Copyright and 'fair use'

Sawell

Sawell

Sawell

Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Posts
1,703
Location
Southampton
After a little advice regarding this.

As I understand it, in the context of a news/article based website I would be able to post a picture of an xbox with a view to either give commentary on it, review it, critise it or report on it.

Does this still apply if the image of said xbox was taken by a photographer as a piece of his/her professional portfolio, or even as an image he or she sells?

Does it still apply if it's an image of a celebrity that was taken by a pap? For example, the Daily Fail often use stock images unless it's like a celeb that they're saying 'looks too fat' or whatever with a picture to support. If the sun took the fail's image (which let's assume they paid a pap for) and put it on their website, is that still fair use?
 
The copyright for a photograph remains with the photographer taking the picture, unless he assigns it to someone else (unless it's taken in the course of employment, in which case the employer could be the copyright owner).

If you use a photograph without licensing its usage from the copyright holder, you are open to being sued for unauthorised use.

In your example, if the Sun lift the image from the Fail's website and use it without licence, they can expect to be hearing from the Fail about it.

For example, Getty have a reputation for chasing hard for payment for unauthorised use of their images.

Have a read here: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others

Which says that there is no "fair use" for news reporting in the case of photographs.
 
as said, copyright of an image starts with the person taking the picture, the contents are irrelevant. They can then sell/pass on the rights to whomever they choose.
 
I don't mean to derail but I have a similar situation (but on the other side ;) ). A swedish news website has used part of a fashion promo video that I directed without mine or the stylists/producers permission (we have a mutual understanding that copyright is shared between us). Are they allowed to use the footage, which appears to have been stream grabbed from youtube, and would we have any grounds to ask them to remove the footage?

The video is here:
http://tv.expressen.se/nyheter/Inrikes/1.1959497/tora-21-jag-hade-en-affar-med-jonas
 
no they're not, they should be paying you for the useage. (If they've embedded the youtube video, then I don't know if they've done anything wrong)
 
Abraham said:
no they're not, they should be paying you for the useage. (If they've embedded the youtube video, then I don't know if they've done anything wrong)
Click to expand...

Embedding a YouTube video is legal begal (as long as it's not being used to sell something or passed off as somebody elses work - but that's almost impossible given that the video is linked to your account). Screen streaming a video and then re-hosting it without the permission of the photographer is most definitely breach of copyright.
 
Thanks for the replies guys, I've emailed their editor requesting it to be removed or payment for one time unexclusive use can be negotiated (I'd expect them to do the former as the article is a couple of weeks old).
 
$loth said:
Thanks for the replies guys, I've emailed their editor requesting it to be removed or payment for one time unexclusive use can be negotiated (I'd expect them to do the former as the article is a couple of weeks old).
Click to expand...

Send them an invoice, it will do both at the same time and make you seem more serious. If you send a second if they don't do anything you may even get some money (possibly a nice figure as well, check the web for examples of how much they should pay, then double it for unauthorised use (which is the common thing to do)). :)
 
Amp34 said:
Send them an invoice, it will do both at the same time and make you seem more serious. If you send a second if they don't do anything you may even get some money (possibly a nice figure as well, check the web for examples of how much they should pay, then double it for unauthorised use (which is the common thing to do)). :)
Click to expand...

Good idea Amp, I'll give them a 24 hour period in which to reply then send them an invoice. I believe the 'going rate' is ~£20 per second of footage. The story is very tabloid/celebrity gossip - a model who was in a fashion promo I directed slept with the Swedish Princesses fiancé.
 
I wouldn't have asked them for payment / remove it, i would've just invoiced them outright and then doubled it for copyright theft.

This happens often with urban exploration photographs; newspapers stealing images.
 
$loth said:
Good idea Amp, I'll give them a 24 hour period in which to reply then send them an invoice. I believe the 'going rate' is ~£20 per second of footage. The story is very tabloid/celebrity gossip - a model who was in a fashion promo I directed slept with the Swedish Princesses fiancé.
Click to expand...

won't you have to share any payment with the others involved?

As you said you all share copyright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom