Image Lifted From Twitter Leads to $1.2M Payout For Haitian Photog 242
magic maverick writes "A U.S. federal jury has ordered Agence France-Presse and Getty Images to pay $1.2 million to a Daniel Morel, Haitian photographer, for their unauthorized use of photographs, from the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The images, posted to Twitter, were taken by an editor at AFP and then provided to Getty. A number of other organizations had already settled out of court with the photographer."
Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Insightful)
which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh)
You must be new here. GPL only works because of copyright.
Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:3, Insightful)
What does stealing an image from someone on Twitter have to do with doctors insurance, again?
Surely, I must have missed an important step there or something.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:3, Insightful)
With respect, nobody is trying to redistribute anything for free. Either the creator distributes it and gets paid admission, or Kim Dotcom distributes it and gets millions in ad impressions. Ad revenue pays for the "free media revolution".
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not a libertarian and don't care about people getting "above their station". This gives more insight into you, than me. And if you think insurance companies get rid of quacks then you truly are delusional. This is also a reason why the U.S. has much more expensive medical care than most other comparable countries. And more lawyers than other countries too. And it just encourages people to do frivilous lawsuits hoping to win the big lottery.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe there is a strong difference between commercial and non-commercial copyright violations.
When you take what someone is trying to sell and sell it yourself, you've clearly crossed all moral boundaries. You've removed people who demonstrably will pay for the content from the pool of people to pay the creator.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Insightful)
The Getty Images that threatens website owners? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:next week nigga be dead (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)
I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.
Point is, it's possible he knew exactly how the internet works, but with the expectation that he can display his works without having them ripped off, any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.
Re:When the shoe is on the other foot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually the photograph is only supposed to be copyrightable if it contains a novel and creative element - i.e. if it's a good straight photo with no funny stuff (like you want for a print) then it is not copyrightable.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I don't think you understand the Slashdotter's complaint in this case.
The issue here is the big copyright holders constantly try to get legislation passed and put in technological means (enforced by legislation) to stop people copying from them. They even go to the extent of trying to introduce "piracy is wrong" lessons in the school curriculum. But at the same time they are quite happy to pirate material off anyone they perceive to be unable to defend themselves, a classic case of "do what I say, not what I do". Quite rightly Slashdotters feel that those who constantly preach the "don't pirate our stuff" message and even go as far as getting legislation passed should be practising what they preach.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point, any agent who recommends that his client accepts a contract that promises a percentage of the net profits should be dismissed immediately (as incompetent), or perhaps sued for not acting in his/her client's best interests.
While this is true, it also condemns the "accounting" used by Hollywood in the same breath.
Just because "that's the way it is" doesn't mean it is right.
Movies are incredibly profitable for the Hollywood corporations. If their accounting methods were fair and above board, requesting a percentage of the net profits would be an equally fair way to distribute the monies of a successful movie. The salaried workers of the studios would get their weekly pay-check, and the contracted directors, actors, etc. would get paid based on the quality of their work, encouraging them to make the best movie they can.
That lawyers and agents have to demand a piece of the gross is a symptom of the problem, not the solution.
The Hollywood system is corrupt to its core, so it is no wonder it garners so little sympathy from Slashdot, even when it sometimes is in the right. Having bilked so many people out of billions over the years, few feel any hypocrisy in rooting for their opponents if it means Hollywood gets some long overdue comeuppance.