Did The AP Claim Copyright On Public Domain NASA Pictures?
from the or-is-it-just-weird-(c)-notices dept
You might recall that we got into a bit of… a “dispute” with Caters News Agency a few weeks back, after we noticed some monkey self-portraits in UK papers with a big “copyright” notice — despite the fact that the images were almost certainly in the public domain.
However, I’m beginning to wonder if some UK papers just stamp a totally bogus copyright notice on batches of images. That’s because ken points us to another article at the Daily Mail (where we also saw the monkey photos) and worries that it looks like the Associated Press is claiming copyright on images taken from the International Space Station, over which it holds no copyright:
Now, I’m hardly one to shy away from
knocking the AP for questionable behavior, but I do wonder if the AP really is claiming copyright on this image, or if it’s just that the
Daily Mail doesn’t understand copyright. That’s because above the image stamped with © AP are two images stamped with © YouTube. Here’s one:
And yet… the article even admits (directly) that these images came from Videographer Noe Castillo, who uploaded the clips to YouTube. But, of course, that doesn’t mean YouTube gets the copyright. In fact, I’m beginning to wonder if the photo editors at the Daily Mail are just clueless, and think that a copyright symbol like that is the way you acknowledge where you found something. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the images tagged © YouTube. So let’s give the AP the benefit of the doubt (for the moment, at least), and assume that it wasn’t claiming copyright over an image for which it doesn’t hold the rights, but rather that the Daily Mail is a bit excessive in putting copyright notices on things where they don’t belong.
Filed Under: copyright, copyright notices, public domain
Comments on “Did The AP Claim Copyright On Public Domain NASA Pictures?”
It’s the broadcast treaty. You simply have to publish something and then you own it. This is going to be awesome.
Re: Re:
Only if you have enough money to prove your ownership though. Little guys that publish without much money? Well clearly their content was supposed to be owned by someone with more cash on hand so they could use it to get more cash.
Is it just Legal paranoia ?
It may just be they are scared s*itless about being sued for missing out a copyright attribution. I don’t think anyone’s going to get into legal trouble for falsely putting a copyright notice on a public domain photo, but do it the other way round and you could be in deep and expensive trouble.
Any legal types out there can say if is this actually illegal and who is likely to sue them if so?
Or it might just be creeping IP-itis – It’s a photograph and therefore it’s IP so must belong to someone.
Re: Is it just Legal paranoia ?
–
Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a “copyright attribution.”
Whether you put a notice on something or not, it is still infringing if you don’t have a license. And once you have a license, you have no obligation to put any sort of copyright notice on that content. (unless, of course, the license specifically demands it, like many CC licenses do).
At least in the U.S., attribution is a normative concept; infringement is a legal one. Communities (e.g., scholastic, academic, journalistic) punish mis/non-attribution. That’s plagiarism. The law punishes infringement. Attribution doesn’t solve your infringement problems. (In Europe, you’ve got these flaky moral rights, which make everything messy. I can’t help you guys over there.)
I think Mike is right that some bonehead just thinks the copyright notice is the same as a source attribution. Newsies, take note: “source: xyz” isn’t the same as “(c)”.
Re: Is it just Legal paranoia ?
I don’t think anyone’s going to get into legal trouble for falsely putting a copyright notice on a public domain photo, but do it the other way round and you could be in deep and expensive trouble.
The problem is proving that the person had intent to defraud.
Copyright on an image
Not that I’m to ‘up’ on this (as the unfortunates who have read my previous post will be all to painfully aware)
But if you have an image that’s copyrighted, and you change the aspect ratio (or indeed crop the image) by 10%, then the copyright (as far as I think I know) does not apply anymore?
Of course I could be COMPLETELY wrong, and I probably am…
I know sound bites of 10 seconds or less cannot be copyrighted but that’s an entirely different, yet just as painful, post…
Re: Copyright on an image
Not that I’m to ‘up’ on this (as the unfortunates who have read my previous post will be all to painfully aware)
But if you have an image that’s copyrighted, and you change the aspect ratio (or indeed crop the image) by 10%, then the copyright (as far as I think I know) does not apply anymore?
No – you are wrong.
You have created a derivative work – but the original copyright still applies because your modifications are not sufficiently transformative.
You will hold a copyright on the modifications if they are deemed to have sufficient creative input.
Cropping might be enough to do it if the composition is changed sufficiently.
Sadly this mechanism can allow people to put a new copyright on things that are in the public domain (not that I agree with this but it does seem to be the legal position.)
Re: Re: Copyright on an image
Personally think that modifications that have been made primarily for the purpose of obtaining a new copyright should not qualify. That isn’t what the law says – it’s what I think it should say.
Re: Re: Copyright on an image
You have created a derivative work – but the original copyright still applies because your modifications are not sufficiently transformative.
I’m sure that in AP convoluted logic, they think that by taking a public domain photo, applying their copyright symbol on it, and licensing it to make a profit or suing anyone who tries to use it, is sufficiently transformative in their legal playbook. Now all they need to do is buy… I mean “find” a judge to agree with them in court. Based on many of the rulings handed down surrounding copyright these days, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to find such a judge.
Considering the fonts are the same, I think we can probably assume the Daily mail are using it like we might use an @ sign…
The Daily Mail is a joke of a newspaper which has consistently spread false information and whipped up mass hysteria over nothing so it does not surprise me at all that they do not seem to understand Copyright either. They don’t understand anything they claim to.
Re: Re:
this demonstrates their cluelessness on all topics…
the daily mail list of things which give you cancer!
http://hellokinsella.posterous.com/the-daily-mail-list-of-things-that-give-you-c
Re: Re: Re:
OMG, that list is a riot, it was way too long for me to go through the whole thing, but this one pretty much puts everything in perspective when talking about the Daily Mail, from this article claiming oral sex causes cancer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-453843/Oral-sex-cause-throat-cancer.html
Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
Wow, it’s a meta-story for Mike, then, as he’s merely whipping up fanboys over nothing here!
Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
Having gotten that out of your system, do you have anything approaching a reasonable explanation for the question at hand?
Re: Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
Of course he doesn’t.
Re: Re: "whipped up mass hysteria over nothing"
I, for one, was truly whipped into a mass hysteria, dashing about and doing “jazz hands” in the air. There was no one else nearby, but considering my massive girth, I’d say that qualifies as “mass” hysteria.
The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
In other news, dog sees cat: I do wonder if the dog will bark?
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
Not m,ine. The cat’s in a box, sealed, with a vial of bromide gas.
Re: Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
What did you do to the cat? It looks half-dead.
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
The “nothing to contribute” troll post.
In other news, troll has nothing to contribute: I do wonder if the troll will post?
How about Ken brings something to Mike?s attention and Mike posts it on his DISCUSSION BLOG to spark DISCUSSION among people who read it? And since when was Mike a ‘news source’? He takes news stories from the web that fit within certain categories and comments on them and opens discussion of it.
True, I get a lot of news here as a first-source, but I don?t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences.
Re: Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
“but I don?t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences.”
What about a fedora, a whip, and a Webley? He could be a copyright archaeologist! Mickey Mouse certainly seems ancient to me…
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
Depends. But a more interesting question would be: Dog sees cat: Will the cat bark?
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
You do realise this is a blog, right, and not a primary news source?
blog
[blawg, blog] Show IPA
noun, verb, blogged, blog?ging.
?noun
1.
a web site containing the writer’s or group of writers’ own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
In the same news, out_of_the_blue barks at blog.
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
I do wonder if the dog will bark?
Trolls like you certainly do.
Having read far too many Daily Mail articles, this wouldn’t surprise me at all.
I’m not even sure how they could think there is a legal basis on that – while “sufficient acknowledgement” is required in some of the fair dealing copyright defences including for reporting of current events, that defence doesn’t even apply to photographs…
Sadly, I don’t think it’s just the Daily Mail that is confused about even the basics of copyright law…
Knows to be false
17 U.S.C. ? 506 Criminal offenses.
“Notice of copyright” … “that such person knows to be false”.
Suppose the Associated Press has a policy of placing copyright notices on all pictures, without exception. Does that rise to a level of constructively “knows” ?
Re: Knows to be false
That would appear to be the US code, not the UK code. I wonder if there’s something similar in the UK? No time to check myself unfortunately.
Re: Re: Knows to be false
Associated Press is U.S.
That’s why I was silently ignoring the Daily Mail.
Re: Re: Re: Knows to be false
Followup:
From the AP’s website, ?About AP?:
So, United States domicile, and ownership by United States persons.
They don’t call it The Daily Fail for nothing.
Re: Re:
Do they pay someone for the privilege of that pseudonym then?
Re: Re: Re:
Their entire staff apparently.
It would seem that the Mail uses a copyright symbol as some kinda shorthand attribution tag.
I’m calling it ‘lazy’ over ‘malicious’
Re: Re:
never blame malice on what incompetance can achieve.
KopyRight...
Does anyone doubt AP would claim copyright on PD materials? I don’t! I don’t understand why there hasn’t been a “gold rush” on PD materials. Cheating & Stealing seems to be a valid enough business model.
Re: KopyRight...
I actually have a significant doubt over whether the AP would charge a reprint fee to license a work of the United States Government to another media outlet.
Takedown
I’m just waiting for Mike to get the notice that he has to remove these copyrighted photos
Who actually took the Atlantis picture?
NASA Johnson Space Center STS-135 Image Gallery (photo #20) (full size) captions this image as:
Does that indicate that the photo was actually taken by an employee of the United States Government, in the course of his employment?
Or, supposing the picture was taken by a non-American crew-member, does it matter? After all, the United States Government is a partner in the ISS.
Re: Who actually took the Atlantis picture?
It indicates that NASA is the original source of the photo (ie. taken by a NASA employee). NASA images, unless otherwise noted, are not copyright protected. It is unlawful to claim copyright on those images.
Guidlines for use of NASA materials.
I think you’re onto something here and I see this as a consequence of so many people taking a nuanced concept like copyright and conflating it with ownership. It doesn’t help that we are being taught to believe that all forms of knowledge and information must be owned by someone.
Re: Re:
Then they should just cover all possible bases and stamp everything “? INTERNET”.
(C)_(C), copyright all things.
Images available for sale from AP in US
A quick search of AP Images (?Buy Essential Images from The Associated Press?) website shows that the Associated Press appears to be selling the Shuttle images, from a United States website. It doesn’t appear to be simple to link to the image search results, however, here are thumbnails from the three results found:
$ whois apimages.com
Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
Where is ICE to seize those domains now?
Re: Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
Are NASA pictures automatically put into the Public Domain?
If so, how does this mechanism work because IIRC other artists were having issues trying to do this (put their works in the PD) themselves in any manner whatsoever.
Selling PD images is perfectly legal and therefore not subject to ICE seizures.
Re: Re: Re: Images available for sale from AP in US
17 U.S.C. ? 105Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Selling copies of United States Government works is fine. Falsely marking United States Government works as copyrighted, with fraudulent intent, that is with intent to obtain something of value…
… well, if prosecutors won’t enforce it, then so what.
The Daily Mail (like most of the UK establishment) is a bit behind the curve when it comes to tech issues.
I mean, look at this article, published this year, where they wax lyrical about pictures that move. Yes, they’ve only just discovered the Animated GIF.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1380795/Cinemagraphs-Artists-develop-pictures-movement-stills-level.html
trolls, trolls, trolls
Reminds me of patent trolls, one of the latest in (authorized by law) criminal scams where anyone can be sued by one of the plethora of patent scam artists operating out dummy/front/empty offices in east Texas, mostly – where selected targets are told to pay up front for copyright infringement, but refuse to reveal specifics as to which patent is being infringed upon (not required by law). Even if innocent (which is almost all of the time), it costs a million to mount a defense, so most just settle (it other times and places this was called extortion). Copyrights are just a variation on a theme. Just make an allegation and the odds are in your favor no one will contest. A society of predators are we.
Mike, I think you have to remember a few things here:
1 – in posting on Youtube, you haven’t made anything public domain. Rather, the rights holder has granted youtube a license to use the content on their site. The copyright remains with the original creator, even if it appears on youtube.
2 – AP may have contacted the copyright holder (or his reps on earth) and obtained “exclusive” images, such as an original HD image rather than just a clip from a you tube video, and been granted resale rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as “reps” for the original image copyright holder. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.
3 – video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images.
I could go on. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff.
Posting on YouTube doesn’t make something public domain. How hard is that to understand?
Re: Re:
Mike, I think you have to remember a few things here:
…blah blah blah…
The thing is, Mike didn’t say the things you’re so desperately trying to make it look like he did.
Typical copyright shill.
Abolish copyright.
Re: Re:
The point is, YouTube does not own the rights to that video or image; Noe Castillo owns the copyrights. Therefore, the correct copyright statement is “? Noe Castillo”, not “? Youtube”. You are correct is saying that the image is not public domain, but that is not the point here.
Re: Re: Re:
No, but the point is that Noe Castillo, or (his/her) reps can resell the rights to the AP. The can cede all print rights to the AP, and give them copyright control over the still images.
Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true.
Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. I am shocked that he made such an obvious error.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But we are not shocked that every every one of your accusations is completely incorrect. It’s like you purposefully misunderstood every word Mike typed. Bizarre.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but the point is that Noe Castillo, or (his/her) reps can resell the rights to the AP. The can cede all print rights to the AP, and give them copyright control over the still images.
You appear to be confusing the two separate images. One is from the space station. One is from Noe.
We are saying the one from the space station is public domain. Not the other one.
Mike is making assumptions, and those assumptions are not true.
Putting an imagine in public view does not place it in the public domain. I am shocked that he made such an obvious error
You are making the error, not me. I never said, implied, suggested, hinted at, or anything that Castillo’s images were in the public domain. Merely that the ones from the space station, which come from NASA are in the public domain.
The sole purpose, as clearly explained in the article, for showing the Castillo images were to show the incorrect (c) notice on those too, to suggest that the problem was with the Daily Mail’s labeling, not with the AP.
I am at a loss as to how one could be so confused over what is clearly stated in the article, but you never cease to amaze me on a daily basis.
Re: Re:
1 – in posting on Youtube, you haven’t made anything public domain. Rather, the rights holder has granted youtube a license to use the content on their site. The copyright remains with the original creator, even if it appears on youtube.
Um. Nor did I say that it did. I only said that the shots from space — the NASA shots — were public domain. I merely used the (c)Youtube shots to explain what I think the Daily Mail is doing.
2 – AP may have contacted the copyright holder (or his reps on earth) and obtained “exclusive” images, such as an original HD image rather than just a clip from a you tube video, and been granted resale rights. It would potentially allow them to claim copyright on that image, as “reps” for the original image copyright holder. Perhaps AP has the exclusive rights to that particular image as a still rather than as a video.
NASA shots are public domain. Period. You can’t get an exclusive on them.
3 – video rights and still image rights are not the same rights. Youtube could have the rights to the video, but not to the still images.
Meaningless. They said (c). And, wtf are “video rights”? What statute is that in?
I could go on. For someone who makes their living jamming it to the copyright world, you seem often to miss the truly obvious stuff.
Considering all three of your points are 100% wrong, I’d say my track record is better than yours, as usual.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh god, do you ever get over your bad self?
3. Video rights / still image rights. When someone creates a work, they can (and often do) split the rights. They can sell all still image rights to one group (giving them legit copyright over the still images) and the rights to the video version of it to another group (giving them legit copyright on the video portion of it). Rights can be sliced almost any way you like, and those rights sold, transferred, or licensed depending on the business arrangement. For a guy who claims to know a lot about copyright, you really seem to be missing in action on this basic concept.
2. NASA’s material may be public domain, but I am not clearly seeing that the images belong to NASA, and not to the individual who shot them. Work for hire? Help us out here.
1. Whatever the Daily Mail is doing is (a) up to them, and (b) potentially the result of a contract or licensing agreement you just aren’t aware of. Did you contact the DM to ask them? Oh no, wait, you aren’t a journalist. You are just expressing opinion like the rest of us.
I shake my head at your personal insults. Can’t you control yourself, or is this the only way you can push your superiority complex out there?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please. Why would the guy have given still photo rights to YouTube of all things? That makes no sense whatsoever.
As for the other shot… you think an astronaut aboard the ISS was somehow able to contact the AP and transfer the rights… while still on board? I somehow doubt this.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
3. Video rights / still image rights. When someone creates a work, they can (and often do) split the rights. They can sell all still image rights to one group (giving them legit copyright over the still images) and the rights to the video version of it to another group (giving them legit copyright on the video portion of it). Rights can be sliced almost any way you like, and those rights sold, transferred, or licensed depending on the business arrangement. For a guy who claims to know a lot about copyright, you really seem to be missing in action on this basic concept.
I asked you for the specifically for the statute that explains “video rights.” You have not given it. You are making stuff up and your digging a deep hole, demonstrating your ignorance of the subject.
2. NASA’s material may be public domain, but I am not clearly seeing that the images belong to NASA, and not to the individual who shot them. Work for hire? Help us out here.
Hahahahahah. Oh, you make me laugh. The shot is NASA’s. Work for hire has nothing to do with anything here, and if you knew anything about copyright law, you would know that.
1. Whatever the Daily Mail is doing is (a) up to them, and (b) potentially the result of a contract or licensing agreement you just aren’t aware of. Did you contact the DM to ask them? Oh no, wait, you aren’t a journalist. You are just expressing opinion like the rest of us.
If the Daily Mail is making false copyright markings, then, no it is not “up to them.”
I shake my head at your personal insults. Can’t you control yourself, or is this the only way you can push your superiority complex out there
Irony.
Re: Re:
I could go on.
Sure, we not gonna stop you from making yourself look like a fool in public.
Missmarking of intellectual property
I work in the intellectual property arena where every scam known to man and some that are not know are used by non-practicing entities to transfer wealth from producers to non-producers. One of the current scams is ?miss marking?. This occurs when a company ships a product with patent numbers on a label. If a patent number references a patent that is expired or a patent that is clearly not part of the product then the label has been miss marked. There are several cottage industries where people go out and take pictures of product label that contain patent number. They then research the patents and if they discover that the patent is expired or does not relate to the product, they assume that the company producing the product purposely miss marked the label to keep other companies and individual from competing in the market. This allows the researchers and attorneys to file suit for miss marking and people have been collecting settlements and awards for miss marking.
It would appear to little old me that miss marking of copyrights is the next intellectual property gold field that will be mined and considering the companies slapping copyright notices on images, such as AP and the Daily Mail, someone is going to file suite and most likely collect. Also considering that content owners like news agencies are quick to file suite when people exercise fair use, this might make them a little more aware of what it feels like to be the little guy in a litigation.
Pat Price
NASA to AP
NASA shots are public domain. Period. You can’t get an exclusive on them.
Actually, NASA shots are copyrighted by NASA.