A photographer has threatened us with legal action, claiming that his copyrighted picture was used on this site without permission.
If you post copyrighted material, then the site (and you) are potentially liable for the copyright holder’s fees, solicitor’s fees and court costs.
The Afterword may be forced to close as a result.
If you’re unsure of the copyright status of any file, do not post it.
Thanks
Hannah
Not good.
This is probably a naive question, but can someone offer a few simple guidelines on how to tell whether a photo is in the public domain or or is copyright.
I’d Google the question myself, but the internet is 18th century here on Öland.
Basically; if you didn’t create it, don’t post it.
Er, really!? Our avatars, Youtube clips, the techno mix I was about to post, the album, book and DVD covers on the reviews…
I would have thought album covers are OK. The photographer would have been paid for the material to be used in promoting the product.
I sometimes struggle to find a suitable image for a Nights Out.
I had assumed that if it was on Google Images it was in the public domain.
A common mistake. Google scrapes images from all over the internet with no consideration for copyright. You CAN filter in google by copyright status…
http://i.imgur.com/mGxDkTy.jpg
Just wear whataver fells comfortable (;
Sorry couldn’t resist.
Tiggerlion
This blog would be a very grey, dull and rather pointless place if nobody ever posted anything here that they had not created themselves. It is, after all supposed to be about Popular Culture (and stuff).
Some artists/photographers/writers/etc. don’t mind reasonable use (preferably credited, if authorship is known) of bits of their copyrighted material as long as it’s not being passed off as the user or somebody else’s work.
Others guard their stuff like their very souls, police it’s use vigorously and permit nobody to use it without express permission/payment. They have that right, when all’s said and done, although hopefully they will make their attitude clear everywhere that their material is available, so that their wishes can be followed.
It’s a minefield. If in doubt, don’t do it. If you KNOW it’s not permitted, DEFINITELY don’t do it. These are the only realistic answers.
If you make your living selling your photographs, then maybe it’s understandable you don’t like them being used for free?
Basically, you’re looking at the following;
* IP you create
* public domain
* materials you’ve licensed
* fair use
Category 3 will be non-existent. Category 2 is well explained below.
Category 4 is fiddly to explain and I’m not sure the mods will want us making our own on-spec assessments on the issue of what is and isn’t fair use.
To find “free to use/share” images, go to Google Settings/Advanced Image Search, and select “Free to Use” under ‘Usage Rights’
We had this at work a while ago, and had to clear servers of copyright files and ensure that we only used non-copyright stuff.
There is something of a grey area (leastways, I’ve never had a definitive answer) – if you link t othe file, and don’t host it/display it, then there is no contravention of copyright (apparently)
Just noticed – in Google, this setting resets to default each time.
There is the setting available on the Image results screen, so it looks like this may need to be set each time
A bit of guidance would be helpful – in the nights in, out, reads and noticeboard you can’t post unless you include an image to go with the article.
Is this mainly referring to photos from gigs taken by professional photographers in the press?
One thing I’ve been snooty with in the past is people not only using an image without permission but then adding insult to injury by simply using a link to my Webspace and using my bandwidth as well! I used to regularly look at my logs to check if it’s being done.
I’ve found my photos being used on blogs and to illustrate online articles. As long as nobody is profiting from my work, I don’t mind. One that I uploaded to a picture library ages ago has sold and the library hasn’t told me or paid me, so I’ll be chasing them for my dosh.
Just out of interest, what fee would you expect to receive @Wayfarer?
They sold it for £30 so I would expect half of that. It’s not much but they have either forgotten me or are ripping me off.
The photos are not mandatory. I think album art / dvd covers for reviews are OK but if it’s a live photo you didn’t take yourself or a photo that isn’t free to share then it can’t be uploaded.
Sad in many ways. Obviously creators have copyright, and should have both control and benefits from their creations. At the very least recognition of their rights. However this is a very small non-commercial website with no assets or reach that could be closed down benefiting no one.
He could of course reasonably ask for us to remove the image,
Personally I say let them sue. I’ll miss you folks but they have no chance of doing anything but lose money on legal fees which might lead to them being more focused in their approach next time (and there will be a next time).
Far better to sue Google where the image is probably found.
Except if they sue the owners of the site of course!!!
Time to set up the Afterword Trust to own the site? A not for profit organisation dedicated to spreading the word about the Mahvishu Orchestra*.
*other bands may apply
You’re saying there are other bands…?!?
Could we also have Miles Davis or does that require setting up a separate trust? 🙂
Thanks Rigid. That was very useful advice.
You must keep us updated @Hannah – if a fee is needed to cover use of the offending photo, maybe some donations could be organised to cover it.
Thanks @Bargepole. I will keep you all posted.
Can we ask what the offending image was and who posted it?
It’s not relevant or helpful to talk about the specifics. But there are various websites that trawl the web for unauthorised use of images, so this sort of action and threat is becoming more and more commonplace.
It may be that this isn’t something you want to publicly discuss, and fair play if so, but have you considered ceasing to moderate and setting up a Notice and Takedown mechanic?
It’s a very effective liability shield and, given the light touch moderation approach on here, might make a degree of sense to keep the site operators protected.
Bah – he should be happy we’re giving him exposure*
*Not necessarily my opinion.
How does it hurt for us to know which image has triggered this ?
Gives us some context given we are now going to have to vet images before using them and having to get our head around this new constraint.
I think it is relevant and would be helpful. Not as if we are going to form a picket outside the address of the complainant.
I would imagine that the complainant would take an extremely dim view if the relevant photo were to be posted again. If they tell us which one it is then it only takes one attention seeking knob to repost it and all hell breaks loose. They’re doing the right thing keeping it private.
Could you at least name the “one attention seeking knob”?
I would never do that to you, Gary.
This is not a new constraint. It’s always been the case. You don’t need to know specifics of a single post to check what you are posting for potential infringement.
A hypothetical situation. If a contributor had a grudge against a website like ours, what’s to stop them posting them posting material that they know is copyrighted by someone who is likely to come after us?
I suppose the same kind of things applies with statements that are libelous.
Bingo’s Mechanic thingee sounds like an interesting idea.
The original poster is first inline for suing.
The UK system has been heavily set in favour of rights holders to the extent that the owner can (with diminishing likelihood of success) seek damages from the poster (easy) the website owner (pretty easy) and the website host (not likely).
I KNEW that horse picture was too good to have been drawn by Saucecraft himself.
It ain`t me babe, I don`t know how to post a fecking foto.
The fellow who took the best-known Joy Division pics (and many others for a well-known UK music mag in the late 70s onwards) is actively protective of his work. I purposely haven’t mentioned any names there, but figure it out and avoid posting any of his for a start…
Former (Flat?) mate of Mark Ellen?
No, not him.
I would think the answer is there in black and white.
I’m confused. I think I thought it was who badartdog thought it was. If it’s not, then I’m not sure who it is. Anyway, this is dangerous talk. Don’t post photos, end of story, got it.
Attention seeking knobs? Here? I’m shocked.
They will not be invited for a bounce on my trampoline.
Presumably – if they were so minded – the owners of that Hitler/Downfall clip could shut down the whole internet.
If he could just take Facebook out, that would be fine
Many blogs issue disclaimers on their homepage suggesting that if any copyright offence is caused, it will be removed on notification. True, they are legally vacuous, but suggest good intent. Youtube is constantly saying that copyright holders are about to sue, effectively closing down youtube as other than a vehicle for official releases. I suppose the difference is that, when a song is identifiable, chances are it may become a stimulus for some poor watcher to go and buy. A picture won’t necessarily identify the originator.
Bottom line is if I find any more images used without permission they’ll be taken down. if I inadvertently take one down that is OK you’ll have to contact me and let me know
Can I suggest we ask anyone posting a photo to attribute it correctly. This is actually the right thing to do and it also acts as a check. If you can’t attribute it correctly, you don’t know if it is free to use.
Understood. Does that extend to avatars taken from The Prisoner 🙂
I’ve is a screenshot from an episode of Nationwide. Does that mean I’m going to have Frank Bough coming down hard on me and giving me a right spanking (again)?
Seems only right that you get what you have paid for 🙂
If we think we might have infringed copyright, is there a way to remove images from this site?
If it’s hosted from something like Photobucket, deleting it on there will make it disappear from a thread.
Yeah I thought that would do it, but it hasn’t.
Oh.
Hi Mini
Is there any reason why we now have identical avatars?
The image in question was taken from ebay & is not of my genuine Bimbo Club badge, which of course never leaves its’ climate controlled vault.
Eh?
Just an odd glitch ( now gone) whereby your avatar for your 17:52 & 17:59 posts appeared on my iPad with my avatar & not your ‘eyeballs’.
A little odd, especially as I wasn’t logged in at the time.
I took a screenshot just to safeguard against hallucinations, & it DID happen, but everything is now back to ‘normal’.
Apologies for any alarm.
?
Spooky!
Hillary again, prolly.
Seems to have worked for me, @chiz. I deleted a few pics from photobucket, and they have vanished from the threads and OPs in question. Happily, photobucket have replaced them with a picture of a kitten. Result!
Yes, you’re right, mine have gone now too and it’s a yawning pussy in their place. I guess I must have had something cached or cookied (he says, grabbing plausible-sounding phrases out of mid air)
Yes. Drop me a message, with a URL that points to the image in question on the site and I’ll remove it for you.
Haven’t understood a word of anything above…just saying
It basically translates to: please don’t do anything that would cause us to get sued. Please. I have enough on my plate without a potential lawsuit to deal with as well. Thank you.
I’m a silly old Hector. After you have been to a wedding the photographer sends a link to his site where you can you choose which photie you want. If you try to copy said photie it either says you can’t or it comes emblazoned with ” get your hands off you thieving git”.
So I have always assumed it was the same for images on the internet ie if I can copy and paste it then the original guy or gal who created it doesn’t mind.
Wrong as usual?
Yes, wrong, Wrongness. Just because something isn’t nailed down, it doesn’t mean everyone’s invited to help themselves.
I’m Wrong yet again? I’m sure somebody (no doubt my techie but Mr Bendy son) told me “if you can copy it then it’s ok, Pops”.
I never knew that Donald Trump was a Photographer!!!
Well I for one view this as a whole new avenue of creativity for the Massive.
Remember in Be Kind, Rewind how they decide to recreate famous movies themselves having erased the original tapes? After this bombshell I will be terrified to post any pics. Next time I feel the only way to make my point is with an image of Liz Hurley in her famous dress or some Merseybeat chancers atop a roof, I will instead take a selfie in which I’m standing, moobs augmented to the max by my Duck Tape and safety pin combo (to hell with the potential of injury to myself) or perch some beetles on the heavily disguised launchpad for Thunderbird 2 from my Blue Peter designed Tracy Island model. The throw in takers from my old Subutteo set could act as eager Fabs fans with their arms in the air..
It’s got to be easier than using Photobucket..
Who threatens a blog as thus with a lawsuit? They need to be exposed and pilloried. Was that their first move, a law suit? Sounds like an amateur.
And in reality, with a not-for-profit blog such as this, all that’s required is a takedown notice. Any suggestion of a lawsuit is ridiculous bluff and bluster and wouldn’t get off the ground.
What he said. I’ve experienced this with music, doing a “soundalike”. Bluff and bluster like the man said.
Bluff and bluster from a copyright holder can still get sites onto a bad footing with nervous hosting companies.
Having to change hosts because of threats of legal action, even if they’re not carried through, would still be a major ballsache for the admins.
I’ve just been experimenting with Google pic search, filtering right down to ‘Labelled for non-commercial reuse’, ie fill yer boots. Horsies seemed an appropriate subject…
What you get is basically Wikipedia (assuming of course that the uploaders aren’t themselves breaking copyright), Flickr (again, who knows where the uploaders got them from?) and various copyright-free sites like Pixabay, freestockphotos etc. Plus a lot of screen grabs of news items from YouTube. Wikipedia terms of use are hedged about with warnings (eg out of copyright in US but not necessarily in your own country), but the selection is vast for them as wants horsies. Wikipedia’s Creative Commons licence allows for free reproduction, generally if credit is given. I’ve found in the past that quite a lot of pix are uploaded by someone using a pseudonym, and who knows what or who lurks behind that. On the other hand, a CC licence is a CC licence.
Try The Beano Album and you get precisely 1 item. Open it up to non filtered by license and you get loads more, from blogs mostly. If there’s any (dangerously) copyrighted material amongst it you’d be hard pressed to follow it back to its source, given that it’s mostly scanned from magazines, album covers, eBay etc etc. Precisely the sort of stuff that appears here, in effect. (@johnny-concheroo klaxon: one item is a framed LP/original comic combo, which somebody in Scotland is knocking out for £60 on Gumtree. https://www.gumtree.com/p/vinyl/bluesbreakers-clapton-beano-album-beano/1175796309)
What I think this all comes down to is that there are two groups trying desperately to put the genie back in the bottle we need to be especially wary of. 1) working commercial photographers, and 2) agencies working on behalf of legendary photographers like Don McCullin or Cartier-Bresson.
I wondered about adding 3) picture libraries like Getty Images, Alamy, National Geographic etc, but I simply don’t know if they care about watermarked thumbnails, which are all we’d be likely to use. Better to steer clear, I suppose.
Common sense would dictate that you don’t use any pix from these three groups, and if you follow the pic to its source rather than copy and paste the thumbnail it’s pretty easy to work it out. The waters are much muddier over at enthusiasts’ blogs, and I think common sense should prevail here too.
NB 1: it’s easy, certainly on Photobucket, to add a credit in the form of a caption.
NB 2: just because something’s out of copyright doesn’t mean a photo of it is. An official Louvre photo of the Mona Lisa would be a good example.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to Photobucket to do a bit of housekeeping…
Huh, not as good as mine, although his is the original later stereo version from 1969. Harder to find than the 1966 mono version, funnily enough.
Thanks for that Mike. Food for thought there.
http://i.imgur.com/q1S5sRj.jpg
By the way. Photo © Johnny Concheroo 2016. Unauthorised, copying, sharing, reproduction for any purpose whatsoever will result in an early morning visit to your house from a highly trained SWAT team representing Messers Sue, Grabbitt and Runne. So don’t even think about it. In fact, don’t even look at it!
I think m’learned friends will take a slightly different view of ownership rights in the piece(s) of ‘art’ you took a picture of.
Hold on a minute. As as the album and comic, this clearly shows my own masterwork ‘ Picture Mount in Blue’ A large invoice is winging its way to Oz as we speak.
Edit As well as the photo and comic
Busted! Looks like I’ll have to destroy the negatives.
Nobody here is attempting to profit from posting any image. You’re a wanker if you’re trying to prove otherwise.
I understand this sentiment 100%. For most artists, if you comply with a take down notice they are happy and move on. But for some commercial photographers, legal action against copyright infringement is another revenue stream.
With the growth of the internet, the opportunity for photographers to license images should have exploded, but it didn’t. Use of their photos increased massively but the licensing did not follow because it was so easy just to copy and paste. Faced with decreasing revenue from their work while looking at people using it for free, it is understandable that some people would feel they deserve to be paid and go straight to demanding compensation.
In response to some of the posts above, we must not get confused with the differences between the US and UK copyright rules.
UK has no safe harbour for web sites, the poster and the site owners can be sued. Being a non-commercial web site is no defence. You are on the hook for whatever the photographer claims is the license fee that you failed to pay. There are whole solicitor companies in the UK that do no win no fee infringement cases for artists. This is a very tricky environment in which to run a blog and we rely on posters being responsible and using their judgement at all times.
Apropos of very little, I was at a boutique festival this year and one of the turns was surprised to see photos of her from a previous year on sale at the merch stand for £8, all of which went the photographer’s way.
Well yes. Unless the photographer is commissioned by the subject specifically to take a picture for the subject’s use, the subject has no rights over the picture beyond the usual issues of breach of privacy, trespass etc.
If I might briefly take the stand as Devil’s Advocate then, essentially the photographer is getting something for nothing? viz: “I can take pictures of you and sell them for my own gain, but if someone shares that picture without my permission (even – say – the subject) the toys come out of the pram and people start getting threatened with legal action”? Seems fair enough.
Not entirely for nothing.
They pressed the button/s on the camera, took the shot, possibly cropped, resized, altered contrast etc. to make it appear at it’s best, then put it up on their website or printed copies/had copies printed.
There was -some- effort involved.
If the picture was taken by somebody who was on private property without permission or was in a location where photography was explicitly banned as a condition of entry, then there might well be some redress due.
If you’re in a public place and somebody snaps you there, they own the picture and you have no rights over it beyond the usual ones regarding misrepresentation etc.
The photographer who threatened legal action is likely to be somone who has lost revenue through other using his/her photos – most people would just ask for it to be taken down.
As someone once said: “If you don’t want people to nick your pictures, don’t put them on the internet”
Can I ask for a change to the Nights Out thread?
If you want to post a review I’m fairly sure that the review can’t be posted without an image. Could this requirement be changed?
Yes, it already has been changed.