Picture copyrights - an interesting article - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Picture copyrights - an interesting article

Inclusion criteria of one category

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiProjects...

Arwel Parry

1 Feb 2007 1 Feb '07

6:21 p.m.

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted! -- Arwel Parry

Reply

Show replies by date

Ray Saintonge

2 Feb 2 Feb

7:55 p.m.

Arwel Parry wrote:

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!

I think that those being asked for these ridiculous fees could have a good case for criminal extortion. The article says nothing about what happens if these people resist the demands. Ec

Reply

Guettarda

8:19 p.m.

On 2/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Arwel Parry wrote:

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!

I think that those being asked for these ridiculous fees could have a good case for criminal extortion. The article says nothing about what happens if these people resist the demands.

The article says that the rates are high, but within the normal range. If that's true, could on really make a case for extortion? Ec

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Ray Saintonge

3 Feb 3 Feb

12:40 a.m.

Guettarda wrote:

On 2/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Arwel Parry wrote:

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!

I think that those being asked for these ridiculous fees could have a good case for criminal extortion. The article says nothing about what happens if these people resist the demands.

The article says that the rates are high, but within the normal range. If that's true, could on really make a case for extortion?

As the one victim said, she checked out what the rates would be for what she used and it came out to £440 for five years, but he was being asked for £1,300 for one month. Attorney's fees? One could always go to the court for a motion to have the costs taxed according to the schedule prescribed by the courts for such action. How long does it take for a lawyer to write a letter which he probably already has set up as a template in which he can substitute the relevant details? Companies like Corbis, Getty, et.al. know that the average little guy is scared shitless at the idea of going to court about anything. They can use that to charge whatever they feel the guy will pay. As long as the offending picture is removed from the site ASAP how far will they be really be willing to go if you stonewall them? Ec

Reply

geni

1:31 a.m.

On 2/3/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

As the one victim said, she checked out what the rates would be for what she used and it came out to £440 for five years, but he was being asked for £1,300 for one month. Attorney's fees? One could always go to the court for a motion to have the costs taxed according to the schedule prescribed by the courts for such action. How long does it take for a lawyer to write a letter which he probably already has set up as a template in which he can substitute the relevant details? Companies like Corbis, Getty, et.al. know that the average little guy is scared shitless at the idea of going to court about anything. They can use that to charge whatever they feel the guy will pay. As long as the offending picture is removed from the site ASAP how far will they be really be willing to go if you stonewall them? Ec

likely as far as they legally can. If word got out that they don't follow these things up the tactic would lose it's effectiveness. On the other hand if you take people to court and make the payment stick word will also get out and people will fold in future rather than risk taking them on. -- geni

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:59 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 2/3/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

As the one victim said, she checked out what the rates would be for what she used and it came out to £440 for five years, but he was being asked for £1,300 for one month. Attorney's fees? One could always go to the court for a motion to have the costs taxed according to the schedule prescribed by the courts for such action. How long does it take for a lawyer to write a letter which he probably already has set up as a template in which he can substitute the relevant details? Companies like Corbis, Getty, et.al. know that the average little guy is scared shitless at the idea of going to court about anything. They can use that to charge whatever they feel the guy will pay. As long as the offending picture is removed from the site ASAP how far will they be really be willing to go if you stonewall them?

likely as far as they legally can. If word got out that they don't follow these things up the tactic would lose it's effectiveness. On the other hand if you take people to court and make the payment stick word will also get out and people will fold in future rather than risk taking them on.

Absolutely, and this is as much why I support the principle that it should not be WMF that pursues these matters but individuals. WMF needs to play it by the book in a way that will safeguard the rights of both the copyright owner and the apparent infringer. This is not solely a matter of self-preservation, but the application of distributed liability as a tactic. Sooner or later someone will call the companies' bluff. I'm sure there are enough stubborn people out there to do that, and willing to take the risk that the payment would stick. Who has the biggest risk? The individual with one offending picture has his risk limited to the £2,000 or so demanded in the action; this effectively spreads the potentially much broader liability. The downside for the companies if they lose is not restricted to that single case, but in the loss of credibility in all cases; they may even pay the offender to accept a secret out-of-court settlement. 8-) A single army ant or a single piranha rarely poses a serious danger. The "Guardian" article notes that these databases are not sustainable, that, except in a small high-end market segment, they will eventually be squeezed out of the market by free alternatives. I wonder how much these massive resources will be worth in a bankruptcy sale. ;-) Ec

Reply

Stephen Bain

8:56 a.m.

On 2/3/07, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The article says that the rates are high, but within the normal range. If that's true, could on really make a case for extortion?

I would have to see the terms of the agreement, but I would imagine that Corbis/Getty etc. are offering forbearance [1] in addition to the licence for the image as their consideration, in exchange for the larger fee. That's not extortion, in fact it's quite common in commercial negotiations. -- (1) "Forbearance", in this context, means refraining from exercising a right to take legal action. It often appears in the context of a debt agreement, for example if A loaned $1000 to B, and B didn't pay the money back when it was due, A might renegotiate the loan agreement and offer forbearance (from suing to enforce the debt) if B agreed to pay, say $200 extra within a certain amount of time. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Reply

Ray Saintonge

8:13 p.m.

Stephen Bain wrote:

On 2/3/07, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The article says that the rates are high, but within the normal range. If that's true, could on really make a case for extortion?

I would have to see the terms of the agreement, but I would imagine that Corbis/Getty etc. are offering forbearance [1] in addition to the licence for the image as their consideration, in exchange for the larger fee. That's not extortion, in fact it's quite common in commercial negotiations. -- (1) "Forbearance", in this context, means refraining from exercising a right to take legal action. It often appears in the context of a debt agreement, for example if A loaned $1000 to B, and B didn't pay the money back when it was due, A might renegotiate the loan agreement and offer forbearance (from suing to enforce the debt) if B agreed to pay, say $200 extra within a certain amount of time.

This all assumes that there was a contract there in the first place. The lawyer letters suggest that there wasn't. Agreeing to a contract after the fact may be poor judgement if it retroactively acknowledges a liability, debt, guilt or wrongdoing of some kind. Ec

Reply

geni

2 Feb 2 Feb

9:44 p.m.

On 2/1/07, Arwel Parry <arwel(a)cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!

I suspect the original story comes from this thread: http://www.a4uforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=288282 -- geni

Reply

Fastfission

3 Feb 3 Feb

3:18 p.m.

On 2/1/07, Arwel Parry <arwel(a)cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!

Well, but Wikimedia comes under the DMCA, which has more formalized ways of providing for requests to remove copyrighted material, as well as a "safe harbor" provision. So it's not quite as bad as the UK case, it seems. (In any case, Corbis includes a number of images in their archives which are not under copyright in the United States, but makes no distinction on their image pages between these and images to which they own the copyright to. So just because something is in Corbis doesn't mean it is a copyright issue, necessarily, though it is usually pretty easy to tell which Corbis copyright claims are bunk, i.e. claims to materials created by the US Government or created in the 19th century). FF

Reply

Ray Saintonge

8:28 p.m.

Fastfission wrote:

On 2/1/07, Arwel Parry <arwel(a)cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:

There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!

Well, but Wikimedia comes under the DMCA, which has more formalized ways of providing for requests to remove copyrighted material, as well as a "safe harbor" provision. So it's not quite as bad as the UK case, it seems.

I fully agree that this gives us more wiggle room, and I believe that we should be advocating for similar provisions in other countries as well.

(In any case, Corbis includes a number of images in their archives which are not under copyright in the United States, but makes no distinction on their image pages between these and images to which they own the copyright to. So just because something is in Corbis doesn't mean it is a copyright issue, necessarily, though it is usually pretty easy to tell which Corbis copyright claims are bunk, i.e. claims to materials created by the US Government or created in the 19th century).

True enough, but I think that whether their claim to copyright on a specific item is valid or pure buncombe is a different issue. For the purpose of this thread I'm willing to concede that they do have a legal copyright as claimed. This allows us to separate copyright validity from unscrupulous methods of enforcing copyrights. Ec

Reply

Fastfission

4 Feb 4 Feb

4:42 a.m.

On 2/3/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

I fully agree that this gives us more wiggle room, and I believe that we should be advocating for similar provisions in other countries as well.

Well we should try to be as compliant as is possible and as free as possible. Of course. My response was not meant to be normative, just to imply that at least in the US the operations of enforcing digital copyrights work a bit differently and are, in a surprising way, a bit more sane in this particular area. True enough, but I think that whether their claim to copyright on a

specific item is valid or pure buncombe is a different issue. For the purpose of this thread I'm willing to concede that they do have a legal copyright as claimed. This allows us to separate copyright validity from unscrupulous methods of enforcing copyrights.

I of course agree. I tried to infer that the comment was semi-tangential by putting into parentheses. FF

Reply

6324

days inactive

6327

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

11 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Arwel Parry
Fastfission
geni
Guettarda
Ray Saintonge
Stephen Bain