Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
from the promoting-what-progress-excactly? dept
This past Saturday was (apparently) "National Pet Day." I have pets and was unaware of this, but I'll survive. Anyway, the US Copyright Office thought that this would be a good day to tweet out this utter nonsense:
Happy #NationalPetDay from the Copyright Office. All 10k of the photos you took of your cat while asleep are protected by copyright from the moment they are created. pic.twitter.com/mgp34oRhVU
— US Copyright Office (@CopyrightOffice) April 11, 2020
On the off chance the Copyright Office comes to its senses and takes down that tweet, it shows a (cute!) picture of a sleeping kitten, and then says in the text of the tweet:
Happy #NationalPetDay from the Copyright Office. All 10k of the photos you took of your cat while asleep are protected by copyright from the moment they are created.
You'd think that someone at the Copyright Office would have enough sense to recognize that this message just makes basic copyright law appear to be the insane mess it truly is. Remember, under the Constitution, the sole reason that Congress is allowed to enable copyright protections over creative works is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." In short, copyright in the US (under the Constitution) is designed as an economic right in order to create an incentive for the production and distribution of creative works.
Now, who the hell takes 10,000 photos of their pet because of the copyright granted on those pictures? The answer is basically no one -- with the possible exception of a few professional photographers who sell images of animals. Most of us don't need the 10k photos of our pets locked up under copyright for the rest of our lives, plus an additional 70 years.
Indeed, this tweet by the Copyright Office succinctly reveals the absolute insanity in American copyright law post-1978 when we moved from a copyright system of "formalities" (i.e., you need to register your works to get the copyright) to automatic copyright, where everything that meets the low bar of creativity gets an automatic copyright at the point of fixation. Even if you believe in the necessity of copyright for protecting professional creators, authors, artists, etc., the idea that you're happy and excited and bragging over the fact that it covers the kind of artwork that needs no such incentive, is not intended for economic purposes, seems pretty messed up and really raises questions about the Copyright Office's understanding of the underpinnings of copyright law in the first place.
Oh, and it gets worse. Someone on Twitter responded to the Copyright Office by asking "what is the legal position on retweeting this?" and the Copyright Office gave really bad advice:
All government created work is part of the public domain, meaning you can freely use and reuse it. As cat people, we'd welcome it.
— US Copyright Office (@CopyrightOffice) April 13, 2020
In case you can't see that, it says:
All government created work is part of the public domain, meaning you can freely use and reuse it. As cat people, we'd welcome it.
But... that's wrong. Specifically, it's wrong in that the photo in question is not a government created work. As the photo itself shows, the photo is from photographer Alena Ozerova, a Russian photographer, and the image is available to license via Shutterstock. Odd that a Copyright Office that is gleefully claiming that photos of cats are covered by copyright, then freely (and incorrectly) suggests that the image it's tweeting is in the public domain, when that absolutely does not appear to be the case -- and that's not even getting into the question of whether or not retweeting copyright-protected material would be fair use or infringing.
Either way, the whole sequence of events seems like an abject lesson in how screwed up American copyright law is that even the US Copyright Office is both gleefully celebrating unnecessary copyrights that appear to go against the Constitution, and then claiming an actually copyright-protected image is in the public domain.
Update: Hilariously, many hours after giving the misleading advice regarding public domain materials, and after multiple people pointed out on Twitter that they had given an incorrect explanation, the Copyright Office then came back to clarify its earlier misleading tweet. Which brings up a neat follow up point: when even the Copyright Office can mislead the public about copyright in such a way that it has to come back and qualify its earlier incorrect tweet, how the hell are every day people expected to not accidentally infringe?
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: cats, copyright, economic rights, incentive, national pet day, personal photos, pets, us copyright office
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wonder if the photographer will use the Copywrong office? Oh, wait, doesn't fair use apply here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use
Is it fair use if I share a photo that my sleeping kitten took of a monkey?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair use
"Is it fair use if I share a photo that my sleeping kitten took of a monkey?"
Depends. Do you have enough money a copyright troll might feel compelled to toss an extortion letter your way? If so it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could've gone deeper, Mike…
As the subject says, you could've dug deeper, and found out why in 1976 we left an "opt-in" system of copyright to an "opt-out" system of copyright: The Berne Convention. Most nations signed onto it, but we were the last one standing not to sign it…until 1976, when we signed it and then almost everything we made was copyrighted once it was fixed in a tangible form. Going back to formalities (or at least an "opt-in" system) would be a start, but we should aim higher and renegotiate the Berne Convention to
Reforming the Berne Convention should be our brass ring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You could've gone deeper, Mike…
That doesn't work very well if you create something (and it is by definition in the public domain since you haven't yet opted in to copyright), it gets used by the public, and then you opt in to copyright protection. Now the courts are full of cases where the copyright owner is suing everyone who used the creation during its "public domain" days. Once something is in the public domain there is pretty much no way to reverse that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The United States legal system will find a way to do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You could've gone deeper, Mike…
Once something is in the public domain there is pretty much no way to reverse that.
The Supreme Court in Golan v. Holder disagrees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irreversible public domain
Yeah, we need a publicker domain, a place were material is permanently outside of the rent-seeking racket that is IP law. Is that possible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You could've gone deeper, Mike…
That's why I propose that there be a five-year statute of limitations between the time of creation (i.e. when the work of authorship is finished) until the end of the fifth year when the creator can copyright a work. Otherwise, the proverbial train has left the station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... and?
Why yes, thanks to an incredibly stupid change of copyright law that changed it to 'copyright by default' every picture created is covered by copyright, whether you want it to be or not, but as I imagine very few if any of those ten thousand photos were created because of copyright that statement is as meaningful as saying that all of those photos were taken by some sort of camera, during a moment in time, and is in either digital or physical format upon being taken.
That is to say, not at all.
I'm really not sure whether their post is more funny or sad really, as it positively reeks of attention seeking and/or trying to validate their agency's existence by putting out a tweet using a potentially infringing photo(because if they botched their response badly enough to suggest it can be freely shared I wouldn't put it past them to have forgotten to pay the license as well) and trying to tie taking photos of pets with copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be funny if Shutterstock and/or Alena Ozerova sued them for infringement. Especially if it went to court and they'd have to either admit to not understanding copyright themselves, or explain how a government agency merely sharing a work puts it in the public domain (to be then hopefully followed by a resourceful disgruntled public employee sharing whatever he gets his hands on).
Sadly, it would never get that far, it would just be a settlement along with an excuse about how the intern running the Twitter account wasn't really representing them, but it's fun to imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright office providing invalid advice?
So wait, if I take a picture while I'm asleep (say I roll over and hit the camera button which happens to be sitting there), that meets the "low bar of creativity" to grant a copyright?
I thought there had to be some form of creativity (now I think I'm very creative when I'm asleep and snoring, but I don't think that qualifies as putting creative thought and action into the photo I'm taking while asleep.
Oh, they meant when the cat is asleep... well they weren't very clear there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Added an update
Amusingly, many hours later, after multiple people tweeted that the Copyright Office was wrong in its tweet about the public domain, they did tweet out a clarification of how copyright and the federal government works. I've added an update to the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Added an update
To be fair, it's hard to be clear within the limits of a tweet, particularly about something as complex and convoluted (and insane) as copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that, dear coward, is why we still have archaic websites known as blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Added an update
Oh, come on! The Copyright Office was clear in their tweet. Clearly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Added an update
"To be fair, it's hard to be clear within the limits of a tweet, particularly about something as complex and convoluted (and insane) as copyright law."
No, it really isn't.
The massed paragraphs of contemporary copyright law could realistically and factually be condensed to "Because lawyer belong us beat lawyer belong you all your stuff belong us. All Hail Copyright without which, sky would fall and eldritch horrors eat your babies. Herp Derp." without losing any significant aspects in translation.
The complexity only arises because all of the stakeholders, including those tasked to guard the insanity in question, are greatly motivated to NOT ever formulate the concept in clearly understandable terminology.
If a law can not clearly be understood without great effort then that's usually a very good indication that it's really a con job meant to unreasonably profit vested interests.
Same way you can tell how shady a contract is by the amount of effort you need to invest just to know what it really stipulates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Added an update
The followup tweet says:
Makes sense to me. I don't see an issue. The guy you mentioned did query about retweeting, and that answers it. Twitter is Twitter, you only use do many characters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Added an update
"Twitter is Twitter, you only use do many characters"
Yes, and people who only saw the first tweet and not the entire thread will now have been misinformed by the copyright office as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Added an update
Well the first tweet said:
Which is fair enough, saying the default is that images are copyright protected But yes, the following comment about public domain could perhaps have been better worded. But it was in response to sharing on Twitter, so in context wad correct. People looking at Twitter generally appreciate the context of what the reply was from, and character limitations. It's clutching it draws complaining about this, it feels like looking for an opportunity to criticise as opposed to legitimate confusion about the messages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Added an update
"People looking at Twitter generally appreciate the context of what the reply was from, and character limitations"
Some do, a lot don't, even the ones who are not deliberately misconstruing things to elevate their troll ego.
"It's clutching it draws"
I assume you meant clutching at straws. But, you are doing something the same to a certain degree. The main thrust of the article is questioning the actual value of having instant copyright on every random snap everybody takes, with the argument being that there is zero under the original definition of the purpose of copyright. You've not addressed that at all.
You have argued with a brief aside about how in the original context the tweet about public domain could be misunderstood. Now, you're attacking the original article, whose context has changed since it was written in the same way the context of the original tweet has changed.
I understand what you're saying but honestly if you're depending on people on Twitter taking things in context and in good faith to ensure messaging is correct, you're in for a bad time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Added an update
Apologies for the typos! To be fair the controversial tweet is fine all by itself, nothing wrong with what it says in isolation. So you would need to look at the earlier one to see that there was even a photo anyway, so anyone concerned would have to look at the context. In which case, they would have seen the actual question. How we answer questions, depends on the actual question. The article could have at least put the final tweet in the text where they explain the situation. It seems a little unfair to complain about it, and not mention that the guy explained the situation. We all have our biases, but there are limits to missing out the other point of view.
The main thrust of the article, concerning the value of copyright. I think we could all write a good few pages for and against. The article only touched on this.
Do I care if somone uses a picture of my cat without permission that I took. It depends, in most cases no, I don't care. I may or may not want acknowledgment, I would think it was polite to get permission. If it's being used as a link image to advertise a bestiality site, then yes I'm glad I can ask them to remove due to my rights as a copyright owner. If it's being sold on an image site, and people are making profit I want a share, or simply removed. If it's being used in a story on a newspaper that I absolutely hate, like the Daily Fail, then no, I don't want them using my work.
Let's face it, unless there is big money it is always a case of somone just removing the content if the copyright owner objects. Or often just adding a link and ackowledment us what many people want. We can all take our own photos of a cat anyway. Can't we? So shouldn't the focus be on stopping laziness. Take your own photo, or use a photo which is copyright free etc. It's not hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Added an update
"Can't we? So shouldn't the focus be on stopping laziness. Take your own photo, or use a photo which is copyright free etc. It's not hard."
ContentID begs to differ. Consider that any photo taken of a cat sufficiently similar to the one you took can be considered infringing.
And whether the copyright holder of the other photo is a sane person is irrelevant when there are a thousand copyright trolls in the form of shady lawyers out there ready with an extortion letter.
It's not about being lazy. It's about copyright being so easy to employ as a weapon that thousands of amateur youtubers have to waste several hours daily to keep re-filing their claim to their own work because a hundred trawler bots keep sending unfounded takedown notices on behalf of copyright enforcement agencies.
And it's about an entire segment of the lawyer industry finding that mass-mailing extortion letters without evidence is EASY money since paying the protection money is cheaper than bringing your innocence to court.
"unless there is big money it is always a case of somone just removing the content if the copyright owner objects."
That just isn't true. As Prenda and assorted other shady outfits have demonstrated.
Your entire argument reads as frantically trying to pick out the few possible advantages from an otherwise unacceptable situation. The covid pandemic has, in a similar manner, brought down carbon dioxide emission. That doesn't mean it's ok to call it generally beneficial.
Copyright is all bad, both in principle and practice. The alleged benefits you refer to have never been demonstrated to work - only the harmful side effects of contemporary interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Added an update
I prefer to think of it is as injecting a bit of objectivity/reality to the discussion.
Prenda is a particularly bad example. One of them get 14 years for his actions. So I would be surprised if these actions were repeated by others. It's like saying murder should be lawful, just because someone was framed or encouraged another to do the deed. You can still think murder is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you COULD just leave your pet photos and just assume that people could use them consequence free? Who would go to the difficulty of accusing someone who liked a post of a cat doing cat things of theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you familiar with Grumpy Cat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And Doge (even though that was Japanese)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Who would go to the difficulty of accusing someone who liked a post of a cat doing cat things of theft?"
Any copyright, trademark or patent troll seeing the opportunity to leverage bad information control law to effortlessly extort a hundred thousand people for 10-20 USD, that's who.
Are you seriously asking that question in ignorance of just HOW shameless, fraudulent and borderline criminal people can be in an era which still has the terms "ambulance chaser" and "snake oil salesman" in its vocabulary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, without the financial motive copyright providers, how would pet owners have any reason to continue posting pictures of their beloved animal companions onto the Internet for the world to see? Fluffy the Maltese may be cute and adorable as she sniffs an Easter egg, and Macaroon the Japanese Bobtail may look adorable wearing a Santa hat but the natural question is- how can I make money off of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just out of curiosity, the the US Copyright Office pay the licensing fee for that picture before tweeting it in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if those pictures aren't copyrighted, where is the incentive for those kittens to fall asleep again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I put all my photos of my cat in creative commons?
I take a lot of pictures of my cat (mostly to share with family who like kitty pics). Do I have to do something to put them in creative commons or copyleft?
Why is copyright opt-out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I put all my photos of my cat in creative commons?
Yes, you have to specify the license where you post the video, wikipedia has this useful quick guide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I put all my photos of my cat in creative commons?
"I take a lot of pictures of my cat (mostly to share with family who like kitty pics). Do I have to do something to put them in creative commons or copyleft?"
Yes. And if your post here had a few more lines to render it something someone a lawyer could call an "original work" then you could in theory start threatening people with lawsuits for quoting you. As you could for anyone quoting you sufficiently verbatim in a conversation.
The insanity of copyright is shown in how it needs actual fair use exceptions just in order to not shut human society down completely.
"Why is copyright opt-out?"
Short answer; The Berne Convention.
More salient answer; Biggest Red Flag Act in modern times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I put all my photos of my cat in creative commons?
You don't have to. Good news is only the copyright owner can take action against any misuse. So if you don't care about anyone using your cat image, then you don't need to do a thing. No-one can take action without your permission. Creative commons is something you can use if you want to make it clear to others under what if any circumstances the image can be used. It could be a requirement to be accredited, or fine for all use except non-commercial use. Or make it completely copyright free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can I put all my photos of my cat in creative commons?
That is bad advice, as the copyright owner can become the estate of the creator, and they do not have to respect such a relaxed approach to copyright enforcement. Similarly if the creator received and accepted an offer for the copyright, those who prior to this made use of the image are unprotected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can I put all my photos of my cat in creative common
Sure, after death - the copyright still exists, and the creator is dead - so obviously can't stop who ever has inheritited the pet photos taking action they might not have approved of! So yes you are correct. In that instance, you can't do anything about it (being dead obviously). The question was regarding personal pet photos though, so it is probably very rare that someone who inherits will explicitly even know about such photos, never mind discover that someone didn't seek permission to use such photos.
Bad advice? I think that's taking things a bit too far in the context of the actual question regarding personal pet photos. But yes if you are talking about something you want to ensure is in the public domain after you have died then do use creative commons or something similar. Which I basically said. And I covered the other point, it's a given if you give or sell the copyright others can take action. But that is up to the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, taken another way, if I retweet that, then the copyright office comes to their senses and follows up with a clarification and correction, does that mean that I'm considered liable under proposed "fake news" laws in this or other countries, since I just retweeted something that was objectively false?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? You haven't referred to any photo "in question" till this point, only a textual tweet by a government employee. I don't see any relevant "img" HTML tag here and I'm getting a 403 from Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I most definitely did refer to the picture, which still appears to be there. I wrote: "On the off chance the Copyright Office comes to its senses and takes down that tweet, it shows a (cute!) picture of a sleeping kitten, and then says in the text of the tweet:"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a user in one forum I frequent, devoted to old computers, who thinks copyright shouldn't have any limit whatsoever. He thinks perpetual copyright would not only be morally right, but that that's what the original purpose of copyright was intended to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's... not exactly amazing. Here at Techdirt we have several!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The intended function of copyright...
Copyright maximalists around here seem to agree, that IP should be without limit.
It lends weight to the hypothesis (by others) that promoting science and useful arts was simply a cheesy justification for a rent-seeking scam favored by our Constitutional framers (as it was in strongly favored in Old England). This, in turn gives weight to Marx' point that capitalism ultimately leads to olde thyme feudalism and has to be crushed or otherwise once again lead to a stratified caste system.
(And in fact, many of our Neofeudal overlords are in their positions of great wealth and power due to their strong IP holdings.)
Either way, it comes down to IP law having tremendous overreach and making criminal many activities that shouldn't be (as well a suppressing massive amounts of science and useful art). The question isn't whether it's doing what it was originally intended, but whether IP law should be reformed, abolished entirely or annihilated in a bloody and fiery revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The intended function of copyright...
"The question isn't whether it's doing what it was originally intended, but whether IP law should be reformed, abolished entirely or annihilated in a bloody and fiery revolution."
It's not even a question. Imaginary property law relies on as unreal a principle as medieval church blasphemy law wherein ownership of an unprovable intangible is upheld as a justification to rob relatively powerless victims of money, property and/or life.
As such I don't really see it as reformable. The only two options we realistically have is peaceful abolition or fiery revolution.
Since you really can't enforce copyright law without abolishing a great many civil or human rights as side effect it's still up in the air whether sanity will prevail in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, he can use computers but has a bad reading comprehension problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's almost impressive, fractal wrongness condensed into a person like that. Have you tried pointing out that if perpetual copyright were a thing that it would basically destroy culture as nothing could be remixed or created based upon past works without permission, and/or that if perpetual copyright was the intended goal then it's certainly odd that it was vastly more restrictive when it was first implemented, or at they a total lost cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I and others have tried, but he considers that a perfectly desirable outcome. In fact, he has stated that he and many other authors/creators actually don't want their older work circulating and being used. He believes it should be his absolute decision whether or not he wants something that he's created to disappear forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lost cause it is I see, a pity. Well, if he's really insistent that he keeps total control of his works then he absolutely has that ability, all he has to do is simply never publish or make public anything ever again, and best of all with a mindset like that I'm pretty sure nothing of value would be lost from doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"He believes it should be his absolute decision whether or not he wants something that he's created to disappear forever."
He essentially has that power - all he has to do is never offer it to the public. If, however, he wants the benefits of offering to the public, such as offering it for sale or licencing, he has to accept the whole contract with the public, which includes expiry, fair use and the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"He thinks perpetual copyright would not only be morally right, but that that's what the original purpose of copyright was intended to be."
It's pretty telling that most copyright maximalists have the moral compass of a psychopath, but to be fair he's exactly right about the original purpose of copyright.
It was always meant to be the replacement for the blasphemy laws which did the catholic church of medieval times such profitable service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same reason why PETA released "Pokemon Black and Blue" in the early 2010s, and why they put up an image macro of a sheep Pokemon saying "I'm not your Wooloo sweater" - both attempts pissing off fans, of course. A sad attempt to leverage something trendy to salvage their reputations.
I think you're missing out the bigger question here, one which the Copyright Office has never been able to answer - why would a photographer take more animal photos if copyright lasted for 95 years after death instead of 70? Why would they take less photos if it was 50 years after death instead of 70? Some of the maximalist trolls here would argue this is the case with no statistics to back it up. You'd think that the office in charge of copyright would be able to give an answer, but no.
Techdirt already has plenty of examples where the RIAA and other pro-copyright politicians regularly use non-free stock images or photos to push their agendas. And receive no punishment or penalty whatsoever. This behavior is expected from them, honestly, because most authority can't be fucked to practice what they preach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what
If you created it, you own the copyright. Many people are fine with others reusing their content, some may prefer a credit and a link back, others may not want you to use the content in certain situations, others don't care how you use it. It's not hard to simply ask the content owner, or just take your own photo of a cat if you can't be bothered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what
I presume you know how insane it is to make contact details public in this age of spam, so many individuals take steps to make sure that they cannot be contacted easily, so no it is not easy to contact people, except through the site you found the content, if that is possible and/or you do not mind the contact being public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what
Individuals who are happy for their images to be used without restriction will put a redistribution notice to say so, or what the requirements are. See creativecommons. If there is no notice, and no contact details, then you don't know if they are happy. It is possible that your source just stole it from elsewhere and ignored whatever redistribution and contact details were provided. It is just the decent thing to do, noone likes a thief. Many people will be happy, but would like an acknowledgement and maybe a link back. If someone is making profit they may want a share, they may object if it used on a site against their moral, political or religious beliefs. If you don't have permission, just create your own photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what
If it's not hard to simply ask the content owner, why didn't the Copyright Office ask the owner of the photograph they used for their tweet?
Hell, why didn't they credit the owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what
It seems they paid for a Shutterstock image, and their licence allows them to use the image in certain circumstances such as tweeting. Indeed people subscribe and pay for images from the likes of Shutterstock so they don't have to credit, that is what the payment is for. It all, very normal and perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what
Yes, but they then went on to say that it could be freely redistributed by other people, while implying the because a government account tweeted it, it was now public domain. That's the issue here, not whether the original photographer was paid
To be fair, the original source is still visible on the photo as well, but the point is the copyright office should not be muddying the understanding of copyright like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what
Well there was a question:
And then there was a reply to the question:
So the context was about retweeting. Sure it could have been spelled out. But the character limits and the fast pace of Twitter means that tweets could often be clearer. In any case, he/she clarifies:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for the information, USCO. I'll make sure to write a copyright notice that includes a license for others to use my pics so no individuals get sued on my 'behalf'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only person who could take action is the copyright owner. So you don't need to worry about anyone getting sued on your behalf. It is not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless Getty decide they like the Image and add it to their collection.. Oh that's right they sue on their own behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If getty buy/acquire the copyright then yes. But that would only be with the consent of the original copyright owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getty does not always obtain the copyright before suing as shown by this search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure which case you are referring too. The links seem to be about people suing Getty, not the other way around. But no If you don't give/sell the copyright to getty or anyone else, it is you and only you that can take action against copyright infringement. Of course anyone can try and extort money out of somone else, and even threaten legal action, but that is a different matter.
I can steal a laptop, and threaten to sue them if they don't pay a fee for "looking after" their property. It doesn't mean a court will side with me though, it would be bizarre if they did!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, so here was Getty Images claiming that it held the copyright on these photos, demanding that Carol Highsmith pay up for using her own photograph, which she had deliberately donated to be used freely. link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reread what I wrote. The article you link to isn't relevant to the point. Highsmith was suing Getty, not the other way around. She gave the images to Getty, but with certain conditions. Ones which they breached. As I noted, any of us can threaten legal action, it doesn't mean we have any right to sue, or even if we do that we will be successful. I'm looking for a case where Getty sued for copyright despite not owning the copyright. That was my only point that:
Happy to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go and read the history of that case, because Highsmith was suing Getty after they had threatened to sue her over her own images, which she had made free to use. She had not transferred the copyright to Getty, and so Getty unanimously decided to add them to their collection, and then tried to sue the copyright owner for using her own images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can threaten to sue anyone. We all have the power to write a letter and say absolutely anything. But that is a million miles away from somone actually suing somone! In order to be sued, It has to go to court, and a judge has to find in favour of Getty. Think of it like saying you are going to be an astronaut. It doesn't mean you are an astronaut.
Yes I read the case, it's not relevant to this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that how things should operate are the same how they do operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just cite a case where somone who didn't own the copyright successfully sued somone for copyright enfringememt, against the wishes of the copyright owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright lawsuits against the wish of authors
Easy: Elsevier vs. Sci-Hub.
https://www.nature.com/news/us-court-grants-elsevier-millions-in-damages-from-sci-hub-1.221 96
In the trial, Elsevier didn't even have to prove it had copyright. Authors of the works involved objected to the lawsuits and sided with Sci-Hub.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright lawsuits against the wish of authors
Nope, when authors submitted their articles they agreed to transfer the copyright. So Elsevier owned the copyright. Obviously there were so many articles that they couldn't assess all of them, they used a representative sample of 100 infringed works. Btw, I'm totally in favour of going down the open access route, or at least having an embargo to allow free access at a later date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright lawsuits against the wish of authors
Can you prove that? Because Elsevier didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright lawsuits against the wish of authors
Yes authors have to sign a form to transfer the rights. Even the link you have states that they Elsevier own the copyright.
"The Dutch publishing giant holds the copyrights for the largest share of the roughly 28 million papers downloaded from Sci-Hub over 6 months in 2016".
Only a sample of 100 was used, and it is legally impossible to sue for copyright infringement if you are not the copyright holder. As for authors complaining, well that's fine - but if they have transferred the copyright to Elsevier than that is their fault. I would always encourage authors to make their research open access, or at least have an embargo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York Times doubles down
You cannot make this up:
https://www.nytimes.com/article/copyrights-trademarks-patents.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're only locked if you the creator wants them locked up. If you're happy for someone to use your picture of fluffy for absolutely anything, then you need to absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. So only locked up if you want it to be locked up. Personally l like the fact that if somone puts my white cat Fluffy as the main image on a White Power site, I can assert my right to ask them to stop using it using my rights under copyright. Sounds good to me! But if I don't care I do not have to assert that right.
I think that's the wrong question. I guess I would ask who the hell expects a picture of their cat to be used by anyone for any reason. Why should a publisher be using a photo of Fluffy and making profit in his cat book, instead of just taking his own photos or paying to use the photo. If you own the copyright and don't care, then you don't have to do anything about it. But maybe you dislike this particular paper or website. Maybe you think they earn enough profit, and they should be paying photographers for the content they use.
Most of us don't need to use other people's pet photos either. There are plenty of sites with copyright free Images, and there are plenty of pets and cameras, meaning we can create our own content. Again, we don't need to assert our copyright rights, it's just their if we want to. It's there if we decide there is a "need". The "need" can be defined after creation.
Even if the work wasn't created for economic purposes, it doesn't mean others won't use it for economic purposes. That's sort of the whole point. But again it's only the copyright holder who can take action anyway, and in most cases they don't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong. Copyright is automatic. Moral rights in several countries cannot be waived.
Wrong. You need to release them under CC-0, otherwise they'll have a debt of 150,000 dollars hanging on their head for every single use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
150,000 dollars fine for every single use.
That is absurd and that this would hold up in court is an indictment of copyright as a rent-seeking shakedown, as well as an indictment of the courts being biased toward power.
In any stratified society, those not on the top are peons and suckers and will ultimately be regarded as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're only locked if you the creator wants them locked up
This is false, and ridiculous. Because for most people they won't know what kind of mindfield they're entering into, the images are as good as locked up.
I guess I would ask who the hell expects a picture of their cat to be used by anyone for any reason.
That's got literally fuck all to do with the purpose of copyright. If you want to stop people's creativity, that's on you.
Personally l like the fact that if somone puts my white cat Fluffy as the main image on a White Power site, I can assert my right to ask them to stop using it using my rights under copyright.
You're making a moral rights claim. That's actually outside of what US copyright is designed for (it is allowed in the EU).
Sounds good to me!
You suggest a single, impossibly rare, category of works you do not like and because of that decide it is okay to lock up nearly all of human culture. Fucking hell.
Why should a publisher be using a photo of Fluffy and making profit in his cat book, instead of just taking his own photos or paying to use the photo.
You again choose a very specific scenario -- one that is rare and unlikely to happen, ignoring how much other creativity is stifled under this system.
If you own the copyright and don't care, then you don't have to do anything about it.
This is wrong. As others have pointed out to you, estates can get in the way, or simply people won't be willing to make use of your works because of a fear of getting sued. "You" have nothing to worry about... except for the fact that it will scare people off. How selfish are you anyway?
Most of us don't need to use other people's pet photos either.
So what? WHY DO THE PHOTOS NEED COPYRIGHT? We lock up ALL CREATIVITY for around 100 years, despite no economic value in doing so. That's truly messed up. It's messed up for culture. It's messed up for society. You seem to think only in specific commercial terms, and that's not how this works. If I see a cute cat photo that someone took online, and I want to share it with my friend who likes cats -- why should I have to get permission or pay a license fee? That's insane.
Even if the work wasn't created for economic purposes, it doesn't mean others won't use it for economic purposes.
So what? If someone uses a work you didn't create for economic purposes, why should you care? You weren't going to use it for economic purposes in the first place, so why does it matter?
That's sort of the whole point.
To grift off someone who decided to try to make money where you explicitly chose not to?
You're very very confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not ridiculous at all. It’s up to the copyright holder if they want to have their images “locked up”. They can make them copyright free, put them under creative commons or something similar, or simply ignore any copyright infringement they discover. The default is that they can be protected under copyright, but the copyright holder does not have to assert that right. Many people don’t assert that right, or make it clear that their works are copyright free. Or often just want to have control of where the work can be used and the circumstances. Indeed, to strengthen protection – copyright holders can register their work.
It’s exactly what copyright is for, allowing the copyright holder to decide who uses his work, and if he wants to stipulate restrictions. Saying “fuck all” every now and then, doesn’t strengthen your argument. Stopping creativity? Well, it depends. If it means a website or book pays a photographer for their work, then that means people can make a living in that industry. If there was no copyright restrictions, why would any publisher bother paying for content?
Copyright is designed to give control to the copyright holder. The copyright holder needs to prove an infringement, the reason for them asserting their right isn’t at all relevant. So yes, even in the US it is highly likely that someone will assert their copyright for certain sites that they disapprove of, and not bother about other sites. You take away copyright, then you take away that control. Unless you put something else in its place, but then things become even more confusing and controversial. Of course we can make our work copyright free too, or licence it with certain conditions like in Creative Commons licence, or individually respond to requests.
If what you say is true and the USA doesn’t have moral rights claims in addition to copyright, then that just strengthens the need for copyright.
Although this case springs to mind:
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/09/28/the-lara-jade-cotontvx-case-the-full-story/
Not rare at all, actually a fairly typical example of cases that actually make it to court. Often it’s only worth suing those who can be shown to have made a profit from the infringement, and are likely to have the funds to pay. Saying that, publishers will almost always make sure they have the copyright permission. And why is that? It is because they don’t want to be sued for copyright infringement. If it’s perfectly legal to use any content without permission, then many publishers will not pay for content, and it will likely to become a common occurrence. The incentive to gain permission is gone, as it is not needed. It’s always good to look at the likely consequences of changes.
You criticised my other point (rather unfairly in my view) of being “one that is rare and unlikely to happen”. But then suggest this, which lets face it, probably has never happened. I struggle to take seriously that anyone would think that the inheritor would even be aware, recognise, or pursue a copyright infringement claim of some pet photos. Even I’ve gone through old photos, and have no memory of taking them, or struggle to recognise my cat from 20 years ago – so a relative is unlikely to even know some years, decades later. Indeed, they would have to prove that they owned the copyright in order to sue, and unless it is listed in the will, or a copyright notice has been filed – then that isn’t going to happen. The problem, takes care if itself.
Yes, your second point has some weight- it should put people off using material which isn’t copyright free, or where it is against whatever licence exists, or where the person hasn’t asked the copyright holder. But that is what copyright is designed for. Is that selfish, or is it selfish to use others work without permission (outside of fair use)?
It’s not locking up “all creativity”. Again, it’s up the copyright holder if they want to make it copyright free, or allow others to use in certain circumstances.
It depends how. Again, if it is copyright free, or within the terms of the licence, you can – no problem with that. If you retweet, then that is absolutely fine. The person who uploaded should be sure that he has the right to do so though. If you just email, or share through facebook that’s locked down- is anyone ever going to know? Or maybe you just send a link to the actual image you saw online?
The point was that sometimes we decide later to try and profit from our own work, or again it may be an organisation that we disapprove of. Or perhaps we think the commercial sector should be paying for the work they use to increase creativity, meaning that artists can make a living and produce more work. Why can’t they just use work they have permission to use, be it copyright free, or licence an artist?
“Explicitly choosing not to”, would be if you offered your work as copyright free, made your wishes known through Creative Commons, or gave permission in some other way etc. Which is the opposite of what you have been saying. Not confused at all – just trying to inject a bit of reality into the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who expects their cat to be used by anyone...
When I write a casual blog piece (announcing life stuff or lamenting how much things suck) I'll post a nice cat pic rather than a specific relevant image. It's easier on the brain that way. Sometimes I try to make something about the cat image (emotions, cats on tech, cats looking out rainy windows, etc.) related to my lament.
No, I don't ask for permission, and generally such posts are fairly inoffensive. But yeah, I may be setting myself up for litigation, or at least a C&D nastygram. It hasn't happened yet across five years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and that said...
Cats are more popular than porn on the internet, or were for a while in the aughts. I haven't checked if that's changed.
Cute animals are very popular on the internet, and may be the largest volume of content. I remember there being some statistics to that effect, particularly when it surpassed porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes copyright is automatic, that wasn't the point,or particularly relevant. The context is talking about someones pet photos, they don't have to assert their copyright rights, they can do nothing, nada, zilch if someone uses their photos. So it is NOT locked, unless they want to take action.
I was talking from the point of view of copyright holder. Which is what this piece was all about. The copyright holder doesn't have to release under CC, it might be better if they did if they want to encourage others to use. But they do not have to. Yes someone risks action if they do not have permission if they use a piece of work protected by copyright, BUT only if the copyright holder take action (lets face it it will be a takedown request and not even a fine 99% of the time). But again, that's the responsibility of the person not getting permission or seeking copyright free material. It is only the copyright holder who can take action. So if they don't care - they wont take action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What authors need to do
Hey, it was your premise, not mine:
An author who wants other to use their work for absolutely anything cannot just sit down and do nothing, as you suggest: to have their wish fulfilled, such authors need to proactively license their work with adequate legal tools, specifically the CC-0 for the kind of usage you suggest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What authors need to do
Sure, I felt I covered this in my above comment. It's the difference between "need to" and "want to". They don't have to do anything, but if they want to encourage and get their worked used widely, then it would be sensible put in CC or something similar. There is not an obligation to do this. Some in the thread wrongly felt that an outside party could sue, when it can only be the copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]