, Court Tells AFP That Posting An Image On TwitPic Does Not Grant Anyone A License To Use It
from the can't-believe-this-case-went-forward dept
One of the more ridiculous lawsuits of 2010 involved AFP -- the big news organization that once sued Google claiming that merely linking to AFP news articles was copyright infringement. However, when it came to others' copyrighted works, AFP took a rather different position. After the Haitian earthquake a year ago, AFP got into a legal tussle with photographer Daniel Morel, who is based in Haiti.The details and the series of mistakes that resulted in the lawsuit are long and convoluted, so you can read that link to go through all of the details (on both sides of the case), but the basic summary is that Morel posted his photos to TwitPic and announced them on Twitter. Someone else, a guy named Lisandro Suero, copied those photos and posted them to his own TwitPic account. AFP found the photos that Suero had posted, and got permission from Suero to use them (there's a dispute over whether or not AFP really knew the photos were Morel's when it did this). Morel contacted the AFP, pissed off about all of this, and demanded money. In response, AFP sued Morel pre-emptively, asking the court to issue a summary judgment that it did not infringe. AFP's initial line of reasoning was that Twitter's terms of service grant anyone a license to use any such content. This is (a) ridiculous (b) wrong and (c) totally irrelevant, because the photos were uploaded to TwitPic, not Twitter. Morel's initial response was equally ridiculous. He failed to note the difference between TwitPic and Twitter himself (initially), and attacked AFP for not doing its due diligence to find out who really took the photos. Yet, at the same time, he also argued that Twitter's terms of service shouldn't apply because he hadn't bothered to read them. It seems rather silly to claim in a lawsuit that the other party had a responsibility to go that extra step and research something, while at the same time claiming that your own failure to read something, meant you could ignore it.
We had assumed -- incorrectly! -- that once both sides actually learned of the many mistakes they had made that they would look to end the lawsuit as quickly as possible. However, we were amazed to find out that the AFP still wanted to push forward with its completely unwinnable argument that the terms of service granted anyone a license to use the photos, even though the plain language of the clause in question says exactly the opposite.
Thankfully, the court agreed that the case made no sense at all and AFP's arguments were a non-starter. It rejected AFP's attempt to dismiss Morel's countersuit and denied AFP's (original) request for summary judgment. One interesting part of the ruling, concerned a somewhat obscure part of the DMCA involving "copyright management information." The question was whether or not AFP misused this CMI in not taking the content that Morel had put on his Twitpic page, but not on the image itself. The court ruled that the information on the Twitpic page was sufficient as CMI, and the AFP not including that info represented a violation of section 1202. As Eric Goldman notes in his analysis, courts have varied on whether or not 1202 covers content not included in a work itself, so this is one more ruling to add to the pile on that issue.
All in all, it seems likely that AFP will finally just pay up and settle (ditto for all the downstream news orgs who used the photo via AFP and its partner Getty). Of course, I'm still curious why they all couldn't have claimed a "fair use" exception for "reporting," but perhaps that's another discussion for another day...
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, daniel morel
Companies: afp, twitpic, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not that rightsholders are above such hypocrisy, it's just that it might accidentally set an inconvenient precedent or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdsourced editing
on == no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced editing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced editing
The heck it does. Maybe:
on = no
Or:
on => no
Or even:
on <= no
But there's no way on is equal to no.
(OK, so I'm a perverse C programmer with a warped sense of humour. Bite me!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourced editing
The heck it does. Maybe:
on = no
Or:
on => no
Or even:
on <= no
But there's no way on is equal to no.
(OK, so I'm a perverse C programmer with a warped sense of humour. Bite me!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, claiming they can use the picture freely just because it *relates* to news is not only outside the scope of Fair Use conventions, ruling otherwise would demolish the AFP's business model completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrm.
I wonder if that's part of the reason that Twitter has been getting more insistent on 'defending' their trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't you mean made no sense?
Also, are you supporting copyright enforcement here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a Phtographer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
infringemement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]