China Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Law Firm Finds Success Targeting Those Who Post Copyrighted Images Before you use that copyrighted image on your blog you might want to think twice: It could cost you up to $150,000. Still, if you're willing to take the risk because you think you won't get caught since a lot of people are doing the same thing, one law firms is on to you. They know how the troll the web and are using the power of viral material - and lawsuits - to make bank. Righthaven might not be a household name, but their tactic is simple: Buy out the copyrights for viral content and then sue bloggers and other people who violate copyright by reposting those images. The law firm Google-searches for anyone who may have posted the images and goes after those who violated the rules for the maximum $150,000 and ownership of the site's domain. Most individuals just want the case to end so they chose to settle, which is where the law firm cashes in. They netted about $1,500 to $3,500 each case just by settling with bloggers and other media companies and had 80-plus cases with their first client Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports Wired. Last year, they made at least $308,000 from this method, according to Technology Review. “We believe it's the best solution out there,” Gibson said to Wired. “Media companies' assets are very much their copyrights. These companies need to understand and appreciate that those assets have value more than merely the present advertising revenues.” The Las Vegas-based law firm has another big lawsuit in the works. You may remember seeing the infamous picture of a man being excessively groped during a TSA pat down that originally ran in the Denver Post. (We're not risking the charges by reposting the picture, but you can see the original image here.) The picture of the TSA officer who is really working hard at his job went viral, Righthaven bought the rights and is suing everyone who posted the picture. This includes people who posted comments on message boards, something that hasn't been done before according to Technology Review. Chances are, although some posters could win their case, those being sued will just try to settle to avoid all litigation, which is what Righthaven is hoping. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 man, that's a crappy way to earn a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I can't imagine why people hate lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Man, think about how many images are posted on this board each day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Slimy pieces of ****. Where's a runaway truck when you need one? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 A lot of people out there make a living out of taking photographs, drawing pictures, etc. People who “borrow” copyrighted works without the copyright owner’s permission are, in fact, stealing from the copyright owner. Unfortunately, many people who own copyrights do not know how to go about pursuing infringers of their works. So, I understand that a law firm has stepped in to pursue claims against people violating U.S. copyright law. The firm compensates the copyright owner for the right to do so, and the firm gets compensated by the people violating the law. So…remind me again, what’s the problem? If I steal my neighbor’s car, should I be pissed at the police officer who tracks me down, tosses me in jail, and earns a living for making people like me pay for breaking the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 A lot of people out there make a living out of taking photographs, drawing pictures, etc. People who “borrow” copyrighted works without the copyright owner’s permission are, in fact, stealing from the copyright owner. Unfortunately, many people who own copyrights do not know how to go about pursuing infringers of their works. So, I understand that a law firm has stepped in to pursue claims against people violating U.S. copyright law. The firm compensates the copyright owner for the right to do so, and the firm gets compensated by the people violating the law. So…remind me again, what’s the problem? If I steal my neighbor’s car, should I be pissed at the police officer who tracks me down, tosses me in jail, and earns a living for making people like me pay for breaking the law? The artist in me agrees with you. Where it gets trickier on the web is what constitutes public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I can't imagine why people hate lawyers. 0u9JAt6gFqM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Righthaven has also been sued for exactly the same thing they sue everybody else for. Really POS's as has already been said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 If I steal my neighbor’s car, should I be pissed at the police officer who tracks me down, tosses me in jail, and earns a living for making people like me pay for breaking the law? This is much more comparable to someone slamming the brakes infront of another car to sue for whiplash damages, but feel free to defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 This is much more comparable to someone slamming the brakes infront of another car to sue for whiplash damages, but feel free to defend it. STEP 1: John Doe spends time to create a work that is protected by U.S. copyright law. STEP 2: Jane Doe says, "**** the law," I'm going to steal John Doe's work and put it to whatever use I deem fit. STEP 3: Lawyer X pursues a claim against Jane Doe based on her illegal activity and she pays out. THEREFORE, Lawyer X is to blame for Jane Doe's illegal activity? Okay, sure. Don't let law and common sense get in the way of a rant about lawyers. This reminds me of what happened with Napster users. People essentially stole music on Napster. RIAA pursued claims against those people. But, of course, RIAA was to blame for people getting punished for violating the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Please elaborate. I fail to see how people who infringe on others' copyrights are the victims here. This reminds me of what happened with Napster. People starting illegally downloading music, artists got ripped off, the RIAA started suing those infringers, and the public complained about being punished for their illegal activity. But, alas, don't let the law and common sense get in the way of a good ole' fashioned lawyer-bashing rant. The only tactic I saw that they used was to buy out viral content copyright then google search for the content and sue them for the maximum of $150,000. God bless the USA. Also: The picture of the TSA officer who is really working hard at his job went viral, Righthaven bought the rights and is suing everyone who posted the picture. This includes people who posted comments on message boards, something that hasn't been done before according to Technology Review.[/Quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 STEP 1: John Doe spends time to create a work that is protected by U.S. copyright law.STEP 2: Jane Doe says, "**** the law," I'm going to steal John Doe's work and put it to whatever use I deem fit. STEP 3: Lawyer X pursues a claim against Jane Doe based on her illegal activity and she pays out. THEREFORE, Lawyer X is to blame for Jane Doe's illegal activity? Okay, sure. Don't let law and common sense get in the way of a rant about lawyers. This reminds me of what happened with Napster users. People essentially stole music on Napster. RIAA pursued claims against those people. But, of course, RIAA was to blame for people getting punished for violating the law. By the way I read it, John Doe barely factors into it. John Doe makes image. John Doe publishes it on the internet thru whatever agency. Law Firm buys image from the agency. Sues everyone who has been previously using regardless of the context of use. (I have no problem with artists nd creators getting paid for work being used for commercial purposes. That barks right up my own tree both ways.) I obviously have a lot of art I create, and have to be vigilant that people are not ripping me off. I also know it from the other side. I design sites, and back in the day I made one for a law firm, and I used a small image from Getty Images i found on google. They sent me a letter and gave me 7 days to get rid of it, and I did, and that was it. I learned my lesson and don't use any images I find online for commercial purposes unless I get them from a variety of image houses I pay. But if i post a picture on this site with no financial advantage to be gained by me or disadvantage by them, they can go screw. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 This actually happened to me quite recently. I needed a photo of Dave Goelz (actor/puppeteer who did built and voiced many of the classic Jim Henson Muppets) to associate with a radio piece. I found one online. When I launched the piece I also placed a note on a Muppet Message board letting them know that this thing was around. Amazingly, the person who took the photo I chose was a member of that board. I then asked permission to use it and asked how he would like me to attribute it. He thought it was pretty cool that his photo was chosen and gave me the language he wanted and I adapted. When Dave came to the site a few days later he saw the photo and said it gave him the "willies" and provided me a set of options he preferred I use and I complied moving the fan pic to a album. I think there are times when images are lifted innocently enough and if anyone asked me to remove one I would do so instantly as Bang did, but I think there are also people who are cheap and lazy or want to profiteer off of an artist or photographer's hard work. Sometimes, it's a tough line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Yeah from my understanding of this article, this has nothing to do with the actual original artists. The Law firm is going online and just randomly searching for images that have had never been copy written in the first place, and then they, themselves are copy-writing the images for the sole purpose of suing other people to make a buck. The original artists is never factoring in here. Most people don't make money off their blogs whatsoever, so you'd think they could just agree to take said images down. Not sure why any judge is actually awarding these law firms any money. Kind of ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reic Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 For anyone who is interested in the image in question: oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Some judge might slap these guys hard... additionally all it takes is one person to smartly assert "fair use" talk about the factors of "fair use" (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. I have some doubt these photos were intended as "artistic expression". The moment this company loses this case, more folks will realize that there may be more room for "fair use" than previously thought. I mean, is it "artistic expression" to snap a picture of folks who you haven't even paid as actors? Furthermore, this TSA guy is doing government work; so there's a legitimate purpose in taking a picture of the work. See for instance 2 Live Crew's version of "Pretty Woman"... not copyright infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Is there a requirement that the image be marked with a copy right symbol? Isn't there a requirement that there is a reasonable expectation that I knew the image was copy righted? It seems that if the image wasn't copy right, and I took it, and then somebody copy rights it, my use pre-dates their copy right, and I shouldn't reasonably be expected to continually do copy right searches to see if every image I've ever posted on the web has become subject to copy right after I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 By the way I read it, John Doe barely factors into it.John Doe makes image. John Doe publishes it on the internet thru whatever agency. Law Firm buys image from the agency. The article doesn’t delve into the details. However, the article notes that one of the firm’s clients is a newspaper and that the firm pursued claims against people who “lifted” the newspaper’s copyrighted material. I fail to see the problem with that. Sues everyone who has been previously using regardless of the context of use. I don’t know if that’s the case. Again, the article does not delve into the details. However, I doubt the firm sues everyone who makes use of a copyrighted work. I assume (perhaps incorrectly), the firm does not target people who are using copyrighted works in a way that clearly falls within the “fair use” exception. ---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 10:15 AM ---------- Is there a requirement that the image be marked with a copy right symbol?Isn't there a requirement that there is a reasonable expectation that I knew the image was copy righted? It seems that if the image wasn't copy right, and I took it, and then somebody copy rights it, my use pre-dates their copy right, and I shouldn't reasonably be expected to continually do copy right searches to see if every image I've ever posted on the web has become subject to copy right after I posted. No. Under U.S. law, the creator of a copyrightable work does not need to include the "©" symbol on such materials, although it is generally advisable to do so. Why? Because, if someone "innocently" infringes on a copyrighted work, they may raise that issue during litigation and that "innocent" infringement may lessen the damages. Of course, that argument won't fly if the owner of the copyright included the "©" symbol on his or her work. ---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 10:32 AM ---------- I should note that my views on the subject might be affected by my personal experience. As I've mentioned before, I work as "corporate counsel" for a company that owns several dozen trademarks and hundreds and hundreds of copyrighted works (e.g., print and television ads). As corporate counsel, I am responsible for protecting the company's intellectual property. To protect the company's intellectual property, I order pricey "IP Watch Reports" that identify businesses and individuals that are illegally using our intellectual property. Sometimes, those people are doing business under a name that is confusingly similar to our company's name (in which case they are trying to steal our company's goodwill). Sometimes, those people are operating blogs that distribute counterfeit coupons (and earning income for doing so). Sometimes, people are really “innocent” and didn’t intend to harm the company and aren’t earning income for using our intellectual property (I usually just politely ask those people to stop using our intellectual property). As a result of the infringers’ activities, the company has to deal: (1) pay for those IP Watch Reports; (2) pay outside counsel to litigate claims (when necessary); (3) deal with customers who are pissed off at the company because some dip **** is distributing fake coupons; and (4) pay me to manage this crap. All told, the company spends hundreds of hours and thousands upon thousands of dollars to deal with infringers. So, sorry, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who are using someone else’s property to earn money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No. Under U.S. law, the creator of a copyrightable work does not need to include the "©" symbol on such materials, although it is generally advisable to do so. Why? Because, if someone "innocently" infringes on a copyrighted work, they may raise that issue during litigation and that "innocent" infringement may lessen the damages. Of course, that argument won't fly if the owner of the copyright included the "©" symbol on his or her work. Let me try another example. Let's say I take an image that isn't copyrighted. I then put it in a book and publish and sell the book. Then some party goes out and copyrights the image. Am I then responsible for every book that was sold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Let me try another example.Let's say I take an image that isn't copyrighted. I then put it in a book and publish and sell the book. Then some party goes out and copyrights the image. Am I then responsible for every book that was sold? You can't copyright something after it has been created. If you are using an image that has been put in the public domain, nobody can take that image back and copyright it.You don't have to copyright (verb) something to have a copyright. You have a copyright at the time of creation. You can register your copyright with the government if you want to actually start suing people and collecting damages, but a copyright exists even without registration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You can't copyright something after it has been created. If you are using an image that has been put in the public domain, nobody can take that image back and copyright it.You don't have to copyright (verb) something to have a copyright. You have a copyright at the time of creation. You can register your copyright with the government if you want to actually start suing people and collecting damages, but a copyright exists even without registration. But it doesn't matter if it has the copyright symbol or not? Is anything "new" (i.e. befor the copy right has expired) ever really in the public domain or is it really copyright, but just not registered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 But it doesn't matter if it has the copyright symbol or not?It doesn't matter. The words I am writing right now are technically copyrighted.Is anything "new" (i.e. befor the copy right has expired) ever really in the public domain or is it really copyright, but just not registered?Everything new is copyrighted. A work is only in the public domain if it has been explicitly placed into the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 It doesn't matter. The words I am writing right now are technically copyrighted.Everything new is copyrighted. A work is only in the public domain if it has been explicitly placed into the public domain. So then I just violated your copyright, correct?Sue me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So then I just violated your copyright, correct?Sue me. I was actually thinking of doing the samething, but I was curious who he would sue. Would he sue you or extremeskins.com (and so I'd guess the Redskins) (or would you do both)? But if I can sue the Redskins for every time I've been quoted on here that might be worth looking into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.