Did The AP Claim Copyright On Public Domain NASA Pictures?
from the or-is-it-just-weird-(c)-notices dept
You might recall that we got into a bit of... a "dispute" with Caters News Agency a few weeks back, after we noticed some monkey self-portraits in UK papers with a big "copyright" notice -- despite the fact that the images were almost certainly in the public domain.However, I'm beginning to wonder if some UK papers just stamp a totally bogus copyright notice on batches of images. That's because ken points us to another article at the Daily Mail (where we also saw the monkey photos) and worries that it looks like the Associated Press is claiming copyright on images taken from the International Space Station, over which it holds no copyright:
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, copyright notices, public domain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it just Legal paranoia ?
Any legal types out there can say if is this actually illegal and who is likely to sue them if so?
Or it might just be creeping IP-itis - It's a photograph and therefore it's IP so must belong to someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it just Legal paranoia ?
Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a "copyright attribution."
Whether you put a notice on something or not, it is still infringing if you don't have a license. And once you have a license, you have no obligation to put any sort of copyright notice on that content. (unless, of course, the license specifically demands it, like many CC licenses do).
At least in the U.S., attribution is a normative concept; infringement is a legal one. Communities (e.g., scholastic, academic, journalistic) punish mis/non-attribution. That's plagiarism. The law punishes infringement. Attribution doesn't solve your infringement problems. (In Europe, you've got these flaky moral rights, which make everything messy. I can't help you guys over there.)
I think Mike is right that some bonehead just thinks the copyright notice is the same as a source attribution. Newsies, take note: "source: xyz" isn't the same as "(c)".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it just Legal paranoia ?
The problem is proving that the person had intent to defraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright on an image
But if you have an image that's copyrighted, and you change the aspect ratio (or indeed crop the image) by 10%, then the copyright (as far as I think I know) does not apply anymore?
Of course I could be COMPLETELY wrong, and I probably am...
I know sound bites of 10 seconds or less cannot be copyrighted but that's an entirely different, yet just as painful, post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright on an image
But if you have an image that's copyrighted, and you change the aspect ratio (or indeed crop the image) by 10%, then the copyright (as far as I think I know) does not apply anymore?
No - you are wrong.
You have created a derivative work - but the original copyright still applies because your modifications are not sufficiently transformative.
You will hold a copyright on the modifications if they are deemed to have sufficient creative input.
Cropping might be enough to do it if the composition is changed sufficiently.
Sadly this mechanism can allow people to put a new copyright on things that are in the public domain (not that I agree with this but it does seem to be the legal position.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright on an image
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright on an image
I'm sure that in AP convoluted logic, they think that by taking a public domain photo, applying their copyright symbol on it, and licensing it to make a profit or suing anyone who tries to use it, is sufficiently transformative in their legal playbook. Now all they need to do is buy... I mean "find" a judge to agree with them in court. Based on many of the rulings handed down surrounding copyright these days, it shouldn't be too hard for them to find such a judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the daily mail list of things which give you cancer!
http://hellokinsella.posterous.com/the-daily-mail-list-of-things-that-give-you-c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-453843/Oral-sex-cause-throat-cancer.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
In other news, troll has nothing to contribute: I do wonder if the troll will post?
How about Ken brings something to Mike’s attention and Mike posts it on his DISCUSSION BLOG to spark DISCUSSION among people who read it? And since when was Mike a 'news source'? He takes news stories from the web that fit within certain categories and comments on them and opens discussion of it.
True, I get a lot of news here as a first-source, but I don’t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
What about a fedora, a whip, and a Webley? He could be a copyright archaeologist! Mickey Mouse certainly seems ancient to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
blog
[blawg, blog] Show IPA
noun, verb, blogged, blog·ging.
–noun
1.
a web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
Trolls like you certainly do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not even sure how they could think there is a legal basis on that - while "sufficient acknowledgement" is required in some of the fair dealing copyright defences including for reporting of current events, that defence doesn't even apply to photographs...
Sadly, I don't think it's just the Daily Mail that is confused about even the basics of copyright law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knows to be false
"Notice of copyright" ... "that such person knows to be false".
Suppose the Associated Press has a policy of placing copyright notices on all pictures, without exception. Does that rise to a level of constructively "knows" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Knows to be false
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knows to be false
Associated Press is U.S.
That's why I was silently ignoring the Daily Mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knows to be false
Followup:
From the AP's website, “About AP”:
So, United States domicile, and ownership by United States persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm calling it 'lazy' over 'malicious'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KopyRight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: KopyRight...
I actually have a significant doubt over whether the AP would charge a reprint fee to license a work of the United States Government to another media outlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who actually took the Atlantis picture?
Does that indicate that the photo was actually taken by an employee of the United States Government, in the course of his employment?
Or, supposing the picture was taken by a non-American crew-member, does it matter? After all, the United States Government is a partner in the ISS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who actually took the Atlantis picture?
Guidlines for use of NASA materials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Images available for sale from AP in US
$ whois apimages.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
If so, how does this mechanism work because IIRC other artists were having issues trying to do this (put their works in the PD) themselves in any manner whatsoever.
Selling PD images is perfectly legal and therefore not subject to ICE seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
17 U.S.C. § 105Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Selling copies of United States Government works is fine. Falsely marking United States Government works as copyrighted, with fraudulent intent, that is with intent to obtain something of value...
... well, if prosecutors won't enforce it, then so what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, look at this article, published this year, where they wax lyrical about pictures that move. Yes, they've only just discovered the Animated GIF.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1380795/Cinemagraphs-Artists-develop-pictures -movement-stills-level.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trolls, trolls, trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 - in posting on Youtube, you haven't made anything public domain. Rather, the rights holder has granted youtube a license to use the content on their site. The copyright remains with the original creator, even if it appears on youtube.
2 - AP may have contacted the copyright holder (or his reps on earth) and obtained "exclusive" images, such as an original HD image rather than just a clip from a you tube video, and been granted resale rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as "reps" for the original image copyright holder. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.
3 - video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images.
I could go on. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff.
Posting on YouTube doesn't make something public domain. How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...blah blah blah...
The thing is, Mike didn't say the things you're so desperately trying to make it look like he did.
Typical copyright shill.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true.
Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. I am shocked that he made such an obvious error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You appear to be confusing the two separate images. One is from the space station. One is from Noe.
We are saying the one from the space station is public domain. Not the other one.
Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true.
Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. I am shocked that he made such an obvious error
You are making the error, not me. I never said, implied, suggested, hinted at, or anything that Castillo's images were in the public domain. Merely that the ones from the space station, which come from NASA are in the public domain.
The sole purpose, as clearly explained in the article, for showing the Castillo images were to show the incorrect (c) notice on those too, to suggest that the problem was with the Daily Mail's labeling, not with the AP.
I am at a loss as to how one could be so confused over what is clearly stated in the article, but you never cease to amaze me on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. Nor did I say that it did. I only said that the shots from space -- the NASA shots -- were public domain. I merely used the (c)Youtube shots to explain what I think the Daily Mail is doing.
2 - AP may have contacted the copyright holder (or his reps on earth) and obtained "exclusive" images, such as an original HD image rather than just a clip from a you tube video, and been granted resale rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as "reps" for the original image copyright holder. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.
NASA shots are public domain. Period. You can't get an exclusive on them.
3 - video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images.
Meaningless. They said (c). And, wtf are "video rights"? What statute is that in?
I could go on. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff.
Considering all three of your points are 100% wrong, I'd say my track record is better than yours, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
3. Video rights / still image rights. When someone creates a work, they can (and often do) split the rights. They can sell all still image rights to one group (giving them legit copyright over the still images) and the rights to the video version of it to another group (giving them legit copyright on the video portion of it). Rights can be sliced almost any way you like, and those rights sold, transferred, or licensed depending on the business arrangement. For a guy who claims to know a lot about copyright, you really seem to be missing in action on this basic concept.
2. NASA's material may be public domain, but I am not clearly seeing that the images belong to NASA, and not to the individual who shot them. Work for hire? Help us out here.
1. Whatever the Daily Mail is doing is (a) up to them, and (b) potentially the result of a contract or licensing agreement you just aren't aware of. Did you contact the DM to ask them? Oh no, wait, you aren't a journalist. You are just expressing opinion like the rest of us.
I shake my head at your personal insults. Can't you control yourself, or is this the only way you can push your superiority complex out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for the other shot... you think an astronaut aboard the ISS was somehow able to contact the AP and transfer the rights... while still on board? I somehow doubt this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I asked you for the specifically for the statute that explains "video rights." You have not given it. You are making stuff up and your digging a deep hole, demonstrating your ignorance of the subject.
2. NASA's material may be public domain, but I am not clearly seeing that the images belong to NASA, and not to the individual who shot them. Work for hire? Help us out here.
Hahahahahah. Oh, you make me laugh. The shot is NASA's. Work for hire has nothing to do with anything here, and if you knew anything about copyright law, you would know that.
1. Whatever the Daily Mail is doing is (a) up to them, and (b) potentially the result of a contract or licensing agreement you just aren't aware of. Did you contact the DM to ask them? Oh no, wait, you aren't a journalist. You are just expressing opinion like the rest of us.
If the Daily Mail is making false copyright markings, then, no it is not "up to them."
I shake my head at your personal insults. Can't you control yourself, or is this the only way you can push your superiority complex out there
Irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, we not gonna stop you from making yourself look like a fool in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missmarking of intellectual property
It would appear to little old me that miss marking of copyrights is the next intellectual property gold field that will be mined and considering the companies slapping copyright notices on images, such as AP and the Daily Mail, someone is going to file suite and most likely collect. Also considering that content owners like news agencies are quick to file suite when people exercise fair use, this might make them a little more aware of what it feels like to be the little guy in a litigation.
Pat Price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NASA to AP
Actually, NASA shots are copyrighted by NASA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]