I really object to using the term ‘trolls’. There are real people on the other end trying to earn an honest living from their chosen profession. Just because it’s ’only’ a blog, or my website is soo useful, doesn’t make it right to infringe on other people’s rights. It’s a good thing that techonology enables photographers to enforce their rights more efficiently.
A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you.
Yes, I used the term troll from my background many years ago writing about patent trolls, so maybe it irks people, but people who complain about one word in a much longer article are maybe... missing the point.
Anyway, as you will probably notice from the article, I am not "picking the first photos that is convenient", but being sent the banner images etc by event organisers to promote their events.
Yes, I can go back with a form for them to fill in and confirm they have copyright clearance etc., and doubtless they'll check, and confirm they have from photo agency X, and maybe I should also check that the photo agency has issued clearance, and that they themselves have validated that the photographer has verified they definetly took the photos... etc etc etc.
You can see that there has to be a point at which you accept that someone in the chain is being honest.
The issue isn't me nicking photos that are convenient, but accepting that a photo sent to me to use in an article/event listing has been cleared by the PR/marketing dept that is sending it to me.
The majority of problems come from small orgs who may seem to lack an awareness of copyright, so to protect myself, I am now taking the decision not to use their images unless I have built up trust in the sender.
However, even large orgs have been caught out - one example was the large theatre that paid for a license to use an image in a marketing poster, only for the stock agency to object to it being used on my website because the license (weirdly) only permitted use in their publications and no where else.
That's a large org trying to do the right thing, and I am trying to do the right thing, and still getting hammered by... well, yes, they're copyright trolls.
Surely you just have them sign a standard form that they have the correct license to allow you to use the image? Then, if you get targeted by a license holder the burden is passed to the people that told you they had the license. Regarding the larger org “trying to do the right thing”, they still failed to do their job properly. These license agreements are usually quite clear and specific in my experience. Their inability to understand it is the issue. They need to hire someone who can. I might not fully understand the tax system but I still have to follow it and “I tried my best” is not a valid excuse.
Charities, even small charities, have lots of money. They can handle small license fees. They want to comply with the law/regulations/licenses just like any other business.
I don’t think all orgs he’s dealing with are charities proper. AFAICT some of them are tiny volunteer-run groups. I think we safely can assume that not all of those groups have vast amounts of funding.
Fair enough. I still feel like you shouldn’t take stuff that’s not yours. The OP has made the right decision if they don’t want to deal with the overheads of ensuring the images are properly licensed, but denigrating people for catching you out on it isn’t a good look imo.
I guess the reason he wrote on his blog is to inform the users about the change. Why someone posted this to Hacker News though, I’m not sure… It doesn’t really invite to very interesting discussion, IMHO.
> hen, if you get targeted by a license holder the burden is passed to the people that told you they had the license.
Well, not really. The contract you propose will merely give this guy the right to sue his client. He'll still directly owe the moeny to the person making the copyright claim, because that's how liability works.
Right, it's a chain. The burden is still on the guy at the top and the shit rolls downhill.
What I want to know is -- what would stop a photographer anonymously uploading his entire portfolio to Wikimedia and then suing them for publishing all his images?
> because the license (weirdly) only permitted use in their publications and no where else
What is weird about that? You can buy the licence cheaply with restrictions and you can also pay much more for a less restricted version.
This makes perfect sense, if anyone who licences a picture could freely re-licence it to anyone then the original creator could only sell a licence once therefore they would have to ask much more for that licence to be able to make a living.
> people who complain about one word in a much longer article are maybe... missing the point
I don’t think so. The complaint goes to the hearth of the article. You cannot complain about people enforcing their copyright and at the same breath admit that they are right. If they are right then they are not copyright trolls.
Now if you would tell us a story where one of these people were trying to shake you down for an image you clearly and evidently had the copyright for that would be a different story. But your story as told undermines the phrase you are using, which is the core of the article.
As it reads you are chaffing that you have been ripping off people’s work (without intending to) and now they found an avenue to complain to you.
> I can go back with a form for them to fill in and confirm they have copyright clearance etc.
That is not what the form should say. What it should say is that they (named organisation if you trust them to be around, or named individual if you don’t trust the organisation) will pay any copyright fines you receive in relation to the images they gave you. This is a contract between you and them, so talk with a lawyer to make sure it can be enforced and has all the right elements.
I've helped one client who had been targeted by infringement notices for photos they own. In the process of helping them, I did some research into what's going on.
What happens is that Photographers supply their content library to a company that promises to defend their images against unauthorized distribution and collect appropriate licensing fees.
The problem is this:
1) these companies are very aggressive
2) they use some form of image matching search to detect image copies
3) the notices sent out are automated
4) the notices demand fees or legal action will be taken
5) there is no one to talk to or explain anything too
6) it's automated, abusive and often just plain inaccurate
This approach is very stressful for clients who haven't done anything wrong and dont understand what is happening. In some cases they have no control over an image that is published but attributed to them.
So yes, they are Trolls.
This isn't honest creatives defending their work.
In my clients case they had legitimately taken a very similar photo of a very popular public tourist attraction. Fortunately I was able to connect with the original photographer, and eventually, get them to call off their dogs.
There are real photographers enforcing their copyright, but there are also trolls. The trolls are pushing a few Fotos they made to Wikipedia and “free Foto”-sites with missing terms. Then they search for people who stole their images and extract money. Sure the people who used the images are in the wrong legally, but the trolls actually wanted their images to be stolen. Also, for the trolls, this is the only kind of revenue they get. Those images would never be legally bought or licensed anyway
> Then they search for people who stole their images and extract money.
I think part of this problem is that the assumed value of an image is practically 0. Conversely any YouTuber from some rural backwater will make sure there is no copyright music playing in the background of anything they intend to release because they know that it has non-0 value. The reason this changed is because people became more collectively aware of the consequences. The long term consequences are that people will ensure they have the appropriate permissions before using a photo. Even if this means paying a nearly negligible amount for access to collections of millions of photos like happens with music now.
Tfa suggested he was provided the images by a third party - how do I know the image I paid for on a stock image site is authentic and what’s to stop copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not?
Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked.
The article says these were images sent by the organisers.
So it's plausible that the organisers did get a license that allows this.
It's also plausible that they thought they were getting a license that allowed this.
Ultimately though, it seems the photographer had been paid at least once.
Further, in this case, it seems to me the onus should be on the organiser sending out the images intended to be used to promote the event, to make sure they have a license to do that, not on the individual websites. How are they supposed to confirm the copyright of an image, other than what they are told by the supplier of that image?
When the SFLC does GPL enforcement, their goal isn't to extract money from inevitable mistakes and oversights, but to bring the offender into compliance. Organizations who are trying to follow the rules and accidentally violate the letter of the law are given a chance to amend their practices; only when organizations intransigently resist following the rules are they targeted for lawsuits. This is enforcement: using the legal system to try to make the system work for everyone involved.
When Patrick McHardy [1] did "GPL enforcement", his goal wasn't to help bring people into enforcement, but to extract money from inevitable mistakes and oversights. Organizations trying to follow the spirit of the law but accidentally violating the letter of the law were lured into restrictive contracts and then punished for minor infractions. This is trolling: using the legal system to intimidate and extract money for minor infractions.
A proper "enforcement" interaction in this case, which was actually trying to make the system work well for everyone involved, would look like this:
Enforcer to website: "You seem to have image X; do you have a license?"
Website: "I got the image from the marketing department of Y; they said their license covered it."
Enforcer to Y: "It seems you gave image X to organization Z for their website; but your license only covers you to use the image on posters. If you want to use the image for partner websites, please upgrade to the version of the license which allows this, or pay this one-off license fee."
Y: "Oh yes, sorry about that; here you go."
Photographer is paid for their image, innocent people don't end up paying fines for simple mistakes; the system works for everyone involved.
> A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you.
But that's not what he did. He used the artwork his client supplied.
A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you.