Images found on the Internet are fair use???

Although in this specific case I can see where the judge was coming from it sets too dangerous a precedent to go unchallenged.

I expect that to be appealed against with some big organisations bank rolling a team of lawyers
 
So the judge in that summary seems to have overlooked the fact that the crop removed copyright info and that at least was an illegal act??? In that case does the state judgement also influence federal law?

There was me thinking that in the USA photographers rights had good solid protection in law, though had to registered to get the fullest level. Here in the UK AFAIK our copyright and rights are there by default,............though in all cases "we" need to discover the infringement to then take action.
 
That is crazy!!!!

Hopefully someone finds the judges address on the internet, finds his house on a street and steals everything.. ohh no wait, steels everything they need and nothing more... fair game.
 
Understandable but not ideal.

TBH I would expect 'fair use' to become increasingly acceptable if the copyright holder can't provide the infringer actually made money from use or that they lost money (though in this case I'd have thought the loss was obvious - he got no royalties from a license). Perhaps there's more to this than meets they eye, and the judge was took this stance because the infringer obeyed the C&D request? Or perhaps it's the hand of the content aggregators at work, where copyright is sometimes willfully ignored by organisations like Google unless legally enforced.
 
The judge looked at the facts of the case and made a judgement in which he described at length the factual and legal grounds on which his decision is based. That's his job. If either party is disatisfied they may appeal and other judges will look at the grounds given in the appeal. They too will give the reasons for the decision. Once again either party may appeal if they can show sufficient grounds. Finally it may end up in the Supreme Court where a number of judges will again review the matters in dispute and render a decision in writing. That's how the law works and postings suggesting that people who disagree with a judge's decision should "find his house on a street and steal everything" might be considered a little out of order. :whistle:
 
I have said it for years when people questioned why I don't put much on any website and why I don't have one of my own - if you want to retain control of your work, don't let it be put on any website. If you do, you run the risk of it being stolen. Evereyone seems to think the internet and all this anti-social media is manna from heaven, it isn't. It is the work of the devil. The original thought behind the combined use of many computers and linking them all up, dreamed up by Tim Berners-Lee (a British chap, not an American!) as a force for good, has been hijacked by people who have seen the opportunity to gain control of the population and anything they do. It is very Orwellian.
 
And here's me thinking it was for the military, to enshure that even if several nodes were knocked out there would still be other ways for the packet (Of information) to get through. At least that's how it was described by the British system "Message Switch (MSX) in the bunker I worked in.
 
And here's me thinking it was for the military, to enshure that even if several nodes were knocked out there would still be other ways for the packet (Of information) to get through. At least that's how it was described by the British system "Message Switch (MSX) in the bunker I worked in.
Internet is certainly American not British. What young Tim did was design an easy way to use the Internet which is the World Wide Web. It is very common to confuse the Internet with the World Wide Web.
 
I have said it for years when people questioned why I don't put much on any website and why I don't have one of my own - if you want to retain control of your work, don't let it be put on any website. If you do, you run the risk of it being stolen. Evereyone seems to think the internet and all this anti-social media is manna from heaven, it isn't. It is the work of the devil. The original thought behind the combined use of many computers and linking them all up, dreamed up by Tim Berners-Lee (a British chap, not an American!) as a force for good, has been hijacked by people who have seen the opportunity to gain control of the population and anything they do. It is very Orwellian.

And here's me thinking it was for the military, to enshure that even if several nodes were knocked out there would still be other ways for the packet (Of information) to get through. At least that's how it was described by the British system "Message Switch (MSX) in the bunker I worked in.

I thought it was originally the ARPANET mil system........but Tim Berners-Lee democratised it by developing HTML (or its precursor)..........goes to re-read up about Tim B-L
 
Lots of other judges have found differently in other cases - this seems to be an unusual outlier judgement that may not be repeated:

https://www.trademarkandcopyrightla...even-if-you-dont-notice-the-copyright-notice/

The civilian Internet long predates the Web. Once upon a time our social media platforms were email lists, Usenet newsgroups, and telnet accessible bulletin boards.

I am sorry to say, I predate even them! My 'network' was the local Round Table/Rotary/Lions/Ladies Circle/Rotaract/Inner Wheel, the squash and rgby club, pubs, the sailing club, the fishing club, the kayak club.....and we kept a book with the alaphabet on tabs at the edge of the pages and wrote down peoples' names, address and telephone number......then someone invented the filofax and the world changed overnight! :D

I still use this system. I know it may seem odd to the instagram generation, but it still works. Actually meeting someone, face-to-face, by knocking n their door is still a very powerful tool.
 
Last edited:
I have said it for years when people questioned why I don't put much on any website and why I don't have one of my own - if you want to retain control of your work, don't let it be put on any website. If you do, you run the risk of it being stolen. Evereyone seems to think the internet and all this anti-social media is manna from heaven, it isn't. It is the work of the devil. The original thought behind the combined use of many computers and linking them all up, dreamed up by Tim Berners-Lee (a British chap, not an American!) as a force for good, has been hijacked by people who have seen the opportunity to gain control of the population and anything they do. It is very Orwellian.
I suppose I take the reverse view. I want my images to be seen and what better way to do that than through the internet? I side effect has been that I regularly get requests for use of the images from magazines like NatGeo and Quantum. They pay a reasonable amount depending on the use. Without the internet, photography would still be just a hobby for me. Instead I get a steady stream of commercial requests, invitations to visit many different countries plus film work with time-lapse. If you hide your talents,.you will retain full control, but at the cost of hiding them from the world. I'm not religious but I remember a parable about talents being hidden under a bushel, presumable to retain control.
 
Last edited:
I suppose I take the reverse view. I want my images to be seen and what better way to do that than through the internet? I side effect has been that I regularly get requests for use of the images from magazines like NatGeo and Quantum. They pay a reasonable amount depending on the use. Without the internet, photography would still be just a hobby for me. Instead I get a steady stream of commercial requests, invitations to visit many different countries plus film work with time-lapse. If you hide your talents,.you will retain full control, but at the cost of hiding them from the world. I'm not religious but I remember a parable about talents being hidden under a bushel, presumable to retain control.

Could I suggest that your experiences show that context is important. As far as I recall your images are quite, if not highly, niche. Therefore the likelihood of copyright infringement by general publications or the public is likely more limited.

Your particular photographic skillset is attractive to your possible target market/audience as per your remarks above re paid usage of images and even commissioned work.

As has been pointed out before, the photography market in many(all?) sectors has changed and "adapt to survive" type replies is a mantra I hear mentioned on ocassion. Hence, those that practice their craft in the more crowded sectors (where infringement of image usage is greater) will be finding the need to adapt in ways not originally considered.

Where will it all lead......no idea but every day can be a school day :)
 
it is quite scary that with the plethora of photos that get fired out to all sorts of social media that it has almost set the view that the ease at which photos can now taken, uploaded to the interweb, posted to social media channels followed by the next one that there is no perceived value in them and this view subsequently extends to everyone elses photo as a justification for stealing images
 
"The image was cropped and thus, the company were being kind so as to not use any more of the photo than was absolutely necessary."

:LOL::LOL:

When I saw that phrase in the judgement it seemed to be confirming a "wrong" had been done but it was not as bad as it might have been..............a bit like the mugger who only punches you once & takes half your money was kind to you as he did not hurt you as badly as he could have done!!!!!

It is the wierdest statement I can recall reading of in regard to a copyright infringement, especially bearing in mind this was legal judgement just much "sense" does it make???
 
it is quite scary that with the plethora of photos that get fired out to all sorts of social media that it has almost set the view that the ease at which photos can now taken, uploaded to the interweb, posted to social media channels followed by the next one that there is no perceived value in them and this view subsequently extends to everyone elses photo as a justification for stealing images


It is also a case of supply and demand.
The almost infinite, certainly uncountable, number of digital images taken every day.
Has devalued individual images, to the point that a vast majority have little or no discernible value.

Professional image makers need to put considerable "Added value" into their images to make them stand apart.
This can be in the form of the use of not easily acquired skills.
Artistic merit
exclusive access or other contractual limitations.
Or the the added value of an "exclusive" news event.

It has become difficult for anyone to distinguish between luck and skill, in the resulting image.
in much the same way, as given infinite time, a monkey with a typewriter might produce a Shakespearean sonnet.

The almost "accidental" everyday production of extraordinary images has become commonplace. And vastly outnumber, and often outclass the work of Professional photographers.
It is no wonder that it is now so difficult to ascribe a value to an image.
 
It's the USA - what do you expect? They take litigation to "the highest level of special"

Copyright should remain "copyright" and the only release from it being a license - there should be no argument or deliberation. This is just pure obfuscation!

What puzzles me about this whole thing is the fact the 'cease and desist' request was observed in the original scenario - to my mind, a tacet admission of wrongdoing.
 
So the judge in that summary seems to have overlooked the fact that the crop removed copyright info and that at least was an illegal act???
The image was posted to flickr w/o watermark. The screen shot in that link does show the copyright notice on the page, but that is easy to change at any time. However, if the image was uploaded with exif/iptc intact the copyright information would also be there.

What I really disagree with is the statement that the fact the image was previously published "broadens the scope of fair use"... WTH?
And that the use on a commercial website on a page about "things to do in DC" while there for the festival was purely informational and non-commercial. It was obviously trying to provide additional enticement to make the trip and attend the festival.

It sounds to me like Brammer tried to represent himself against some good lawyers and in front of a weak judge.
 
Last edited:
in much the same way, as given infinite time, a monkey with a typewriter might produce a Shakespearean sonnet.
Firstly: where do you get the infinite number of monkeys? Secondly: who could possibly spend an infinite amount of time on the experiment? Thirdly: how would one know if the experiment had succeeded given you would need an infinite number of checkers to test the output of the infinite number of monkeys? Fourthly: given the belief that the Universe has a finite life and a finite physical span nothing requiring infinity can possibly exist in it so how can we try this? Finally: would the infinite population of monkeys own the copyright of the new sonnet and be able to sue everyone who has used the separate but identical Shakespeare version?

If someone has proof that this experiment has been run and an accurate copy of a sonnet created I think we should be told! :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Firstly: where do you get the infinite number of monkeys? Secondly: who could possibly spend an infinite amount of time on the experiment? Thirdly: how would one know if the experiment had succeeded given you would need an infinite number of checkers to test the output of the infinite number of monkeys? Fourthly: given the belief that the Universe has a finite life and a finite physical span nothing requiring infinity can possibly exist in it so how can we try this? Finally: would the infinite population of monkeys own the copyright of the new sonnet and be able to sue everyone who has used the separate but identical Shakespeare version?

If someone has proof that this experiment has been run and an accurate copy of a sonnet created I think we should be told! :thinking:

:runaway:everyone :runaway: :LOL: ;)
 
Could I suggest that your experiences show that context is important. As far as I recall your images are quite, if not highly, niche. Therefore the likelihood of copyright infringement by general publications or the public is likely more limited.

Your particular photographic skillset is attractive to your possible target market/audience as per your remarks above re paid usage of images and even commissioned work.

As has been pointed out before, the photography market in many(all?) sectors has changed and "adapt to survive" type replies is a mantra I hear mentioned on ocassion. Hence, those that practice their craft in the more crowded sectors (where infringement of image usage is greater) will be finding the need to adapt in ways not originally considered.

Where will it all lead......no idea but every day can be a school day :)
Fungi photography niche?
I do agree that there are a huge number of styles of photography and no one rule fits all. I just know that I wouldn't have sold a thing if I hadn't used the internet and if you use the internet, you have to accept the occasional misuse of your photos. If you want to ensure absolutely no misuse, then don't ever put anything on the internet. But then few will ever see your photos. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
Copyright should remain "copyright" and the only release from it being a license - there should be no argument or deliberation.
You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?
 
You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?

Outside this no....
Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events
 
Outside this no....
Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events

That part does not apply to photographs.
 
It's a nonsense judgement, but it's also another sign that things are changing, whether we like it or not. Most people don't understand copyright, and when you explain it to them they think it's crazy, My guess is that sooner or later copyright will cease to be an automatic right and that if photographers want to protect copyright, then images will have to be actively registered and clearly marked.

Either way though, the way things stand, if you want to make money from photographs then you need to get paid for taking them in the first place. Once an image exists and is put on-line, you might as well kiss it goodbye.
 
It's a nonsense judgement, but it's also another sign that things are changing, whether we like it or not. Most people don't understand copyright, and when you explain it to them they think it's crazy, My guess is that sooner or later copyright will cease to be an automatic right and that if photographers want to protect copyright, then images will have to be actively registered and clearly marked.

Either way though, the way things stand, if you want to make money from photographs then you need to get paid for taking them in the first place. Once an image exists and is put on-line, you might as well kiss it goodbye.
And yet if you use the high level analogy of "Well your car was parked in a supermarket car park and there was no indication that it was yours so I thought it was ok to just take it and use it as an Uber. But now you have found me out i will stop using it. However it might be prudent in future to paint your name in obvious lettering on the sides." they look at you like you're mad
 
And yet if you use the high level analogy of "Well your car was parked in a supermarket car park and there was no indication that it was yours so I thought it was ok to just take it and use it as an Uber. But now you have found me out i will stop using it. However it might be prudent in future to paint your name in obvious lettering on the sides." they look at you like you're mad

Not the same thing at all. That would be theft, but copyright 'infringement' is not theft (even though photographers often use that term). Only a 'copy' is taken, the original remains untouched, and in the vast majority of cases the photographer doesn't even know about it. When that's combined with the general public perception that photographs have little or no intrinsic value (as per Terry's post #19) and that is factually true in 99.999% of cases, then it's easy to see how courts can reach the kind of judgement this thread is about.

Edit: we need to acknowledge the fact that things have changed and that legislation drawn up in a different era is not relevant to the way that the vast majority of images are taken and used today. Current copyright laws are so widely ignored and abused that they're useless anyway. Some images do need commercial protection of course and I think we'd all be better off if new legislation was drawn up to recognise and respect this distinction.
 
Last edited:
Not the same thing at all. That would be theft, but copyright 'infringement' is not theft (even though photographers often use that term). Only a 'copy' is taken, the original remains untouched, and in the vast majority of cases the photographer doesn't even know about it. When that's combined with the general public perception that photographs have little or no intrinsic value (as per Terry's post #19) and that is factually true in 99.999% of cases, then it's easy to see how courts can reach the kind of judgement this thread is about.
Hence the use of "high level analogy"
 
Last edited:
It's a nonsense judgement, but it's also another sign that things are changing, whether we like it or not. Most people don't understand copyright, and when you explain it to them they think it's crazy, My guess is that sooner or later copyright will cease to be an automatic right and that if photographers want to protect copyright, then images will have to be actively registered and clearly marked.

Either way though, the way things stand, if you want to make money from photographs then you need to get paid for taking them in the first place. Once an image exists and is put on-line, you might as well kiss it goodbye.


Absolutely. The only sure way of making money from photography, is through being commissioned to take them.
Archives of photographs have been devalued by supply and demand. There are too many photographs on offer to even be able to go through them all and make a selection. usually it it quicker and easier to take or commission a new one. and at least that will be unique (for a short while)
 
You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?

Fair/unfair use doesn't negate or override copyright. It can only be rescinded or licensed by the copyright owner.
 
There is no exception written in the statement. so It "could" apply to photographs.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
 
Copyright should remain "copyright" and the only release from it being a license - there should be no argument or deliberation.
Fair/unfair use doesn't negate or override copyright. It can only be rescinded or licensed by the copyright owner.
I'm confused now. Are you now saying that fair use *should* be allowed? Because that's what this case is all about - whether the specific use of the image counted as fair use.
 
I'm confused now. Are you now saying that fair use *should* be allowed? Because that's what this case is all about - whether the specific use of the image counted as fair use.

Without a shadow of doubt @StewartR , I see it this way- Any usage should show some form of acknowledgement of the author (ie, the owner of the Copyright). The copyright CANNOT be ignored and can only be rescinded or relinquished with the express permission of the owner/copyrighter through license or authorisation..... that is, to be used with permission.

Just 'using' the image in any way does not release from Copyright - to my mind Copyright is sacrosanct. To be otherwise removes and blurs boundaries!
 
Back
Top