Copyright Questions

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 05/28/2015 at 15:32 • Filed to: copyright

1

32

Now that Gawker and its subsidiaries are getting serious about © infringement (as they should), is there anybody around here or at Gawker/Jalopnik that can answer specific questions relating to use of images? Anybody? Bueller?

SteveLehto > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 15:39

2

Depends on the question.

Possibly.

ttyymmnn > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 15:40

1

I’ve got to go get my boys from school. I’ll write a couple of questions when I get back in about 20 minutes.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 15:42

0

I’m definitely not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be just like positing an image to Tumblr or any other blogging platform.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > For Sweden 05/28/2015 at 15:48

1

I posit that you are confused. Or had happy fingers and simply made a typo.

mcseanerson > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 15:51

0

Do we have any issues to worry about with posting our own images like not retaining the rights to them? Does this only affect the front page or will there be concerns for Kinja pages as well? Do commenters need to attribute their pictures?

For Sweden > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 05/28/2015 at 15:53

0

No, it’s actually spelled Tumblr

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > For Sweden 05/28/2015 at 16:00

1

I’ve got nothing. You are truly a progeny and have stumped me.

For Sweden > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 05/28/2015 at 16:03

0

Here’s some more i’s if you want to try

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ttyymmnn > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 16:06

0

Having worked at Kinko’s for 10 years (back when it was still just Kinko’s) and having done a dissertation, I’m fairly well versed in ©, or at least the spirit of ©, but not necessarily the use of images in the Internet. Here are some situations:

Anything from the Government is Public Domain. But what about a picture that clearly originated with the government but is not credited as such? For example, I want to use a photograph of WWII military plane that was obviously taken during testing. It’s almost certainly a government photo, but there’s nothing to say it is, and I found it on Pinterest. Can I use it, assuming that it is Public Domain?

I understand that many images on Wikipedia and through Wikipedia Commons are free to use, either with no © claim made or with appropriate attribution. But often it is not clear how the owner wants to be attributed. Is it enough to say, “Photo by John Doe via Wikipedia Commons” with a link to the Wiki photo page?

The vast majority of my work here is doing historical aviation posts (perhaps you’ve seen some of them). At what point does the doctrine of Fair Use kick in? I’m not claiming that the image is mine, I’m not monetizing it. But, if that image gets shared to Jalopnik as part of my article, a site that has advertisements, does that change anything?

I have the sense that my efforts at due diligence are probably adequate, but I don’t want to run afoul of anything.

Thanks for you time.

Patrick Nichols > mcseanerson 05/28/2015 at 16:09

0

It’s the internet... I know anything put on instagram or facebook we lose the rights to. I mean nothing is ever enforced as long as no one is making money off your image really

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 05/28/2015 at 16:10

0

Right, but how careful do you have to be about attributing the image, and does anything change if the post gets shared to Jalopnik or any other flagship site?

mcseanerson > Patrick Nichols 05/28/2015 at 16:13

0

That’s why I put all my images that I actually care about on Flickr and then share the Flickr post to Facebook.

for Michigan > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:15

0

As for Wikipedia images, if you download it through Wikipedia’s interface instead of just doing Right Click -> Save As... or Right Click -> View Image. The download popup will include an area that says whether you need to attribute the image and will even give you the proper text if you click on it. You can check out any of the infographics I’ve posted for samples of the attribution output from Wikipedia.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:16

1

That I don’t know.

I’d say ask Gawker Media corporate, but judging from the union-discussion post on Gawker that office is going to burn down by the end of the day.

ttyymmnn > for Michigan 05/28/2015 at 16:22

0

That’s helpful, but let’s look at an example. There’s a picture of an airplane, and it lists this as the attribution:

By Peter Ehrbar (Own work) [GFDL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.h… , CC-BY-SA-3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa… or CC BY 2.5 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.… ], via Wikimedia Commons

Is it enough to do this: Photo by Peter Ehrbar via Wikipedia Commons

SteveLehto > mcseanerson 05/28/2015 at 16:23

0

I don’t get why you’d do the Flickr thing. If you took the pic, you own the copyright. If you want to be as protective as possible, watermark a copyright symbol on it. But you and I both know that you are unlikely to sue someone for copyright infringement.

I have had my pics taken and used without my permission. I know of a site that has reposted my pics with a big sign that says my pics cannot be used without THEIR permission.

Unfortunately, the internet is full of people who ignore copyright. In fact, it is the entire basis for Youtube’s original business model.

What specifically is it that you are trying to protect or that you are worried about?

nermal > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:24

1

I always just go to Google Images to search for what I want, then right click / copy image location, and paste into the image box here. It’s only a few clicks, IDGAF afterwards.

ttyymmnn > nermal 05/28/2015 at 16:27

0

Arrrrr.

mcseanerson > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 16:28

0

I’m not so much worried about someone using my stuff without permission as much as trying to claim they have ownership over it and I can’t use it without their permission. My understanding was that images posted directly to Facebook that Facebook owns the rights to them. Perhaps I was misinformed.

SteveLehto > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:36

0

For what it’s worth, you should know that Kinko’s is and was FULL of You-Know-What. They put those stupid copyright notices everywhere as if they were going to get sued for infringement. And everyone still sat in there and copied course packs and text books all day long.

You are correct: Gov’t stuff is fair game. Here is my rule of thumb. If it is old and carries no Copyright symbol, it is probably fair game. That is really the purpose of that symbol and notice in the first place: To put people on notice of the claim. If it’s not there, they would then have to tell you. Then, you take it down.

That’s the beauty of the internet. I’s not like an encyclopedia where it gets printed and stays printed. That picture of a used car lot I thought was public domain? I’ll yank it and replace it faster than you can call an attorney (to find out you have no claim once I’ve taken it down.)

I have written a ton of stuff here and elsewhere and used lots of pics I have found. I also have 5 or 6 facebook pages. I have never had anyone tell me that something I used was not Okay. I know that when I need an illustration for an oppo piece, I get them from those sites that offer pictures for that use (and credit them accordingly). The key to copyright law from a practical standpoint is that you won’t get in trouble unless you are flagrant in violating an obvious copyright or refusing to take down copyrighted content once you have been asked to do so.

SteveLehto > mcseanerson 05/28/2015 at 16:41

1

You are misinformed. That is one of those urban legends that goes around every few months. I have actually sent a take down notice to someone who was using a picture of mine without permission. The reason it bothered me was that it was an unusual picture and they did not credit me. In the past I might have said, Go ahead but give me credit. But this guy is a jerk who I had problems with in the past so I sent a note and said Take it down.

The various legalities that are raised by Fbook and so on (I know people will still argue with me on this but I’ll try ONCE to explain it) is that you are indemnifying Fbook and the other host sties so that if you post something on their site, they won’t get in trouble for it. But no, they do not own your stuff, nor can you go and take stuff off those sites and use it without permission.

In fact, I can think of cases where people have successfully gone after people who have stolen pics off of social media sites.

ttyymmnn > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 16:44

0

For what it’s worth, you should know that Kinko’s is and was FULL of You-Know-What. They put those stupid copyright notices everywhere as if they were going to get sued for infringement. And everyone still sat in there and copied course packs and text books all day long.

It wasn’t our job to police the self serve section. Every time anybody asked if they could copy something, we were trained to say, “There are © notices posted in self serve. If you feel this is something you are legally allowed to copy, then you can make that decision for yourself. But I will not help you, nor will I do it for you.”

Do you have access to Getty or other sources that Gawker pays for? Sounds like good advice, and maybe I’m worrying too much.

Thanks for your time.

mcseanerson > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 16:44

0

Good to know.

SteveLehto > SteveLehto 05/28/2015 at 16:45

0

In furtherance of the anticipated flames: from Facebook’s Terms of Service:

“You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook”

As for the hoaxity of it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new…

this is not matt farah's foxbodymiata > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:46

0

I always assumed that since I receive absolutely no financial benefit from my posts, I can use whatever the hell I want. we really use kinja like a social media platform, so I don't see the difference... Unless you end up on the FP of course.

ttyymmnn > this is not matt farah's foxbodymiata 05/28/2015 at 16:50

0

Unless you end up on the FP of course.

And therein lies the rub. My last aviation history post got shared to Jalopnik, and I’m hoping that future posts will also be shared. Once the work hits a page with advertisements, do things change? But as you say, I’m not printing T shirts or coffee mugs, or claiming the work as my own. It’s simply an illustration in a work of history. I would think that a simple attribution would suffice.

SteveLehto > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:51

1

I don’t personally have an account with any of those services, no. I am not high enough in the food chain yet. When I submit a piece through Car Buying, they often add licensed artwork to my pieces but I have nothing to do with that.

I can tell you that a month or so ago I got a weird, cryptic facebook message from some moron chewing me out for the artwork that had been added to my piece. He started with all kinds of insults and so on. Eventually, someone from Jalopnik got to him and asked him what was going on and he admitted he was completely mistaken, head way up his anus, and the pic on my piece was not his.

The pics I personally use on my pieces were either taken by me, public domain, from a free pic source, from a friend who gave me permission, or are in a gray enough area to where I think I can get away with it. There is much to be said for the notion of fair use. The other day I ran clips from a document which was probably copyrighted. But I was commenting on the contents of the document in such a way I am sure that it would qualify as commentary under Fair Use.

this is not matt farah's foxbodymiata > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 16:54

0

I guess they do. But if if jalopnik shares a blog post from an unpayed amateur, especially if jalopnik isn’t in the URL, I’m not sure it should change anything. They are just linking to a third party who still gets no benefit, and their page views hat might be monetized are just on a short intro written by an editor.

ttyymmnn > this is not matt farah's foxbodymiata 05/28/2015 at 16:57

0

It’s a bit of a can of worms, to be sure. I think I will continue as I have been (or at least as I’m starting to) and make every effort to credit where possible. It can’t hurt. However, going back to locate an image you drilled down into the depths of google to find can be quite annoying and time consuming. Best to do it in the first place.

Chris Clarke > ttyymmnn 05/28/2015 at 17:59

0

Take this wiki image for example. It is filed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license which only requires that you attribute the work in the manner specified by the author. If the author does not specify, then no attribution is required. This is typically how most images on wiki are licensed. I usually simply state “Photo:Wikipedia” at the end of an article intended for editorial purposes. A link would be acceptable if you aren’t sure.

I would feel perfectly comfortable using a historic photo that is most certainly a military or government picture. Also pictures from police, fire, or any other public entity are generally acceptable to use. Worse case it gets requested to be taken down.

Any facebook or twitter image that is shared publicly by the original author is typically ok if you link back or embed.

I also like to search Flickr for “commercial use allowed” and source the author with a link to the flickr photo.

I like to always source a photo even if its public domain, like a military pic so readers don’t get confused and accuse me a stealing an image.

I don’t think any article shared to the FP from outside the Jalopnik domain financially benefits Gawker except to add great content and help build a website worth reading.

ttyymmnn > Chris Clarke 05/28/2015 at 18:05

0

Thanks for the input. I’m probably being unnecessarily anal about it, but since my last history post got shared to Jalopnik, I’m going to be more careful in the future in the hopes that more will get shared.

There’s a great image of an F4H Phantom that I’m leading with tomorrow. I found it on Pinterest, with no credit. It could be McDD, it could be government, there’s no way to know. And I usually also ignore anybody’s claim to an old government photo.

For the image you linked, I’d probably still go ahead and credit something like “Photo by Rtphokie via Wikimedia Commons” and link to the photo info page just to show due diligence. I’ve also added a disclaimer that says unless otherwise credited, all pics are either mine or Public Domain. I suppose the worst that could happen is that somebody might ask that it be taken down.

Stephen the Canuck > mcseanerson 05/29/2015 at 03:40

1

If I remember correctly, posting pictures to Facebook basically grants them a licence to host and display the image to Facebook users, and I believe to use the picture for advertising purposes without compensation.