So Much Fuss Over A Photo That The Photographer Has No Problem With People Copying
from the so-why-the-attention? dept
Over the years we've seen various legal battles surrounding news organizations using amateur photographs that were posted to social networking or photo hosting sites. However, MSNBC has a long and detailed story about the legal issues surrounding news organizations using a photo that Stefanie Gordon shot from an airplane with her iPhone of the space shuttle Endeavor's launch:![](https://i.imgur.com/Mnqjr.jpg)
It also landed her smack in the middle of an ethical and legal debate that may be as important as the future of the Internet itself.Except that's wrong. It didn't land her in the middle of that debate at all, because Gordon makes it clear she didn't care how it was used or if anyone paid her for it:
To be sure, Stefanie did not seek this fight, and doesn't feel too compelled to be its poster child, either.And yet, Bob Sullivan from MSNBC seems to want to keep forcing this issue back on her as if she should care. It's really kind of disgusting. Gordon was happy to share the work, like plenty of other people who create and share content. It shouldn't be about copyright. It needn't be about copyright. And yet, MSNBC feels the need to make it about copyright. Why?
"I never even thought about what could happen,� she said. �To me, it's just a picture. I tweeted and put my phone away. ... I had four hours of sleep and wasn't thinking. I was trying to spend time with my dad. I've never been a person who feels like I need to make money off of everything. I just put it out there for people to see."
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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, photographs, space shuttle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why?
See also: fox news, bees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
MS - who makes a living off copyright and
NBC - who makes a living off copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome shot
As for MSNBC and the other news orgs, they would too. They would be filing lawsuits galore if people used a photo they owned without permission. Why MSNBC would make a big deal about it is beyond me, it could come back to haunt them if stuff like this is ruled fair use. They could lose full control of their own photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the very same people who complain and complain about people 'stealing' online content are the first to turn around and 'steal' content when the opportunity arises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More MSNBC Stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...isn't copyright about the LITTLE GUYS?
Absolutely beautiful use of ambiguity. Does this mean AP paid Gordon for a license, or just that they paid someone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is my question too. How can somebody license a photo if the person who owns the copyright just want to share it and doesn't require a fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Legal Owner vs Creator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Legal Owner vs Creator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Legal Owner vs Creator
> made in the article as the creator of the
> photograph, who does not care who uses the
> photograph, is not the legal copyright owner
> of the photograph.
Yes, she does still own the copyright. Twitpic's TOS doesn't transfer copyright completely. It merely gives them a non-exclusive license. The photographer still owns the copyright.
The article itself explains this:
"A particularly vexing problem facing users
of services like Twitpic involves the ever-
changing fine print in the sites' terms of
service agreements. Both Gordon and Krum used
Twitpic to share their photos. Currently,
Twitpics' terms of service informs users that
the firm has the right to resell any images
loaded by original rights holders onto its
servers. In other words, Gordon has the right
to sell her Space Shuttle picture, but TwitPic
does now, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From their TOS:
You retain all ownership rights to Content uploaded to Twitpic. However, by submitting Content to Twitpic, you hereby grant Twitpic a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and Twitpic's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See the part about "sublicenseable and transferable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The question here is not this photo, try as Techdirt is doing to make this all about a single photo and use this very limited situation to decry copyright law in general.
It is, however, about the propensity for some commerical companies to simply ignore any consideration of the law and unilaterally do as they wish. It is also about some social media and other similar sites using Terms of Use, which change frequently, to garner for themselves the opportunity to make money from what people may submit. It is one thing for a submitter to say "I uploaded it for the world to see because I think it is something worth sharing." It is quite another for a social media site to say "Thanks for the upload. We know you want it shared widely, but had you read the Terms of Use for our site you would have noticed you granted to us a money making opportunity, your wishes notwithstanding."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Link to an article. Love this quote:
�There has been much unauthorised use of Twitpic images which we shall be addressing without delay. The belief by some that any photo posted on Twitter is available at no cost is completely wrong but now as result of this new arrangement, anyone wishing to publish celebrity photos posted on Twitter via TwitPic will be able to do so legitimately via WENN.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
from http://twitpic.com/terms.do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obsession with the $ value
For an amateur photographer who happened to get lucky she must think her photo being sent round the world is amazing. Why can't people let her be happy with that rather than tainting the whole experience by talking about the money she must have "lost".
Also good points by Raphael and an AC above. I would defintely love to hear just who AP licensed the photo from. I wonder if there is some RIAA equivalent who just collect licensing fees for all manner of things they have absolutely no right to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obsession with the $ value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case, it's yelling about their favorite pastime. Copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like free advertising to me.
Hope that iphone was in airplane mode at the time, we wouldn't want it interfering with the avionics on board the plane. If phone use during flight is such a risk, then why are they allowed. Air travel these days is such crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shot from an airplane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ohhh shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to admire lawyers in their inate ability to interpret laws in the way that serves them.
Case in point: if an image that is UNIQUE cannot be covered by fair use due to it's rarity, please do explain what is the use of this specific exception to copyright.
I guess in their world view, humanity would be better off if only a few news organisation had been able to lisence this picture (days after the event, if at all) and that as a result only a small percentage of the planet had been able to rejoice in another of mankind's great achievements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, i am no expert about this, but this is just been my personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because...
Because the emperor has no clothes, and they don't want you to notice.
This is a propaganda war, and the propaganda masters can't let it slip that they're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar
They sent me an email to notify me of this, and I just asked if they could send me the page the photo was featured on, they gave me the whole article. (sadly it's all in Chinese, which I can't read, but google translate tells me that it was a nice article).
I just thought it was cool, and now I can call myself an internationally published photographer.
Sure, I could've asked for money, but what would be the point? They could've gone to someone else instead, who would be willing to give them a similar photo for free.
Of course, the photo in this article is pretty spectacular, and the angle is somewhat unique, but the subject isn't.
And if the artist is okay with publishing the photo, why in nature's name does MSNBC try to make this into a shitstorm in a teacup?
Incidentally, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day site recently featured a very similar but different photo.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110525.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because Bob Sullivan is a person who feels like he needs to make money off of everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Airline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know if she had taken this with her iPhone...
Space Shuttle Destroyed by TFH - CGI - 2D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KS-ypy88fY
After seeing this, an unnamed law firm spokesperson said: "The First Amendment and Fair Use be damned! There is money to be made! Sue em' all! Let the courts sort them out! Whether we win or lose, we're getting paid! This is Sparta! Tonight we dine in Hell!" etc,etc...
The story reminds me of this private home video of the 1986 Challenger explosion that was released into the public domain after 24 years had passed (nobody got paid for this one as far as I can tell):
New Video Of Shuttle Challenger Explosion Disaster Found Never Before Seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAjBr1lOWAU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Pic thought..
the airline company should of layed claims to the copyright of the picture.
After all, it was taken from their platform :)
(or the mobile phone company who made the camera).
Or NASA who own the shuttle.
Or the US Gov who owns NASA.
oe twitter, who the person who took the photo give it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Pic thought..
TWEET: "Look everyone! A pic of the Space Shuttle Endeavor launch from the air! Well, it would be one if I had a window. Damn this no-frills airline."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smelly dirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TwitPic
http://blog.twitpic.com/2011/05/your-content-your-copyrights/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]