ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: gotletter on July 20, 2013, 08:20:07 AM
-
I was encouraged by another member to post this; while it's not directly related to a getty letter, I do feel that perhaps some of the answers could help everyone out in the long run when it comes to possible copyright infringement.
After getting my Getty Letter I got freaked out. Lost sleep, felt sick to my stomach, had arguments with the wife, etc. Then I found this forum and sought out all I could find about copyright rules and laws.
That stuff is fairly easy to come by, albeit the language is sometimes a bit beyond my understanding.
I do understand that the moment something is created that the creator owns the copyright. I get that. When a photographer takes a photo, the moment the button is pressed they own the copyright to that photo. I get that too. What follows, however, are some questions that I just cannot figure out. For sake of argument we can assume that no one was contacted to obtain copyrights.
If I have an image that I found on another website and crop it to half it's size and use that, can I do that?
If I post a picture of a movie poster on my website that I got from my favorite animation studio's website, can I do that?
If i'm at the actual movie theater and take a picture of just the movie poster, can I post that on my website?
If I'm at the actual movie theater and take a picture with a bunch of friends around the movie poster (with the movie poster in full view), can I post that on my website?
If I have an image and add text to it, change some colors, and alter it, can I post that on my website?
If I make a video and I'm wearing a shirt with a famous superhero logo on it, shoes with a famous shoe maker logo on it, and a hat with another famous logo on it, am I infringing upon those copyrights?
If I make an audio (like a radio talk show / podcast) to post online and use.. say.. a clip of a cartoon's voice, or 15 seconds of someone's song, can I do that?
I've got a few more questions, but I think I can research them a little to find my answers. I thank you for your time.
-
keep in mind i'm not an attorney, but i'll give this a shot...see below
I was encouraged by another member to post this; while it's not directly related to a getty letter, I do feel that perhaps some of the answers could help everyone out in the long run when it comes to possible copyright infringement.
After getting my Getty Letter I got freaked out. Lost sleep, felt sick to my stomach, had arguments with the wife, etc. Then I found this forum and sought out all I could find about copyright rules and laws.
That stuff is fairly easy to come by, albeit the language is sometimes a bit beyond my understanding.
I do understand that the moment something is created that the creator owns the copyright. I get that. When a photographer takes a photo, the moment the button is pressed they own the copyright to that photo. I get that too. What follows, however, are some questions that I just cannot figure out. For sake of argument we can assume that no one was contacted to obtain copyrights.
If I have an image that I found on another website and crop it to half it's size and use that, can I do that? NO plain and simple...do NOT take pictures from other websites unless you purchase a license or have express written permission to do so by the copyright owner.
If I post a picture of a movie poster on my website that I got from my favorite animation studio's website, can I do that? - again NO...DON'T grab stuff from other sites..PERIOD
If i'm at the actual movie theater and take a picture of just the movie poster, can I post that on my website?Possibly, as long as you're not infringing on anything that may be "TradeMarked"...a different discussion altogether.
If I'm at the actual movie theater and take a picture with a bunch of friends around the movie poster (with the movie poster in full view), can I post that on my website? - Probably okay to do this, but again you have the possible trademark issue.
If I have an image and add text to it, change some colors, and alter it, can I post that on my website?depends where the image came from, if you grabbed it from another site or a google search, then NO, do some research on derivitive works to get the details on this
If I make a video and I'm wearing a shirt with a famous superhero logo on it, shoes with a famous shoe maker logo on it, and a hat with another famous logo on it, am I infringing upon those copyrights?More so these would be trademark issues, and would depend on if it's a commercial video...thats why on TV you'll often see logo, brands fuzzed out..
If I make an audio (like a radio talk show / podcast) to post online and use.. say.. a clip of a cartoon's voice, or 15 seconds of someone's song, can I do that?would depend on several factors..is it commercial?? is it parody?? is it incorporated with commentary??
as you can see copyright / trademark laws seem to alter depending on the use, and there are some grey area's and there are also black and white areas such as "fair use"...if you're unsure of anything always get yourself educated before taking any chances..
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
I've got a few more questions, but I think I can research them a little to find my answers. I thank you for your time.
-
a photographer friend just shared this with me, and it address one of your questions above..
worth the read, this might fall under "parody" in a court of law...but again it's one of those grey areas..
http://www.onthewingphotography.com/wings/2013/07/20/arne-olav-g-fredriksen-taking-image-theft-to-a-new-level/
-
I agree with Robert and his answers, with regards to question 4 I think that would be okay as it would be a case of de minimis infringement. I cite Davis v. The Gap as reference.
Davis v. The Gap,246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001).
"The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. Parents in Central Park photograph their children perched on Jose de Creeft's Alice in Wonderland sculpture. We record television programs aired while we are out, so as to watch them at a more convenient hour.8 Waiters at a restaurant sing "Happy Birthday" at a patron's table. When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants. The case would be dismissed because trivial copying is not an infringement."
http://www.scribd.com/collections/4119335/Davis-v-The-Gap
If I'm at the actual movie theater and take a picture with a bunch of friends around the movie poster (with the movie poster in full view), can I post that on my website?
-
thanks guys for the info. I figured most of this to be exactly as you answered it. Seems to me that there are millions of websites, tv shows, radio shows, photographs, etc. that are in violation because of these grey areas.
I mean.. what would stop a famous shoe maker from claiming something against me if I were to wear a shoe with their logo on it? I'm unsure how that would be any different than if I was to take a picture of someone wearing the same shoe.
I don't like grey areas.
-
Copyright law (and most other areas of U.S. law), as near as I can tell, mainly consists of complicated grey areas containing infinite twists and turns that offer wonderful entrepreneurial opportunities, both legal and not so legal.
Some cynics might even suggest there may be design to the ever-expanding grey areas because the more complicated the law, the more money and "work" available for the politicians, the court systems, the judges, the lawyers, the penal system, the law enforcement agencies, corporations like Getty Images, and everyone else profiting in and from the Political Justice Complex.
Indeed, in the Information Age, the Political Justice Complex in the next few decades may even give the Military Industrial Complex a run for the big money... if sufficient numbers of people in the country get sick enough and loud enough regarding endless wars, that is.
-
Bear in mind that tv shows and movies often not only get permission to include copyrighted or trademarked items, but the owners may have paid the show or movie to include the item. In this case, it is highly unlikely something like "Pespi" or "Nike" would go after someone who snaps a picture of themselves in front of the item and places it on their facebook page or blog because to some extent, that's what Pepsi or Nike wanted to happen. Mind you: they might go after someone under special circumstances, but mostly, no.
Also: with trademark law, I think the main issue with respect to using is "confusion". If you made a cola beverage, called it "Popsi Cola", and made mark that looked a lot like Pepsi cola, that could cause confusion among consumers who might think they were buying Pepsi when they were actually buying Popsi. But your taking a photo of yourself and friends standing in front of an advertisement for Pepsi-- not so much. So the two operate differently.
That said: It may be that somethings could be both trademarked and copyrighted.
But really, most major commercial brands for tangible goods (e.g. sneakers, cola, cold cuts, detergent etc.) are not going to go after someone for incidental use of their ad materials. Doing so would risk a lot of negative press. Imagine Oscar Mayer suing you for showing a photo with a package of their bacon on the counter. The whole suit would likely reduce sales of their products which are bacon and cold cuts, not photos of the bacon or cold cut packages. In contrast, if they found you stealing truckloads of bacon from their facility, they would certainly sick the police on you!
In contrast: Getty's product and commercial photographers products is the images themselves.
-
I should clarify why i mentioned the trdemarks in the first place...i was thinking about the scented tree car fresheners company that sued getty because getty was licensing images that had the little hanging trees in some images..the case settled and we don't know the details, but i'm assuming getty paid them something.
-
Robert--
Yes. I remember. Getty's use was not incidental, commercial, and did have the potential to dilute the mark!
-
Something in the back of my head tells me that it cost Getty right around 100k but I am not 100% sure. I will try and go back through the forums and find it.
I should clarify why i mentioned the trdemarks in the first place...i was thinking about the scented tree car fresheners company that sued getty because getty was licensing images that had the little hanging trees in some images..the case settled and we don't know the details, but i'm assuming getty paid them something.
-
another question;
I have a friend of mine who is a graphic artist by trade.
In the past he has designed several football helmet designs, football jersey designs, snowboard designs, logos, signs, etc. To him they are all works of art.
Lets say, for example, I'm on getty's site and run across a picture that has some football players wearing the helmet and jersey that my friend designed. Or say I run across a picture that has a snowboard he designed. Is getty in violation of my friend's copyright?
In the instance of the football gear; he created the design on commission to the school. They paid him for his design.
In the instance of the snowboard, again he created the design for a customer; the customer then had the design sent to a place that manufactures snowboards and they printed that design and applied it to the customers snowboard.
In both instances he still owns the copyrights to the designs. In other words; the school cannot take the design and go to another sign shop and have them create the shirts (my friend keeps all digital copies at his shop and does not release them unless they pay a substantial fee for the design).
I figure that this too falls into a very grey area.
The reason I am asking all of these questions is that some of them pertain to some things I have been associated with in the past and I simply want to have a better working knowledge should I find myself in similar situations in the future.
-
I do not think in the situation you have described they can do that. It reminds me of a case Getty just lost not to long ago where a photographer was in Haiti when the big earthquake hit, he documented the devastation and suffering, since the island was in ruins he tweeted some of the photos so the world could see what had happened. Getty, among others took these images without permission, finding out who they belonged to or compensating the photo journalist and put them on their site and even was licensing them as if they had the rights to the images.
http://www.scribd.com/collections/4120923/Agence-France-Presse-v-Morel
So if someone takes your friends work and puts it on Getty the person who did it would be wrong.
Since Getty states in their extortion demand letters that it doesn't matter how the image got on your site you are still responsible and must pay I would say Getty is wrong too ;) :o
-
Lets say, for example, I'm on getty's site and run across a picture that has some football players wearing the helmet and jersey that my friend designed. Or say I run across a picture that has a snowboard he designed. Is getty in violation of my friend's copyright?
I think this might depend on some details about the photos. For example: If the photo is of a highschool team playing a football game, the helmets are on the players heads and so on the appearance of the artwork might be 'fair use'. If not you would get in a situation where 100% of photos of "Generic Highschool Football Game" fell under the copyright of someone who designed a logo on the helmets.
On the other hand, if the photos start to be nothing more than a close up photo of side of the helmet focusing on the artwork with that photo emblazoned on the front of a t-shirt.... that would start to be different. With certain types of uses, a judge is going to interpret the 'fair use' provision applying the various principles. Details matter here.
-
Next Question:
While this does not pertain to an image, I'll do my best to make an analogy to where it can.
Let's say I'm doing a podcast and someone sends me their original music to have it featured on my show. Am I able to use it without worry that someone in the future could come after me?
Now for the graphic part: Let's say I am running a blog and someone sends me their original image to have it featured on my blog. Am I able to use it without worry that someone in the future could come after me?
Again I appreciate all of the help here, more importantly I appreciate the patience you guys have with me and my silly questions.
-
My comments here in line in bold.
Next Question:
While this does not pertain to an image, I'll do my best to make an analogy to where it can.
Let's say I'm doing a podcast and someone sends me their original music to have it featured on my show. Am I able to use it without worry that someone in the future could come after me?
If it is their original music and they send it to you for the show you are fine, however I might ask for a letter or email granting permission just as a CYA.
Now for the graphic part: Let's say I am running a blog and someone sends me their original image to have it featured on my blog. Am I able to use it without worry that someone in the future could come after me?
Same thing as above, if it is their artwork and they send it to you to use you are fine but I might ask for the letter or email as confirmation.
Again I appreciate all of the help here, more importantly I appreciate the patience you guys have with me and my silly questions.
-
would the following fall under "fair use":
I'm running a website that does reviews of movies, books, games, and assorted goofy stuff. If a movie theater invites me in to review a movie; am I able to take an image of the movie released by the movie studio to grab reader's attention with said review?
Likewise with a review of a book or game; am I able to grab a product still from the supplier's website whom sent me to book or game to review and use that in my post?
Or would it be in my best interest to obtain permission just in case?
-
Fair use is a tough area and I usually leave those question for when Oscar drops in and answers questions.
If you want to display a picture to go along with a review I would hotlink to image rather than having on and displayed from my server, hotlinking is not currently not considered infringement see Perfect 10 v. Google. I say currently because Perfect 10 has just brought a suit against Tumblr and if it goes Perfect 10's way it could effect many sites like Pinterest and other sharing sites.
You may read about fair use here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
-
This begs the following question.. All the icons above, facebook, twitter, youtube, and below with the facebook "like" icon.. someone made those.. Could they technically try to claim copyright infringement?
I know that sounds silly but it's a very serious question. I'm in the process of totally revamping all of my websites to remove anything that could potentially be considered infringement.
-
Could they? You bet.
Everything in life is about weighing the likelihood. WOULD Facebook sue you for infringing on their trademark? I'd have to say there is close to zero percent chance of that. And if they came after you, it probably would be for using their trademark, not copyright. I've read stories of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce suing someone for using a photograph they took of the Hollywood sign. Getty was even sued for using the trademarked pine tree air fresheners in a stock photo they were selling. But Twitter and Facebook want to encourage people to use their brand in the right context.
FYI all these major companies do have usage guidelines that tell you how you can (and cannot) use their logo:
https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts
https://twitter.com/logo
Also, something else to be aware of is fonts. If you customize your site to use fonts beyond Arial, Times, and Verdana, you need to make sure the typography is cleared.
-
heh in the case of twitter; a lot of sites use the box with the 't' in it, yet on the link to their logo&brand page it clearly shows that one is not to use such a box.
it's maddening.. and I'm not talking about football (just to cover my bases on THAT).
-
Yes its technically a copyright infringement to copy and post the FB or twitter symbol but they would never do anything about it because it is free advertising and usually used to link back to their product. Who knows, their may even be a permitted use in their terms of service for that purpose. In any event, the infringement and the damages would be minimal. If however, folks started using it on products or to give the appearance that somehow fb or twitter are connected to a product or service, then they would likely bring a trademark infringement action.