ECJ copyright ruling


Jimbro66

Link Posted 09/08/2018 - 20:25
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this but thought forum members might be interested in this recent ruling by the European Court of Justice as reported by The A Register:

https://www-theregister-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2...

Jim

johnriley

Link Posted 09/08/2018 - 23:35
Very interesting and common sense really.
Best regards, John

RobL

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 07:22
johnriley wrote:
Very interesting and common sense really.

But difficult to manage in practice if the photographerís name isnít on the image. The case was a schoolchild using an online photo for a project - fair enough, that is still acceptable apparently. The breach arose when the school put the project on their website. In my view if you donít visibly copyright an image in some way then you are partly responsible for its misuse; after all you cannot expect everyone with access to the internet to have knowledge of copyright laws which vary in different countries. An artist signs his/her paintings, why not digitally sign a photo?

redbusa99

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 08:45
RobL wrote:
johnriley wrote:
Very interesting and common sense really.

But difficult to manage in practice if the photographerís name isnít on the image. The case was a schoolchild using an online photo for a project - fair enough, that is still acceptable apparently. The breach arose when the school put the project on their website. In my view if you donít visibly copyright an image in some way then you are partly responsible for its misuse; after all you cannot expect everyone with access to the internet to have knowledge of copyright laws which vary in different countries. An artist signs his/her paintings, why not digitally sign a photo?

exactly, have to agree with this. if you are so concerned about copyright you mark it or don't post it
K3 II and the odd lens or 2

Flickr
ppg
Last Edited by redbusa99 on 10/08/2018 - 08:47

johnriley

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 09:18
Copyright isn't the issue, we own copyright in our own images. The issue is stealing other people's property, and that does apply to images as well as anything else.

I know that many people think that if it's on the internet it's free to take, but that isn't so and they just might end up with an invoice for the use.

Common sense does come into it. Someone I know very well took an image off my website, made a print and gave it to my Aunt. However, she's welcome in this instance, it's all a matter of common sense. If a company tries it for commercial use then they will get an invoice when I catch them! I'm not losing any sleep over it in the meantime.

Anyone who wants to check if their images have been lifted can use a reverse search engine such as Tineye.
Best regards, John

RobL

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 09:30
johnriley wrote:
Copyright isn't the issue, we own copyright in our own images. The issue is stealing other people's property, and that does apply to images as well as anything else.

I know that many people think that if it's on the internet it's free to take, but that isn't so and they just might end up with an invoice for the use.

Common sense does come into it. Someone I know very well took an image off my website, made a print and gave it to my Aunt. However, she's welcome in this instance, it's all a matter of common sense. If a company tries it for commercial use then they will get an invoice when I catch them! I'm not losing any sleep over it in the meantime.

Anyone who wants to check if their images have been lifted can use a reverse search engine such as Tineye.

Hang on, when Tim Bernier-Lee introduced the internet it was on the principle of free access for all and that still applies so it is understandable that people are either ignorant or confused. If you donít want to be robbed you donít leave your car unlocked nor leave your house with the door wide open; if you donít want your images copied it is up to you to take the necessary precautions.
Last Edited by RobL on 10/08/2018 - 09:32

johnriley

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 09:41
Free access for all is a great principle, but that doesn't mean we can take anything we want. I'm not sure it's a huge problem for most of us, it's possible to get too precious about things, but nobody changed the laws of copyright.

We know it's impossible to post an image and protect it from someone downloading it, regardless of where it's posted. As pointed out, the only sure way is to not post in the first place, but that does diminish the value of the internet.
Best regards, John

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 10:01
I'm with John on this. A photograph is a totally unique creation even in its unedited form and as such should be treated no differently than any other artistic/creative entity regardless of whether or not the creation can be attributed immediately to its creator.

For most people it is probably as John suggests a matter of common sense but the principle should remain that permission should be sought before an image taken by someone else is used. There are billions of images online that can be bought from photo banks if people wish to use them commercially and probably as many covered by free 'commons' use where the photographer has given permission in advance for the image to be used for non commercial purposes so it isn't as though there isn't enough choice already.

The point made by RobL about the internet being free access for all...I agree with totally, despite the trend these days by some to censor free speech they don't like...however this is a totally different issue altogether...free access does not mean, nor was it ever intended to mean freedom to steal another persons creative endeavour.

Jimbro66

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 11:23
There are instances where online images are taken and reused, often commercially, with blatant disregard for copyright but in many other cases images are reused or 'shared' by those with probably no knowledge of the principal of copyright. Exif data often contains copyright information but not many have the means to view it (companies should) or the metadata might have been stripped out. The traditional practice of crediting images in print seems to have been lost with the advent of online publication. So what are the options for a photographer wanting to keep control of his/her images? Physically signing an image as an artist would a painting is possible but perhaps makes the image less appealing to a customer and, in any event, only provides a name. Is there a case for an international database perhaps? Has anyone here any thoughts on this?

cabstar

Link Posted 10/08/2018 - 21:33
As someone whose work is repeatedly infringed on a daily basis I fully welcome this judgement.

The school really should have known better and this example shows the problem with orphan works being reused repeatedly by other infringers.

One of my agencies is now connecting all sold images with blockchain technology to prove infringements.

To the person who suggested we should watermark everything thats just not possible. Much of my work is stolen from places like Mailonline by simply right click save. Mailonline wouldn't buy my work with watermarks on it and I shouldn't have to, would you argue that any property that doesn't have a smart water marking on it is open to being stolen by burglars and thieves just because it would make it easier to sell on? So why should I do the same with my images.

Unfortunately social media channels like Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr and Pinterest make it all to easy to steal and repost work whilst making it difficult for copyright holders to point out infringement. Try reporting an infringement to Instagram and see just how many clicks are needed you can't even report it on a mobile platform it has to be done on a computer browser that enables copy and paste of full web urls.

As for an international database one of my agencies registers every piece of work I upload to the US copyright and patents society but this still doesn't stop work being stolen...
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 11/08/2018 - 11:06
Excellent post Gary...very well put.

roberrl

Link Posted 11/08/2018 - 14:13
Well it seems to me that this stable door is so broken it's hardly worth trying to bolt it even though it's a major problem.
Internet users generally feel they have rights to access and use anything they can free, gratis and for nothing ... not just pictures but music and movies also.

My only "solution" is to ensure that the image includes a logo, either the photographers or the business that has purchased the image. So in the example
above I would have encouraged the travel site to insert their logo in the image. At least that would mean that whoever "stole" the image would be extending the reach of the advertising.

Mag07

Link Posted 11/08/2018 - 18:08
Given this was a school project, I find it to be a massive over reaction on the photographer's part that said, the school should have known better and the ruling is hardly surprising as law is law. No one ever complained about kids cutting out images out of newspapers for their school projects... my old school has a now digitized archive of a lot of it's student work on various historical subjects over the years. One can only hope, the photographers won't come chasing it down for sharing the memories online People seem to love extremes. All my personal, non client related work is shared via an album archive page on my website for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. I find it almost amusing, how some people will chase down every penny in royalties, while happily snapping away at someone elses work (art, architecture, possessions etc) without giving licensing a single thought. Were do we draw the line? We already have large restrictions on photography in certain countries - by pushing our own copyright so aggressively we are advocating for restrictions being imposed on ourselves - at this rate, we won't be able to photograph much without consent and fees very soon.
'Photography...it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten....' (Aaron Siskind)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.