Judge rules that embedding a photo tweet is still copyright infringement

OK no analogy. If you share something that someone else owns copyright to and you are not entitled to you have published it in breach of their copyright. It's up to you to ensure as the publisher that you are entitled to publish it.

You could always ask? A bit like if you want to use anything that belongs to someine else? As I said if you share you publish and it's encumbent on the person publishing to ensure they have the rights to.

> A bit like if you want to use anything that belongs to someine else?

You misuse the word "use". By sharing, I am not going to use something, it is just a way to say "look, here is the publication from the twitter site, you can follow the link to get there directly." This is what sharing is. Where exactly do I take any rights from the author, or how am I using his work?

I imagine a twitter account with something like hundred thousands followers and usually a popular post gets shared several thousand times. So each time someone must ask the author if it's ok to share? What will the author do with thousands of requests per single post? Answer each one? Can he, or does he want? Or maybe it is better to simply disable the sharing feature or make an announcement that noone can share the work?

Overall, it is a very weird idea to come to a place which is entirely built on a share principle, and demand that something must not be shared. You should not go to that place in the first turn.

@Roland, I think there is again a misunderstanding of the root cause somewhere. I've read in other comments that it was not a retweet of original content published on Twitter. It was a retweet of a tweet of a "stolen" content. From this point, I don't know what to do. Things are getting so complicated.

The 'game' they have designed is to compete and fight in order to survive, while the truth is if we all wake up and realise if we all willing to work for a greater good, their 'game' will be over. There's enough hidden technologies to free all humanity.

@ Encomlast, He published that's what matters, he should have taken precautions or else sue the original publisher of his pictures for not protecting them.
Like I wrote before, you can't expect to make money of the net without securing your assets. If you put material online it can be linked to if you don't prepare.
In this case the author is responsible or at least should be. I guess the contract wasn't watertight ;-)

What are you talking about @digifan? What contract? Between what parties? Why does publishing matter? Do you lose your copyright when you publish something? That's absurd.

Why should the author be responsible when some third party publishes his/her images without permission? Wouldn't it be better if those third parties, just followed the #&%ing law? Is it that hard?

If you were making an argument that the judge missed some subtlety in the law, that would be worth considering; there is certainly room for disagreement here. But you are essentially saying this is the photographer's fault because a third party, who he had no interaction with, no contract with, and no control over, used his image. You seem to be saying that once you publish an image, the rest of the world is free to use it, and that's just ridiculous.

@Encomlast, yes the author is responsible if he expects money his way.
1. If he had the work published by a publisher he'ld have had this covered in a contract and the publisher is liable.
2. If he published himself he should have taken precautions to not link to the original.
3. Linking is legit at least where I live and leads you to the original article, this gets you clicks and pay.

As an aside, back in the day a photographer would put a little of his portfolio in the "etalage" / shop window which would get him customers.
Today one uses the internet too, so you'ld better prepare the right way.
Just as to teach children not to just publish everything because the net can be harmfull as well, this also is applicable for the modern photographer/publisher.
IMO these lawsuits are unjust and inappropriate.

"1. If he had the work published by a publisher he'ld have had this covered in a contract and the publisher is liable."

Again, this makes no sense. Why is the publisher liable? The publisher didn't infringe. Say I'm a song writer and Sony Music publishes my song. Then somebody else decides to record my song without permission. By your logic, this is Sony's fault? If I publish a book with Penguin Press and somebody decides to make a PDF of it an put it online, Penguin is liable?

Here's a MUCH easier solution: make the infringer liable.

If corporations want to use an image, they just need to find and contact the creator then get permission if its possible or if not, dont use the image. Simple.

As for people saying, if you dont want your image used, dont put it online?!?! Really?!? Think about how faulty that line of thinking is. Artists, photogfaphers, bloggers, even retailers - anyone - should have the right to post whatever they want when they want without companies choosing to just help themselves to displaying the works on their page with whatever purposes they choose to give it. This should be common sense. O feel like Im in the twilight zone to be on a photography site with anyone favoring these corps in this instance. I can only guess this article attracted a lot of people that profit from this practice of theft.

dr.noise — it was someone else's tweet of his photo. From the post:
"when they embedded someone else's tweet of his copyright-protected photo of NFL star Tom Brady."

For the record, he DID post it to social media. He posted it to Snapchat. Somebody took it from snapchat and reposted to Twitter.

This is just stupid. Nobody would ever be able to publish anything. Is that a better outcome?

Publish or not publish is a choice. Protecting or not protecting what you publish is a choice. It is all up to you. If you publish without protection then someone may use your image, and you cannot stop it. The one using it might be at another place on the planet. Copyright laws is just a random lottery.

I do sympathize with Copyright a la Geneva Convention. It is so beautiful and well thought out, for a totally different situation. A situation where you have some very few great artists that are making some very few fantastic pieces of art.

But now -- the great artists that create are one in a billion. And the pieces of arts are made one billion a day. And all is shared on the information highways.

Copyright as we know it is dead, except for some very few pieces of arts made by some very few artists.

Now, lets get back and protect the very few pieces of art made by the very few artists!

Any businessman that lives on photography en mass can regulate his economical things with his customers. You make a wedding, you make a contract regulating pay and that the customer is not allowed to distrubte any images. Nema problema.

'Now, lets get back and protect the very few pieces of art made by the very few artists!'

Who do you propose gets to decide which artists deserve this protection?

Well, no. They shouldn't be abolished. However, the copyright period (in both Europe and the US) is now way beyond what it should be. 90 years / 70 years after the death of the author? Ridiculous. Copyright should be 25 years from date of publication. Period. That's plenty of time for authors and artists to profit from their work. And it's about time that damn mouse was out of copyright too - no more Disney extensions!

NO.
I want to control who uses my images. I don't care if a thief gives me credit. If I don't authorize use - don't use it.

@Deardorff. One thing you want - another thing you get. A translated wisdom from an older generation :)

You might not really need that control. It seems like many Copyright fans are control freaks. It also seems like many artists are control freaks. For some reason, they think their creations are so important that we need laws protecting them 1000%.

I am all for Intellectual property protection. But, it shall be reasonable.

You can compare it yo privacy. There are laws regarding your right to privacy. But, there are some limitations. You are not 1000% in control.

I would say Deardorff - if you are such a strong control freak - do not show your images to anyone. They might misuse it. It is not uncommon.

A control freak? Don't show images to anyone?
You are silly.
Letting anyone put up the images means they put them with products I would never, ever allow. Have turned down use for tobacco advertising. No matter the dollars I won't allow it. Users I don't control would use it for that purpose.
Same with T-Rump for Prez - I would never allow use for that or for a religious group.
I own them and should control the rights for who uses them.
I photograph for a living and have done so since the 1970's. What is wrong with my not wanting those I don't approve using my work?

I understand that you do not want to. And sympathize with that. But read the old wisdom again.

What will happen to you if you do not get what you want? There is always a limit to what laws can protect. There is always a limit to what laws need to protect.

I would say that the only reason why Copyright is so strong that it is is that art and artists are highly regarded. This is a purely emotional thing.

From a purely economical perspective most of the Copyright protection is totally meaningless. It is a very rare exception that anyone is economically hurt by someone using someones image.

No, I think large international organizations should just take my images to promote their social media sites for free. Why get paid for your labor and skill? Hedge Fund Managers and Plumber work for free advertising.

If you didn't want your car stolen, you should never kept it outside. The victim is always to blame.

When embedded post is loaded from twitter, nothing from the tweet is copied, the embedding just points to the original post. The whole thing is irrational.

Im pretty sure when its imbedded you are still showing the image that twitter feed. Photographers, or any artist for that matter, should have the right as to whether or not their image gets shared or shown by other people or, as in this case, corporations. Its allowing these companies to get relevant imagery without paying for them.

@c h u n k Then don't put it on the net, deeplinking is legal in many countries, and eventually the original site gets hit due to that the link always points to the original article.
I think it's ridiculous to put work on the net and not protect it(by securing downloads, watermarking and contracts etc.) but then call it theft of income if othes use it.
On the other hand it's also ridiculous that big companies like Getty's can confiscate pictures from the public domain and copyright them.
The internet provides many with income because of just those that are linking news or media.
Just be awared of your actions and intent.

Roland: A link IS something. If it isn't then the whole concept of the Internet falls in heap - and the way things are going now - the whole concept of IP (copyright) falls over too.

A link is very fragile. Yes, the internet is based on links. And, as a whole, the Internet is a rather stable organism. But each link is fragile. This is the idea with Internet, that it survives as a whole.

Regarding causing. It is automatic. No one has explicitly caused this image to be there. It is a bit like Google and image search. Google do not put up any images, their software does.

And, in the case if tweets, Twitter explicitly enforce its users to allow display of the tweet and its accompanying images. So, it is reasonable for a news media to just show tweets, including the images it refers to. At least the news media do not have illegal intentions.

It's always a beautiful thing when people who have no comprehension of the law claim that judges are ignorant.

It is a not so beautiful thing when people defends an old outdated law. Copyright law is from another millennium.

No doubt you could write a fully referenced essay on the subject.

Or, maybe it really is just as simple as you being completely ignorant of the relevant law.

So you are not American, don't understand US law (by your own admission), and yet you presume to know so much about US copyright law that you can openly declare that the presiding judge is ignorant of the subject...

Have you considered that I have taken an instant dislike to you? Some of us spend 4 years doing a law degree, others talk rubbish on the internet in some vain effort to pretend they know more than the judiciary.

No, you didn't get that right. Even after I explicitly told you twice what my issue is.

I can't work out if you are trolling or you really are this stupid.

But sure, you keep on telling a bunch of people how you know nothing about US law, but how you know more about US law than US judges.

SMDH

So - you are using words like "obtuse", "trolling", "stupid", "I have taken an instant dislike of you", etc, etc, etc ... For some obscure reason you think that is OK. Now, I do not think it is OK. No matter how wrong you think I am.

This crime should be called "unsplashing."

Of course it's not irony. The right to control the use of images and words you create is no different from your right to control any other property you own.
Or are you one of those people who argue that photographers don't deserve copyright protection because it is more important for Google and Twitter and giant ad agencies to get free artwork than it is for working people to make a decent living.

You are putting words and opinions upon me I never have said or thought.

Personally I think sharing is good. I also think that Copyright laws are needed. And those laws shall be a compromise between protection of the creator and the positive side with sharing. Just as they were meant from the beginning in Copyright act of Queen Anne.

She did care about the creations and the creators. And to protect the creations she put total control to the creators for 14 years. Then the creators had 14 years to implement their wishes and dreams. And they could then not be bought by the print makers and put away and be forgotten for ever. After 14 years, it was business as usual. No protections other than what you could get with a contract, except claiming that someone else was the author was fraud.

A nice and clear thought.

Today it is all about money and greed. And for much more than 14 years. And this in a world where 10 Billion of Copyright infringements are made every second.

Current Copyright laws do not scale and are not in particular friendly.

First of all, let's stop using the word "sharing" and call it what it is: theft. There is no whitewashing this issue. If you use my images without my knowledge or permission, you are a thief and belong in the same jail as car thieves, bank robbers, and embezzlers.
The 21st century is much different technologically from the 18th. Back then you had to have physical possession of the item you wanted to copy or steal and you would have to pay a talented artist, engraver, or typesetter to copy it for you.
Now I can steal your ideas or artwork with the click of a mouse. Consequently there is absolutely NO positive side to sharing in today's world unless you are a criminal enterprise like Google and Twitter.

Roland, there IS an image in an embedded tweet. Look at the image at the top of this article. That's what it looks like when you embed a tweet — it's not just a text link.

So retweeting some DPReview tweet is also an infringement?

A key component of this case is that the photographer did NOT tweet the photo. If he had, he would be bound to Twitter's Terms of Service, which say this:

"This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use."

The lesson is: if you are going to embed a tweeted photo, make sure the person who posted it owns the rights.

@Roland I think it's incumbent on publishers to do due diligence — especially news media where vetting sources is central to their work. Still the Copyright Act does make a distinction between willful and non-willful infringement and allows courts wide latitude to consider if the infringer had no reason to believe they were infringing.

I think that's a good question @steinah6. I don't know the answer.

A performance of a piece of music is here today, gone tomorrow. Should song writers not be protected under copyright? The presentation of a movie in a theater is also here today gone tomorrow. There are a lot of examples of ephemeral uses that are clearly infringing. I don't that's a really good argument.

From the perspective of the user there is absolutely no difference in an image that is displayed from my server or hot linked from someone else's. They are both displayed in exactly the same way. You are making an argument that because some *could* change the image, that it is somehow not displayed in the manner intended by the copyright law. And it's not just a 'link' we're talking about embedded images -- an img tag, not just a anchor tag. The law is really quite clear when it define 'display' to include 'any other device or process'. That's why I think this ruling is refreshing.