Images found on the Internet are fair use???

[Fraser Euan White]

I'm trying to decide if you are willfully ignorant or just on a wind up. At the moment I'm voting firmly for the former.

If you want a live(ish) example of the difference between US and UK copyright law then look no further than David Slater's photographer of the macaque. Whilst in the US it was ruled that he
didn't hold the copyright, in the UK he did (and still does).

Likewise Richard Prince could never get away with his abuse of the US Fair Use laws in the EU, because they simply don't exist.

In respect to David Slater's selfie picture of the monkey I wasn't aware that the UK had actually given him the copyright (I may be wrong).
I was aware that a compromise had been reached in respect to funds by 'an out of court' settlement in respect to the sale of the image but not on copyright? (again I may be wrong).

It really is an excellent example of how complex the legal system across borders is though and it shows what an uphill struggle photographers have in protecting their images :-(

 

[StewartR]

all UK law is modified almost daily by case law - which then becomes the law.

Really? So next time they execute somebody in Thailand for drug trafficking, that becomes part of our law? I didn't know that.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Really? So next time they execute somebody in Thailand for drug trafficking, that becomes part of our law? I didn't know that.

eeerrrrrr.......No.

Not really any point expanding on this if you don't understand case law.

 

[StewartR]

Not really any point expanding on this if you don't understand case law.

But if I did understand case law, presumably I wouldn't be disagreeing with you. So expanding on this would definitely be welcome. Make it simple for me.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Very basic description:

UK Law is made in Parliament and becomes Statute.

The Statute is then interpreted by the Courts in different cases and this becomes 'case Law'

The most recent Case Law is what is then used as Law until another Court rule otherwise and give reasoning for doing so. (It is rare that a Court will overrule the judgement given by a previous Court as they use this earlier ruling as 'fact' - this usually only happens in an appeal Court)

On Law relating to only UK matters the Court will only consider UK rulings in their judgement but on Laws that have 'no borders' (internet) they may consider worldwide judgements in their deliberations. (This happens because their judgements may be open to scrutiny by far more reaching Courts like the EU Courts).

The sentencing in other Countries has no bearing on our sentencing in the UK

 

[DemiLion]

You are making a fundamental mistake in assessing jurisdiction. Copyright (as opposed to 'the internet') certainly has borders. Online infringement takes place in the country in which the hosting servers reside.
Hence cases against Wikipedia are held under US jurisdiction.


Edit:

I should have included the word 'usually' because. as with everything legal, there are always exceptions.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I can only surmise that I find the ruling in the OP very sad for professional photographers who depend on the internet for their 'advertising' but run the risk of their image being copied and this judgement would appear to make them 'fair game' which IMO can not be right but we almost have to accept :-(

Surely the first image hosting site that puts some software in place to counter act this will be a winner?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

You are making a fundamental mistake in assessing jurisdiction. Copyright (as opposed to 'the internet') certainly has borders. Online infringement takes place in the country in which the hosting servers reside.
Hence cases against Wikipedia are held under US jurisdiction.


Edit:

I should have included the word 'usually' because. as with everything legal, there are always exceptions.

Yes, there will always be exceptions :-(

Copyright law was written in 1988 which is a long time ago and Case Law will make up the majority of any judgement made, therefore it will probably be rapidly changing as we move forward and more of this 'type of case' are brought before the Courts.

What is disgusting though is the Cost to the Photographer to bring the Lawsuit and would probably place them in financial ruin if it were found not in their favour :-(

Hence the need for a cheap 'security system' that prevents the copying of online images and negating the need for expensive court battles!

 

[DemiLion]

What is disgusting though is the Cost to the Photographer to bring the Lawsuit and would probably place them in financial ruin if it were found not in their favour :-(

No idea where you've got that idea from. It's completely wrong.

 

[HoppyUK]

Given that seasoned photographers, on a photography website don't understand copyright, what hope has the general public got?

Copyright law has not changed with the move to digital, but that is a big part of the problem, hugely compounded by the internet. In the film era, copyright was no less complicated or confusing, but in practise it was mostly self-policing as making copies was difficult and costly, and there was always a loss of image quality. So you had to get a reprint made from the original negative held by the photographer. Lifting copies off a printed magazine page or whatever simply didn't work.

There were still problems of course, but on a mostly local and very minor scale compared to the mass international abuse enabled by the internet. Something needs to change - current laws are widely misunderstood, opposed, flouted and unenforceable.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

No idea where you've got that idea from. It's completely wrong.

Do explain how I get paid for a picture from a safari trip trip to Kenya that an African based travel agent is using in its Russian based travel publication that has been taken and cropped from a Social Media site then?

 

[DemiLion]

Do explain how I get paid for a picture from a safari trip trip to Kenya that an African based travel agent is using in its Russian based travel publication that has been taken and cropped from a Social Media site then?

You'd probably walk away from that one.

I was referring to UK based infringement.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

You'd probably walk away from that one.

I was referring to UK based infringement.

So my comment isn't completely wrong then? Why would you walk away from that one?

Is it just a personal problem you have with me?

 

[DemiLion]

Because you fight the infringements that you can win, and preferably at a profit.

The majority of infringements are likely to take place in your country of origin, in our case the UK, where it is relatively straight forward to pursue .

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Because you fight the infringements that you can win, and preferably at a profit.

The majority of infringements are likely to take place in your country of origin, in our case the UK, where it is relatively straight forward to pursue .

What on earth makes you think that the majority of peoples pictures posted on the internet will be copied in the UK?
I didn't know Talk Photography was a forum restricted to the UK? (Especially since the discussion I have constantly stated is about legislating across boarders which in your previous posts you indicate isn't a problem but now appears that there is?)

Please can I have evidence that the majority of peoples pictures copied from the internet are done so in their own country of origin?

 

[DemiLion]

You could always try finding your own evidence to disprove it.

The answer is experience and talking to other photographers.

 

[HoppyUK]

Because you fight the infringements that you can win, and preferably at a profit.

The majority of infringements are likely to take place in your country of origin, in our case the UK, where it is relatively straight forward to pursue .

The UK has less than 1% of the global population. Just because you don't know about the other 99% of copyright abuse doesn't mean it's not happening.

You could even argue that it's worse than that, given that the savvy copyrights abuser will check the geography of their territorial reach and avoid sourcing illegal material from those territories.

 

[DemiLion]

I think that you;re missing my point Hoppy. Of course copyright infringement is global but the frequency of misuse is usually highest in the country of origin. At least that's how it appears.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

The UK has less than 1% of the global population. Just because you don't know about the other 99% of copyright abuse doesn't mean it's not happening.

You could even argue that it's worse than that, given that the savvy copyrights abuser will check the geography of their territorial reach and avoid sourcing illegal material from those territories.

This 'hits the nail on the head' and makes it very difficult to enforce legislation to stop it so pressure needs putting on the image hosting service to prevent it in the first place - 'prevention is better than cure.'

 

[HoppyUK]

I think that you;re missing my point Hoppy. Of course copyright infringement is global but the frequency of misuse is usually highest sin the country of origin. At least that's how it appears.

A lot of copyright infringement may well be local according to the type of business and could be true of your experience, but to claim that the majority of all copyright infringement is local seems, well, statistically unlikely.

Hard to prove either way just how much illegal activity is going on given that nobody ever knows about most of it. We hear about a few incidents on here and elsewhere and that perhaps give the impression copyright infringement is actually not that common and the law is working, but my hunch is it's widespread, routine, rife, and everywhere. Impossible to know or measure, impossible to enforce or stop.

The internet has blown a huge hole in many aspects of copyright law. It's always been a bit of a nonsense in many respects but it worked in the analogue era by default. That's changed, and if we don't like it, the only thing to do is not to put stuff on the internet in the first place - in the same way that if you don't want your laptop stolen, don't leave it on the front seat of your car with the window open. You put it out of slight and lock up - and if you don't, the insurance company will accuse you of contributory negligence and refuse to pay. Then there is the moral aspect of copyright 'theft' which the general public just doesn't get: when an image is 'stolen' the photographer actually loses nothing and will probably never know that it ever happened. So what's the problem? But there is a problem...

...and with no easy answers, but my contention is things have got to change, and that they will. Photographers need to wake up to the danger of all rights being washed away if we continue to kid ourselves that everything is fine and we can carry on as before. It's not fine and the law is ignored, so we need to be constructive in the way it should change. IMHO, for the overwhelming majority of the billions of undeserving images floating around, no copyright protection is needed or wanted, and nobody gives a damn anyway. But for some, a few, copyright protection is absolutely necessary and those images deserve full legal protection with teeth, that is understood, respected, and can be properly enforced.

 

[Bollygum]

A lot of copyright infringement may well be local according to the type of business and could be true of your experience, but to claim that the majority of all copyright infringement is local seems, well, statistically unlikely.

Hard to prove either way just how much illegal activity is going on given that nobody ever knows about most of it. We hear about a few incidents on here and elsewhere and that perhaps give the impression copyright infringement is actually not that common and the law is working, but my hunch is it's widespread, routine, rife, and everywhere. Impossible to know or measure, impossible to enforce or stop.

The internet has blown a huge hole in many aspects of copyright law. It's always been a bit of a nonsense in many respects but it worked in the analogue era by default. That's changed, and if we don't like it, the only thing to do is not to put stuff on the internet in the first place - in the same way that if you don't want your laptop stolen, don't leave it on the front seat of your car with the window open. You put it out of slight and lock up - and if you don't, the insurance company will accuse you of contributory negligence and refuse to pay. Then there is the moral aspect of copyright 'theft' which the general public just doesn't get: when an image is 'stolen' the photographer actually loses nothing and will probably never know that it ever happened. So what's the problem? But there is a problem...

...and with no easy answers, but my contention is things have got to change, and that they will. Photographers need to wake up to the danger of all rights being washed away if we continue to kid ourselves that everything is fine and we can carry on as before. It's not fine and the law is ignored, so we need to be constructive in the way it should change. IMHO, for the overwhelming majority of the billions of undeserving images floating around, no copyright protection is needed or wanted, and nobody gives a damn anyway. But for some, a few, copyright protection is absolutely necessary and those images deserve full legal protection with teeth, that is understood, respected, and can be properly enforced.

You are right that things have changed, but I disagree with your analogy that posting on the internet is like leaving your laptop on the car seat with the window open. In that case your laptop gets stolen and you don't have a laptop anymore. With the internet, you still have your photo and somebody has used it. When that use is for profit and it is a country that has laws that prohibit such things, then you probably have legal recourse. When it isn't for profit, then the chances of getting more than a credit on the photo are slim. When it is in another country, like Myanmar, then I think you would avoid a lot of futile work if you just shrugged and let it go.

From my experience, you can make good money on pictures in the USA, Western Europe, China and Japan. You might also get a bit from Canada, Australia and maybe some places in Eastern Europe, but elsewhere - forget it. The internet, or something like it, is here to stay and it has lots of positives about it. It also has a few problems that will take some time to come to terms with. I doubt that the copyright issue will ever go away exactly, but we'll get used to the new rules. I think that in a world where almost everybody is taking photos, then there will be an ongoing problem with copyright. I have just returned from a part of India where I didn't see a Western tourist for 4 weeks, yet almost everybody had a mobile phone. The same applies in the New Guinea Highlands where they have no modern artifacts at all, except - mobile phones and the ability to recharge them. I'm not sure how you'd go about suing a New Guinea Highlander.

 

[Phil V]

From the very first post link:

'Court Rules Images That Are Found and Used From the Internet Are 'Fair Use'

This would suggest that it is you that is quoting absolute 'twaddle' Phil as the latest court ruling in the States has declared the above. As usual your abusive posts are incorrect! (Or do we just ignore what has been said in a Court of Law by a Judge?)

So you’re suggesting one American judge making a decision in some very sopecific circumstances is pertinent to UK law where thousands of cases have upheld UK law.
Well done, that’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted. Which is quite something.

 

[Phil V]

Hi Steven,

I understand that there is a lot of dissent but it is the most current Court ruling on the matter and until it is tested then this is what will be used as a 'yard stick'. (Worldwide)

In criminal law the internet has changed UK laws in many ways - eg pornographic images posted. The UK has had to modify numerous laws to cover the internet.

Firstly we’re discussing US courts changing UK law, not the internet and secondly the internet didn’t change UK law regarding pornographic images.

What actually happened was that judges ruled with the letter of the law rather than the original intent; so what would have been a less serious offence pre internet became more serious post internet.

A judge ruled that downloading an illegal image effectively created a copy of that image. Therefore downloading child porn becomes creating it. And the sentencing guidelines are obviously much harsher for creating an image than possessing one.

Is there any other area of law you think a US judge has changed case law here?

 

[Phil V]

eeerrrrrr.......No.

Not really any point expanding on this if you don't understand case law.

Exactly the point. Case law respects international borders. A US judge making a decision makes no difference to UK law.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Firstly we’re discussing US courts changing UK law, not the internet and secondly the internet didn’t change UK law regarding pornographic images.

What actually happened was that judges ruled with the letter of the law rather than the original intent; so what would have been a less serious offence pre internet became more serious post internet.

A judge ruled that downloading an illegal image effectively created a copy of that image. Therefore downloading child porn becomes creating it And the sentencing guidelines are obviously much harsher for creating an image than possessing one.

Is there any other area of law you think a US judge has changed case law here?

Exactly the point. Case law respects international borders. A US judge making a decision makes no difference to UK law.

The part of your post that I have put in bold is actually a change in the law! (This is Case Law) Before you post you really need to understand how UK law works because your quoted post re pornographic images clearly shows you don't!
Do you actually have the ability to post on this Forum without being rude?

Again - if you read my posts I am stating UK Law offers very little protection on international infringements. (I thought the OP might just have hinted about the 'international' side of this and the discussion about internet image theft would have suggested that it is a worldwide problem?)

I have no example of a US Judge changing case law here but I have worked on a case where the ruling of a Court in another Country was taken into account on a ruling in this Country in Criminal Law.

 

[StewartR]

Hence the need for a cheap 'security system' that prevents the copying of online images and negating the need for expensive court battles!

Do you think that's even theoretically possible?
(Hint: in order for you to be able to see an image on the screen of your computer, the bytes which comprise / define / describe the image have to be in the memory of your computer.)

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Do you think that's even theoretically possible?
(Hint: in order for you to be able to see an image on the screen of your computer, the bytes which comprise / define / describe the image have to be in the memory of your computer.)

I don't know Stewart? Surely it must be possible to introduce a system where only the person who uploaded the image can download the full resolution copy? Other people are only able to download a low res version that has an image hosting watermark plastered across it?

When I view images on a website from the photographer that follows our race series it is a low res version with his watermark across it but when I buy using PayPal I am then almost instantly able to download a high res. version of it - not sure if the mechanics of this are similar?

 

[StewartR]

I don't know Stewart? Surely it must be possible to introduce a system where only the person who uploaded the image can download the full resolution copy? Other people are only able to download a low res version that has an image hosting watermark plastered across it?

When I view images on a website from the photographer that follows our race series it is a low res version with his watermark across it but when I buy using PayPal I am then almost instantly able to download a high res. version of it - not sure if the mechanics of this are similar?

I don't think you understand, or maybe we're talking at cross purposes. When you view an image, you have already downloaded it. It's in the memory of your computer. It has to be, or else it can't appear on the screen.

So whatever is uploaded, you can download. Basically what you're saying is that to prevent image theft, photographers should only upload small images or watermarked images. But I don't think that's what you meant.

 

[Phil V]

Again - if you read my posts I am stating UK Law offers very little protection on international infringements.

The Berne Convention is very clear about how copyright should be treated across all its signatories, and is the basis for most copyright Law.
Everyone here is aware that chasing copyright breaches in some countries is a fools errand. But that has no bearing on whether a breach has taken place, just that some countries have a different attitude to IP. But that’s not the point of your argument is it. That’s just smoke and mirrors because you can’t factually defend your original point, you just hope that reiterating something you made up will suffice.

I have no example of a US Judge changing case law here

There you go.
Why would you assert that we now have an occasion it will happen when in hundreds of years it never has before.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I don't think you understand, or maybe we're talking at cross purposes. When you view an image, you have already downloaded it. It's in the memory of your computer. It has to be, or else it can't appear on the screen.

So whatever is uploaded, you can download. Basically what you're saying is that to prevent image theft, photographers should only upload small images or watermarked images. But I don't think that's what you meant.

Hi Stewart - I have no computing knowledge but I'm sure there are programmes like Adobe Reader that can prevent the copying or editing of anything within them?

 

[Pound Coin]

I don't think you understand, or maybe we're talking at cross purposes. When you view an image, you have already downloaded it. It's in the memory of your computer. It has to be, or else it can't appear on the screen.

So whatever is uploaded, you can download. Basically what you're saying is that to prevent image theft, photographers should only upload small images or watermarked images. But I don't think that's what you meant.

Just about the only solution would be only to put poor quality versions online. The obsession with sharpness across the frame would disappear and people might look at the merits of the images instead!

 

[StewartR]

Hi Stewart - I have no computing knowledge but I'm sure there are programmes like Adobe Reader that can prevent the copying or editing of anything within them?

If you have no knowledge in this area, how and why are you so sure?

I've already explained it. When you view an image, you have already downloaded it. If it's on your screen, it's in the memory of your computer. It's a perfect copy. You can do anything you like with it (in a technical, not legal, sense).

 

[Craigus]

If you have no knowledge in this area, how and why are you so sure?

I've already explained it. When you view an image, you have already downloaded it. If it's on your screen, it's in the memory of your computer. It's a perfect copy. You can do anything you like with it (in a technical, not legal, sense).

This.

But in most cases where someone is ignorant enough to just take a photo off the internet and crop out the copyright info, I would imagine it is probably done via screenshot. There is no way to prevent that. If a high res version exists online it can be copied no matter how you try to protect it.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

Hi Stewart - I have no computing knowledge but I'm sure there are programmes like Adobe Reader that can prevent the copying or editing of anything within them?

Basic premise - if you see it on your computer you have already downloaded a perfect copy of the image.

You may not have saved it permanently to look at whenever you want at ease, but all of the information needed to 'copy' the image you have on your computer somewhere & someone somewhere will always be able to exploit that.

 

[Phil V]

Hi Stewart - I have no computing knowledge but I'm sure there are programmes like Adobe Reader that can prevent the copying or editing of anything within them?

So; having admitted complete ignorance, you still believe you know something the experts don’t.
This is truly the greatest example of Dunning Krueger I’ve seen on this forum.

 

[Faldrax]

Hi Stewart - I have no computing knowledge but I'm sure there are programmes like Adobe Reader that can prevent the copying or editing of anything within them?

Adobe Reader is (as the name suggests) a piece of software which can 'read' a PDF file - and having read the file, can then display it on your screen, print a copy to your printer, save a duplicate to a memory stick, etc.

You can also buy a version which does include editing facilities (though Adobe included a password protection feature within the PDF document format, so IF the author set it as protected when the document was created. Adobe will block changes - PDF editors by other software suppliers may have ways round this)

But essentially, as Stewart said, in order for you so see the information, it needs to be copied to your device in some form - and once that has happened, all you need is some suitable software to do what you want with it.

 

[jwsmith]

As long as the file is never in an open or non-DRM format whilst in motion or at rest anywhere other than the rights holder's server then it seems feasible though impractical and not worth the effort.

Transmit the file in an encrypted, managed format and have a licensed plugin to decrypt the image during the graphics rendering pipeline (or earlier if writing to protected memory).

In practice, solutions that approximate this seem to transmit the image as a mosaic of component pieces and then use a client-side script to (decrypt and) recompose them and so if one knows where on disk or memory the image segments are stored then Photoshop can be used to stitch the original back together.
This is probably enough to deter the casual copier but could be extended by making the mosaic process randomly generated by the server for each image (e.g. sliced in different ways and different effects, scaling etc applied to each tile), which would then be much harder to manually recompose or batch process but I would imagine could be solved by machine learning techniques without much difficulty.

 

[swanseamale47]

The UK has less than 1% of the global population. Just because you don't know about the other 99% of copyright abuse doesn't mean it's not happening.

You could even argue that it's worse than that, given that the savvy copyrights abuser will check the geography of their territorial reach and avoid sourcing illegal material from those territories.

Keep in mind that the other 99% includes many countires considered third world or worse, many cant afford cameras or computers, many areas have no electricity on a regular basis, and some areas still consider a camera the work of the devil.
Thats makes our 1% actually a much bigger share of the real photographic market.
Just because there are people there doesn't mean they are photographers there.

 

[Bollygum]

Keep in mind that the other 99% includes many countires considered third world or worse, many cant afford cameras or computers, many areas have no electricity on a regular basis, and some areas still consider a camera the work of the devil.
Thats makes our 1% actually a much bigger share of the real photographic market.
Just because there are people there doesn't mean they are photographers there.

You should get out more. I don't know of any place devoid of mobile phones and they all have cameras.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

So; having admitted complete ignorance, you still believe you know something the experts don’t.
This is truly the greatest example of Dunning Krueger I’ve seen on this forum.

Yes Phil - I have admitted I know nothing about it but made a suggestion that I have observed from 'layman's' terms - i thought that may have been the idea of a 'discussion' and is how normal people converse. You learn by hoping someone with much more knowledge on the subject can explain the matter.

Fortunately there are posts after yours where people who do know about these things have taken the time to make a decent reply and I'm sure most of the forum users appreciate this.

In Motorsport the engine maps we place on ECU's are protected and only 'readable'; they can not be edited or copied - I don't know how this works though.

If it can't be done, it can't be done and I accept this but it was nothing more than a suggestion.