Online Photos Can't Simply Be Republished, EU Court Rules (politico.eu) 154
The European Court of Justice ruled Tuesday that internet users must ask for a photographer's permission before posting their images online, even if the photos were already freely accessible on other websites. "The posting on a website of a photograph that was freely accessible on another website with the consent of the author requires a new authorization by that author," the EU's top court said in a statement. Politico reports: The court had been asked to decide on a case in Germany, in which a secondary school student downloaded and used a photo that had been freely accessible on a travel website for a school project. The photo was later posted on the school's website as well. The photographer who took the picture argued the school's use of his photo was a copyright infringement because he only gave the travel site permission to use it, and claimed damages amounting to 400 euros (~$463). The ECJ ruled in the photographer's favor, saying that under the EU's Copyright Directive, the school should have gotten his approval before publishing the photo.
Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
This is now copyright law works. Just because one person has permission to publish does not mean every body has the right. Just check for possible licenses attached to the pictures. For example a CC-SA is explicit permission to republish. No explicit mention of license = no clear permission.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The only thing this addresses is the entitlement of millennials. They think that just because they can access something online, that they are free to use it for anything they want.
Who would have thought that people before the 18th century were actually millenials...
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't realize the Internet was that old. How did it work back in the 18th century? Carrier pigeon? 8-)
Re: Nothing new (Score:1)
Packet boats
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing this addresses is the entitlement of millennials. They think that just because they can access something online, that they are free to use it for anything they want.
The photographers are the ones with the misplaced sense of entitlement. They are the ones wielding an artificial, government-granted privilege as though it were some kind of natural right.
Also, I dislike this "millennials" charicature. Not everyone born in this age range is entitled, irrational, and deeply intolerant. There are civilized and respectful young people out there, I'm sure of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it was for commercial use but the rule is the same, I made the pic, I own the rights to it.
Generally I will just allow the use without further cost but it depends on what for they need the pic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's when you call it a photograph that the numbers suddenly stops being a number and becomes a protected work of art.
The photographer adds value to the information with composition, the right filters, camera settings, post production etc. Capturing a scene well is an art, and valuable in the sense that people are willing to pay professional photographers for their work. And not just for being there and making random happy snaps either; good photographers get paid more than bad ones for a reason.
With that said: I fully agree with GP that copyright should be considered an artificial monopoly rather than a natural right
Re: Nothing new (Score:1)
The kid did nothing wrong. She used it for a school project so as long as she cited the source in the project, she followed copyright law as I understand it (I am from the United States- I canâ(TM)t speak for European law). It was the school that violated the law by taking a picture of the project and posting that picture online. This has nothing to do with millenials.
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe would be illegal under US copyright law as well.
The act of creating a copy, is the illegal portion, it doesn't matter whether the source is cited or not.
It is also violating the republishing right, by including it in her report; Fair use would not apply as she was not directly commenting about or satirizing the image.
The school also violated distribution rights, by transmitting the image; and the right of public display.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fair use doctrine has explicit clauses that allow the use of photographs or video clips for educational purposes / student projects in the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a blanket exception.
Of the four factors listed here [stanford.edu], this seems to fail 1 and 3.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot the IANAL. My guess (IAANAL) is that a real lawyer would tell you that relying on "fair use" is chancy even if his opinion was that the case was open-and-shut for the following reasons (not all-inclusive):
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the IANAL. My guess (IAANAL)
You are a not a lawyer?
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. I Am Also Not A Lawyer.
This brings back a vague memory of someone posting here an ridiculously long acronym in a similar vein which included a full disclaimer about legal advice...
Google only gives me one hit for IAALBIANYLATINLA and not on /. --- anyway, I remember it being similar to that one but more exaggerated for parody's sake.
How I would search for that post, I have no idea.
You fail (Score:1)
US copyright law specifically carves out a fair use exemption for education, which would have covered the student had she been in the US. Publishing it on the school website is fuzzy, depending on the context. Using it for advertising is not straightforward, but publishing it on the website in pursuit of an educational goal, such as spring a web design learning objectivewould clearly be fair use here.
Re: (Score:2)
I found a copy of Beyonce's new album online and now I offer it to promote my brand. Seems legit.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just amazed that the school bothered to even challenge this, it's so blindingly obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the "schools money" they lost in the case, but "tax payers money", aka "some one else's money" ... and the people involve are to stupid that they are the "tax payers".
Yeah, but is amazing that people go to courts for a no brainer.
Fair use ? (Score:3)
It could have been considered to fall under the various fair use exemption :
- This was done for a school project. I.e.: education.
- The student didn't slurp the whole website, only a small illustrative part (a single photo).
The school DID have reasons to try to challenge the claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair use is a US doctrine and the closest EU equivalent, Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(3) doesn't have an education exemption. Furthermore, Article 5(3) is optional and not necessarily accepted by each member state.
Fair use laws (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, my fault.
Sometime, I forget that I live in one of these countries with slightly saner [suissimage.ch] copyright laws, which also covers specifically school use [educa.ch] (sorry only available in FR/DE/IT, no EN), one of the example case is the exact situation from TFA. Here around, the single mistake would have been making the web archive of the student presentation fully public. Everything else is perfectly tolerated (it's for educational purpose, and the picture is a small part of the website).
Now back to Germany : it seems that is has been going [communia-association.org] through some reform [kluweriplaw.com] and under the latest variation of these law (according to these sources, I'm to lazy and bad at German legalese to check the original law), there *seems to be indeed* a "fair-use" like exception - up to 15% of a work can be duplicated to be used in teachings, including third party viewing and showing it to the public.
I don't think that the website consisted of entirely one single image. And thus the photo should be definitely less than 15% of the content (more over, the source mention that a single image can be used in its entirety).
The only nitpicking would be whether the use of the secondary school was commercial/advertise (they use the paper to advertise what their students do and to display the kind of education the school is giving... that would be a stretch, it's a public school and these don't advertise in Germany AFAIK) or whether it was educational (the school made it public as a paper informing on a subject written by a student).
So according to the laws in vigor in Germany, the School was completely right to challenge the claim.
Then the German Federal Court escalated the question to the European Court, which ruled this way (photo copyright is photo copyright, no matter the educational context or the proportion that this photo occupies within the orignal website).
It might seem trivial, but copyright vs fair use is hotly debated here around in Europe. It was certainly when the law got reformed in Switzerland, and apparently it is currently in Germany. This EU judging might be the manifestation of such : people and institution who weren't happy with how the law got reformed and make all the can to push it toward their goal. (And I almost expect various members of Pirate Party to soon show up and try pulling in the opposite direction).
Re: (Score:2)
Do not confuse the two separate bodies of work. The photo itself is actually a copyrighted piece of work, the copyright is owned by the photographer. The website might be, or might not be, owned by the photographer, but it would have a license to use the photo on it.
The student using the photo is in the clear because it was for educational purposes. However, the school itself may not be for reproducing the photograph itself.
Sane laws or not, just because there's a photo
small part indeed (Score:2)
Just because it makes up a small part of the website does not mean it can be used as fair use or fair dealing
One of the two source I've cited literaly says [communia-association.org] :
Somebody fluent enough in German legalese should check the original law, but it seems that the law considers a picture so small that you might as well cite the whole picture instead of trying to get a 15% crop of it.
The student using the photo is in the clear because it was for educational purposes. However, the school itself may not be for reproducing the photograph itself.
Same source :
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
"For 400€ of damages no less."
This is about the law, about applying it and with sane amounts.
I never understood the USA courts asking for millions of dollars for every little fucking thing, when 99.999999999% of people would never be able to pay even 0.1% of such a ruling.
Re: (Score:3)
no clear permission, true. But might be fair use, depending. Unfortunately there are no guildelines saying "this is fair use", there are only court cases where fair use was successfully asserted.
Re: (Score:2)
whups, I overlooked that this is an EU thing, not a USA thing. I have no real knowledge of how the EU thinks about fair use; it may not be applicable at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Fair use is fair use.
Copying something that someone posted on the internet: is not fair use. Why would it?
Re: (Score:1)
And simply copying the image off the Internet to her report is not fair use. Not in the EU. Not in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Educational use, not for profit, does not affect the market for the original - sounds like fair use. The school's copy of the project, not so much..
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because that's the only factor to be considered.
Oh wait, it isn't.
https://www.library.pitt.edu/c... [pitt.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
It checks 3 of the four boxes of the "four factor test", which is generally enough to be considered fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
It used the whole photograph and didn't do anything transformative, so it failed 1 and 3 at least.
Where does it say that?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you should ask. The answer is: no one knows! This mess is all because of a large range of opinion among both the public and the judiciary about how copyright should work; there is even a large range of conceptualization around these concepts (typically "property" versus "monopoly" --- practically no one thinks about it as an "usufruct" [wikipedia.org], which is my favorite).
See the recent ruling: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How many photos on the web, billions, check the copyright on them all, yeah fuck off, time to change the law. You want copyright, you can fucking pay a fee for it, each and every year. That fee pays for a government web site to store a copy, so people can check against it, that fee to be paid yearly for say 25 years and then it is over. Too much content to watch, why the hell continue to subsidise it at the communities expense when there is far more than be consumed by any person in something like 10,000 ye
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that people want to copy the content aptly illustrates that it is of real worth to society. Photographers and visual artists (illustrators, graphic designers, etc.) have it hard enough already, you need to give them a break. Unless you want everyone in the world to become a lawyer or corporate drone, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
How many photos on the web, billions, check the copyright on them all, yeah fuck off
It's ok. Just check the copyright on the ones you want to use.
You want copyright, you can fucking pay a fee for it, each and every year.
I don't want copyright, but if we're going to have it, I want it to apply equally to everybody. That includes the people with thousands of photos from which they generate no income, as well as the exploitative media industries that generate too much income.
A fee would disenfranchise one of those groups while negligibly helping general public access to cultural artefacts.
That fee pays for a government web site to store a copy, so people can check against it
As it happens there are already fee based image repositories that can be used
Re: (Score:2)
No need to change the law. Just because you can find something it isn't yours, you entitled SOB!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, too many people think "posted to the Internet" = "public domain." This includes people who think they can just grab any photo online and do with it what they want and companies who need a photo for an advertisement and just grab something they see online. Though this seems like a common sense ruling, it's nice to see it reiterated that "it was posted online" is not a license to do whatever you like with the photo (absent a clear license or other statement giving you that permission).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I take a picture of my car and I want to post it, do I need Honda's permission to do so?
Its just a family car, a few years old with 40k miles.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because you are the creator of the photographic composition. If Honda wants to use that picture, for anything, they do need your permission. But Honda is free to create a similar composition.
Re: (Score:1)
There are still people who imagine that Brexit was a bad thing.
UK is censoring wikipedia - https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: Yet... (Score:2)
You make them sound like a gang. Once you're in, the only way out is in a body bag.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pre-Brexit:
- Sterling recovering after financial crisis as one of the best performers of developed currencies
- UK fastest growing developed economy in the world
- Fuel, food, and clothing prices lowest for 5 years
- Job market growing at fastest pace
- Crimes at an all time low
Post-Brexit vote:
- Pound sterling at it's worst point in 4 decades
- UK slowest growing developed economy in the world
- Fuel, food, and clothing prices at their highest ever
- Job market growth slowing
- Crimes reaching new highs
Post-Brexit
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
That nice Boris said so, and he's not a dirty lying self-interested scumbag, is he?
Re: (Score:1)
But it's not like if being found guilty of breaching spending limits or any other referendum laws would actually matter. It's not going to nullify the result of the supposedly non-binding referendum.
The Guardian has articles showing the Conservative Party also went afoul of the election spending rules for Theresa May's first election in charge and the previous one (Cameron) in vital ridings enough to change the outcome of the elections. If the illegal spending didn't happen then in all likelihood the refere
Re: (Score:1)
Did I hear that right? (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright protected images retain their copyright? Even if someone publishes them on a website that is accessible to the public?
I'm shocked at this disturbing turn of events. Next they'll be claiming that news articles retain their copyright even after they've been published online!
How is this even news? We have a lot of anti-IP folks around here, but even they have to acknowledge that this has been settled law... well, as long as there has been an internet. Longer, I guess. I mean, you couldn't just cut a photo out of a magazine and use it in your own ad copy either.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this (Score:1)
Think of it this way, if I'm walking past a concert and overhear a song can the venue demand payment from me? This isn't a 1-1 comparison, but it's also not that far off.
e.g. if you don't want something public, don't make it public. Put it behind a paywall.
Then there's the issue of fair use. e.g. if I
Embedding a link to the image should be fine (Score:2)
After all, that's the kind of function that the Worldwide Web was designed for and intended for.
If someone didn't want that to happen to their image, they wouldn't have put it at a publicly accessible URL on the WWW.
They would have access-restricted it in a private behind-login part of the web instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, as long as the person who links to my image doesn't mind if I replace it with dickbutt or the image of a huge erect penis at any time, that should be fine.
Re: (Score:1)
What if I link to the image instead of copying it to my site?
Then you're not making a copy. Which is why this is bollocks:
As it stands this gets close to making hyperlinks a copyright violation.
No. It states that creating a copy is creating a copy. It doesn't say a fucking thing about hyperlinks.
You'd need the US for that fucking insanity:
https://www.lexology.com/libra... [lexology.com]
if I'm walking past a concert and overhear a song can the venue demand payment from me? This isn't a 1-1 comparison, but it's also not that far off.
Yes, yes it is far off a 1-1 comparison. It's so fucking far removed I'm genuinely amazed you even think it belongs on the same website, let alone under this article.
if I wanted to do something nasty and make sure you couldn't film it I could play some incidental music that's copyrighted
UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.
show a few copyrighted images
UK law has an
Speaking as an anti-IP person... (Score:2)
You nailed it. That I'd personally argue that our worldwide IP laws (particularly regarding copyright and patents) are rather insane and maximalist is in part because of how unyielding things like re-use are, and how narrow and legally perilous the exemptions. And it's why I'm diligent to try to use multimedia unde
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't for advertising, it was informative. "Go to the building that looks like this building, because this is an image of the building." They immediately removed the photo when the owner complained, showing good faith. They weren't profiting from the image, nor were they selling the image. The cropped image is not a sufficient replacement for the original image. And posting the photo on an obscure website that you'd only hit when looking for information about a film f
In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Darn. Sullenly kicks can with a clock hot-glued to the side.
Re: (Score:2)
An EU court ruled that taking an existing invention and hot-gluing a clock on the side does not count as a totally new invention.
Uh, clock you say?
Try not drown in the Unholy Flood of Irony, but you essentially just described how we ended up with millions of iHumans walking around with SIM-enabled smartphones on their wrist.
You might recognize the hardware I'm talking about. Looks an awful lot like an existing invention that includes some hard-coding work to put a clock emoji on the side...
Re: (Score:2)
I will always bEU your beast of burden (Score:2)
There is no safe harbor provisions where as long as a web site takes copyright material down when notified in a timely manner, they can't be held liable. It's what's lead to the explosive growth of Internet companies...in the US.
There is none in the US either (Score:2)
There is no such broad license to completely ignore copyright in the US either. In this story, the school is 100% liable - they put the photo on their web site without any license to do so. (Though the fact that is *is* a school could come into play with the recent changes to German copyright law, making it closer to US law regarding educational use.)
What the US has is a safe harbor for *service providers* who follow the procedure when *someone else* puts infringing material on their network or servers. The
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law is enforced in a much more Draconian way in the US than in the EU, especially the damages that have to paid to copyright holders after infringement are way overboard in the US.
Student work (Score:3)
In related news, students do not retain any copyright ownership of their work that they turn in to a school. The school can post it online without compensation to the student or permission.
Re: (Score:2)
The school can post it online without compensation to the student or permission.
That was why, when I was in college, I did only the minimal work necessary to get the grade I wanted. I didn't put forth any reasonable effort until I got into the workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm.... where on earth is this coming from. Just because they posted online doesn't mean they think they can use it doesn't mean they are asserting ownership. At least in the US, absent special contractual things with a private school, that's not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Europe ... moron.
Re: Student work (Score:2)
a workaround would be as easy as (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is still a copyright violation. The fact that you can't seem to figure that out means you may soon be getting not just a take down letter but a bill for the copyright violation's you do.
When I find people have stolen my photographs I send them a bill. Most pay. Those that don't then get letters sent to their ISP, web host, employer, organization, etc.
Don't steal.
Re: (Score:2)
High court, simple case (Score:3)
It is amazing such a simple case managed to move up to EU Court of Justice.
What did defendant expect?
Good (Score:4)
Good. This is how copyright works. Just because I put my photos onto my website or let someone else use my photos DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE ELSE PERMISSION.
I've dealt with this repeatedly. I send the offender a bill for $500. They pay and then they get to use the photo with permission. If they don't pay I contact their ISP, web host, their organization and anyone else to let them know this person is stealing photos from me. Their ISP and web host routinely will shut people down for having stolen copyrighted material.
Don't steal.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how to even find people using my photographs. I mean, I can use Google Image Search but doing that for each of the several thousand I have on my photo site would cost me more than the $500 I might earn as a result.
Probably not even $500.
Re: (Score:1)
Your comment implies that there is no possible scenario in which someone uses one of your photos without permission and it is not stealing.
Do you actually believe this? Or are you just being hyperbolic, or overgeneralizing?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are the one who is confused.
When I create a copyrighted work and you steal it that is theft. You have taken economic value from me. You can go to jail AND you can be fined AND you can be sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement...yes. Theft...no!
UK definition of THEFT:
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.”
So in your case it can’t be theft, as you still have your photo.
Using your definition, a client not paying me for a day’s work, and using the material I’ve created for them, would be thef
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement...yes. Theft...no!
UK definition of THEFT:
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.”
So in your case it can’t be theft, as you still have your photo.
Using your definition, a client not paying me for a day’s work, and using the material I’ve created for them, would be theft...but it clearly isn’t.
Note that this varies by jurisdiction. In some places, "theft of services" is a defined crime, even though it doesn't involve a specific physical object. Your example may be classified as theft of services, though it may also just be shifted over to a civil court as a contract violation. If you were a regular employee, the common term is "wage theft", though I don't know offhand if it's called that in any place's legal code.
Re: (Score:2)
> Your example may be classified as theft of services
Unlikely. A photograph is not a service, it's a creative work fixed in a tangible medium.
"Theft of service" would be more like, you hire the photographer to photograph your wedding and then refuse to pay him.
Right. The example that I meant was of a client not paying for a day's work.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrighted materials, such as photographs, are property.
Using the copyrighted materials without permission is theft.
You can argue all you want but you're just implying you are a thief.
Re: (Score:1)
Not that guy, but it is not theft, it is copyright violation. And in most cases, it should not be. You took a photo of something and demand $500 for someone else to use your photo? Yet you cannot demand a thing from a person who himself takes a photo that is exactly like yours. Nor can the person who created the thing that you took a photo of, demand anything from you (in most cases, at least). I mean, imagine if you took a photo of a building, sold the photo, and the next day you get an angry letter from s
If you directly make money off it (Score:2)
either way (Score:1)
There is no 'news' in this article, it's just how the law works currently to prevent theft.
Google Images (Score:2)
Could someone please tell Google of this ruling? Or does it only apply to organizations which have fewer than some secret number of corporate lawyers and funds with which to fight a prosecution?
Re: (Score:2)
Less than a year ago, Google lost a case over Google Image search. As a result, it no longer links directly to the picture, but instead the site containing the picture.
Important Question (Score:1)
This is going to ruin the mime business
How much must you alter a photo to get out from under the copy-write law?
Are there any easy tools out there to do the needed modification?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> This is going to ruin the mime business
You say that like it's a bad thing.