Court of Justice of the European Union Press Release

[losdemas]

"The posting on a website of a photograph that was freely accessible on another website with the consent of the author requires a new authorisation by that author" (link to ,pdf of press release).

 

Will this have any effect whatsoever on infringements?

[Colin Woods]

I can't imagine infringers caring much for a new legal ruling. 

[Starsphinx]

The way I read that is simply underlining what most people already understand with regards to text but for some reason think does not apply to photographs.  If I write an article and publish it on my website - or allow someone else to publish it on their website (with or without payment) then someone reading that website copies and pastes my article into their own website without permission they are infringing copyright and I can seek recompense (in the real world this tends to mean someone has copied and pasted an entire news report rather than linking to it and recompense consists of demanding it either be removed or have a proper link and attribution added) .   Most people understand this.  Exactly the same thing applies regards photographs but for some reason, people that understand about the article do not automatically assume the same thing about photos (or drawings etc).

As for those who infringe - the easiest way to stop the majority is to disable right-clicking on images so they cannot be copied and pasted or copied and saved in the first place (yes I know this does not stop screenshotting   but hopefully said screenshot will include attribution) and it is much easier to prove the ones who have not been stopped were acting with deliberate knowledge they were in the wrong.

[Cryptoprocta]

6 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

I can't imagine infringers caring much for a new legal ruling. 

Not deliberate infringers, but people who just haven't thought about it, or think "Everyone's doing it, so it must be OK".

Still, they'd need to know about the new ruling, and I wouldn't have known unless I'd read this thread ...

[Cryptoprocta]

28 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

As for those who infringe - the easiest way to stop the majority is to disable right-clicking on images so they cannot be copied and pasted or copied and saved in the first place (yes I know this does not stop screenshotting   but hopefully said screenshot will include attribution) and it is much easier to prove the ones who have not been stopped were acting with deliberate knowledge they were in the wrong.

Hmmm, I'm guessing Alamy wouldn't act first in requiring buyers to disable right-clicking and following up on that requirement, any more than they follow up on their requirement to attribute images, even Live News.

Even if they did require attribution, it wouldn't very likely be on/in the image, so if someone screenshotted a pic, they could just crop in to the image.

Then they'd have to ban legitimage buyers from allowing social media 'share' buttons. After all, if something can be shared on social media, it "strongly implies" that it can be shared in general, even to those without malicious intent, who would be surprised to know they were acting illegally.

 

All the agencies would have to act together on these.

[Starsphinx]

53 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Hmmm, I'm guessing Alamy wouldn't act first in requiring buyers to disable right-clicking and following up on that requirement, any more than they follow up on their requirement to attribute images, even Live News.

Even if they did require attribution, it wouldn't very likely be on/in the image, so if someone screenshotted a pic, they could just crop in to the image.

Then they'd have to ban legitimage buyers from allowing social media 'share' buttons. After all, if something can be shared on social media, it "strongly implies" that it can be shared in general, even to those without malicious intent, who would be surprised to know they were acting illegally.

 

All the agencies would have to act together on these.

Alamys images are watermarked - so screenshots of them show clearly they have been shall we say hijacked.  Also, Alamy has already partially limited right-clicking on its own site - its why so many people have problems putting up images on these their own discussion forums.

If site A pays Alamy for an image and puts that image without a watermark on its site - then site B right clicks that site to get the image and put it on site Bs site without paying Alamy (and hence us) it can be reported as unauthorised use - or as several threads have detailed be chased by the individual photographer.

And no something being shared on social media does not imply it can be shared in general - there is a difference between sharing "saw this awesome photo by A Person on blah blah site" on your social media site and going to blah blah site, taking the picture and putting it on cheap sneaks site.  The first way gives further promotion to the photo and is exactly what the user is paying money for the second is stealing.  Its the difference between telling your friends about the great new item such and such a shop is selling thus encouraging them to go and look in such and such a shop and stealing the item from such and such a shop and pretending you made it yourself.

 

[spacecadet]

This follows on from the fairly abstruse "communicating to a new public" concept according to the Infosoc directive. It doesn't change much as regards a straight infringement.

The pupil using the photograph was covered by whatever fair dealing provisions apply in German law, but the school board then published the essay online. That was the essence of the case.

In English law I think it would have been more straightforward.

IMO.

[Marianne]

It certainly seems like the ruling could have been much more straightforward. But at least they got to the correct conclusion IMHO.

[Marianne]

14 hours ago, funkyworm said:

 

It could possibly be that they were trying to establish jurisprudence. A decision at the highest level then trickles down to all jurisdictions whereas one at lower level regional or national court doesn;t necessarily trickle across. 

 

It was more the reasoning that seemed odd but perhaps that's because copyright laws across the EU might differ. It just seems like it should have been more straight forward. At least it came to a conclusion that protects the photographer. 

 

In the US, the ASMP and others are trying to get a law passed to enable copyright claims to be made in small claims court so that smaller cases don't need to be brought in Federal Court. I don't think they've succeeded yet, but we need an easier way to deal with these things given the proliferation of stolen images thanks to a sharing culture, kids used to downloading whatever they want for school projects and assuming they can do that for anything as they get to be adults, people misunderstanding "royalty free" - the dumbest name ever, stripped metadata, google's use of large images, and the sheer number of places where our images can be stolen from.