Flickr Obama/Joker Takedown Story Gets... Odd

from the so-what-happened? dept

We were a bit confused over the claim recently that Flickr (Yahoo) had taken down a Photoshopped image of Obama as "the Joker" superimposed on a Time Magazine cover. It didn't make much sense, because it wasn't clear who's copyright was even at issue. It didn't seem likely that Time Magazine would have any claim, even though that's what many assumed. So, some folks started asking around -- and all of the "obvious" candidates said no. Time Magazine, DC Comics and the original photographer who took the image on which the photo was based all insisted they didn't send the takedown. That resulted in some fingerpointing at Flickr, but some more digging by Thomas Hawk turned up a guy named Edward Przydzial (though Yahoo's takedown notification called him Przydzia, which resulted in even more confusion initially. But, no one seems to know who he is and what copyright he might hold in the matter, making the whole story quite bizarre. Hawk contacted Przydzial, who responded claiming that he created the image... but also that he doesn't own the image, and refused to say whether or not he filed the DMCA notice (and some bizarre stuff about needing a court order to find out who filed the DMCA notice). Once again, this highlights some of the inanities of the whole DMCA takedown process.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did Flickr Takedown Obama Joker Time Cover Over Copyright Infringement?

from the what-was-copied? dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in this story about Flickr supposedly taking down the "Obama Joker" Time Magazine cover that's been in the news lately, but I have to admit that I'm confused about the reasoning behind the takedown. There are questions of whether it's just "censorship," but I'm trying to figure out what's the actual copyright claim. The suggestion is that the concern is from Time Magazine, which doesn't like its brand associated with the falsified cover -- but wouldn't that be a trademark issue, rather than a copyright one? If there's any copyright issue at all, it would potentially (and then, weakly) be from whoever owns the rights to the original photo that was changed. But seeing as there's still an ongoing battle in the Shepard Fairey case to determine if that sort of thing is fair use and I haven't seen anyone identify the original Obama photo that was used here, it's not even clear who would be crying copyright infringement. So... where exactly is the copyright infringement here?

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can You Re-Copyright Photos In The Public Domain?

from the not-good dept

Davis Freeberg wrote in to tell us about how a small publishing company, Summertown Sun, had issued takedown notices for public domain photographs that were put on Flickr. What appears to have happened is that a user, by the name of "Dazzlecat," posted some photos to Flickr that she believed were public domain photographs (vintage photographs from over a century ago). However, Summertown Sun sent a takedown claiming copyright ownership of those photos. That seems odd, since public domain is... public domain. Either way, Yahoo/Flickr obeyed the takedown notice and then also took down a followup altered image and blog post that trashed Summertown for the takedown, saying that it violated Flickr's terms of service. Yahoo is, of course, free to do what it wants -- and has the right to takedown whatever it feels violates its terms of service, but what's more interesting is the question of whether or not the images are in the public domain, and whether or not Summertown's takedown was actually legal.

In a response to the original complaint about the takedowns, Summertown tried to defend itself by claiming:

We claim copyright on images we have creatively altered, which includes hundreds in our collections; such alterations remove them from the public domain. In addition we offer all of our images under the terms of a license agreement, regardless of copyright status, which is common practice in the image industry in recognition of considerable expenditure of production work, money, and other resources in making our products available.

That seems troubling -- and not quite right to me. You can't "remove" something from the public domain (Congress can apparently, but that's another issue). You can alter a work and then copyright the alterations if they are significant changes. Minor tweaks and alterations are not copyrightable and certainly the underlying original image is still very much in the public domain. Now, looking over the Victorian photographs that Summertown offers, many of them do not seem to have major alterations at all. Some appear to be colorized, so perhaps (maybe?) they could claim that the colored part of the images are copyrighted, but even that might be a stretch.

Furthermore, the fact that Summertown engages in the "common practice" of putting forth a license, regardless of copyright status, is rather meaningless. If it's in the public domain, it's in the public domain. You can't pretend the public domain doesn't exist just because you add a license to something. If that were the case, there would be no public domain at all.

I've run this by a few copyright lawyers I know, and most agreed that Summertown's position seems tenuous, though it really does depend on what photos, specifically, were uploaded to Flickr. So, without knowing exactly which images were placed in the Flickr stream, it's not 100% clear that Summertown violated the DMCA with a false takedown (it's against the law to send a takedown if you don't actually own the copyright), but if the photo in question really did not have significant alterations, then it seems likely.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Library Of Congress Goes 2.0

from the welcome-to-the-digital-age dept

It's nice to see that there's some buzz around the announcement today from the Library of Congress that it has teamed up with Yahoo's Flickr to put public domain images online for everyone to see and comment on. That's exactly the sort of thing the Library of Congress should be doing. The Library of Congress has been working for a while on doing a better job digitizing its archives, and it's nice to see them looking for ways to take advantage of what's out there already, rather than trying to do everything internally. Part of the deal is that the LoC is encouraging people to tag and comment on the photos, hoping that it will provide additional information on some of the images that it has little information about. Mathew Ingram wonders how effective that type of "crowdsourced" effort will actually be. He's right, that it probably won't be all that useful, but it probably can't hurt either. However, what could be even more interesting was if they did something like the ESP Game to more accurately tag photos by making it into something of a game.

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Turns Out You Can't Sue Creative Commons Because You Didn't Understand The CC License

from the still-cost-$15k dept

A few months ago we wrote about a somewhat bizarre lawsuit where the family of a teenager sued Creative Commons after a photo of the girl was used in an ad campaign by Virgin Mobile Australia. The details were a bit strange, and it appeared that the family (and its lawyer) were a bit confused themselves, leading them to sue parties that were not responsible at all. What happened was that a youth group counselor had taken a photo of the girl and posted it to Flickr with a Attribution 2.0 license -- meaning that anyone could use it, even for commercial purposes, so long as they gave credit for who took the photo. Virgin Mobile Australia then went and used the photo and others (with attribution) in a poster campaign for its mobile phone service. The girl later discovered all this when someone in Australia spotted the ad campaign with the Flickr URLs on the poster, and thought it was interesting enough to take a photo of the ad and put that up on Flickr. Her family then felt that she was being taken advantage of and found a lawyer who sued Virgin Mobile Australia, Virgin Mobile USA and Creative Commons. It's a stretch to think that even Virgin Mobile Australia has done anything wrong here (it followed the terms of the CC license), but there is simply no rationale for suing Virgin Mobile USA (a totally unrelated company to VMA) or Creative Commons. After all, Creative Commons hadn't done anything here other than exist.

If anything, the family could sue the photographer for posting the girl's photo with a CC license without permission -- but, instead, the family included the photographer as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. So, basically, they were suing CC because the photographer didn't understand the license he had chosen and he felt he deserved some money for his own misunderstanding as well. Thankfully, the family and its lawyer seem to have finally (after the fact) taken the time to realize that Creative Commons and Virgin Mobile USA have nothing to do with this lawsuit and have withdrawn the suit on those two firms (I assume the case against Virgin Mobile Australia will still continue). Unfortunately, however, their inability to figure this out before the lawsuit ended up costing Creative Commons approximately $15,000.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Creative Commons (And Virgin) Sued For Teen's Photo Being Used In Ad Campaign

from the sue,-sue,-sue dept

Stack writes in to let us know that the family of a teenager in Texas has sued Creative Commons, Virgin Mobile Australia and Virgin Mobile USA because Virgin Mobile Australia happened to use a photo of the girl in an ad campaign in Australia. The photo had been taken by the girl's youth counselor, who posted it on Flickr, with a Creative Commons license saying the photo could be used with attribution (the ad apparently includes the Flickr URL, so it appears to be following the terms). There are some bizarre parts to the story. It's not clear why they're suing Creative Commons, since the photographer (who is apparently suing as well) chose the license in question. If he didn't want to have the photo used, he shouldn't have picked a CC license (or should have picked a more restrictive CC license). It's certainly ridiculous to then blame CC because the guy didn't know what kind of license he was choosing or how it could be used. In fact, the original photo is still using a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license. You would think before suing the guy would have at least changed the license. It also doesn't make any sense that the family is suing Virgin Mobile USA. It's an entirely separate company from Virgin Mobile Australia. Also, the family says that they're quite upset because people can now "Google" their daughter. Yet, the ad doesn't have her name, and the photo was put online by the youth counselor, so it's not clear how they could be Googling the ad (and, of course, by suing, the family is only drawing a lot more attention to the ad). Finally, the family is complaining that this is defamatory and somehow insulting -- yet it's difficult to see how the ad can be construed as insulting. It's hard to see such a case getting very far -- though, it is interesting to see that Virgin Mobile was using CC Flickr photos in their ad campaign.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..