Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
from the make-it-stop dept
Almost everything gets pretty contentious in a divorce. That's pretty much a universal truth. And now we can thank copyright for making things even more of a mess. Five years ago we wrote about a case involving a divorcing couple who fought over the thousands of photos that were amassed during two decades of marriage. As we noted at the time, it seemed a bit odd that no one brought up the copyright question during that fight. Well, now it's come to that. Comedian/TV host Rosie O'Donnell is apparently going through a (yup) contentious divorce with her wife, Michelle Rounds, and it's reached the point were Rounds is claiming copyright over a photo that O'Donnell posted to Instagram last week. Rounds, of course, says that she took the photo and thus holds the copyright. She even went so far as to file a takedown notice with Instagram -- though as of writing this, the photo is still up on the site.This, of course, is not what copyright law is supposed to be used for -- but since so many people now see it as a sort of universal "censor this now" button, that's how it's being used. It would be insane for this to actually result in a lawsuit, but if it did, I would imagine that O'Donnell would have a decent set of defenses, from an implied license to fair use and more. But, really, that's besides the point. It's becoming fairly ridiculous how frequently people seek to use copyright law to just block things because they don't like it, not because of anything having to do with "promoting the progress." This is just the latest example -- which (once again) highlights the sheer insanity of automatically applying copyright to every work upon creation.
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: children, copyright, divorce, michelle rounds, photos, rosie o'donnell
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'd think so, but it also appears to be the slowest way. Many people don't appear to even notice the first three (or ten) times they're smacked with a clue-by-four. We're breeding some very slow learners these days.
Just look at how slow the Streisand Effect has been getting out there to common knowledge, yet every day it seems some dipstick pops up their head oblivious to it. These are educated and on-line connected people like lawyers and PR flacks who should have been informed about it years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What would be a faster way to get copyright reformed? I honestly hope you have an excellent solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you think about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you think about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you think about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now copyright is everyone's concern, because everyone can copy just by typing CTRL-C and everyone can publish just by clicking "Upload". The current law is completely inadequate for the world we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Notice
By publishing "the comment" (referred to hereforth as "the stupid shit") without my explicit authorization, you are in violation of the rights inferred to me by the law.
You may direct your prompt apology and plans for redaction of "the stupid shit" to my counsel, Anonymous Lawyer.
Thank you, and good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Notice
I am using a portion of your intellectual property to show that fair use allows me to use your works to criticize you. Your statement, doesn't seem to recognized my rights to use your work to this end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal Notice
We don't need no stinkin TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While it's true that copyright law was never intended to cover this, it nevertheless has happened that the person taking the photo retains the copyright.
The law, like any living document, evolves to change with the times. July 17, 1790 was the first recorded instance of U.S. Copyright, and it had been signed in script type by George Washington and appeared in The Columbian Centinel and is the first known copyright act to protect books, maps and other original documents.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/firsts/first-u-s-copyright-law/
Since then, U.S. Copyright Law has evolved to over other intellectual works such as printed publications, video, audio, photographs and other original works. While technically, Mike is correct about copyright law not being intended to cover photographs, the law evolves.
I think it's a good idea that copyright law expands to cover new areas of intellectual rights and taking photographs is nothing new. After all, copyright law does protect photographs, just ask anyone who misappropriates an A.P. News photo. I actually hear about copyright takedown requests all the time, quite a few that are never reported on Techdirt.
While too many people, businesses, corporations and lawyers wield the DMCA like it was some ban-hammer demand for removal ... I do think that there are legitimate DMCA takedown requests, and it's become common that whenever someone reports a DMCA takedown request, that everyone just assumes it's a bad thing.
I do admit that while they are far and few between, not every takedown request is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright only benefits those who wish to control others, by controlling what information and entertainment that they can see. Further the more that copyright is extended, the less freedom people have to express themselves.
Why do you want to introduce a new dark age by giving corporations the means to reduce people to the level of ignorant serfs, because that is where copyright maximalism leads via total control of all information, and all computerized devices by the corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Too late :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is not true unless the photographer signs something declaring either that the work is "for hire" or transferring the copyright to you.
Lots of people have discovered this when they've tried to publish family photos taken by professional studios or when they discover those photos being used by the studio for marketing purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But none of that is related to copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is why many professional attorneys suggest that when you hire or contract with a professional photographer that you state in the contract with that photographer that you retain all copies, negatives and masters of any photos that are taken or produced by the photographer. If you don't point this out in a contract agreement with the photographer, then the photographer will retain the rights to those photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, kenichi, but Goober is correct. In the absence of a contract saying otherwise, if you have photos taken by a professional photographer, what you are paying for is the prints, and the prints only. You don't get the copyright. That's why you don't get to have the negatives.
Here's a site that gives a fuller overview of the law: https://www.ppa.com/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. A freelance photographer (ie: self-employed) only gives up the copyright when he or she signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire.
Here is what a lawyer for photographers has to say about it:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I repeat, copyright is NOT property.
One more time: copyright IS NOT property.
Copyright IS a TEMPORARY monopoly privilege. Framing it as a property right is what creates these situations.
/End rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Notice
It seems that you, Anonymous Coward, have an extensive history of commenting on articles published by the website TechDirt.com.
I think it would be in our parties' best interest to settle out of court. You may contact my associate, Anonymous Shakedown, to work out the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the photo was taken during the marriage then Rosie has the right to post it.
Then again, IANAL so could someone back me up on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
Is there anything created by man to which copyright cannot apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York
Of course, now that they're separated, presumably anything new is sole property - but quibbling over this sort of stuff just demonstrates the level of crazy. Hey, lady - you hit the jackpot. Rosie's got millions and millions (She once gave a $10M endorsement fee to charity). Whatever settlement you get, even 5% of Ro's money, is more than you'd ever earn on your own.
There's a male locker room saying about don't stick your dick into crazy; I suppose the corollary is "...or your fingers." Kind of reminds me of Giuliani (?) whose ex-wife demanded $30,000 as "child support" for their dogs. As one commentator said, he took the high road and paid it rather than drag things out, because he could afford it. I can't help thinking this too is another example of the greedy spouse shaking down the rich spouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"her wife"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "her wife"
You have never seen anyone write about a lesbian married couple? Here's a whole bunch of other references if you to get used to it:
https://www.google.com/search?q="her+wife"
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "her wife"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm well acquainted with the 'copyright is not meant to be used to censor' argument, but assigning copyright during the settlement phase (or judgment in community property states) and access to the DMCA is very useful, especially if there's a sex tape floating around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm well acquainted with the 'copyright is not meant to be used to censor' argument, but assigning copyright during the settlement phase (or judgment in community property states) and access to the DMCA is very useful, especially if there's a sex tape floating around.
Useful to someone who wants to use copyright to suppress something they don't want to get out, or prevent someone else from benefiting from it. Not useful in promoting progress, which is what copyright is supposed to be for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Today, lawyers serve the same function, or have managed to insinuate themselves into said function on Earthly planes of existence. It's a bit comical that the legal profession is still using that same zealously hoarded language the priests used for pretty much the same effect (locking out laymen from their sinecures enabling horrifically expensive "services" on their part). What a racket!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes and No
(When my wedding photographer went bankrupt, I took the option of buying my negatives and a letter transferring copyright for $500. These were really nice 120-size negatives. Worth it...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To particular photos, not to her likeness. Also, not her father.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]