Since the mid-90’s, people have been posting pictures on the internet. And for the same amount of time people have been stealing them for personal and commercial use. Take for instance the thumbnail screenshot from Family Guy below. If I were compiling and printing a book about cartoons, then my use would be infringement. If I were making an advertisement for a magazine, then my use would be infringement. As I am using it as part of critical commentary (or news reporting), then it is an exempted use under 17 U.S.C. § 113(c):
“(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.”
In contrast, this blog posting describes how a picture of the author’s son listening to an iPod was taken from the internet and put in print ads [edit: by electronics retailer Vinderen Elektriske]. While the outcome was a settlement by the infringer for $4000, it is still a good example of what not to do. In the article the author indicates that he would have gladly given permission to use the image for much less (in exchange for a Nintendo Wii). Before all the graphic designers out there think that paying only $4k if ever caught is a good risk to take, I would like to point out that this instance was not in the United States, so your mileage may vary. In the U.S. the damages run between $750 and $30,000 per infringement, and up to $150,000 if the infringement is willful. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b),(c). In addition, there is the possibility of criminal charges and jail time of up to one year if for infringement that is a commercial use, such as in the story above.
“(a) Any person who violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
. . .
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.”
18 U.S.C. § 2319(a), (b).
Filed under: Copyright, Fair Use, Infringment Cases
Unfortunately, payments for cases like these in Norway is pretty low. And the lawyers don’t operate on a “no cure no pay” basis. In other words I had to pay running costs for my lawyer during the case.
I have learned a lot from this. Saying that I would probably let them get away with an apology and some sort of small compensation for my kid might have been right at the point when I discovered the use of my image.
However, this case and all the communication around it have thought me that I should never let people get away too easy in situations like these. If we do that we cause trouble for both amateurs publishing images on the net and professionals making a living of images.
The $4000 is a tiny part of the punishment this shop ends up with. If you Google “Vinderen Elektriske” today three of the ten first hits is about a cruel shop stealing images.
Today Norway’s biggest financial newspaper interviewed me about the case…
And a small correction: the author is a “he”, and not a “she”. :-)
[...] was the jokes. You find more interesting thoughts here. Share This | Tagged as digital rights, copyright, photography, law [...]
Gender pronoun edit made. Thanks.
Erm, minor nitpick here, Nintendo makes the Wii.
Other than that, very interesting article!
Sory about that. I had Sony on the mind as I have been reading about the Playstation 3 launch, pricing, and featureset. People say that games sell systems (i.e. Halo 3), but I see lots of parallels between the PS3 and Sega Dreamcast (and 32x for that matter), Atari Jaguar, Nintendo Virtual Boy, the 3DO. . . the list goes on. So, purely for sport, I am trying to predict the success/failure of the PS3. I am also wondering why Apple has never jumped into the console business,. But this is a very different subject.