Snow96
March 12, 2019, 4:33am
21
Now just as an example of why I crack down on the side of extreme caution.
This is on movies, that have special laws to somewhat allow what this company did.
Ordinary pictures and copyrights don’t have the special laws.
https://www.ksl.com/article/46508999/vidangel-found-liable-for-copyright-infringement-in-disney-lawsuit-judge-rules
Company could be on the hook for at minimum (800 titles at 200 dollars each) 160,000 dollars. If the Jury goes full out $120 million. Then additional fines for another portion of the law they have been found guilty of violating.
When I say copyrights are nothing to mess around with, this is why.
Snow96:
madasheck:
I disagree slightly. Having posted copyrighted pics in the past elsewhere, the only thing the copyright holder cares about is the photographer’s credit (not the origin, since freelance photos aren’t the property of the paper). That’s not to say, @Snow96 , that you can’t require a summary for whatever reason you want. But legally, the credit is what the photographer cares about. Same with bylines from stories. Writers care about their credits. Believe me. I know that all too well.
Interesting, though, how copyrighted pics are allowed to be shared on FB all the time. The internet makes things quite murky.
Depends on the photographer, depends on why they took the pic, depends on if they are trying to make money off the picture or are trying to make money off it.
That being said when you just randomly post a pic (no real link to where it came from or who took it) how is it determined what the photographers intent is?
Photography and bylines are VERY VERY different. Trust me. I’m a photographer who sells pictures. I’ve sent e-mails asking for some to be taken down before. The guy in the booth that I gave my card to. I told him when I cam back the next day my picture should be out of his slide show (the particual picture I had up for sale at a certain price).
The summery is required of links . . . you know that. Posting up a picture is the same thing – needs a summery (links to articles that’s provided by the system now) and it also needs commentary.
I think we’re discussing on two separate planes, but thanks for the information.
Snow96
March 12, 2019, 4:43am
23
You may need to use an icognito window to view this article.
But this one, the company that owns the picture has been going after blogs and social media sites for posts of their copyright picture.
This is starting to happen more and more often.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/08/how-copyright-is-killing-your-favorite-memes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f94e42d5ec5b
Just posting an innocent meme can get Hannity forums a huge bill for copyright infringement, and demand for payment for allowing it’s use.
GWH
March 12, 2019, 9:56am
24
No, I mean if it is theirs, just say so.
