PDA

View Full Version : Question about copyrights



Jens
2012-Jul-05, 02:30 AM
I'm hoping that somebody here is knowledgeable about legal issues. I'm looking for a term to describe a type of copyright violation where, for example, you are taking a photo of somebody, and in the background there happens to be a copyrighted picture, which is unintentionally put into the photo in the background, or for example, a news program is interviewing somebody in a shopping mall, and there is music in the background that is copyrighted. Does anybody know a term for that?

ShinAce
2012-Jul-05, 02:41 AM
I believe it's called fair use(specifically for news reporting). Another example is a teacher passing around copies of the work(photos, photocopied articles from journals, etc...) to study in class. Suppose a music teacher shows a class how to play a copyrighted song. That's fine, since it's scholarly. But if a student puts that song on an album and sells it, no dice.

Tobin Dax
2012-Jul-05, 02:41 AM
Would something incidental like that not fall under fair use? I don't see how that's necessarily harmful to the copyright holder.

Jens
2012-Jul-05, 02:53 AM
I think that may be the proper way to describe it, "incidental." I've seen references to "incidental music" in videos, so that is probably the term I was looking for.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-05, 03:59 AM
I'd say Fair Use too. Of course, that's US law. I don't know anything about Japanese law.

Jens
2012-Jul-05, 04:01 AM
It certainly falls under fair use, but I think there are other types of fair use as well, so fair use I think is a broader term than what I'm looking for. Like for example, quoting a short passage in a paper also falls under fair use, but it is not mistakenly taking a picture of something that is copyrighted. I'm looking to describe that specific phenomenon.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-05, 04:46 AM
It certainly falls under fair use, but I think there are other types of fair use as well, so fair use I think is a broader term than what I'm looking for. Like for example, quoting a short passage in a paper also falls under fair use, but it is not mistakenly taking a picture of something that is copyrighted. I'm looking to describe that specific phenomenon.Substantiality? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use#Amount_and_substantiality)

Solfe
2012-Jul-05, 05:22 AM
Complicated question.

The Berne Convention is a copyright law that is international, and has been ratified in many countries. It is a really dry and it really speaks to how long people's works are protected. It does not exactly spell out the details copyright law. That is for each country to do for themselves.

I think the main issue is that you are photographing things that are either specifically copyrighted or trademarked. Generally, as long as there is a "reproduction mismatch" your are fine. What I mean by "reproduction mismatch" is it is ok to take a picture of a can of pop or the cover of a book. A photo doesn't duplicate a book or a can of pop. However, photographing each page of a book will get you in trouble, as will copying images contained within a book with photos. You shouldn't do this.

The other way to find trouble is to enter a venue and not conform to their rules. Such as showing up to a concert with a van full of recording equipment. Typically the venue wants everyone to enjoy and certain actions by guests could prevent that from happening. You need to ask permission to do something unusual.


Now I don't post unless I have a funny tangent. It is actual impossible for me.

I had a strange moment at a Dave Matthews Concert. The band is known for walking through the crowd and they do so in a very friendly fashion. At the show yesterday, Boyd Tinsley came out to the beer tent, took my wife's camera and snapped a picture of her. That is comedy gold when someone famous takes your picture.

Disneyworld does a send up of this. They have a garbage can that is able to move around and talk. One of the things it says is "Please don't take my picture." Guess what happens if you do? You end up with a random picture of garbage can at Disneyworld.

profloater
2012-Jul-05, 09:29 AM
I'm hoping that somebody here is knowledgeable about legal issues. I'm looking for a term to describe a type of copyright violation where, for example, you are taking a photo of somebody, and in the background there happens to be a copyrighted picture, which is unintentionally put into the photo in the background, or for example, a news program is interviewing somebody in a shopping mall, and there is music in the background that is copyrighted. Does anybody know a term for that? No I don't know the legal term but I have unpleasant experience of this situation and like most intellectual property rights it depends on the budget of the copyright owner, some copyright owners of pictures, no names here, are very aggressive and extract large compensations for "accidental" use of their images.

jokergirl
2012-Jul-05, 11:12 AM
I would class it the same as incidental music, from the copyright knowledge I have.

;)

Fazor
2012-Jul-05, 02:05 PM
No I don't know the legal term but I have unpleasant experience of this situation and like most intellectual property rights it depends on the budget of the copyright owner, some copyright owners of pictures, no names here, are very aggressive and extract large compensations for "accidental" use of their images.

Like this one (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120605/12065919210/labatt-threatens-to-sue-newspaper-showing-photo-suspected-killer-holding-its-beer.shtml)? The case didn't go anywhere though, as Labatt ended up dropping it (likely because they realized they don't have a leg to stand on.)

Whenever I see product labels blurred out of tv shows or news footage, I've just assumed it's because the channel doesn't want to give "free advertising" (or, they advertise with a competitor and don't want to upset them by showing a rival product), rather than fear of copyright infringement.

profloater
2012-Jul-05, 02:46 PM
Labatt: Aha the product placement in reverse! No I was referring to owners of images who assiduously patrol looking for unauthorised use, including inadvertant use, and claim large fees if they find such use. People pay up even if they feel it's unfair because court action is always expensive and can be disastrous if you lose. Major media outlets can get away with it because they pay a big annual fee to cover all such uses.

Gillianren
2012-Jul-05, 07:42 PM
Whenever I see product labels blurred out of tv shows or news footage, I've just assumed it's because the channel doesn't want to give "free advertising" (or, they advertise with a competitor and don't want to upset them by showing a rival product), rather than fear of copyright infringement.

That's frequently the case, yes, even when (as on MythBusters) everyone knows exactly what brand-name product is under description half the time.

Ara Pacis
2012-Jul-05, 09:50 PM
That's frequently the case, yes, even when (as on MythBusters) everyone knows exactly what brand-name product is under description half the time.And some companies frown on their products being used for off-label use, or implicated in dangerous and non-promoted activities. If someone uses their product in such a manner and gets hurt, the manufacturer might get sued. Even if they win, it costs them money in lawyers, labor and PR.

Trebuchet
2012-Jul-06, 04:03 PM
That's frequently the case, yes, even when (as on MythBusters) everyone knows exactly what brand-name product is under description half the time.

Like when they had "Mythbusters Cola" on an episode titled "Diet Coke and Mentos"! I saw one recently with some people drinking soda at a fast food outlet. The cups had a very familiarly shaped bottle on them but they blurred out the name.

geonuc
2012-Jul-07, 10:34 AM
I'm hoping that somebody here is knowledgeable about legal issues. I'm looking for a term to describe a type of copyright violation where, for example, you are taking a photo of somebody, and in the background there happens to be a copyrighted picture, which is unintentionally put into the photo in the background, or for example, a news program is interviewing somebody in a shopping mall, and there is music in the background that is copyrighted. Does anybody know a term for that?

As others have sort-of alluded, the term is 'incidental or fortuitous reproduction'.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Although probably not the last word on the subject, the above link describes incidental use as 'fair use' as long as it is in the context of news reporting. If, for example, you incidentally reproduce a copyrighted work as part of a for-profit venture, you may have stepped outside the bounds of fair use.

chrlzs
2012-Jul-07, 11:30 AM
Labatt: Aha the product placement in reverse! No I was referring to owners of images who assiduously patrol looking for unauthorised use, including inadvertant use, and claim large fees if they find such use. People pay up even if they feel it's unfair because court action is always expensive and can be disastrous if you lose. Major media outlets can get away with it because they pay a big annual fee to cover all such uses.

Then why not name them? Are you under a non-disclosure agreement or something? If not, name and shame.

profloater
2012-Jul-12, 06:26 PM
Then why not name them? Are you under a non-disclosure agreement or something? If not, name and shame. I have been threatened with legal action over my website by an image owner and I did refuse to pay up and although it may seem chicken I don't want to go further in a public forum but I know through advice from a lawyer that others have been similarly caught out and decided to pay even though they thought it was unfair. I wondered if this was the situation of the OP. Time has passed so I may be in the clear. I can say that the image owner uses clever trawling software to find its images and makes a lot of cash from chasing people. When I used an image from the internet it belonged to another outfit who allowed the use but all their images were later purchased. My defense was that I was not told the images had been purchased so I could not know and I deleted them as soon as I was invoiced out of the blue. I made a lower offer in fact which was refused and so after thinking about it, I refused to pay anything and received more threats but that's the story so far. If the OP is in a similar position I could communicate privately.