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:5, Interesting)
Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.
Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?
I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...
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)
Interoperability (Score:5, Informative)
Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place
That's exactly the case for the printer driver problem that kicked off the GNU project. Mr. Stallman and friends wanted to interoperate with a printer, and its manufacturer was being obstructive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
with lack of copyright there would be nothing from stopping reverse engineering and modifying the programs. that field would be far more advanced by today if we didn't have copyright(and already, despite copyrights, we're seeing hobby projects which disassemble amiga code and turn it into x86 binaries with added functionality like opengl graphics).
Re: (Score:2)
Also, copyright is a lazy protection. If it weren't there and I absolutely had to keep you out, I could do things like encrypt the binary in parts so that it never appears in memory in it's entirety. It wouldn't stop anyone dedicated, but it'd keep out 99% of people.
that field would be far more advanced by today if we didn't have copyright
Doubt it. It's not advanced because it's not that interesting. Everyone can write code and share code and be sure that,
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it. It's not advanced because it's not that interesting. Everyone can write code and share code and be sure that, because of copyright protection and whatever OSS license, it will be returned to the public. Surely this is better than having to fiddle with hex dumps for ten hours just to understand that they changed that int to a float.
I think it would be just because of the sheer profit involved in doing so would be great. Take for example how some Chinese company wrote their own World of Warcraft client from scratch (deliberately sans the graphics) that blizzards servers can't distinguish from a real client so that they could run multiple instances of bots on fewer machines for gold farming.
However on that same token, anti-debugger code would probably become a lot more advanced as well.
Re: (Score:2)
that's because wine is clean room.
the projects I was talking are anything but cleanroom. doing development like that today is a total no no if you expect a possibility to release with your own name and commercial use.
Re: (Score:2)
with lack of copyright there would be nothing from stopping reverse engineering and modifying the programs. that field would be far more advanced by today if we didn't have copyright(and already, despite copyrights, we're seeing hobby projects which disassemble amiga code and turn it into x86 binaries with added functionality like opengl graphics).
With lack of copyright, there would be major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs. Sure, you could reverse engineer something without running afoul of copyright law, and they'd take your house and garnish your wages for the next hundred years since it may not necessarily be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
>With lack of copyright, there would be major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs.
There are major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Interesting)
I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...
You seem to be implying that we have a double standard in judging the moral position of copyright litigants.
Let me ask you something: do the "Voltage Pictures" standard contracts in any way, shape, or form conform to the common definition of Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org]?
It's not that we always side with "the little guy" - we frequently side against small vendors making money off of illegal copying, such as Chinese illegal DVD vendors or businesses who sell open-source software.
The rule is this: we generally side against evil, in all its predatory, corrupt, and dishonourable ways.
What's your take on the "Voltage Pictures" contracts, BTW? I think people here would enjoy your views.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not that we always side with "the little guy" - we frequently side against small vendors making money off of illegal copying, such as Chinese illegal DVD vendors or businesses who sell open-source software."
Businesses are allowed to sell open-source software, at least by the two most popular types of free/open-source licenses, BSD and GPL.
Even morally, which is different from what's legally allowed, it's okay to sell open-source software, provided you give something back to the open-source developers,
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Informative)
What's the problem with Hollywood Accounting? Do you have any actual complaint here? The way writers are paid for work is completely regular and legal, and all people outside the business ever hear are the stories, heavily promoted, of certain individuals who thought they could get a better deal by taking their case to the press.
Hollywood accounting is essentially lying about profits so that the producers don't have to pay "percent of profit" agreements. I think the best example is Forrest Gump [nytimes.com], about a year after release it was the third-highest-grossing movie of all time, having taken in around $661 million against a $55 million cost to produce and (at that time) still sitting at a $65 million loss.
Winston Groom [writer of "Forrest Gump"] was only made whole because he had you guys over a barrel: you couldn't make the sequel without his blessing, and he had been burned by the original movie.
Producers have a well-earned reputation as predatory, greedy, grasping, and immoral. I can remember reading occasional accounts of producer behaviour starting with the Three Stooges, with occasional first-hand and investigatory reports ever since with no change in perspective. A simple Google search exposes your history for all to see. You are widely regarded as bad people.
How is Hollywood Accounting more fair than, say, the common dot-com tactic of paying an employee with stock options and then diluting them? Or the technology company policy of paying a patent filer with a flat bonus? The difference is moral opprobrium and marketing, nothing more.
I think you meant to say "less fair".
We don't support companies that screw with employees either, we're pretty consistent about the "fairness" issue.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Informative)
If you can show me a writer's contract that says "percent of profit," I'll surrender my account.
The entire "Hollywood Accounting" narrative was invented by the lawyers of disgruntled writers.
Here you go:
Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure".
Stan Lee, co-creator of the character Spider-Man, filed a lawsuit after the producers of the movie Spider-Man (2002) did not give him a portion of the gross revenue.[8]
The estate of Jim Garrison sued Warner Bros. for their share of the profits from the movie JFK, which was based on Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins.[9]
Art Buchwald received a settlement after his lawsuit Buchwald v. Paramount over Paramount's use of Hollywood accounting. The court found Paramount's actions "unconscionable", noting that it was impossible to believe that a movie (1988's Eddie Murphy comedy Coming to America) which grossed US$350 million failed to make a profit, especially since the actual production costs were less than a tenth of that. Paramount settled for an undisclosed sum, rather than have its accounting methods closely scrutinized.
The film My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered hugely successful for an independent film, yet according to the studio, the film lost money. Accordingly, the cast (with the exception of Nia Vardalos who had a separate deal) sued the studio for their part of the profits. The original producers of the film have sued Gold Circle Films due to Hollywood accounting practices because the studio has claimed the film, which cost less than $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, lost $20 million.[10]
Hollywood accounting is not limited to movies. An example is the Warner Bros. television series Babylon 5 created by J. Michael Straczynski. Straczynski, who wrote 90% of the episodes in addition to producing the show, would receive a generous cut of profits if not for Hollywood accounting.[citation needed] The series, which was profitable in each of its five seasons from 1993–1998, has garnered more than US$1 billion for Warner Bros., most recently US$500 million in DVD sales alone. But in the last profit statement given to Straczynski, Warner Bros. claimed the property was $80 million in debt. "Basically," says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."[11]
Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings, and his studio Wingnut Films, brought a lawsuit against New Line Cinema after "an audit... on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring". Jackson stated this is regarding "certain accounting practices", which may be a reference to Hollywood accounting. In response, New Line stated that their rights to a film of The Hobbit were time-limited, and since Jackson would not work with them again until the suit was settled, he would not be asked to direct The Hobbit, as had been anticipated.[12] Fifteen actors are suing New Line Cinema, claiming that they have never received their 5% of revenue from merchandise sold in relation to the movie, which contains their likeness.[13] Similarly, the Tolkien estate sued New Line, claiming that their contract entitled them to 7.5% of the gross receipts of the $6 billion hit.[14] Overall according to New Line's accounts the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all.[15]
According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget o
Re: (Score:3)
Q: if it is common knowledge of Hollywood accounting tactics, why do people still make deals that depend on it not being the way it commonly is?
I asked this question once to my cousin who is in the business (actor, writer and is dating a director) who basically told me that this is mostly something that everyone knows about but must live with (if you don't take the deal they offer, they will find someone else). Most contracts are apparently standard SAG negotiated rates so are roughly based on the gross (a
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood Accounting is fraud at it's finest. According to Hollywood, no movie in their entire history has ever turned a dime of profit yet they don't seem to be sitting on the corner with 'will work for food' signs.
When people figured out that you have to demand a percentage of the gross, they invented a new term that means what everyone calls gross and then re-defined gross to mean after deducting an amazing variety of trumped up expenses that funnel back through under the table ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
They just want their free stuff. That's it.
No, that is how you justify your arrogance and and why you act so condescending. No true understanding of whats going on, you just simplify everyone as kids wanting free stuff. I bet when you saw the title you got so hard thinking about screaming "double standards" at the users and how morally superior you think you are.
I considered at this point explaining everything but frankly it would fall of deaf ears.
Re: (Score:2)
There really is no morality.
Only power struggles between different interests groups.
The power can take different forms- up to and including violence/murder/mass murder.
The current "war" around copyright is a war of persuasion.
But neither copyright violation nor copyright support have valid claims to inherent morality or moral superiority.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Informative)
I think the big deal is that they put the images on Getty..
so it's like someone taking somebodys music performance from youtube and putting it on spotify and for sale on itunes... rather than someone taking that music from youtube and putting it on vimeo.
they weren't trying to redistribute it for free, they were trying to get a fee for redistributing it.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
your comment makes no sense and is not relevant.
"Either the creator distributes it and gets paid admission" how about creator distributes and pays for the hosting costs? that's pretty usual after all.
I don't think you quite grasp what getty is, it's an image bank you can buy pictures from for publishing(so you can have legit pictures which supposedly pay money to the author of the picture).
for free in case of AP would have been just publishing it as part of publishing news about the countrys crisis. many ph
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So people are only entitled to royalties if they really really need them? Thus, no rich person (or entity) should ever collect a royalty?
Hurt Locker really didn't profit.
Re: (Score:2)
It made $49mil theatrically worldwide on a $15mil budget. Profits were probably hurt by the distribution issues, releasing an independent during summer blockbuster season, negative response from vets, and (later) the lawsuit against the film. File sharing did not really impact the theatrical release. It only made $145k on its opening weekend which is before file sharing would even be able to kick in. Catching Fire opened to $161mil this past weekend and file sharing hasn't gone away, so obviously that w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright, in and of itself, is a good idea. I have nothing wrong with the concept of a person having a degree of control over that which they produce.
The current system is absolutely broken. The punishment is completely out of proportion - it's like having the death penalty for jaywalking. It interferes with legitimate use and with security research. And it lasts long enough that some artists (or rather, the corporations that bought their rights) are effectively stealing from the public, not the other way
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Funny)
Voltage Pictures is a production company, not a studio. Kathryn Bigelow actually produced her following picture with Annapurna Pictures, which is funded by one of Larry Ellison's kids.
My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D
Re: (Score:2)
My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D
Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Informative)
Is that the Sony of Sony v. Universal, who along with establishing the idea that time-shifting of television programs was fair use, also defeated the idea that manufacture and sale any device which might enable an infringing use was itself a secondary infringement?
Or is that the Sony which put rootkits on their CDs as a copy protection scheme?
Re: (Score:3)
Both!
Or maybe, Neither! This is the Sony that was once called "Columbia Pictures," bought by the Japanese from the Coca-Cola Company in the late 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright needs to take into account the type of property being protected. Copyrights should expire at a point where the work is still useful to the public, otherwise it is allowing individuals to take from the public domain and perverting the purpose of copyrights. Does it make sense for software copyrights to have the same duration as movies and books? Patents are only 20 years. As a software developer, my opinion is that 10 or 15 years would be sufficient for software copyright.
As it currently stands
Re: (Score:3)
How did we arrive at life of author plus seventy years, or 95 years from publication for "authorless" works? You cannot simply say that my number is wrong - defend your own position.
As for my own, it is partially based on computer history. Ten-year-old software is old enough to be of minimal use for current productive work, but is still important for learning and for maintenance of historical hardware.
However, it is also based on cultural relevance. It's enough time for the original work to be commercially
Re: (Score:3)
However, it is also based on cultural relevance. It's enough time for the original work to be commercially exhausted
Mix stations, broadcasting "the greatest hits of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today!" frown at your shenanigans.
but for further adaptations (eg. for music, samples or covers) to remain relevant. This is the approximate amount of time it takes for a series reboot to occur, or for a movie to be remade, if we want to keep it relevant to your particular field instead of mine.
But you have a point here, but your solution isn't tailored to your point. Copyright involves a bundle of rights - the right to copy and distribute, as well as the right to make derivative works. There's a huge argument to be made that the exclusive period for making derivative works should be less, as you point out - there are series reboots, remixes, sampling, etc. and if the original author isn't goi
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly think it was just because of all the copyright enforcement France has engaged in with the attempts to protect their own media companies.
It is only fitting that French companies play by the same rules they and the French government attempt to force others to play by.
And I say that after watching movies all night on pirate websites that I would never pay to see in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.
Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?
because they made money from it
I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...
Look into your contract sucker, do you really believe your payment was somehow related to how much money movie made? I wont even mention hollywood accounting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very grateful I don't pay my rent with that kind of deal — no one does, though some producers would love to switch to that model. They call it "innovative" and dangle tales of Kickstarter millionaires in front of the desperate and stupid. I read my deal memo very carefully.
I have a union, thank god. Actually my pension is paid by profit sharing that counts as a "cost" from a "net"
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: (Score:2)
There is far less hypocrisy than you think around here regarding copyright.
I respect copyright. Specifically, I respect that idea that on a very temporary basis you are afforded some legal rights that allow you to profit from the work. Obviously, you're doing this as part of a group and that applies as well.
What I do not respect, and you can go suck a big bag of dirty dicks for, is any kind of support for:
- The curtailment and abrogation of my rights and freedoms in order to suit your agenda in any way, sha
Re: (Score:2)
Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.
Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?
I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...
I'm going to point out that due to Hollywood accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org] that any money you were promised on sales of the movie, you were never getting anyways. In fact, the Hurt Locker sucked so bad, no one wanted to pay to see it in the theaters and no one wants DVD's or Bluerays of it.
Rest of your comment is typical of people who don't understand how corporations are raping the public domain in the name of profit.
Re: (Score:2)
> Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?
AFP was wrong to take the images because they didn't own them. As a professional photographer, I expect to be paid for my work, unless I choose to give it away. (Which I have chosen to do on occasion, usually requiring a photo credit.) Using my w
Re: (Score:2)
It's about usage and proportionality.
This was wide scale COMMERCIAL usage. Were all the licensing paid out appropriately, it may well have reached that number (I don't necessarily agree that "licensing" is right, but that's another issue for another day)
Large corporations can afford a huge payout and they should also have to play by different rules because of how said largeness affords them power and control that you and I can only dream of.
Individuals can't be expected to play by the same copyright rules
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I endorse a return to a sane copyright law: 5 to 20 years from first publication, then it becomes public domain.
Copyright laws suck, because indeed information wants to be free. Today, however, it is not. So if someone makes money by claiming property over some information, at least do it by giving a part of the money to the guys with a minimum of merits.
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: (Score:2)
You are discounting several factors in the decision making process. One, the corporation that got busted (getty) has never hesitated to enforce it's own copyrights, so there's a strong element of hypocrisy when they lift someone else's copyrighted works. Next there is the commercial vs. personal use difference.
I eagerly await Getty announcing that if you see their works online somewhere it's fair game for commercial use.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright worked as intended in this case. They were new works rather than some fifty year old song, and the pirates appropriated the work for commercial use. They were getting money that should have gone to the photographer.
In your case, someone DLing "The Hurt Locker" costs you nothing, the uploader gains nothing, and the downloader might think "hey, great movie" and see the sequel in the theater.
BTW, Read my book. [mcgrewbooks.com] For free. Yes, you can buy it, too; the printed version is superior -- typeface, etc. That'
Re: (Score:2)
If oxygen were privatised, then a lot of oxygen billing agent job positions would suddenly be filled.
The right for people to breathe air freely would not be trumped by the right for oxygen billing agents to keep being paid.
Newayz, the immoral act here is greed.
Re: (Score:2)
I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...
Good to point out hypocricy, but BAD to bring up "The Hurt Locker". The company made absolute arses of themselves with their rhetoric against file sharers. Most of Hollywood manages to somewhat maintain their dignity while speaking out against piracy.
As for slashdot being hypocrites (ignoring that the people commenting pro-Morel in this story aren't necessarily the same as those who come out against Hollywood), I think it's mainly a subjective moral judgement. There are many substantive differences between
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone has a vested interest in their opinion. So what? It doesn't make them wrong. Seems like you just don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy he's pointing out.
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice (Score:5, Funny)
Can't decide if you forgot a smiley at the end or not.
My argument's quality is orthogonal to my employment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Voltage has gone back to producing million dollar genre films and international acquisitions, which is to say, producing a Oscar winner for best picture has gotten them absolutely nowhere, but for the money, of which there was very little.
Probably because it was a really crappy movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. Though the difference in financial success between THL and ZDT is the epic level of hype generated for the later, and the support Sony was able to give it.
Admittedly, I haven't seen ZDT either, for much the same reasons.. but a film that opens on nearly 3000 screens is going to gross more than one that opens on 300.
Besides, ZDT benefited from "patriotic fervor". If it followed the usual 2:1 ratio of foreign to domestic grosses it would have made less than half of what it did; instead it has a r
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's some Hollywood accounting for you.
(BTW, I obtained The Hurt Locker legally, so no checks for $0.00 from me)
I smell... (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Big payouts like this are not in line with the actual loss. Was the image worth $1.2m? perhaps but i doubt it. Particularly with this being just one of many outlets that used the image. Do other photographers get that much? no. So it makes us all feel good until we realise that ultimately the costs are passed onto us. Instead the lawyers get rich and that just breeds more lawyers.
Big payouts for medical problems act as a lottery and while they look like they penalise the doctors they just penalise the re
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different to the vast fines the IP Barons demand when someone downloads a song? Except that, in this case, they actually profitted from his work rather than just downloaded it to look at.
So long as copyright exists, media corporations should pay far more for violating it for commercial use than any individual for private use.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we dont pass the costs on...
And in any case i dont agree with the IP Barons exploiting us any more than i agree with lawyers exploiting anyone.
These payouts get positioned as "justice" but they are not really.
Re: (Score:2)
When a large insurance payout goes to someone of something ridiculous like $50 million, to people who would be lucky to make a million in their lifetime, people cheer, yet complain when it means their medical costs go up to cover the doctors insurance premiums.
It is good that the correct source was found and that he won the court case but this is not the correct way to solve these problems.
You make a good point, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Others would use that same point to defuse righteous cheering and encourage solemnity at the outcome, and maybe imply that it is in our best interest *not* to encourage such outcomes. Not holding the perpetrators' feet to the fire would be a worse alternative.
Do you have an alternative? What do you propose?
Re: (Score:3)
Payouts to the victims should reflect the loss. Punitive damages should not be in cash or if in cash should be paid to the state, just as normal fines are. The focus should be on what is being done to avoid this problem in the future. So in this case AFP would have to show that they have the process and steps in place to ensure that the issue is not repeated. Punitive damages could be in the form of them doing charity work or other non-cash forms. If the directors have to give up every saturday for a ye
Re: (Score:2)
I have trouble seeing how that's a bad thing; people should be compensated for their work.
You didn't read a thing (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/16151225339/statutory-damages-strike-again-afp-getty-told-to-pay-12-million-using-photo-found-via-twitter.shtml
Start with: AFP sued Morel first. Wait, they sued him for using HIS image? Basically yes, they claimed commercial defamation against him. even though he sent them a letter, and had not gone public...
They claimed Twitter's TOS allowed them to take the image and use it without pay or attribution even.
Then they claim Twitpic's TOS allowed it when that didn't pan out.
After that, rather than trying to settle, they stuck to their guns and took it to trial anyways. And at trial...they lost. And they were penalized with 1.2 million in statutory damages the maximum award of 150,000.00 per infringement (there were several uses of the photo in question apparently) by the jury. Plus an award for DMCA violations (reports are sketchy on the actual amount, but 16 violations with a minimum of 2,500.00 each so its not chump change either), AND attorney's fees.
So, your premise that this guy is a douchebag and sued these guys in court to get a massive payout on some silly little pic is actually factually incorrect and entirely baseless if you had bothered to read either of the stories covering this. AFP and Getty were the dickbags here, and they apparently pissed the jury off. Everyone SHOULD cheers these kinds of payouts, they ARE ridiculous. This level of statutory penalty should make eyes pop and faces redden, and everyone should sit up and take notice when a big company gets hit by them and not just individual citizens who really will never pay even a fraction of these amounts. I hope this slows down the copyright maximalists a little bit, to see that it can and will eventually begin to bite them and with the world at large fairly sick of seeing the big guys push around people, maximum damage awards will be fairly common against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
So what... (Score:2)
Getty Images had about $945 million in revenue last year, according to a March credit report by Moody's. That's up from $857.6 million in 2007, the last full year in which the company reported financial results.
That is 2008....do you think they really care about part of 1.2 million? Do you think it will change attitudes and behaviors?
When the shoe is on the other foot... (Score:5, Informative)
Getty Images makes no bones about asking a lot of money for their images and making sure they get paid. I own a business that among other things produces fine art prints. Some time back a customer asked about a print of a particular Old Master painting that wasn't listed in any publisher's catalog. Tracking down a high-resolution image that I could print myself led me to Getty Images. The minimum royalty for this kind of use was in the $300 range. The rep came right out and said that their royalty structure would not be economical for one-off print like I was seeking.
This, BTW, is for an image that is theoretically in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
The painting is in the public domain - a recently taken photograph is not. The two are not the same thing.
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.
Bridgeman v. Corel; damage (Score:5, Interesting)
The "image" may be in the public domain but photographs of it are not.
Depends on the country. In the United States, the Southern District Court of New York ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation that faithful photos of a public domain painting aren't original to get their own copyright.
Handling and photographing (the lighting) artwork irrevocably damages it a little each time.
In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?
Re:Bridgeman v. Corel; damage (Score:5, Funny)
In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?
The camera steals its soul.
Re: (Score:2)
Handling and photographing (the lighting) artwork irrevocably damages it a little each time.
In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?
It doesn't. But pictures of artwork professionally taken rarely are done that way. They have light stands and reflectors and the lighting done under the photographer's control, not the museum's. Generally at least two lights, projecting at 45 degree angles to the work to evenly light but bounce in a way that wont cause glare.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking, if you make a near perfect reproduction of an existing work, you cannot then claim it as an original. If that was the case I could make a near perfect reproduction of an mp3 and say it's original. I wonder how the RIAA would feel about that?
Why did the other companies settle? (Score:2)
I don't understand why Getty's client settled ... Getty might be aware of the lack of due diligence on AFP's part, but I assume their clients were not. How can they be held responsible?
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.
The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court wo
Re:Why did the other companies settle? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.
The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court would likely keep any penalties as low as possible if you could prove that. Some juries might even toss it out because of the mens rea [wikipedia.org] involved but it would require going to court and risking losing the case.
No, if I can prove you swore to me that you owned the copyright and I could distribute it, I'm entirely off the hook... Or technically I am off the hook, and you're the one who's boned.
The rule is Rule 14 [cornell.edu], which states that if I'm sued, I can bring you in as a third-party defendant if you're liable for all or part of the claim against me: I infringed the copyright, but because of your fraud, you're responsible for my actions. The best part is, if I can prove that tiny piece of it - show my contract with you, for example - I can walk away from the copyright infringement case and never have to show up in court. If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.
This also comes up in insurance proceedings. If you sue me and I'm fully covered by insurance, I'll just bring in my insurance company and let them defend the suit if they want. I don't care because, win or lose, I don't pay anything.
Still cheaper to settle (Score:2)
Showing up in court, bringing a lawyer and all that would most likely cost way over $1000, regardless of what the case was or how much preparation was required. If the original photographer settled for an amount below that, which isn't that uncommon as a publishing fee for news photographs, they'd still be cheaper off than going to court and getting themselves off the hook.
In the USA, you usually can't get your own costs reimbursed for such a case, even if you win. In other countries, you often only get a
Re: (Score:2)
If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.
But does the claim go through you or past you, that makes a huge difference if your "third party" can't pay or has hidden their assets or they're abroad or whatever. Will they then take your house, car and savings while you're stuck with a valid but useless claim against that third party? Like if your insurance company went bankrupt between the car accident and the payout you're not off the hook, the claim is against you as the driver first and your insurance company second. It's not a big deal with insuran
Re: (Score:3)
My first guess is that the settlements were reasonable and it meant they didn't have to go to trial. =P
Even if they would win, it would be bad press for them to be dragging a little guy through a trial in which they admitted using his photos without his permission, but instead argued that they were themselves defrauded by a third party. As far as I know, they would be found liable for damages, and then be told to sue the third party (in this case, Getty) themselves to recoup their losses.
For the Haitian p
Re: (Score:2)
They probably settled for a much lower amount, and it was cheaper than fighting in court. Plus, it's bad publicity fighting someone who lived through that earthquake just to have his work stolen by corporations and then used by your own corporation.
The Getty Images that threatens website owners? (Score:4, Insightful)
Making money from Disaster (Score:2)
God (or the spaghetti monster) forbid the money spend on those lawsuits and the payouts would go to, you know, the victims of the earthquake.
"Haitian Photog" (Score:3)
I pronounce photog as "pho-tog". I think it is a Vietnamese dish.
Re:Photog (Score:5, Funny)
You're a douche. Just so you don't have to look it up, that's short for douchebag, and I'm implying that you're only useful for cleaning vaginas.
Limited subject lengths (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if it's the industry suing someone then it's the amount of redistributions that is the amount of infringed works, if someone is suing the industry then it's the amount of copies made that is the multiplier. perfect sense, no?
what should have been the multiplier would have been the amount of times they got paid through getty for the photos..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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:He didn't understand how the Internet works (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Yeah, use a browser other than IE and/or some sort of flashblock.
I make a point of saving any images on websites that attempt to block 'save as' by disabling the right mouse click. I normally find this out when I'm trying to either open up a link in a new tab or go back one handed (so no ctrl-click). If the site is 'personal' enough that they're probably paying attention, I sometimes email it to them going in a polite way 'Your protection is both a failure and an annoyance'.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, use a browser other than IE and/or some sort of flashblock.
Ahah! Check-mate! Flash-based / JavaScript-based image viewer; that renders the image, without your browser having access to a JPEG formatted file ---- complete with DRM; so if you use screencast / screenshot software to snap a picture of the display; your screen capture will show a little black box, instead of the image.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It doesn't work so well; if you use a small image size for sample purposes, and calculate the lowest resolution that is transparent for the size and sample medium selected, and then, you watermark your image samples. You can look at the sample, but not easily reuse it for publication ---