Chinese Firm Now Owns The Rights To Tiananmen Square Tank Man Photo; What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
from the ain't-copyright-grand? dept
A few decades ago, Bill Gates got involved in something of a "side project" in which he tried to gain control over the licensing rights of tons of photographs and artwork, in a project that was eventually called Corbis. Gates had a vision of licensing artwork to special digital frames in people's homes, but eventually it shifted into a standard photo licensing service. Late last week, the news broke that Gates had finally sold Corbis to a Chinese firm called Visual China Group. Part of the deal is that Corbis' main competitor, Getty Images (which is fairly well-known for its copyright trolling) will get to handle all licensing on Corbis images outside of China for a period of 10 years. Considering that this effectively gives Getty control over its largest rival's library, I wonder if the DOJ may take an interest in the deal on anti-trust grounds.That said, there may be an even bigger issue here. And that's the fact that Visual China Group will now get control over a bunch of classic photographs concerning the 1989 student uprising in Tiananmen Square -- an event the Chinese government has gone out of its way to try to make disappear. For now, at least, you can see many such images, including the Tank Man image at this link. Here's a screenshot of some of those search results:
Remember that, for years, US intellectual property maximalists have whined and complained that China didn't "respect" American intellectual property. And they put increasing diplomatic pressure on China to "have more respect" for patents and copyrights. In response, China quickly realized that patents and copyright were a great tool of control for the Chinese government and Chinese industry and have used it to punish foreign companies. And, if the US complains, China just points out that it's only doing exactly what the US pressured it to do. So don't be surprised if it starts using copyright in the same manner. In fact, during the big SOPA debate, it's worth noting that Chinese officials gleefully pointed out how the provisions in SOPA were basically the same as the famed Great Firewall of China.
Once again: yes, copyright can and often is used as a tool for censorship. And that's why it'll be worth paying attention to what happens to the licensing rights of these images.
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: bill gates, censorship, china, copyright, licensing, photo library, tiananmen square
Companies: corbis, getty, visual china group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Saved for posterity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will we see US law enforcement helping...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bullcrap, major, major bullcrap.
First and foremost, that image is licensed a million times over already, has appeared all over the place. There is nothing a new copyright holder can do to stop that. Plus haul out all the usual fair use examples you cite so often, and the whole question of censorship goes out the window.
Nice try, but a true fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And when the firm does in fact attempt to stop that, you'll be standing on your sad little soapbox, deriding TechDirt for criticizing their misguided attempt to do so.
Seriously, when examples prove you wrong, the best you can manage is sticking your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALA".
No one's going to believe an idiot who thinks that if the police aren't allowed to shoot unarmed civilians, national security is screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
...blah blah blah...
Oh, look who else is going to be helping the Chinese.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Exactly. Just like Tibet was "Liberated".
Something like the "Least Untruth"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So seriously, stop trolling, and next time log into your account before posting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Surprised they didn't tie David Bowie into it, I guess the search trends are down on him this week!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You couldn't have described your postings any better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the knucklehead who openly admits to using different pseudonyms to troll the site demands that criticism of his misguided ranting to "stop trolling". One law for me, one law for the rest of you losers is the rule you seem to live by.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Logically, it may be invalid to sue those people mourning for using these historical pictures or putting them into jail for copyright infringement or "mention something government dont want anyone know" but sometimes a government just need an excuse. It is still very worrying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That it's been licensed beforehand means absolutely nothing, because there's no penalty for sending bogus DMCA claims, and the one sending it doesn't have to consider either licensing('How were we to know?') or fair use('Our bots determined that it wasn't fair use'), such things would only come up in court if the one who's content was taken down is willing and able to fight back.
Add to that the utterly one-sided nature of the law, with all the incentive stacked on the side of removing content, and they can and will use copyright law for censorship purposes on this matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So has every image, video and other product that your heroes use copyright to fight against being pirated. Yet, you usually support these actions as if they are workable solutions.
Are you now admitting that this line of attack is utterly useless and there's other ways to address piracy? You know, like you attack this site for suggesting every time you type your inane comments?
"Plus haul out all the usual fair use examples you cite so often, and the whole question of censorship goes out the window."
The ones you constantly mock this site for pointing out, and who your corporate heroes are doing everything they can to eradicate? The ones that the DMCA processes you defend so valiantly are effectively destroying as we speak while routing around due process?
I can't help but notice that you offered no actual reason why the claim that a Chinese agency would attempt to censor images of an event that the Chinese government has tried to eradicate from history is not correct. Only half-assed claims that require you to suddenly agree with things you constantly try stating are false or irrelevant. Interesting.
"Nice try, but a true fail."
Yet again, that's a mirror you're addressing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which part of this is irrelevant:
- China have routinely tried eradicating evidence of Tienanmen from history
- Chinese companies are still somewhat under the control of the Chinese government
- Images of Tienanmen, including the very images that generated calls to action against China at the time, are now under control of a Chinese company
- Copyright is routinely used to attempt censorship of media that the copyright owner dislikes, even in countries with supposed free speech protections
- There is no reason to doubt that the Chinese will use copyright as a tool to reduce the availability of these photos now that they have copyright as a tool with which to do it
Be specific. Now, bear in mind I'm not saying this will be effective. But, is it truly irrelevant to point out that a foreign country has a tool, provided at your government's behest, to censor your freedom of expression?
At best, you can argue that actual effective censorship of these specific images is unlikely. But, it's not just about these specific images and not just a question of how effective it will be. The fact that it's even possible that such censorship can take place with these tools should be a cause for concern.
"Surprised they didn't tie David Bowie into it"
Yeah, god forbid a current affairs blog should bring current events into discussion of concepts the subject was directly involved with, at a time when his name was most relevant to a discussion of those concepts.
You must be so busy, attacking all the other websites and news sources that do this. Unless you're fundamentally dishonest and only use that as an excuse to attack this blog and not everyone else. Let me guess...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well , no, actually. The tank man shot that corgis has a licence for is not the iconic shot of the tank man that went global, and even if it was there are still other photos shot of the same scene by other photographers . So that parts irrelevant
Who actually holds the copyright on these photos anyway? Wouldn't that be the thing to answer first - it may save a lot of hot air. And it may end up that this part is irrelevant too (- Copyright is routinely used to attempt censorship of media that the copyright owner dislikes, even in countries with supposed free speech protections)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who the hell do you think you're trying to kid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You've said all I could say.
Copyright is unenforcable. You cannot stop unauthorised copies when it is ultimately everybody else's decision as to whether copies exist or not. Copyright law gets zero credit for the funding of creative artists, because such a law cannot possibly "deter" or otherwise socially condition society into paying for work.
It's not enforcable, as you've said. And considering these specific photos, why would you want it to be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, didn't realise that, although the one in the original article certainly looks similar.
I wouldn't say either of those things you addressed are irrelevant, but as with most of these things I'm more concerned with the overall implications rather than a cherry-picked example. The massacre is something that's perhaps a little too well documented for censorship of Western media to work in the short term. But, for less well documented events, and in the long term as original paper documents become less easy to obtain?
Even considering the above, it's not like DMCA takedowns are known as being monitored to ensure they're valid. If a media corporation can get legal content removed, why can't China? If they can get those things done through mere incompetence, why is it not relevant to consider deliberate censorship using the same tools? Sure, companies like Google are making sure that takedowns get publicised and criticised, but not every company is as friendly and the Chinese might not be as idiotic as to keep going after Google rather than take down original sources.
"And it may end up that this part is irrelevant too"
That part's never irrelevant, though. Individuals are able to keep using copyright to censor they dislike, even if that's not always successful. That's relevant anywhere at any time - even if handing that ability to a foreign state with a vested interest in censorship doesn't result in the kind of censorship that's discussed here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
Ronan Deazley's “Commentary on the Statute of Monopolies 1624” situates the beginnings of copyright within the broader economic policy of the Tudor monarchs, continuing into the reign of the first Stuart. Printing, of course, is one of the earliest technologies of mass production. One must recognize that much of Great Britain's transition from sleepy island to industrial empire was driven by considerations of profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Your whole piracy spiel is crap, end to end. READ CAREFULLY, the images have been already generally licensed. The key shot has been licensed many times over, and as someone else so nicely pointed out, it's not the only very similar shot - including video that isn't part of the deal.
Piracy isn't about licensed copies, it's about unlicensed usage. Thanks for playing, but you lose on this one big time.
"The ones you constantly mock this site for pointing out, and who your corporate heroes are doing everything they can to eradicate? The ones that the DMCA processes you defend so valiantly are effectively destroying as we speak while routing around due process?"
Nice personal attack, but you are still very wrong. I am pointing out the very legit, very reasonable fair use claims such as in reporting. I tend to support DMCA claims on situations where fair use is not clear or not easily established. That shifts the burden to the user, rather than to the rights holder to prove that their fair use claim is valid.
"I can't help but notice that you offered no actual reason why the claim that a Chinese agency would attempt to censor images of an event that the Chinese government has tried to eradicate from history is not correct"
I don't have to. I have pointed out all the ways in which those images cannot be censored, including the inability to take back around 30 years of use in journalism, text books, and documentaries. You are making it sound like they will push a giant delete button and magically the image will disappear out of Time magazine, out of the news archives, and out of every form of media it was ever printed, used, or distributed it.
I mean, I know you have a crush on me and want to get my attention at ever turn, but why be so obvious about it? There isn't an argument here, except perhaps in your own head. Take your meds, and have a good nights sleep. Perhaps tomorrow you will understand just how silly your post was.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the AC who says "You're the idiot who says ....." was there first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny you should say that, because a magical giant delete button is what rightsholders and governments have been demanding for years. Which you have regularly supported.
And your obsession with PaulT obsessing over you is just pathetic. Multiple people disagree with you because you're an obnoxious douchenozzle. If you can't wrap your head around that you're more of an idiot that we'd thought.
Now why don't you log out, VPN yourself another little geolocation snowflake (which, according to statements you previously agreed with, qualifies as a CFAA violation by the way) and concern troll for yourself again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps "douchenozzle" best describes people like yourself who log out just to lob verbal bombs. Did you get your gonads removed young or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No shit. Nothing I said is counter to that fact.
"I am pointing out the very legit, very reasonable fair use claims such as in reporting."
Indeed. Whereas, in threads where Techdirt points out a legitimate use by an artist or other independent entity that should be considered fair use, you try to wave away the fact that right exists for them.
"I tend to support DMCA claims on situations where fair use is not clear or not easily established. That shifts the burden to the user"
...which tends to be extremely unfair when the user is an individual, the rights holder is a corporation (whose word is taken at face value, even if they can't prove they own the material), there's no due process before action is taken and there's no effective penalty for the constant misuse of the system. Things you tend to ignore, strangely enough.
There's a debate to be had there, but you're not that honest.
"I don't have to"
No, because that would constitute an honest critique of the article and an honest attempt to debate opinion. You are far from honest, as you prove constantly.
"I know you have a crush on me"
Don't flatter yourself. I state my opinion on the threads here that interest me, I just happen to also counter comments from dishonest pricks who lie, deflect and try to derail honest debate. If that asshole seems to be you every single time I encounter you, that says more about you than it does me. I have absolutely no problem commenting in threads where you don't appear. In fact, i prefer them. But I won't let your lying ass go uncommented upon whenever I see you say something dishonest. Which is every damn time I've seen you type something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm wondering who you think it is commenting anonymously and why you think he's not logging in. I hope you don't think it's me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not. I do point out that some fair use claims are pretty far fetched and legally might not hold water. I also maintain that fair use is an affirmative defense (yes, I am violating copyright, but...) and that it is subject to legal interpretation in many instances.
"which tends to be extremely unfair when the user is an individual, the rights holder is a corporation (whose word is taken at face value, even if they can't prove they own the material), there's no due process before action is taken and there's no effective penalty for the constant misuse of the system. Things you tend to ignore, strangely enough."
Since I doubt you have ever had to handle a DMCA notice, I also doubt you would know the process to answer one. A claim of fair use is simple to make, and shifts the burden back to the copyright holder to move forward (they can choose to take you to court). A solid fair use claim should stand up without issue - big corporation or individual. It just depends if you are willing to assert your rights or if you perfer to bow down and accept the results.
"No, because that would constitute an honest critique of the article and an honest attempt to debate opinion. You are far from honest, as you prove constantly."
No, because it's a meaningless question. They would have to burn down every library and newspaper in the world to get rid of those images. You are attempting to have a debate over something that isn't happening and cannot happen for the reasons I outlined. Rather than calling me out for not engaging your question, perhaps you could think for a second and realize how truly silly that question is.
"I state my opinion on the threads here that interest me, I just happen to also counter comments from dishonest pricks who lie,"
Spend a lot of time talking to yourself, then? Come on Paul, lighten up. You keep getting your ass handed to you and you just don't realize it. Stop already and you will feel better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see what you did there, I've mentioned an AC ( a very recognisable one as his posts to Whatever have a repeated structure, always ending with a variation of " you're the guy who does { this dumb thing} why would I believe you"
But you want a "recognisable, verifiable login" - Special Pleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real world doesn't permit stupidity. It's rather telling to see you do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you keep wanting to insist that people don't have the desire or ability to demand the global removal of information. "Right to be forgotten" is still very much a thing, and its proponents are constantly looking for opportunities to extend its reach. There's very little reason to believe that China isn't going to leverage every possible loophole to bury something it desperately wants hidden.
But of course, you knew that, and you'd rather turn it all into a personal rant against a website you openly admit to hating. And somehow pointing that out is "getting your ass handed to you". Trolls gotta troll, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Byut, you never actually state why, you just go "you're wrong and I'm right" without ever providing a single explanation or citation, even when pushed for one. I've seen you make decent points on occasion, but your refusal to participate in an honest discussion always undermines you - and you make far more obviously incorrect claims than potentially correct ones.
As for your DMCA claims, I do laugh at the fact that you reject my comments based on an unfounded assumption. But, even if you're correct, you honestly aren't understanding the issues people have with it (which have to do with a lack of punishment for obvious misuse, no reparations for costs to people who have legitimate claims of fair use, the chilling effects court threats have). No, you just pick the smallest part of an argument you think you can dismiss, and ignore the actyual arguments at hand.
"They would have to burn down every library and newspaper in the world to get rid of those images."
You genuinely don't understand what the actual argument is, do you? For a start, bear in mind that these specific images are not the only thing being discussed.
"Spend a lot of time talking to yourself, then?"
I swear, it's like talking to a 4 year old. You're on the level of "I know what you are but what am I" and "I win because I said so!"
Pathetic. But, I'll always comment on your dishonesty whenever I see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
Reading the actual text of the patent letter flickers candlelight when reading Deazley's commentary attached to that 1518 document.
)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tanked
[ link to this | view in thread ]