The Associated Press Has Some Explaining To Do About Its 'Tweeted Contract' To Reuse Viral Content

from the this-is-bullshit dept

Five years ago, we wrote a post detailing the crazy permission-asking media scrum that forms on Twitter when people post photographic or video documentation of something major happening. Under such tweets, you'll often see dozens of reporters asking for "permission" to use the images or videos in news reports. In many cases, fair use would likely cover the usage, but news organizations are understandably gun shy about copyright lawsuits from greedy lawyers who would be all too quick to sue them for merely embedding a tweet.

However, it appears that the Associated Press takes this to absolutely insane, and legally problematic, levels. And it appears that the AP would rather not talk about this.

You may have seen that, over the weekend, there was an explosion in downtown LA. Others in Los Angeles were able to see the fire and posted images and videos on Twitter. One of these was Brian Magno, who tweeted a 21 second video of the fire:

In response, the usual media scrum descended. Among them was an editor for the Associated Press, named RJ Rico. Rico didn't just ask for permission to use the video, like most other reporters, but with the request, he posted an image of what he called a "social media release form." I can't link you to the tweet because by Sunday evening Rico had protected his Twitter account (we'll come back to that later). Thankfully, I got a screenshot before all that happened:

The "Social Media Release Form" is truly a piece of work. Here's what it says:

Social Media Release Form

Please respond to this message with confirmation that you agree to the following:

The Associated Press and its subsidiaries and affiliates ("AP") shall have the world-wide, non-exclusive right to (and all consents necessary to) use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, edit, translate, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display the content throughout the world in perpetuity by any and all means now known or hereafter created in all media known or hereafter created, and AP shall further have the right to license these rights to others; and

That you are the copyright owner or the copyright owner's authorized agent and that you are full entitled to grant these rights in favor of AP and that there is no agreement or other restriction preventing this grant of rights. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the AP and its licensees from and against any claims, losses, liability, damages, costs and expenses arising from any breach or alleged breach of these representations and warranties.

Okay, so, first things first, you should basically never, ever, ever just "agree" to a contract that someone tweets at you as an image. But there are some really problematic elements of this "release form." First is the fact that it grants relicensing rights to the AP, so that they somehow can pass along this image to anyone they want without any restriction. From this, it certainly seems like the AP could then choose to sell the licensing to others and the original copyright holder couldn't do anything about that even if he didn't like it. This term probably isn't quite as bad as some people are making it out to be, and is more in line with typical website terms of service licensing grants, that just cover that the rights can be passed on to future entities (should the organization come under control of another entity, for example). It's still pretty broadly worded though, and anyone agreeing to it should be careful.

But the much bigger issue is the indemnity clause, which would mean that if there were some sort of legal dispute over the image, all of the costs would basically fall back on poor Brian Magno. And that includes if there were a legal dispute with one of those licensees down the road that he agreed to let the AP pass along the license to. The indemnification clauses are, tragically, common in many freelance contracts, and I've taken to simply crossing them out of any writing contract I've engaged in (and have not had anyone push back on that yet). Suffice it to say, no one should agree to these AP terms. If you want a thorough explanation of how these clauses could come back to bite you, this is a good thread:

A bunch of folks started calling this nonsense out, including lawyer Jay Wolman, who worried that people were agreeing to the "release form" without speaking to a lawyer or understanding what they were agreeing to. In response, Rico blocked him on Twitter, which is pretty fucked up. Indeed, a bunch of law twitter started pointing out how ridiculous this policy is, and Rico started blocking more of them:

In short, you never know if there might be a legal dispute down the road, and there are countless reasons why there might be, even if you don't care about the image at all. And, yet, if there is, you've just agreed to pay a giant company's legal fees. With a tweet. Think about that.

That's bad. And, then on Sunday (as already noted), Rico took his entire account private.

I'm kind of wondering what that even means for anyone who agreed to Rico's tweeted contract in the first place. Unless they took a screenshot of it, they can't even prove that they ever saw it or what they agreed to -- because it's now hidden away.

Wolman began investigating this entire practice, and has traced it back at least to 2015 (coincidentally, a month after my article about how this Twitter media scrum descends on such things):

It's possible it goes back even earlier, but as Wolman has investigated, another AP reporter blocked him and then went private.

This is a horrific practice by the Associated Press, and it really should (1) apologize, (2) revoke any of those agreements for anyone who did agree to them, and (3) no longer do that again.

Filed Under: embedding, fair use, indemnification, journalists, permission, rj rico, scrum, social media release, tweeted contracts, viral content
Companies: associated press

Mathew Higbee Cuts And Runs When Finally Challenged On A Questionable Shakedown

from the do-his-clients-recognize-their-own-liability? dept

Last month, we wrote about a declaratory judgment lawsuit that had been filed against a client of Mathew Higbee. As we've discussed at length, Higbee runs "Higbee & Associates" which is one of the more active copyright trolls around these days, frequently sending threatening shakedown-style letters to people, and then having various "paralegals" demand insane sums of money. In some cases, it does appear that Higbee turns up actual cases of infringement (though, even in those cases, the amount he demands seems disconnected from anything regarding a reasonable fee). But, in way too many cases, the claims are highly questionable. The lawsuit mentioned last month represented just one of those cases -- involving a threat against a forum because one of its users had deeplinked a photographer's own uploaded image into the forum. There were many reasons why the threat was bogus, but as per the Higbee operation's MO, they kept demanding payment and dismissing any arguments for why the use was not infringing (and, relatedly, why it was against the incorrect target).

Paul Levy and Public Citizen filed for declaratory judgment that the use was non-infringing, and in the process, pondered publicly whether or not Higbee had warned his various clients that they might end up in court in response to Higbee's aggressive tactics. Apparently, in the case of photographer Quang-Tuan Luong, the photographer was not particularly happy about ending up in court, and Higbee and his client quickly agreed to cut and run, despite Higbee's insistence that he was ready to take this matter to court.

I gave Higbee a chance to withdraw his client’s claims; however, Higbee had previously told me that my arguments about non-liability for infringement in an identical case were “delusional,” so we decided to give Higbee a chance to explain to a judge in what way these defenses were delusional, that is, in response to an action for a declaratory judgment.

I confess that, in filing that lawsuit, I wondered whether Higbee had ever warned Luong that he would not necessarily get to make the final decision whether his demand would end up in litigation, in that the very aggressiveness of Higbee’s demand letters, coupled with persistent nagging from paralegals to offer a settlement or face immediate litigation, sets up his clients to be sued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. That speculation proved prescient, because Higbee’s immediate response to the lawsuit was to offer to have his client covenant not to sue Schlossberg for infringement. Higbee also told me that he had offered to defend Luong against the declaratory judgment action for free.  It appears, however, that even such a generous offer was not enough to hold onto Luong as a copyright infringement claimant in this case. A settlement agreement has been signed; because there is no longer a case or controversy, the lawsuit has now been dismissed. 

Levy makes it clear, however, that he's actively looking for other such cases to challenge in court in response to Higbee's overaggressive demands:

Since that blog post, I have got wind of several other situations in which Higbee has claimed large amounts of damages against forum hosts.  We are considering which ones would make the best test cases.  

My last blog post about Higbee mentioned another case in which he had made a demand against the host of a forum about United States elections, where a user had posted a deep link to a photograph by another of Higbee’s stable of clients, Michael Grecco. Higbee has sued on Grecco’s behalf on a number of occasions, and Higbee told me that, unlike Luong, Grecco was a true believer who was looking for opportunities to pursue Higbee’s copyright theories in litigation.  Higbee said that he was going to be talking to Grecco to confirm that he wanted to litigate against the election forum. I could not help suspecting at the time that Higbee was blowing smoke to show what a tough guy he is.  That was a month ago, and yet so far as I can tell, Higbee has not yet got around to talking to his client about the subject. I have to wonder just who it is that wants to litigate Higbee’s legal theories.

Indeed, I have asked Higbee whether he warns his clients generally that they can be sued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement even if they have never given Higbee authority to go to court on their behalf. He told me that he is too busy to address my questions.

He also notes that another such declaratory judgment filing has been made against the very same Michael Grecco:

That case involves another demand letter from Higbee, this time to an indigent young man named Lee Golden who lives in Brooklyn with his parents and blogs about action movies.  Because Golden included a Grecco photograph of Xena the Warrior Princess, Higbee sent his typical aggressive  demand letter, setting $25,000 as the required payment to avoid being sued. Golden responded with a plaintive email, apologizing profusely, saying that he had no idea about copyright issues, that he had taken down the photo...own, returning to its demand for $25,000 and threatening to seek $30,000 or even $150,000 if the case had to be litigated. Higbee even sent a draft infringement complaint, threatening to make Golden defend himself in the Central District of California even though many of Higbee’s actual lawsuits are filed in the jurisdiction where the alleged infringer lives, perhaps because Higbee wants to avoid having to litigate personal jurisdiction.

But Golden’s counsel likely did not know this, so Strupinsky and his partner Joshua Lurie have filed suit on Golden's behalf in the Eastern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. We will see how anxious Michael Grecco is to litigate this case.

We see this again and again with copyright trolling operations. They often promise potential clients that this is a "no risk" way to make money. Just sign up and they'll scour the internet and you'll just sit back and receive the payments. Indeed, Higbee's site suggests just that:

Let a national copyright law firm take care of all of your copyright enforcement needs— from reverse image search to collecting payment. You pay nothing up front. We only get paid when you get paid. Best of all, by using us for reverse image search you will be eliminating the middle man and nearly doubling your profit.

His site also claims that he'll go to court for you "assuming you want us to" -- leaving out the risk of a declaratory judgment filing (and associated embarrassment for trying to shake down non-profits and personal websites of people with no money).

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, declaratory judgment, deep linking, embedding, mathew higbee, michael grecco, paul levy, quang-tuan luong
Companies: higbee and associates

Settlement In Tom Brady Photo Case Leaves Issue Of Copyright On Embedded Images Unsettled

from the bring-back-the-server-test dept

A little over a year ago, we wrote about a pretty bad ruling in NY, by Judge Katherine Forrest, arguing that merely embedding content on a site -- even though it's hosted elsewhere -- could be deemed infringing. This went against what has been known as the "server test," which says that the issue is where the content is actually hosted (which server it's actually on), and that merely embedding the image shouldn't lead to new claims of infringement. Considering that, technically, embedding an image is no different than linking to an image, saying that embedding an image that is hosted elsewhere is itself infringing could put much of the basic concept of how the internet works at risk.

This particular case involved a photo of quarterback Tom Brady that had been posted originally to Snapchat. The image, taken by photographer Justin Goldman, made its way from Snapchat to Reddit to Twitter. Some news organizations embedded tweets showing the photo, using Twitter's native embed functionality. Goldman sued a bunch of them. Judge Forrest, citing the Supreme Court's "looks like a duck" test in the Aereo ruling said that embedding qualifies as displaying a work (even though the websites in question aren't hosting anything other than a pointer telling user's computers to go find that image). Even worse, Forrest explicitly rejected the server test, saying it was wrong.

This was poised to be a pretty big deal... except that it's not. Because the entire lawsuit has been settled leaving the question of whether or not the server test is considered valid (especially in NY where the case was filed) unanswered. While there is the Forrest ruling on the books, since it's in a district court it creates no official precedent that other courts need to follow (though that won't stop it from being cited). However, as the linked article notes, there are some other cases challenging the server test and looking at the legality of embeds still going on, so perhaps we won't have to wait long for the issue to bubble up again. One hopes that, this time, a court will accept the basic server test as the only reasonable interpretation of the law.

Filed Under: copyright, embedded, embedding, justin goldman, katherine forrest, server test, tom brady

Facebook Allowing French Censors To Embed With The Company, And Maybe That's A Good Thing?

from the this-should-be-interesting dept

While much of the attention around French President Emmanuel Macron's speech at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on Monday was focused on the so-called "Paris Call" agreement on cybersecurity, it was also an occasion for the French President to announce a plan to effectively embed regulators with Facebook to learn how to better censor the platform:

The French president announced on Monday a six-month partnership with Facebook aimed at figuring out how the European country should police hate speech on the social network.

As part of the cooperation — the first time that Facebook has teamed up with national politicians to hammer out such a contentious issue — both sides plan to meet regularly between now and May, when the European election is due to be held. They will focus on how the French government and Facebook can work together to remove harmful content from across the digital platform, without specifying the outcome of their work or if it would result in binding regulation.

Facebook's press people have pushed back on the claim that this is a program to "embed" government censors within Facebook, saying it's more just about showing them how Facebook manages content moderation:

It's a pilot program of a more structured engagement with the French government so that both sides can better understand the other's challenges in dealing with the issue of hate speech online. The program will allow a team of regulators, chosen by the Elysee, to familiarize [itself] with the tools and processes set up by Facebook to fight against hate speech. The working group will not be based in one location but will travel to different Facebook facilities around the world, with likely visits to Dublin and California. The purpose of this program is to enable regulators to better understand Facebook's tools and policies to combat hate speech and, for Facebook, to better understand the needs of regulators.

While many people may have the instinctual reaction that having government regulators coming in to see how to "better" censor speech on your platform is inherently a problem, one hopes that the end result of this is influencing things in the other direction. A bad outcome would be French regulators deciding that this experience gives them enough info to craft impossible regulations to wave digital magic wands and "make the bad stuff disappear." But a more optimistic argument would be that it gives these French regulators a chance to get some first hand knowledge of (1) how seriously Facebook takes this issue (don't laugh, because the company absolutely does take this issue seriously now, even if it didn't in the past) and (2) just how impossible it is to do a particularly good job at it (even as Facebook has gotten much better in the past year).

So while I'm always a little concerned about the idea of having government regulators come into a company when the upfront stated objective is about more content moderation demands, it certainly would be beneficial for French officials not to be so incredibly ignorant about how content moderation at scale truly works, and why the easy solutions they always seem to propose won't help (and could make problems significantly worse).

Filed Under: censorship, content moderation, embedding, france, hate speech, regulations
Companies: facebook

Appeals Court Won't Yet Review Awful District Court Decision That Says Embedding Could Be Infringement

from the this-is-unfortunate dept

Back in February we wrote about an absolutely horrible ruling out of a New York court by Judge Katherine Forrest that argued embedding an infringing tweet could be an act of infringement on its own. As we pointed out, if this ruling holds, it would undermine some of the basis of how the internet itself works. The issue here gets a bit into the weeds of both how the internet and how copyright law works. Embedding something on the internet, at a technical level, is really no different than how linking on the internet works. And it's long been established that if you link to infringing content, that alone should not be considered a separate act of infringement. But is embedding? At a very basic level, this is the difference between the two:

A link:
<a href="http://www.somedomain.tld/image.png">An image!</a>

An embed:
<img src="http://www.somedomain.tld/image.png" title="An image!">

Everyone agrees that the first one is not infringing by itself (the original site hosting it, or the person who uploaded it, may be infringing, but not the person linking to it). Most courts have used the "server test" on this question, saying that if you merely embedded the image, a la what's above, it's not infringing for the person who used the embed code. This makes sense for a fairly important reason: if you use an embed code on your site, you never actually have the image on your site. Even if it appears on the site, that is merely because the end user's browser pulls that image in and displays it -- which is exactly how the web was designed to work, with the ability to pull in content from many different places and show it all together.

But Judge Forrest decided to throw everyone for a loop and toss that whole idea out the window:

The Court declines defendants’ invitation to apply Perfect 10’s Server Test for two reasons. First, this Court is skeptical that Perfect 10 correctly interprets the display right of the Copyright Act. As stated above, this Court finds no indication in the text or legislative history of the Act that possessing a copy of an infringing image is a prerequisite to displaying it...

Perhaps more troubling is that Forrest cited the silly Aereo "looks like a duck" test to argue that even though it's technically no different than linking, and even though the defendants in this case don't actually host or distribute the image, because it looks like they are hosting it, they can be liable for infringing the display right.

In this particular case, photographer Justin Goldman sued a bunch of media sites for embedding a photo that others had uploaded to Twitter (Goldman had originally posted it to Snapchat, and someone else took it to Reddit, where someone else brought it to Twitter). A bunch of media sites then embedded the tweet, and Goldman sued them all more or less, even though such embeds that show the associated media are a key feature of Twitter.

Judge Forrest allowed the defendants to do an interlocutory appeal, which basically puts the rest of the case on hold to allow a certain part of the case to be appealed to make sure the district court got it right. Interlocutory appeals aren't always allowed and some courts don't really like them very much. In this case, Judge Forrest allowed it to go up to the 2nd Circuit appeals court, but that court has said it won't review the ruling... for now.

Depending on where you stand this may or may not be a good thing. The case now moves back to the lower court (though, potentially with a different judge as Forrest just announced she's leaving the bench at some point "later this year."). It may go to trial, or the remaining defendants may decide to just settle the case and not have to deal with it. If the case does move forward, there are other potential reasons why Goldman may have difficulty winning, including the lack of actual knowledge of infringement by the publishers embedding the tweets.

In either of those situations, Forrest's odd decision is then rendered less impactful. Since it's in the district court, it has no direct precedential value on other cases (though can be cited). And that's at least preferable to the 2nd Circuit blessing Forrest's dismissal of the server test... though not as good as if the 2nd Circuit decides to bless the server test. It's also possible that the issue could come up on appeal later (i.e., not as an interlocutory appeal, but after the case reaches a conclusion in the lower court). Either way, this case is still a bit of a mess, and is yet another example of how bad the law is at dealing with technology.

Filed Under: 2nd circuit, copyright, embedding, infringement, interlocutory appeal, justin goldman, katherine forrest, linking, server test

Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works

from the this-is-bad dept

Just earlier this week we noted that a judge easily laughed Playboy's silly lawsuit out of court because merely linking to infringing content is not infringing itself. But a judge in New York, Judge Katherine Forrest, has ruled on a different case in a manner that is quite concerning, which goes against many other court rulings, and basically puts some fundamental concepts of how the internet works at risk. It's pretty bad. In short, she has ruled that merely embedding content from another site can be deemed infringing even if the new site is not hosting the content at all. This is wrong legally and technically, and hopefully this ruling will get overturned on appeal. But let's dig into the details.

The case involved a photographer, Justin Goldman, who took a photograph of quarterback Tom Brady on Snapchat. Somehow that image made its way from Snapchat to Reddit to Twitter. The photo went a bit viral, and a bunch of news organizations used Twitter's embed feature to show the tweet and the image. Goldman sued basically all the news publications that embedded the tweet -- including Breitbart, Vox, Yahoo, Gannett, the Boston Globe, Time and more. Now, multiple different courts around the country have said why this should not be seen as infringing by these publications. It's generally referred to as "the server test" -- in which to be direct infringement, you have to host the image yourself. This makes sense at both a technical and legal level because "embedding" an image is no different technically than linking to an image. It is literally the same thing -- you put in a piece of code that points the end user's computer to an image. The server at no point hosts or displays the image -- it is only the end user's computer. In the 9th Circuit, the various Perfect 10 cases have established the server test, and other courts have adopted it or similar concepts. In the 7th Circuit there was the famous Flavaworks case, where Judge Posner seemed almost annoyed that anyone could think that merely embedding infringing content could be deemed infringing.

But Judge Forrest has decided to carve a new path on this issue in Southern New York, teeing up (hopefully) an opportunity for the 2nd Circuit to tell her why she's wrong. Even more troubling, she actually relies on the awful Aereo "looks like a duck" test to come to this conclusion. Let's dig into her reasoning. The key issue here is the exclusive right to "display" a work under copyright, known as 106(5) under copyright law.

It's also important to note that this ruling is just at the summary judgment stage, and doesn't mean that the various publications will be found to have infringed -- it just means that the court is letting the case go forward, meaning that the various publications might now raise various defenses as to why their embedding is not infringing. It's still concerning, because given the "server test" in other jurisdictions, such a case would easily be tossed on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment because there's no legitimate claim of copyright infringement if no direct infringement can be shown. But here, Judge Forrest argues that because an embed leads an end user's computer to display an image, that somehow makes the publisher who included the embed code possibly liable for infringing the display right. Because it looks like a duck.

This is not a new issue by any means. I found a story from over a decade ago in which I warned that we'd see a lot more stupid lawsuits about embedding content from platforms, and have to admit I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen more. The reason that's the case is almost certainly because of the reliance of many courts on the server test, leading many to realize such an argument is a non-starter. Until now.

Forrest basically says that even though the image never touches the publisher's server, and the only thing the publisher is doing is linking to an image in a manner that makes the end-user's browser grab that image from another location and display it, it still counts as infringement -- because of the Aereo ruling. If you don't recall, Aereo involved a creative (if technically stupid) method for streaming over-the-air broadcast TV to users by setting up many local antennas that were legally allowed to receive the signals, and then transmitting them over the internet (which is also legal). But, the Supreme Court came up with a brand new test for why that's not allowed -- which we've called the "looks like a duck" test. The ruling found that because Aereo kinda looked like cable to the end user, the technical rigamarole in the background to make it legal simply doesn't matter -- all that matters is how things looked to the end user. Forrest argues the same is true here:

Moreover, though the Supreme Court has only weighed in obliquely on the issue, its language in Aereo is instructive. At heart, the Court’s holding eschewed the notion that Aereo should be absolved of liability based upon purely technical distinctions—in the end, Aereo was held to have transmitted the performances, despite its argument that it was the user clicking a button, and not any volitional act of Aereo itself, that did the performing. The language the Court used there to describe invisible technological details applies equally well here: “This difference means nothing to the subscriber. It means nothing to the broadcaster. We do not see how this single difference, invisible to subscriber and broadcaster alike, could transform a system that is for all practical purposes a traditional cable system into a ‘copy shop that provides patrons with a library card.’”

We were worried about the wider impact of the Aereo "duck" test -- and people told us it wasn't that big a deal. Indeed, until this ruling, Aereo hasn't been (successfully) cited very often. Many thought that the very specific nature of Aereo might limit that precedent to a very specific situation involving cable TV. This ruling suggests that the silly "duck" test may be spreading. And that's bad, because it's based on ignoring what's actually happening at the technological level, in which the technology may be designed specifically to not violate any of the exclusive rights of copyright law.

Also, it should worry people greatly that courts are using this "we don't care about what's actually happening, we just care what it looks like" standard for judging infringement. Because to infringe on a copyright requires a very specific set of facts. And here (as with Aereo) the court is saying "we don't care about whether or not it actually violates one of the exclusive rights granted under copyright, we only care if it looks like it infringes." That's... a huge change in the law, and it's not at all how copyright law has been judged in the past. It can and will be used to hamstring, limit, or destroy all sorts of unique and useful technological innovations.

Forrest also tries to distinguish this ruling from the Perfect 10 cases and the Flava Works case -- even admitting that other 2nd circuit courts have used the server test. But, she says, they were all different -- doing things like only using the server test for the distribution right, but not the display right, or not really endorsing the server test and ruling on other reasons.

Forrest also points to a trademark case that involved an embedded image which was found to be infringing -- but that's entirely different. The rules for trademark infringement are completely different than the exclusive rights related to copyright. With trademark, it's not as specific, and the use of someone else's logo broadly (as happened in the case cited) could easily be infringing on the trademark, but that doesn't get to the copyright question which involves much more carefully limited rights.

But, most troulbing of all, Forrest argues that the server test... is just wrong:

The Court declines defendants’ invitation to apply Perfect 10’s Server Test for two reasons. First, this Court is skeptical that Perfect 10 correctly interprets the display right of the Copyright Act. As stated above, this Court finds no indication in the text or legislative history of the Act that possessing a copy of an infringing image is a prerequisite to displaying it. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis hinged, however, on making a “copy” of the image to be displayed—which copy would be stored on the server. It stated that its holding did not “erroneously collapse the display right in section 106(5) into the reproduction right in 106(1).” Perfect 10 II, 508 F.3d at 1161. But indeed, that appears to be exactly what was done.

The Copyright Act, however, provides several clues that this is not what was intended. In several distinct parts of the Act, it contemplates infringers who would not be in possession of copies—for example in Section 110(5)(A) which exempts “small commercial establishments whose proprietors merely bring onto their premises standard radio or television equipment and turn it on for their customer’s enjoyment” from liability. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 87 (1976). That these establishments require an exemption, despite the fact that to turn on the radio or television is not to make or store a copy, is strong evidence that a copy need not be made in order to display an image.

Except... that's still very different. That's still a case where the "small commercial establishments" are showing the work. In this case -- and the very reason why the server test is so important -- the content in question is never on the publisher's premises or server. It only appears on the end user's browser, because that browser goes and fetches it.

Even more bizarre, Forrest argues that Perfect 10 and the server test are different because the image is displayed on the end user's computer:

In addition, the role of the user was paramount in the Perfect 10 case—the district court found that users who view the full-size images “after clicking on one of the thumbnails” are “engaged in a direct connection with third-party websites, which are themselves responsible for transferring content.” Perfect 10 I, 416 F. Supp. 2d at 843.

In this Court’s view, these distinctions are critical.

While this doesn't involve the end user "clicking" first to get the display, it's really no different. It is the end user who has the allegedly infringing content displayed on their computer, not the publisher. A direct connection is made between the end user and the hosting provider (in this case Twitter). The publisher never touches the actual content. Yet, Forrest argues that they can be direct infringers.

That's... wrong.

Despite the fact that EFF and others warned the court that this ruling would would massively upset the way the internet works, Forrest doesn't seem to believe them (or care)... because maybe fair use will protect people.

The Court does not view the results of its decision as having such dire consequences. Certainly, given a number as of yet unresolved strong defenses to liability separate from this issue, numerous viable claims should not follow.

In this case, there are genuine questions about whether plaintiff effectively released his image into the public domain when he posted it to his Snapchat account. Indeed, in many cases there are likely to be factual questions as to licensing and authorization. There is also a very serious and strong fair use defense, a defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and limitations on damages from innocent infringement.

That's... also wrong. Yes, publishers may be protected by fair use or other defenses. But fair use is much harder to get a ruling on at an early (summary judgment) stage in a case (a few courts are starting to allow this, but it's not all that common). Having the server test be good law would prevent a flood of these kinds of cases from being filed. Without it, people can troll media sites that embed tweets and go after them, leading to long and costly litigation, even if they have strong fair use defenses. Also, the reference above to releasing the image "into the public domain" is nonsensical. No one is arguing that the image was in the public domain. It is clearly covered by copyright.

Given what a total and complete mess this ruling will cause on the internet should it stand, I fully expect a robust appeal. The 2nd circuit can be a mixed bag on copyright, but often does a pretty good job in the end. One hopes that the 2nd circuit reverses this ruling, endorses the server test, and keeps the internet working as it was designed -- where embedding and linking to content doesn't magically make one liable for infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, display rights, duck, embedding, justin goldman, katherine forrest, quacks like a duck, tom brady
Companies: boston globe, breitbart, gannett, vox, yahoo

Photographer Sues News Agency For Embedding A Tweet Containing His Photo

from the #Doesn'tUnderstandTwitter dept

A lawsuit filed against a news website over an embedded tweet sounds an awful lot like the vindictive, moronic move of someone who thought complaining about a perfectly legal action would somehow result in an instant cash payment.

A lawsuit in the United Kingdom is raising questions about fair use and copyright laws after a freelance photographer sued a news publication for embedding a tweet within an article. Eddie Mitchell, a freelance photographer, is taking Sky News to court after the publication used a tweet containing his photo within an article. Mitchell gave permission to the original tweeter, the Station 43 Midhurst Fire Department, but said the news organization did not have permission to use the photo.

The news organization defended its actions (even though it really didn't need to) by pointing out it had only embedded a tweet from a government agency, assuming the rights to the photo belonged to the fire department. When notified this wasn't the case, the tweet was immediately removed from the story.

Embedding a tweet shouldn't trigger a courtroom debate over fair use or copyright law. (And, despite this article's belief otherwise, there are no "fair use" protections to be discussed in the UK. The UK has "fair dealing," which is somewhat the same, but contains fewer protections than the American version.) A public tweet is fair game for any news organization, no matter what it contains. If someone is tweeting out another person's intellectual property (photo, video, etc.), the onus is on the person tweeting this to ensure the legitimacy of the content's origin.

Embedding a tweet should raise no further legal issues than simply retweeting a tweet. No one needs to ask anyone's permission to retweet a tweet. Embedding a tweet shows everything contained in the original tweet, including the originating account and any activity related to the tweet. It changes nothing and, in fact, does not completely reside on the page where it's embedded. At no time does the content included in the tweet change hands. It's never in possession of the entity that embeds the tweet, not even as a temporary file. If the original use -- the fire department's tweet -- wasn't infringing, embedding the fire department's tweet at another site doesn't magically change it into infringement.

And yet, we have a lawsuit -- and the potential, however small, for the court to side with someone who's clearly in the wrong. Based on what's been reported, it appears the real issue here is the fact that Sky News didn't immediately turn around and cut the photographer a check.

Sky News immediately removed the tweet in question, but Mitchell is suing because the publication refused to pay for the use of that embedded image.

And from that aggrieved angle come a whole lot of questionable statements by the photographer:

“They did not make any attempt via social media or the services 24/7 control to ask permission to use the said picture/tweet, Sky News took it for granted that all crown pictures are free to use and therefore did.

“If they had asked West Sussex Fire and Rescue control or firefighter who tweeted it, they would have told it was not their copyright to grant such use.”

Once again, no one needs to ask permission before embedding a tweet. And there's no obligation, morally, legally or otherwise, for embedders to perform some sort of IP due diligence before embedding a tweet. The photographer's insistence that he's been wronged appears to be entirely based on his subjective reaction to the chain of events, rather than any legal precedent or UK copyright protections. Despite being asked for comment several times, he's come up with nothing better than Sky News should have asked his permission to embed a tweet from a government account. And by "ask permission," he means "pay up."

It's tough to imagine this lawsuit will go far, even when lobbed into a court system of a nation with slightly different views on intellectual property protections. It makes about as much sense as suing Twitter for allowing third parties to interact with public tweets by retweeting or embedding them. In other words, none. Hopefully the UK court will toss this suit before it becomes a nuisance to Sky News, Twitter, or the general idea of sharing publicly-available social media posts.

Filed Under: copyright, eddie mitchell, embedding, license, photograph, tweets, uk
Companies: sky news, twitter

Swedish Court: News Site Embedding A YouTube Video Guilty Of Copyright Infringement

from the ugh dept

Nearly a decade ago, just as YouTube was really getting popular, we questioned whether or not it would be considered infringement to merely embed a YouTube video if the content in that video were unauthorized. As we noted at the time, it seemed like a crazy idea that this should be considered infringing, given that embedding is just sticking a simple line of code on a website. No content ever actually is hosted or lives on that website. You're just telling a browser to go find content from the original YouTube source. For the most part, US courts have agreed that embedding is not infringing. And we'd thought that the EU had come to the same conclusion -- however that ruling was a bit vague, in that it focused on the embedding of authorized content, not unauthorized content.

Last month, however, there was the troubling EU Court of Justice ruling that found that mere links could be deemed direct infringement, especially if they were posted on a for-profit site. The ruling, somewhat dangerously, argued that any for-profit site that posted links should have the burden of checking to make sure the content they link to is not infringing, and it's fine to assume that they had the requisite knowledge when they link (this is, of course, crazy). And now we're seeing the reverberations of such a silly ruling.

Over in Sweden a court has taken that decision to say that a newspaper embedding an unauthorized YouTube video is infringing on the copyright in the video. Here are the details of the case, as summarized by the always excellent IP Kitten blog:

In 2012 the claimant (Rebecka Jonsson) filmed a bungee jumping session gone wrong in Africa.

Someone (not Ms Jonsson) uploaded the video on YouTube. On 9 January 2012 the YouTube video was embedded on the L'Avenir website run by the defendant, in the context of an article describing the incident.

The claimant had neither authorised the publication of the video on YouTube, nor its embedding in the L’Avenir article.

In her action before the Attunda District Court, Ms Jonsson claimed that L’Avenir had infringed copyright in her video by both embedding it on its website and publishing a frozen still of the video. She sought damages for EUR 1931 against the defendant, as well as award of litigation costs.

The court, looking at that bad ruling at the Court of Justice basically said, welp, L'Avenir is for profit, so it's infringing:

According to the court, it was “obvious” that L’Avenir had published the link to the claimant’s YouTube video with the intention of pursuing a profit [yet the court did not really explain what evidence supported the conclusion that in this case the defendant had a profit-making intention]. According to the court, L’Avenir had not been able to demonstrate that it had no knowledge of the unlicensed character of the video embedded on its website. Hence, L’Avenir was found to have infringed the claimant’s copyright by linking to the YouTube video without Ms Jonsson’s permission.

IP Kitten also notes that the court was supposed to then consider if L'Avenir was protected by various exceptions -- such as for news reporting -- but did not do so. This should be pretty troubling for all sorts of news sites online, who regularly embed videos or link to content without having the ability to determine whether or not they are infringing. This will make some fairly basic aspects of reporting online a huge liability risk. Linking to the wrong site or embedding the wrong video now puts you at risk of copyright infringement claims in the EU -- which is crazy. Copyright law is really broken.

Filed Under: cjeu, copyright, embedding, eu, for profit, rebecka jonsson, reporting, sweden
Companies: l'avenir, youtube

EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal

from the well-that's-interesting... dept

Way back in 2006 -- not all that long after video sites like YouTube and DailyMotion began -- we raised the simple question: is embedding infringing content infringing itself? We noted how problematic it was to argue that embedding was infringing, while also noting that it was far from a settled issue. Over the years since then, the issue has come up many, many times. Viacom raised it against YouTube. Bloggers got accused of infringement just for embedding a YouTube video. The MPAA went after sites for embedding videos. And, more recently, with the rise of "streaming" sites, many sites targeted for takedowns or domain seizures don't host any content at all, but merely embed from other sites. But still, that legal question has been in limbo: is it really infringing to merely embed some content that is hosted elsewhere? Two years ago, in the 7th Circuit appeals court, Judge Richard Posner somewhat vehemently rejected the idea that embedding was infringing in the Flava Works case (though, for slightly odd legal reasons). Around the same time, there was a court case in the Netherlands that went the other way, saying that embedding could be infringing.

TorrentFreak, however, now lets us know that in an important ruling from the EU Court of Justice (responding to a request from a German court), it has been declared that, under EU law, embedding is not infringing.

The Court argues that embedding a file or video is not a breach of creator’s copyrights under European law, as long as it’s not altered or communicated to a new public. In the current case, the video was already available on YouTube so embedding it is not seen as a new communication.

“The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication,” the Court’s verdict reads.

This raises an awful lot of questions about the efforts by law enforcement to completely shut down streaming sites, most of which don't host content of their own at all. Considering how many of the "rogue" sites that the industry loves to attack as being evil and insists must be shut down do nothing more than embed, it will be interesting to see what comes next. If I had to guess, industry folks and the City of London Police will keep taking down those sites, and many won't bother fighting back. But it seems like if a few sites really fought back there could be some interesting legal rulings in response.

Update: Still waiting for an English translation of the ruling to come out, but IPKat has a good post noting that it's somewhat unclear if this ruling includes the embedding of infringing works, or only authorized works. It sounds like that particular issue was avoided by the court -- even though there are claims that the video in question in this lawsuit was uploaded without authorization in the first place:

In the national proceedings in BestWater, the claimant has been claiming that its film [a 2-minute long commercial] was uploaded onto Youtube “without its permission”. If and to which extent the work had been communicated by the right owner itself on any other website is not clear by reading the decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof or the CJEU, and neither is the issue of whether the work was subsequently uploaded onto Youtube with the permission of the copyright owner. So the facts of the case remain vague in this respect. The CJEU’s reasoning that there is “in particular” no “communication to the public” if the work is made available “with permission”… (para 16. See to this effect Svensson, paras 25 - 28) does not really help solving these uncertainties.

In short, the court ruling is not entirely clear on the embedding of infringing videos, meaning that there will likely need to be another case before this question is really answered.

Filed Under: copyright, embedding, eu, eu court of justice, europe, streaming sites

Getty Images Decides It's Mostly Better To Compete Than Sue, Frees Up Millions Of Images

from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept

Getty Images has something of a reputation as a copyright maximalist. The company's representatives have testified before Congress and pushed for copyright expansion in the past. It's also well known for filing copyright lawsuits on those it claims illegally used its images. Hell, just a few weeks ago, some were debating if Getty should be described as a copyright troll after filing a flurry of copyright infringement lawsuits.

So it's fairly big news to find out that Getty is trying to get ahead of the curve by making millions of its photos free for sites to use via an embed code -- a la YouTube, Twitter and lots of other sites. Basically, it looks like the company is admitting to reality and adapting (though, apparently freaking out photographers in the process...):

But according to Craig Peters, a business development exec at Getty Images, that ship sailed long ago. "Look, if you want to get a Getty image today, you can find it without a watermark very simply," he says. "The way you do that is you go to one of our customer sites and you right-click. Or you go to Google Image search or Bing Image Search and you get it there. And that's what's happening… Our content was everywhere already."

[....]

"Before there was iTunes, before there was Spotify, people were put in that situation where they were basically forced to do the wrong thing, sharing files," Peters says. Now, if an aspiring producer wants to leak a song to the web but keep control of it, they can drop it on Soundcloud. Any blog can embed the player, and the artist can disable it whenever they want. And as Google has proved with YouTube, it's easy to drop ads or "buy here" links into that embed. "We've seen what YouTube's done with monetizing their embed capabilities," Peters says. "I don't know if that's going to be appropriate for us or not." But as long as the images are being taken as embeds rather than free-floating files, the company will have options.

That sounds positively forward looking for an organization with a history (both long term and recent) of being anything but forward thinking. There are some caveats. It is not all of Getty's images, as the Verge article linked above implies. It appears that some of the key collections will still be fee-only. And, you can argue that Getty already has some experience in the free stock image game, seeing as it owns iStockphoto which offers up some free options. This is a little different on two fronts. First, most free stock image banks are... well, pretty crappy. The quality just isn't there. Second, while free stock photo services often let you copy and use the photos, Getty requires this embed, which has some potential issues in that you really don't know what they might do in the future with that embed -- as the quotes above make clear. That may worry some.

There's also the fact that the company claims that they're only allowing this for "non-commercial" usage. Now, as we've discussed for years the line between commercial and non-commercial is painfully blurry -- as it's possible that almost anything people do can be twisted to argue it's a commercial use. Thankfully, it appears that Getty is making it clear upfront that it's taking an extremely (surprisingly) open view on what counts as "non-commercial" noting that any use for "editorial" will be considered non-commercial, even if done by a commercial enterprise, including the NY Times and Buzzfeed:

Blogs that draw revenues from Google Ads will still be able to use the Getty Images embed player at no cost. “We would not consider this commercial use,” says Peters. “The fact today that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. What would limit that use is if they used our imagery to promote a service, a product or their business. They would need to get a license.” A spokeswoman for Getty Images confirms to BJP that editorial websites, from The New York Times to Buzzfeed, will also be able to use the embed feature as long as images are used in an editorial context.

At the same time, the company admits that it's not dropping its lawsuit strategy, and will continue to sue those it feels go too far, which may make things a little dicey for some users. Hopefully, the company will be as explicit in its official terms that embedding for editorial purposes will always be deemed legit.

While we're a little wary of Getty given some of its past actions, the company should be applauded for actually recognizing reality, and trying to adapt accordingly, recognizing how it might better serve people who otherwise would automatically go somewhere else.

Not too long ago, we had actually explored various stock photography offerings that were out there, even talking to Getty about its program (which was insanely expensive). Instead, we decided to focus on situations where Creative Commons images and/or fair use situations would work best. However, with this move, we may take another look at Getty for our own image needs.

Filed Under: embedding, photography, stock photo
Companies: getty images