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.

Filed Under: children, copyright, divorce, michelle rounds, photos, rosie o'donnell

DailyDirt: Digital Photography Magic (aka Photoshopping)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Altering a few pixels here and there in a digital photo can have remarkable effects. Sometimes the result is unexpected and hilarious, but sometimes it's simply amazing what can be done to photos. Perhaps you've used software (eg. photoshop) to remove "red eye" from your favorite selfies, but there are some even more advanced algorithms that can make your photos look much better... than they otherwise would.

• If you've ever tried to take a picture through a window (from a train/bus/skyscraper/etc), you've probably encountered the problem of seeing your own reflection obscuring your shot. However, don't delete those photos just yet -- if the window was double-paned, you might be able to save them with an algorithm that removes reflected images under certain conditions. [url]
• It's possible to de-blur some cellphone-take photos by using the front-facing camera to track motion information while the rear-facing camera snaps a shot. Algorithms can make it possible for cameras to get even smaller, as imperfections in small lenses can be compensated for with software. [url]
• There will be an ever-growing number of selfie filter options in the near future. The more advanced ones will combine facial recognition with other effects to generate more stylish photos. [url]
• Maybe you want your outdoor photography to look like it's winter. Or autumn. Or raining. There might be a editing tool for that soon -- from some researchers at Brown University. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: algorithms, cameras, cgi, de-blur, filters, photography, photos, photoshop, photoshopping, reflections, selfie

Flickr Now Officially Supports Public Domain Dedications

from the very-nice-to-see dept

As we had noted in our story about Elon Musk declaring all SpaceX photos public domain, Flickr (where most of those photos were hosted) did not allow an official public domain dedication. And while it offered Creative Commons licenses, the CC0 public domain dedication was not among the options. Flickr is not the only site like that -- many sites that offer CC licensing don't include a CC0 option. Last week, there was an interesting piece by Jessamyn West exploring why it was that Flickr chose not to offer a public domain option. She found an old forum post by Flickr founder (and now Slack founder/CEO) Stewart Butterfield, where he explained the reasoning as such:

The reasons we don’t have a PD option: (i) Unlike CC licenses, you can’t take PD back — once it is done, it is done. I spec’d out a three stage confirmation (including typing out that you understand what it means) but this was seemed like too much and we didn’t want the support hassle. People are free to use the description field to specify their PD desires. (ii) There are liabilities that we don’t want to take on if we allow people to claim something is public domain without actual checking the chain of title — if they don’t own it in the first place, we can get in trouble. (This is also true of CC images, but at least that can be changed after the fact and there is less of a chance of the image just “escaping” in the wild.)

Of course, those reasons really don't make that much sense in reality. You can't really take back CC licenses either. The very first thing that Creative Commons tells potential licensors is that the licenses are not revocable. Once you grant a CC license, it stays that way.

Thankfully, the Yahoo folks who are currently running Flickr realized that this was an opportunity -- and have now announced that it has added both "public domain" listings and a CC0 dedication as options when uploading images:

We’ve been proud to support Creative Commons licenses since 2004, and we’ve become an important repository of U.S. Government works and historic images from galleries, libraries, archives, and museums around the world (check out The Flickr Commons for examples).

But we’ve heard from our community that we’re missing two important designations: Public Domain and Creative Commons 0 (CC0). Many members of our community want to be able to upload images that are no longer protected by copyright and correctly tag them as being in the Public Domain, or they want to release their copyright entirely under CC0.

So, starting today we’re happy to support these two new options. One of the first accounts on Flickr to change its designation was SpaceX, which has uploaded more than a hundred gorgeous images of its launches. These extraordinary photos are now available for others to freely use, enhance, and promulgate without restriction under copyright law.

This is a great move -- and we're thrilled to see Flickr take such a stand (even if it should have happened years ago). Hopefully other platforms will follow suit.

Filed Under: cc0, copyright, flickr, hosting services, licensing, photos, public domain
Companies: flickr, spacex, yahoo

Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain

from the thanks-elon dept

In early February, we put out an open letter to Elon Musk, asking him to put SpaceX's photos into the public domain, noting that it was a shame that those photos would be locked up until long after we were all dead. NASA's photos are all in the public domain. While I'm extremely excited about the things that private spaceflight can accomplish -- it would be unfortunate if part of the deal was that we lost a great source of public domain imagery. Last week, the company started releasing its photos under a Creative Commons license, which was definitely a big step forward. However, we noted that we were still disappointed that it wasn't a pure public domain dedication, and in fact had a "non-commercial" restriction. So we once again asked if Musk might consider going that one step further to the public domain.

Over the weekend, he did just that: Extra kudos to Elon Musk for recognizing the issue and making the decision so quickly. Of course, the above is not entirely accurate. For reasons that are beyond me, Flickr does not offer a CC0 Public Domain dedication as an option on photos, so it looks like SpaceX has switched the photos to CC BY 2.0, basically removing the non-commercial restriction, but still requiring attribution. Still, given Musk's public statement, it seems likely that the company has no intention to enforce even that restriction.

One separate note: I was a bit surprised by the number of comments on our last story that seemed to indicate that it was absolutely crazy of me to dare to suggest that a private company put photographic works into the public domain. This is unfortunate. It is depressing how much the myth that everything needs to be "owned" has become pervasive in society, often due to the false claims made by legacy industries. Freeing up works so that the public can benefit from them has tremendous global benefits, even for the private interests who put those works into the public domain. Elon Musk recognized this with Tesla's patents, and he appears to be doing the same with SpaceX's photos as well.

And, yes, freeing these photos likely will come back to benefit SpaceX as well. It will enable others to take those works and build off of them, perhaps doing research or publications that will increase the demand for SpaceX's services in launching things (and, eventually, people) into space. And those benefits are likely to be much more valuable than whatever SpaceX might have gotten in a "license" deal for a few photos to some commercial source.

It's astounding to me the short-term, narrow-visioned view of the world some people have, in which they think licensing is the answer to everything, not recognizing just how much innovation and freedom it naturally suppresses.

Oh, and since I can now do this without any worry, here are a couple of great SpaceX photos, that Musk says are in the public domain. Enjoy!

Filed Under: creative commons, elon musk, photos, public domain, space
Companies: spacex

SpaceX Photos Now Using Creative Commons License... But With Restrictions

from the almost,-but-not-quite dept

Last month, we noted how unfortunate it was that, unlike NASA photos which are automatically in the public domain, photos taken by private space company SpaceX, would be covered by copyright. We asked SpaceX founder Elon Musk to declare SpaceX's photos in the public domain. The company has not quite done so, but has now agreed to offer them up under a restrictive Creative Commons license, as reported by Jason Koebler at Vice's Motherboard. SpaceX has put up a Flickr feed with the images, but is unfortunately using a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, meaning that it bars commercial use.

This is, certainly, better than nothing, and better than locking down the photos entirely. But, it is still problematic, in that barring commercial use could limit the ability of important analysis by companies. Yes, it also stops some company coming in and trying to publish a book or sell those photos, but is that really a big concern by SpaceX? Why should the company even be worried about that? It seems like this is a case where SpaceX would be better off using a CC0 public domain dedication to make it clear that the images are available however people want (or, at the very least dropping the "commercial" use restriction).

Again, Elon Musk has recognized the value of completely freeing Tesla's patents, which are certainly a lot more central to Tesla's business than SpaceX's photos -- so hopefully the company will continue to move towards freeing these images as well.

Filed Under: creative commons, elon musk, nasa, photos, public domain, space
Companies: spacex

Deposed Revenge Porn Jester Craig Brittain Tries To DMCA Censor Popehat, Adam Steinbaugh... And The FTC

from the Brittain:-'I-feel-I-still-have-more-reprehensible-stupidity-to-offer' dept

The DMCA takedown system is once again being abused by Craig Brittain. The recently deposed king inadvertent court jester of the revenge porn world -- defenestrated by the FTC no less -- has issued a new bogus takedown request in hopes of purging the internet of critical articles.

Brittain's takedown asks for the delisting of 23 posts from various sites, all of which have been denied by Google. Among the more scathing posts Brittain hoped to remove with his abusive request include those written by two of his nemeses, Ken White (of Popehat) and Adam Steinbaugh. Also listed: posts residing at Ars Technica, Gawker, Forbes, Huffington Post, GigaOm, Reddit, Salon, Vice and The Verge. Somehow, it appears that our own article on Techdirt about him may be the only one he didn't seek to take down. Gee, thanks, Craig!

To top it off, Brittain also requests -- wait for it -- that the FTC's press release concerning his settlement with the agency, along with details of the case proceedings, be removed as well.

But what takes it into truly surreal territory is Brittain's seeming inability to realize just how hypocritical his request is. For someone who made a living posting photos and contact information without permission (and made a further living pretending to be a "takedown lawyer" who could make the unauthorized photos and contact info vanish for the right price), he seems suddenly very sensitive about the use of photos and personal information. Or at least the use of his, anyway. From the takedown request hosted at Chilling Effects:

Unauthorized use of photos of me and other related information. Unauthorized use of statements and identity related information. Unauthorized copying of excerpts from isanybodydown.com. Using photos which are not 'fair use'.

[For whatever reason, Brittain claims the infringed item is a "book," which one must admit would be quite the conversation starter, ender and shatterer of friendships/marriages, should the now-dead "Is Anybody Down" website have been published as a glossy, hardbound coffee table-type book.]

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose, and for someone who only knew how to profit off the misery of others, a lifetime ban from exploiting both ends of a revenge porn website must be making Brittain very desperate indeed. You'd think he would have learned from the last time he sent out a bogus takedown request that the only thing that does is create more criticism. Brittain's name is irrevocably toxic and he can't seem to think of a better way to clean up his destroyed reputation than tossing a self-serving DMCA hail mary. With these 23 own-goals on the record -- along with a new wave of criticism headed his way -- Pustule Nickelback McHitler's Brittain's best bet at this point is probably to just exit the internet altogether.

Filed Under: adam steinbaugh, censorship, copyright, craig brittain, dmca, ftc, photos, popehat, revenge porn, takedown

Dear Elon Musk: Please Put SpaceX Photos In The Public Domain

from the help-the-public-out dept

I'm excited about the upcoming world of privatized space flight. I think it will enable all sorts of innovations and explorations where NASA has cut back. Elon Musk's SpaceX is obviously the big name player in the space right now, though there are plenty of others working to get in as well. However, as Parker Higgins recently noted, one unfortunate downside of a new privatized space world is that space photos like the ones SpaceX just released... are likely not in the public domain. NASA has a huge gallery of public domain imagery that has been tremendously useful. This is in contrast to the European Space Agency, which uses copyright to block access to images. Hopefully that's not something we're coming to in the US, because then it would be a lot more difficult to share photos like this: That said, there are still at least some questions about whether or not the images are really covered by copyright. Even though SpaceX is working with NASA, that doesn't matter, because government contractors have always been able to retain their copyright. It's only works created by government employees that are automatically public domain.

But... as we've discussed, copyright questions can get a lot more murky up in space. A couple years ago Glenn Fleishman spent some time digging through some of these items in analyzing the copyright issues of Commander Chris Hadfield singing a David Bowie song in space. From there, we find that there have actually been a few papers written about these questions, including Space Copyright Law: The New Dimension.

That paper raises a number of issues, including questioning whether an image "taken by a robot device without any human input of selection" won't be deserving of copyright because it lacks human authorship (remember the monkey selfie). But that may not be the case here. A human may have very much been involved in selecting the images from SpaceX, so they could very well be covered by copyright. Thus, we're back to the situation we feared: these shots are covered by copyright.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the story is over. There is a clearer answer, which is to have SpaceX declare that it will put the images from its spacecraft into the public domain as well. After all, this is the same Elon Musk who recognizes that patents often hold back innovation, and has thus agreed to free up all of Tesla's (and who has also admitted that SpaceX didn't spend much effort on patents). So he already recognizes that perhaps overprotecting via intellectual property is a bad idea.

So, now he can do the same thing with respect to those photos. While it's not a perfect solution, Musk can (and should) make use of something like the CC0 public domain declaration offered by Creative Commons to make it clear that these photos should be treated the same way that NASA's images are: as public domain materials for everyone to use.

Filed Under: copyright, elon musk, nasa, photos, public domain, space
Companies: spacex

Another California Cop 'Shares' A Suspect's Intimate Photos With His Fellow Officers

from the to-serve-and-titillate dept

Ability + opportunity. That's an equation that often results in trouble. It certainly did for several California Highway Patrol officers, who dug through suspects' phones, sometimes for evidence and sometimes just to pass around any intimate photos they happened to come across. It happened so often that one officer now being investigated referred to it as a "game."

This is probably not limited to the sunny climes of California, but a similar incident occurred within the Palo Alto Police Department, resulting in another investigation.

A Palo Alto Police Department detective has been disciplined for sending a supervisor a picture of a "scantily clad" woman he found on her cellphone while investigating her involvement in an alleged burglary, according to a new independent police auditor's report…

An interrogation of a burglary suspect resulted in the officer "taking" her phone to look through it for evidence. The (unnamed) officer then forwarded the photo to the supervisory detective.

(This happened in early 2014, apparently ahead of the Supreme Court decision imposing a warrant requirement. I doubt it would have mattered even if it had occurred past this point. Securing a warrant wouldn't have prevented the officer from sharing the photo. And I doubt many law enforcement officers are advising suspects of this new requirement. What's most likely happening is a slight rearranging that turns a demand into a question, with little to no decrease in the number of searched phones.)

When the phone was returned to the woman, she noticed the photograph had been sent to the detective's number. She complained to a different detective, which (eventually) led to both an internal and external investigation.

The outside investigators noted more than a few problems with how this case was handled.

The independent police auditor said the department's investigation was "thorough" and agreed with its findings and analysis. But they were concerned that it took the supervisory detective more than two weeks to report the incident to the sergeant, though the delay may have been due in part to "non-overlapping" work schedules, according to the report.

Wow. It's like email doesn't even exist. Or Post-It Notes. Or a functioning chain of command with overlap in key positions to prevent this sort of gridlock.

In addition, the auditor pointed out these flaws in the police department's handling of the incident.

The first was the sergeant's instruction to the supervisory detective to delete the picture from his cellphone. The sergeant said he wanted to prevent it from being distributed again.

"While the sergeant's intentions were good, it would have been preferable to obtain a 'screen shot' or some other evidentiary preservation of the photograph before deleting it," [auditors] Gennaco and Connolly wrote.

Police investigators argued the deletion was to keep the photo from being distributed to others in the department, perhaps hinting at the moral turpitude contained within its walls. This defense of its poor evidence management skills also doesn't say much for the detective who received the unsolicited photo (and very eventually reported it), positing that his level of restraint is no greater than the sending party's.

The second flaw uncovered was also evidence-related -- one that seems to show the officer who sent off the "scantily clad" photo wasn't too interested in any actual evidence contained on the suspect's phone. Once he had found what he "needed," the phone was returned to the suspect and she was asked to "retrieve information" about her accomplices.

Detectives assigned to the burglary case also displayed a "laxity of vigilance" when they asked the woman to help them locate evidence on her cellphone. By their own admission, they did not closely monitor her while she scrolled through her cellphone, according to the report.

"During this period, she could have deleted information from the phone that possessed evidentiary value," Gennaco and Connolly wrote.

If there's a next time, I'm sure the unnamed suspect will delete any scantily-clad photos of herself first.

The department has refused to comment, claiming that state laws prevent the discussion of internal investigations, presumably for privacy reasons. The unnamed officer has been "held accountable" according to the independent auditor's report but does not offer further details on disciplinary measures. The police spokesperson noted that the independent auditors are able to release more information than the police department itself can -- clearly indicating that without this investigative body, very little, if any, information about this act of misconduct would have been made public.

There are obviously parallels to the abuse uncovered at the California Highway Patrol, but the Palo Alto city attorney claims there actually aren't, because this was one incident with one photo. This is the same spin the California Highway Patrol applied to its photo-sharing problem, but now that it's out in the open thanks to an investigation, it can no longer claim that.

The problem with the city attorney's statement is that it assumes there isn't similar misconduct occurring. But the attorney doesn't have that sort of information and most likely has no reason to seek it. Unless an incident triggers an independent audit, the details will stay buried until forced out of the PAPD's hands. This isn't the sort of statement one should make while allowing a police department to sweep its bad news under the State Law rug. Maybe there's nothing else there, but unchecked access to suspects' devices presents plenty of opportunities for misconduct, so I wouldn't bet on it -- at least not with the level of confidence exhibited here.

Filed Under: california, palo alto, phones, photos, police, searches

Flickr Plans To Sell Creative Commons Photos And That's Okay...

from the permissionless-culture-is-okay dept

There appear to be a lot of people up in arms over Flickr's announced plans to sell wall art prints of various Creative Commons-licensed images on the site. The uproar is mostly because people who chose a license like Creative Commons' attribution license, and not a "non-commercial" license are not going to see any money from any images that Flickr (owned by Yahoo) sells. And that leads to angry posts like this one arguing that selling the work is "cheesy, desperate and not at all fine with me."

Except... the license that was chosen says that, yes, this is fine with you. This doesn't necessarily mean that Flickr/Yahoo's decision was smart. The way it's being done appears to be upsetting lots of people, and upsetting the core people who make your service work is -- generally speaking -- not smart. But this leads to a bigger issue, one that is highlighted nicely in a post on all of this by Tom Lee, in which he notes that part of open licensing is giving up control so that others can benefit. And this is a key point that is missed by many, unfortunately:

Open licensing is about giving up control so that other people can benefit. That’s all it will cost you: control. Having control feels nice. But you should ask yourself what it really gets you. And you should think about what others might gain if you were able to let go.

Furthermore, he notes that what Flickr is doing here really will benefit lots of folks:

Flickr’s sale of prints does not deprive photographers of their work or money. Users have the same ability to use their work that they always had. The vast majority would never have taken the steps necessary to profit from their work, so print sales do not deprive them of money. When a user really expects to sell prints, they should avoid Creative Commons licensing, which, as I’ve mentioned, is easily done.

Flickr’s sale of prints provides benefits to other people. People who work for and own Flickr make money. The vendors producing and delivering the prints make money. And people who buy prints get to enjoy works of art.

Parker Higgins posted some further thoughts on Twitter that are worth noting as well. Many of the people who are upset about this are angry that Yahoo didn't ask them about this first. But as Higgins notes, that's just bringing back the idea of permission-based culture, rather than recognizing that a big part of the value of Creative Commons (or any other such open license system or public domain) is getting beyond permission culture and recognizing that in giving up control, there are lots of benefits.

Free culture licenses aren't supposed to flag that you're a cooperative player in permissions culture. They're supposed to do the opposite.

— Parker Higgins (@xor) December 1, 2014

Now, one could make a reasonable cultural argument that Yahoo/Flickr should have approached this situation with more caution -- recognizing how some people would likely respond to this, no matter how reasonable or legal it is. If I were in charge of the program at Yahoo, that likely would have been my approach. But, the troubling end result of this is that it may just lead more people to slap a "non-commercial" license on their Creative Commons works, greatly limiting the kinds of benefits that are out there, without providing any real benefit to themselves. In some ways, this gets to the heart of the problems we've noted with Creative Commons in the past -- especially the fact that many incorrectly assume that all CC-licensed material is only for non-commercial use. It's also why we think there's a strong argument that Creative Commons should either drop or totally rebrand the non-commercial offering, so that this branding confusion is dealt with. The anger in this situation is just a rehash of that branding confusion -- and the end result is that it reinforces this idea of "permissions" culture, rather than highlighting the benefits of sharing culture without first needing permission -- even if for commercial reasons.

Filed Under: attribution, copyright, creative commons, flickr, non-commercial, photos, sales
Companies: flickr, yahoo

Journalists Sue Government After Military Security Seizes Cameras And Deletes Photos Of Publicly-Visible Structures

from the abusive-powers-gorging-on-self-induced-paranoia dept

Photography is the new "driving while black." Not that the original "driving while black" has actually vanished, what with New York City making "walking while black" the equivalent of reasonable suspicion, but now people of all races, even those normally somewhat immune to harassment, can join in on the "fun" of low-level oppression.

Two members of the Toledo (OH) Blade found themselves being screwed with by military security while taking photographs of stuff in plain sight. (via Poynter)

Mr. Linkhorn and Ms. Fraser were in Lima covering a Ford Motor Co. news conference at the automaker’s plant there. Afterward, they went to shoot photos of businesses in the area for future use, including the tank plant, which is also known as the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

The reporters were at the entry portions of the plant, in an area where no fence or gate restricted access, according to the complaint. They did not pass a guard hut, which is about 30 feet from Buckeye Road.

The Lima, OH tank plant is well known and has been photographed before. The company makes no secret about what it manufactures, having placed this right in front of its plant.


But because all things, even photography of visible structures, inevitably lead to terrorism, security at the Lima plant decided to step in and stop the two Blade employees from gathering any more "intel."

Blade reporter Tyrel Linkhorn and photographer Jetta Fraser were detained March 28 by military security outside the plant and had cameras confiscated and pictures deleted.

This alone would step outside the boundaries set by the Constitution, but the security officers went even further, harassing the photographer by making various comments about her (perceived) lack of femininity, including referring to her using masculine pronouns and offering to "go under her bra."

Now, because those in charge of "protecting" the plant from photography of visible "assets" were unable to restrain themselves, a long list of names linked to the military contractor have been named in a civil rights lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims Ms. Fraser and Mr. Linkhorn's First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights were deprived, as were their rights under the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act.

"At all material times, Plaintiffs Fraser and Linkhorn were present in places that were open to the public and in which Plaintiffs had a lawful right to be," the lawsuit states. "At all material times, Plaintiffs Fraser and Linkhorn were engaged in fully lawful and constitutionally protected conduct, observing and photographing subjects that were and are open to public view and that Plaintiffs had full legal and constitutional rights to observe and photograph."

As is noted in the lawsuit, everything photographed could be seen from a public road. You can see satellite photography of the plant via Google Maps, not to mention closer looks via Street View. None of this has been redacted by government request. Details on buildings, including interior structures, are listed in a 1984 "Historic American Engineering Record" produced and made public by the contractor itself. Much of what's contained is now outdated, but what's included in this public report was current as of 1980, four years prior to its release.

An image search for "Lima Army Tank Plant" brings up a host of current photos, many of which show the inside of the building, something that would be vastly more sensitive than anything obtained by a photographer located outside the boundaries of the plant itself.

Despite all of this info being readily available, plant security allegedly named the following as the impetus for its seizure of the camera and deletion of photos.

Ms. Fraser said that an officer told her that taking pictures of the plant’s power supply that is visible from the street raised the “suspicion of terrorism.”

Much like the DHS and its useless Fusion Centers, everyone in the military-industrial complex (along with the intelligence community in general) is buying into the lie that photographing visible structures is "terrorism." If these publicly-viewable buildings pose so much of a threat simply by being observed, maybe security officers should stop harassing photographers and throw a few tarps over the sensitive structures or something.

Filed Under: free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, photos, tanks
Companies: ford