How to protect your online art
Photographs Photographs Photographs
WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR IMAGES ARE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION
Some lawyers make their living off suing publications for
unauthorized use of photographs. Cease and desist letter from your
attorney. Your photo is your property. It's NOT in the public domain
just because you posted it. Send them an invoice - x dollars for
every instance they use it. Every separate unauthorized reuse
demands an additional fee.
Judge: News Agencies Can't Use Twitter Photos Without Permission
Fox News isn't actually a news channel, they're classed as an
entertainment channel. They ask, the photographer says no, they
shrug and use the pic anyway. It's their usual method. They just
decided to ignore the NO. News outlets should have asked permission
before using a Twitter picture from a photojournalist. According to
the court's ruling, Agence France-Press violated the copyright of
photojournalist Daniel Morel by taking photos of a 2010 earthquake
in Haiti that he tweeted and disseminating them without permission
via Getty. The Washington Post, the court found, violated Morel's
copyright by running four of the photos from Getty also without
Morel's permission, according to Reuters. Twitter's Terms of Service
lay at the center of District Judge Alison Nathan's decision: While
the AFP argued Morel's work was free to use once posted to Twitter,
Nathan instead found that Twitter's Terms of Service required that
news outlets first get permission before running tweeted photos.
Nathan, however, did rule that the retweeting of such photos is
allowed. Twitter has long held that photographers own their tweeted
content. The company's Terms of Service section on copyright
maintains that "Twitter respects the intellectual property rights of
others and expects users of the Services to do the same."
example
Archiving The Internet with Jason Scott
@textfiles
There are all these ethics and concerns, and they never got cooked
in, because they internet went from experiment to critical
infrastructure way too quickly.
Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1 Billion
Renowned photographer Carol M. Highsmith is reportedly suing Getty
Images for $1 billion, claiming that the stock photo company
committed copyright infringement through the “gross misuse” of
18,755 of her photographs documenting America. The 70-year-old
Highsmith filed her lawsuit on July 25, 2016, in the Federal Court
of New York, claiming that Getty has been charging licensing fees
for the use of her photographs without her consent.
Highsmith has spent many years photographing in every state of the
United States, creating an enormous visual record of the early 21st
century. What likely complicates this dispute is the fact that
Highsmith has donated her lifetime archive of photos to the Library
of Congress, which the library calls “one of the greatest acts of
generosity in the history of the Library.” The photographer's photos
are listed on the library's website as being in the public domain
with “no known restrictions on publication.” However, Highsmith says
she never abandoned her photo copyrights
, and says she found out about Getty Images charging for her photos
when she was sent a letter from Getty that demanded she pay for her
own photo that was being displayed on her own website.
In addition to accusing Highsmith of copyright infringement
involving her own photo, Getty reportedly also sent similar demand
letters to other people using Highsmith's public domain photos.
“The defendants [Getty Images] have apparently misappropriated Ms.
Highsmith's generous gift to the American people,” the lawsuit
reads. “[They] are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees…but
are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the
exclusive copyright owner.”
While the statutory damage liability for Getty in this case is
$468,875,000, PDNPulse reports that Highsmith is seeking $1 billion
based on the precedent of photographer Daniel Morel's lawsuit
against Getty, in which he was awarded $1.2 million for the
widespread infringement of one photo.
Vanishing Cultures - An American Portrait by Dennis Manarchy (www.thefpac.org)
COPYRIGHT ART
Don't Shoot
: Stand Your Ground
Stand Your Ground
—gives us a fascinating look at the privatization of our public
spaces.
Photographs and especially videos of the NYPD's actions during the
occupation of Wall Street have sparked outrage and media attention
regarding the protests, which have now spanned ten days.
Accordingly, witnesses, including our own photographer, tell us that
the NYPD has been specifically targeting photographers and
videographers for arrest. Two protestors who were maintaining the
live video feed of the protests were arrested on Saturday, the first
claiming that she was detained solely because she was holding a
camera. "Those are the first people the police go after," protest
organizer Patrick Bruner tells us. "They're always the first to get
held up."
While it is well within a protestor's right to film a demonstration
or an arrest, NYCLU spokesperson Jennifer Carnig tells us, "You
cannot interfere with police action, i.e. get in the middle of an
arrest to take a photo or make a video." It may be a stretch to say
that those operating the protest's live stream would be able to
physically "interfere" with an arrest while holding a laptop.
From the ACLU
"When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society."
The Photographer's Right - A Downloadable Flyer
2003
Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
The right to take photographs
is now under assault more than ever. People are being stopped,
harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal
property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects
that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples include
photographing industrial plants, bridges, and vessels at sea. For
the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on
misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted
photography presents to society.
Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played
an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well being
of all Americans. Photography in the United States has contributed
to improvements in civil rights, curbed abusive child labor
practices, and provided information important to investigating
crimes. These images have not always been pretty and often have
offended the sensibilities of governmental and commercial interests
who had vested interests in a status quo that was adverse to the
majority in our country.
Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or
economic vitality in the United States. When people think back to
the acts of terrorism that have occurred over the last forty years,
none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on
photography would have not prevented any of these acts. Similarly,
some corporations have a history of abusing the rights of
photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets.
These claims are almost always bogus since entities are required to
keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
Trade secret laws do not give anyone the right to persecute
photographers.
The Photographer's Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely
based on the ACLU's Bust Card and the Know Your Rights flyer. It may
be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may
make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket or camera bag to give
you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning
confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to
others provided that such distribution is not done for commercial
gain and credit is given to the author.
~ BERT P. KRAGES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
Securing the rights to use a picture
Photo Release Form Get Permission
Securing the rights to use a picture of a painting - do a search for ARS ( Artists Rights Society ), CISAC , and others. If you can determine where image is, physically (a museum?) you could contact their rights & permissions department - often, when an image is reproduced, one of the stipulations is to identify the owner of the work. If you've got an art museum near you, give them a call and ask how to contact these groups. The registrar's office should know.
2014
Wikimedia Says When a Monkey Takes a Selfie, No One Owns It
In the recently released U.S. Copyright Compendium, which lays out
regulations about the registration process for copyrights, one
sentence stood out from the rest of the 1200-page document, and is
as follows: “The Office will not register works produced by nature,
animals, or plants, which includes a photograph taken by a monkey.”
It stood out because three years ago, David Slater, a British
photographer, traveled to Indonesia to photograph monkeys. While
there, he had his camera snatched by a monkey and the monkey ended
up taking some amazing photographs with his camera. Slater published
these photos, and later discovered that one of them was published on
Wikipedia without his permission. Slater wanted the photo taken
down, but Wikipedia refused because
the photo was taken by the monkey
and not him, thus making it public domain. It's interesting that it
says "works produced by animals" since humans are, of course,
animals. They could have said "works produced by non-human animals"
- but they didn't.
ILLEGAL ART
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT (2003, 58 min.), Produced by Jed Horovitz,
Directed by Greg Hittelman. legal scholars, artists, DJ¹s, Star Wars
fans, teachers and many more tell an "extraordinary" tale about how
ownership of ideas has come into conflict with free expression. You
can go now to
www.willfulinfringement.com
to see free clips, buy the DVD, or stream the whole movie for a
donation.
VARA - Visual Artists Rights Act The Statute 17 USC section 106A
Law protecting certain rights of the artist's works.
A “work of visual art” is--
Immediate Removal for Legal Cause:
Immediate Removal for Legal Cause:
If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide Yahoo!'s Copyright Agent the following information:
- an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;
- a description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
- a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site;
- your address, telephone number, and email address;
- a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property owner, its agent, or the law;
- a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's behalf.
Yahoo!'s Agent for Notice of claims of copyright or other intellectual property infringement can be reached as follows:
Copyright Agent
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
[p] (408) 349-5080
fax:(408) 349-7821
copyright@yahoo-inc.com
In addition to submitting your legal request for immediate removal, we also require that you follow our Standard Removal Procedure and employ a robots.txt file to ensure that your files are not accessed by our crawlers in the future.
Photographer Requests Takedowns from Google Images
February 11, 2004
Sender Information:[Private]
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: Fax
Re: Customer support, image search service complaints
[Private]@google.com
Google, Inc.
[Private]
[Private]
Mountain View, CA 94043
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that, for each image identified above, I either own the copyright or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Remove my photographs immediately.
namethepicture.jpg
300 x 313 pixels - 16k
www.website/images/Stars/fbBooks.html
[ More results from www.website.com ]
namethepicture.jpg
300 x 313 pixels - 16k
www.website/images/Stars/fbBooks.html
[ More results from www.website.com ]
namethepicture.jpg
300 x 313 pixels - 16k
www.website/images/Stars/fbBooks.html
[ More results from www.website.com ]
[Private]
<>--<>---<>
The Educational CyberPlayGround
https://edu-cyberpg.com/