<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;images&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:22:28 PST</pubDate>
<title>Denver News Crew Accidentally Livens Up Broadcast With An Inappropriate Image 'Borrowed' From The Web</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/15274721078/denver-news-crew-accidentally-livens-up-broadcast-with-inappropriate-image-borrowed-web.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/15274721078/denver-news-crew-accidentally-livens-up-broadcast-with-inappropriate-image-borrowed-web.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's a well known fact that many people mistake Google's image search for a license-free stock photo repository. Of course, many people are unaware (or simply uninterested) in the nuances of copyright law, making liberal borrowing of images the norm, rather than the exception.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, members of industries that rely on the protection of copyright laws shouldn't have to be reminded that "running an image search" is <i>not even in the same neighborhood</i> as "properly sourcing a photo." This distinction is even more important if you're in a business that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100503/1850169293.shtml" target="_blank">relies on integrity</a>, along with various IP laws. Having a staffer just grab an image from "The Internet" for use during a news broadcast could, at the very least, put you in the situation of having to pay up and apologize publicly for using someone else's photo without permission. At worst, you could find yourself on the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10500211691/photographer-sues-state-of-texas-for-using-image-from-his-photograph-on-auto-inspection-stickers.shtml" target="_blank">receiving end</a> of a lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Somewhere in between these two situations lies another scenario: the photo picked hurriedly from the lineup presented by Google Image search is quite possibly THE WORST PHOTO THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CHOSEN. Charles Apple of the American Copy Editors Society has the details on <a href="http://apple.copydesk.org/2012/11/13/why-you-should-never-ever-steal-an-image-off-the-internet/" target="_blank">how grabbing a random image resulted in some serious embarrassment for a Denver news team</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>The folks at Denver's ABC-affiliated 7News last night ran a story about the David Petraeus sex scandal, his "mistress," Paula Broadwell, and her biography of Patraeus, All In.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Except instead of pulling an actual copy of the book cover, somebody just ran a Google search and pulled in the first thing they found. Which, unfortunately for 7News, was an altered copy of the book cover.</i></blockquote>
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/UjbXG.jpg" style="width: 501px; height: 318px;" /></center>
<blockquote>
<i>On the left, here, is the actual book cover. On the right is that image 7News pulled, most likely from a Google search.</i></blockquote>
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/Sru7y.jpg" style="width: 417px; height: 312px;" /></center>
<p>
Now, this sort of thing could have happened to anybody, but it really shouldn't be happening to professionals. But, as Apple points out, this sort of sloppy work is far from rare and he's got a long, long, incredibly long list of links to prove it (scroll towards the bottom of the page). A combination of careless image sourcing and less-than-thorough copy editing resulted in a situation that was likely much, much funnier to everyone <i>not</i> employed in certain positions at KMGH-TV. The news director <a href="http://jimromenesko.com/2012/11/13/denver-tv-station-calls-snatch-book-cover-an-embarrassing-error/" target="_blank">has since offered an apology for the "regrettable and embarrassing error"</a> and has promised to take steps to make sure this sort of mistake doesn't happen again.<br />
<br />
Well, we'll see. Apple's list contains a lot of repeat offenders. In the meantime, KMGH-TV can be happy it accidentally added a bit of levity to its viewers' lives and added to the pantheon of screw-ups forever enshrined on the web.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/15274721078/denver-news-crew-accidentally-livens-up-broadcast-with-inappropriate-image-borrowed-web.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/15274721078/denver-news-crew-accidentally-livens-up-broadcast-with-inappropriate-image-borrowed-web.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/15274721078/denver-news-crew-accidentally-livens-up-broadcast-with-inappropriate-image-borrowed-web.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>of-the-two-titles-presented,-I-know-which-one-I'd-be-more-likely-to-read</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121116/15274721078</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Twitter Sued For Failing To Take Down Images Following DMCA Notices</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/02400020355/twitter-sued-failing-to-take-down-images-following-dmca-notices.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/02400020355/twitter-sued-failing-to-take-down-images-following-dmca-notices.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've pointed out in the past that Twitter has sometimes been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/03485715680/twitter-keeps-suspending-accounts-based-highly-questionable-dmca-claims.shtml">overaggressive</a> in suspending accounts based on questionable DMCA claims.  So I was a bit surprised to learn that <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/twitter-wont-take-down-tiny-food-photos-so-artist-sues/" target="_blank">Twitter is being sued by a photographer for failing to take down images</a>.  The Jon Brodkin writeup at Ars Technica, linked here, is incredibly thorough, so it's worth reading the whole thing.  The short version is that photographer Christopher Boffoli got a lot of attention recently for some of his photographs depicting little people next to giant food items.  Not surprisingly, a lot of folks shared those photos around, and one popular way to do so was via Twitter.  Boffoli claims that he sent a bunch of DMCA notices, including some over images that were hosted directly by Twitter (Twitter used to just allow third party photo hosting services, but launched its own a while back).  I'm a bit surprised that Twitter didn't respond to the DMCA notices by taking down those works.
<br /><br />
However, as lawyer Evan Brown correctly explains in Brodkin's article, failing to take down works upon receipt of a DMCA notice does not automatically make one guilty of infringement.  It just means they can't directly avail themselves of the safe harbors in the DMCA.  They can still make plenty of other arguments for why they have not broken the law.  And Brown suggests that there are many reasons why they're likely to prevail:
<blockquote><i>
"If I were Twitter, I would not necessarily be all that concerned about Boffoli's claims, based on the facts as they appear in the complaint," Brown said. "It doesn't look like Twitter has materially contributed to the alleged infringement. Courts have held that just providing a website is not enough to lend material support in another's infringement. And I don't see how Twitter is obtaining any direct financial benefit from the alleged infringement. Moreover, I doubt Boffoli will be able to point to any statements on Twitter's part encouraging its users to infringe copyright. If he can't show any of these things, his secondary liability claims would appear to be dead in the water. But the lawsuit is just beginning&#8212;maybe he has some great facts that will come out later. I'm skeptical, though."
</i></blockquote>
Part of Boffoli's claim is that Twitter's terms of service implicate the company, but I think he's misreading that:
<blockquote><i>
...he said that Twitter hosts a large volume of his work in violation of his copyright, and under Twitter's <a href="http://twitter.com/tos">terms of service</a>&nbsp;the company claims a "worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license" to reproduce and distribute that content as it pleases.
</i></blockquote>
That's not quite accurate.  The terms of service just say that the <i>user</i> who is doing the upload is <i>granting</i> Twitter such a license to display the work.  If that user does not have the right to grant such a license, than the focus should be on that user and their own infringement.
<br /><br />
And it's here where Boffoli's arguments get kind of weak.  He's suing Twitter because they're a big company... but at the same time he claims that he doesn't mind when people post a few images:
<blockquote><i>
"I'm genuinely humbled and grateful that people are enthusiastic about my work and want to share it," Boffoli told Ars. "If somebody puts a couple of my pictures on a Tumblr page, thats totally fine."
</i></blockquote>
So why sue Twitter?  Well he claims it's because "Twitter hosts a large volume of his work."  But... right before that he says that it's fine for people to post a few images to Tumblr, meaning that Tumblr, too, almost certainly hosts a "large volume" of his work.  And his complaints to Twitter focus on four specific users, who each posted images.  But he's not suing the users.  And... again, he seems to say that it's okay for the users to share a couple images via a platform like Twitter and Tumblr.  But then... in the same breath he claims that those platforms are then liable?  That seems to undermine his case.
<br /><br />
Finally, Boffoli and his lawyer seem to both complain about his inability to make money on the images... while also being happy that the images went viral, admitting that they've helped raise his profile.
<blockquote><i>
"He gets a ton of notoriety but he doesn't make a lot of money off it yet," [Boffoli's lawyer Keith] Scully said. "He does all his own copyright policing because he can't afford to hire a legion of lawyers and staff to take care of it for him."
<br /><br />
"I'm just a working artist, trying to support my studio and myself," Boffoli said. Numerous websites do contact him to ask permission to distribute his work, "which I really appreciate," he noted. "It gives me a chance to provide the work in context, and even to provide images that aren't out there yet."
</i></blockquote>
So... his complaint is that the viral nature of the images made him famous and has created buzz that has resulted in legitimate requests, and he doesn't mind when individuals post up his work, because that helps him.  But for some reason he's then suing Twitter.  As for having to do all of his own policing, perhaps the better answer is to look for more ways to leverage the viral nature of these images.  He notes at another point that some of the images don't link back to him as the original photographer (while others do).  Wouldn't it be a lot more productive to send <i>friendly</i> notes to those who shared his images by just asking them to <i>also</i> promote a link to his website and maybe a way to license or commission works?  That would actually keep his works viral and encourage sharing, while <i>also</i> driving more people to potentially give him money.
<br /><br />
The more the details come out, the more this feels like a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/10573119811/attendee-batman-shooting-plans-to-sue-warner-bros-making-batman-too-violent.shtml">"Steve Dallas lawsuit,"</a> in which he's suing Twitter not because the company has actually infringed... but because they're a big company with money who might just pay him.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/02400020355/twitter-sued-failing-to-take-down-images-following-dmca-notices.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/02400020355/twitter-sued-failing-to-take-down-images-following-dmca-notices.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/02400020355/twitter-sued-failing-to-take-down-images-following-dmca-notices.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-automatically-guilty</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120912/02400020355</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>Georgia Lawmaker Looking To Make Photoshopping Heads On Naked Bodies Illegal</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120122/02084717501/georgia-lawmaker-looking-to-make-photoshopping-heads-naked-bodies-illegal.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120122/02084717501/georgia-lawmaker-looking-to-make-photoshopping-heads-naked-bodies-illegal.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The age-old rhetorical and theological question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" seems to be finding itself answered more and more with, "So that good people can make bad laws." Such is the case of a 17-year-old Citadel student who earlier this year <a href="http://archives.postandcourier.com/archive/arch11/0311/arc032311672807.shtml" target="_blank">found her personal contact information attached to a pornographic photo online</a>. 
<blockquote><i>
High school junior Kelsey Upton was puzzled. Why was a stranger from Iowa sending her a text message?
<br /><br />
Her confusion turned to terror last fall when she learned that the person who had sent the message had plucked her personal information from a pornographic website. Without her knowledge, someone had placed her name and phone number on the site next to a photo of a naked woman, in an explicit position, who somewhat resembled her.
<br /><br />
Her father, a federal investigator who previously worked for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, traced the posting to a Citadel cadet, with the help of law enforcement officials. But to their dismay, Upton and her father learned that no crime was committed. Now Randy and Kelsey Upton, who live in Oxford, Ga., plan to meet with legislators and other public officials to try to make such actions a crime. "I want him arrested," said Kelsey Upton, now 17. "But if that won't happen, I want a law about this so someone doesn't just get a slap on the wrist."
</i></blockquote>
Well, the Uptons are in luck. Sort of. <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/19/there-oughtta-be-a-law-71/" target="_blank">The Agitator informs us</a> that Georgia State Representative Pam Dickerson is <a href="http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/ban-photoshopped-heads-on-nude-photos-20120110-LGF">looking to close this legal loophole</a> by making it illegal to "intentionally cause an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction in such a manner that a reasonable person would conclude that the image depicted was that of the person so wrongfully identified." This would include using a person's name, telephone number, address or email address.
<br /><br />
However, Dickerson feels that isn't enough. She then adds:
<blockquote><i>
"Such identification shall also include the electronic imposing of the facial image of a person onto an obscene depiction."
</i></blockquote>
Now, rather than just closing an unfortunate hole in Georgia's libel laws, Dickerson is aiming to make a pastime as old as the internet itself, photoshopping celebrities' heads onto porn stars' bodies, a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
<br /><br />
Now, I'm not here to suggest that the long and storied history of creating celebupr0n makes this a part of our rich cultural heritage and an unassailable act of free speech. What I am suggesting, however, is this:
<br /><br />
1. Creating a law to deal with a very specific set of actions with no real precedence or evidence of mass abuse is the sort of thing that creates legal clutter and goes a long way towards explaining why it's <a href="http://appellateblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/old-and-stupidfunny-michigan-laws.html">illegal to tie your alligator to a fire hydrant in Michigan</a>.
<br /><br />
2. Existing libel/defamation laws should already be handling Photoshopped head transfers. There's really no reason to take this from the civil arena and turn it into a criminal act.
<br /><br />
3. It looks as if the Citadel is already planning on handling this internally as an issue between two cadets. Adding another law to the books is redundant at best and, at worst, is just encouraging people to holler for new laws every time they've been wronged.
<br /><br />
4. If this law goes through, it will be subject to endless expansion, much in the way cyberbullying legislation has been stretched to cover such ridiculous acts as eye rolling and so-called "deliberate exclusion." Offended citizens who find themselves photoshopped into other (non-sexual) compromising positions, like say, having their male heads attached to clothed female bodies or made to appear as though they endorse businesses and lifestyles that they clearly don't, will feel the law doesn't go far enough. The internet is a very inventive place while most lawmakers are not.
<br /><br />
5. It will be ridiculed mercilessly. See also <a href="http://www.drewprops.com/2012/01/georgia-lawmaker-against-photoshop-nudes/">this post</a> (possibly NSFW) and this clip (possibly not safe for your brain):
<br /><br />
<center>
<object width="500" height="345" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TBS/cvp/teamcoco_drupal_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&#038;videoId=23181" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TBS/cvp/teamcoco_drupal_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&#038;videoId=23181" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="500" height="345"></embed></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120122/02084717501/georgia-lawmaker-looking-to-make-photoshopping-heads-naked-bodies-illegal.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120122/02084717501/georgia-lawmaker-looking-to-make-photoshopping-heads-naked-bodies-illegal.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120122/02084717501/georgia-lawmaker-looking-to-make-photoshopping-heads-naked-bodies-illegal.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck----that's-like-half-the-internet</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120122/02084717501</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:52:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives</title>
<dc:creator>Nina Paley</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/15130816114/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/15130816114/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <i>Cross-posted from <a href="http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/09/27/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives/">ninapaley.com </a></i>
<br /><br />
Dear Internet,
<br /><br />
You know what should be really easy to find online? Good quality, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain">Public Domain</a> vintage illustrations. You know, things like this:
<br /><br />
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgoulao/3174377229/" title="Hats / chap&eacute;us by CGoulao, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/3174377229_6e25d1990b.jpg" alt="Hats / chap&eacute;us" width="500" height="191" />
</a></center>
<br /><br />
I found this on <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgoulao/3174377229/in/set-72157611955732369">Flickr</a>, where someone claims full copyright on it. That's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud">copyfraud</a>, but understandable because Flickr's default license is full copyright (all the more reason to ignore copyright notices!). But copyfraud isn't not the main problem. The main problem is that images like this are painfully difficult to find online, especially at high resolutions (and this image is only available at medium resolution - up to <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgoulao/3174377229/sizes/o/in/set-72157611955732369/">604 pixels high</a>, which is barely usable for most purposes but higher than much of what you find online).
<br /><br />
The images are out there - and with zillions of antique books being scanned, their vintage illustrations are being scanned right along with them. But the images are buried in the text, and often the scan quality is poor. Images should be scanned at high quality, and tagged for searchability.
<br /><br />
Are archives ignoring the value of images?
<br /><br />
Take the <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/ListAll.php">American Memory archive</a> of the Library of Congress. Lots and lots of historical documents here, but no way for me to find an image of, say, a horse.
<br /><br />
Most <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/">book</a>-<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/">scanning</a> projects focus on texts, not illustrations. Many interesting and useful illustrations are buried within these scans, uncatalogued and inaccessible. Scan quality is set for text, not illustrations, so even if one can find a choice illustration buried within, its quality is usually too low to use.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.archive.org/">Archive.org</a> is great (I love you, archive.org!) but <b>does not have an image archive</b>. Still images are not among their "Media Types" (which consist of Moving Images, Texts, Audio, Software, and Education). So I went spelunking through their texts, starting with "American Libraries," and searched for something easy: "<a href="http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=horse%20AND%20collection%3Aamericana">horse</a>." Surely I could find a nice usable etching of a horse in there somewhere. I eventually found "<a href="http://www.archive.org/details/harnesshor00gilb">The Harness Horse</a>" by Sir Walter Gilbey, from 1898.
<br /><br />
<center>
<a href="http://blog.ninapaley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Horse6_AcrobatWindow.jpg"><img src="http://blog.ninapaley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Horse6_AcrobatWindow.jpg" alt="" title="Horse6_AcrobatWindow" width="560" /></a>
</center>
<br /><br />
Nice illustrations! Can I use them? Unfortunately, no. The book is downloadable as PDF and various e-publication formats, but when I try to extract the illustrations, I get a mess (which you can see, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/15130816114/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives.shtml">after the jump</a>):
<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/15130816114/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/15130816114/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/15130816114/dear-internet-we-need-better-image-archives.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>The-Public-Domain-should-be-Public</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110927/15130816114</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:02:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Summit Entertainment Sues Fans Who Tweeted Images From Upcoming Twilight Flick</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/02504313986/summit-entertainment-sues-fans-who-tweeted-images-upcoming-twilight-flick.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/02504313986/summit-entertainment-sues-fans-who-tweeted-images-upcoming-twilight-flick.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted in the past that movie studio Summit Entertainment is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=summit+entertainment">more aggressive than most</a> at going after just about anyone it thinks is violating its intellectual property -- especially when it comes to its flagship <i>Twilight</i> franchise.  Apparently, some photos from the set of the latest installment of the film were leaked and got passed around online.  Note: this wasn't video, just still photos.  It's hard to see how or why anyone could be too upset about that.  Having those photos passed around would seem like a nice sign of how much fans are anticipating the film.  Initially, the folks behind the film (along with book author Stephenie Meyer -- who at one point seemed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0050491905.shtml">get this stuff</a>) put out a <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/breaking-dawn-producers-plead-fans-174000" target="_blank">statement asking people to stop sharing the images</a>:
<blockquote><i>
 As some of you may know, pictures and screen grabs of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn as a work in progress have leaked on the internet. We are extremely proud of this film and also extremely heartbroken to see it out there at this stage.
<br /><br />
The film and these images are not yet ready or in their proper context. They were illegally obtained and their early dissemination is deeply upsetting to the actors, the filmmakers and Summit who are working so hard to bring these movies to fruition to you in November 2011 and November 2012.
<br /><br />
Please, for those who are posting, stop. And please, though the temptation is high, don&rsquo;t view or pass on these images. Wait for the film in its beautiful, finished entirety to thrill you. 
</i></blockquote>
As these things go, that's not too bad.  It's a little ridiculous to claim that some photos of a movie getting passed around is "deeply upsetting" to everyone involved in the film, but it's a heartfelt plea, not entirely unlike some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml">suggestions</a> we've made for other studios.
<br /><br />
However, it appears that it wasn't just a heartfelt plea going on.  While they were appealing to people agreeing to stop sharing the photos, Summit was <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hollywood-docket-summit-sues-identify-179389" target="_blank">also filing a lawsuit against 10 John Does accused of sharing the images via Twitter</a>.  The lawsuit is so that the company can subpoena Twitter to try to get the identities of those individuals.
<br /><br />
Honestly, the whole thing seems insane.  These people <i>like your movie</i> and they <i>can't wait to see it</i> or get any information about it.  That's a <i>good</i> thing.  Nothing in the photos takes away from the movie or hurts the movie.  <i>Suing your fans</i>, however for expressing how much they love the film?  Yeah, <i>that</i> can hurt a film...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/02504313986/summit-entertainment-sues-fans-who-tweeted-images-upcoming-twilight-flick.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/02504313986/summit-entertainment-sues-fans-who-tweeted-images-upcoming-twilight-flick.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/02504313986/summit-entertainment-sues-fans-who-tweeted-images-upcoming-twilight-flick.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110421/02504313986</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>NY Times Lawyers Shut Down Blog Promoting The NY Times</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/11561113386/ny-times-lawyers-shut-down-blog-promoting-ny-times.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/11561113386/ny-times-lawyers-shut-down-blog-promoting-ny-times.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The NY Times continues its drive to irrelevance.  As we get ready to hear the details of the NYT's plan to lock itself up online, its lawyers are apparently seeking to shut down people promoting its works.  Jonathan Paul, a former web editor at the NY Times, set up a Tumblr blog account last summer, which he used to promote what he felt was "beautiful and unexpected imagery" found on the NY Times website.  He did so very much in the spirit of promoting those works, including full credits and links back to the original works at the NY Times.  It built up a decent audience of people, driving many of them to the NY Times website.  And, in response, the NY Times sent its lawyers <a href="http://tenones.tumblr.com/post/3703561055/to-the-reader-thank-you-for-reading-111-111-1111" target="_blank">to shut down the blog</a>, claiming that it was copyright infringement (found via <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/mathewi/statuses/44841734995320832" target="_blank">Mathew Ingram</a>).  Paul notes that the blog actually had a decent following within the NYT, and his former colleagues had encouraged the project and helped promote it as well, fully realizing that it was helping their own work get more attention and driving more traffic to the NYT.  And then the lawyers stepped in.  One more example of why just because you <i>can</i> do something from a legal standpoint, it doesn't mean you should -- and another reason why you tend to make really bad business decisions when you let the lawyers decide to act, without understanding the actual business implications of what you're doing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/11561113386/ny-times-lawyers-shut-down-blog-promoting-ny-times.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/11561113386/ny-times-lawyers-shut-down-blog-promoting-ny-times.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/11561113386/ny-times-lawyers-shut-down-blog-promoting-ny-times.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-backwards-can-you-be?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110307/11561113386</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:22:07 PST</pubDate>
<title>Just What No One Needs Or Wants: Web Images With DRM And An Expiration Date</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/23105712806/just-what-no-one-needs-wants-web-images-with-drm-expiration-date.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/23105712806/just-what-no-one-needs-wants-web-images-with-drm-expiration-date.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The BBC is reporting on a new project to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12215921" target="_blank">create web images that "expire" after a certain period of time</a>.  The thinking is that people who put photos up on social networking profiles may be embarrassed by them later, so, this way, the photo can only stay up for a set period of time and then no longer be viewable.  Of course, to make all of this work requires DRM.  And, to make the DRM work means that anyone who wants to see such photos has to actually install a browser plug-in that they're unlikely to want to install.  And, if they do install the plug-in, they can probably still just take a screenshot of the image anyway -- especially when you realize that someone is so embarrassed by the image that they want it to automatically delete at some point after forcing you to install annoying DRM you don't want.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/23105712806/just-what-no-one-needs-wants-web-images-with-drm-expiration-date.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/23105712806/just-what-no-one-needs-wants-web-images-with-drm-expiration-date.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/23105712806/just-what-no-one-needs-wants-web-images-with-drm-expiration-date.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110124/23105712806</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>New Newspaper Business Model: Create Compelling Graphic, Wait For Others To Use It... And Then Sue</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/03211712378/new-newspaper-business-model-create-compelling-graphic-wait-others-to-use-it-then-sue.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/03211712378/new-newspaper-business-model-create-compelling-graphic-wait-others-to-use-it-then-sue.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As a bunch of folks have been submitting, it appears that Righthaven's latest strategic shift is to <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/death-ray-lawsuits/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired27b %28Blog - 27B Stroke 6 %28Threat Level%29%29" target="_blank">sue a bunch of sites that posted a popular illustration</a> that was published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  The story had to do with the so-called "Vdara death ray."  The Vdara hotel on the Strip in Vegas apparently was built in such a way that at certain points, the sun would reflect off of the building in a focused manner, down towards the guest pool area, and it actually singed one guest's hair.  The story is the sort of thing that goes viral quickly, and became fodder for talk shows and comedians and such.  And, not surprisingly, a variety of sites used the illustration that was published in the LVRJ to explain the "death ray."  So, now, of course, Righthaven is suing a whole bunch of them.  Considering that this is a story about the image, and we're commenting specifically on the image itself (not just the story), it seems likely that posting this particular image here is fair use -- though I will follow Wired's lead and use the version of the image that was from the lawsuit filing, rather than the original image:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/pd3RW.png" width=350 />
</center>
While the specifics in different cases may vary, I would imagine many would have strong fair use claims as well.  It's hard to see how posting this image harms the LVRJ, and it seems quite likely that it would actually draw more people to finding the original article.  To be honest, I first heard about the Vdara death ray a few months back when I saw this image on another site, and then went to the original LVRJ article.
<br /><br />
Either way, with this new effort, it suggests increasing desperation on Righthaven's part.  But, you can just see the next step should these cases actually lead to cash: just keep creating "viral" type images, wait until people highlight them, and then sue, sue, sue, until the world over learns to simply avoid the LVRJ or other Righthaven associated newspapers entirely.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/03211712378/new-newspaper-business-model-create-compelling-graphic-wait-others-to-use-it-then-sue.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/03211712378/new-newspaper-business-model-create-compelling-graphic-wait-others-to-use-it-then-sue.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/03211712378/new-newspaper-business-model-create-compelling-graphic-wait-others-to-use-it-then-sue.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>righthaven-way</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101222/03211712378</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:14:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>US Copyright Group Caught Red Handed Copying Competitor's Website</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/10510310426.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/10510310426.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Why is it that the biggest "defenders" of copyright are always the ones caught infringing on others' copyrights?  As a whole bunch of you have been submitting, US Copyright Group -- the publicity seeking effort from DC law firm Dunlap, Grubb &#038; Weaver that is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1132478790.shtml">suing</a> tens of thousands of people for alleged copyright infringement in an effort to get them to pay up via "pre-settlement" letters -- appears to have a bit of a problem with understanding copyright itself.  TorrentFreak is showing how USCG appears to have <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-group-steal-competitors-website-100730/" target="_blank">blatantly copied the full HTML for its "settlements" website</a> from a competing operation called Copyright Enforcement Group.  USCG had set up a site at <a href="http://www.copyrightsettlement.info/" target="_blank">CopyrightSettlement.info</a> that had code that was so obviously copied from CEG that it included CEG's <i>copyright statement, images and phone number</i> for some of the time.  Since then, much of the code has been "scrubbed," but plenty of CEG's code was still there.  Here's the image TorrentFreak put together noting the... uh... obvious similarities (you can click for a larger view):
<center>
<a href="http://torrentfreak.com/images/us_copyright_group_violation_1.jpg"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4843713457_8c38839b9e.jpg" border=0/></a>
</center>
And it's not a case of the two operations being related or sharing information.  TorrentFreak contacted CEG about this, and was told:
<blockquote><i>
"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are not associated with the US Copyright Group and they are not authorized to use Copyright Enforcement Group materials."
</i></blockquote>
Someone else was told that Dunlap, Grubb &#038; Weaver will be receiving a cease &#038; desist shortly.  I wonder what sort of "pre-settlement" option will come with <i>that</i> letter.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/10510310426.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/10510310426.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/10510310426.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>photo-hunt</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100730/10510310426</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:17:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>BP Photoshopping Goes From Bad To Ridiculously Bad</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01352410315.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01352410315.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With BP finally <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10718310" target="_blank">admitting</a> it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/12212210290.shtml">Photoshopped an image</a> showing its "oil spill response center," it appears that people are finding all sorts of <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5592836/bp-photoshops-another-official-image-again-terribly" target="_blank">ridiculously bad photoshops</a> done by BP in describing its response to the oil spill.  Take, for example, the photo below:
<center>
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4817231451_dfdc21dbec.jpg"/>
</center>
It doesn't take long to realize that the helicopter cockpit you're looking at is not actually in the air at all.  In the upper lefthand corner, above the pilot's head, you can see an air traffic control tower.  Oops.  And, at the link above, they also zoom in on some of the panel instrumentation, suggesting that the door and ramp are open and <i>the parking brake is engaged</i>.  Oh, and that document in the pilot's hand?  Pre-flight checklist.
<br /><br />
Perhaps BP is practicing in an effort to <i>Photoshop</i> the oil out of the gulf...  However, somehow, I get the feeling it would leave some... artifacts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01352410315.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01352410315.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01352410315.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100722/01352410315</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:43:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Whether You're BP Or A Petty Criminal, Photoshopping Yourself To Look Sympathetic Probably Isn't Wise</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/12212210290.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/12212210290.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/20/1532237/Criminal-Photoshops-Himself-Into-Charity-Photos-In-Bid-For-Leniency?from=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> pointed us to this fun story about a scam artist who tried to get leniency from a judge by showing him photos of charity work he had done.  The only problem?  <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/good_scam_aritan_33Lve0jf6nuZYBYCuH4dPP" target="_blank">He Photoshopped himself into the photos</a> and also forged letters from those charitable organizations.  Not surprisingly, the judge didn't take too kindly to it, and gave him 285 months in prison -- 50 more than the sentencing guidelines allow -- because of the attempt to defraud the court.
<br /><br />
Of course, I was thinking of doing a post on just that, when <a href="http://twitter.com/KarlBode/statuses/19002814044" target="_blank">Karl Bode</a> pointed me to the news that <a href="http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-photoshops-fake-photo-of-command.html" target="_blank">BP has also been caught messing around with Photoshopped images</a>.  Apparently, the images that BP has released of its oil spill "command center" are really, really, poorly Photoshopped.  After being called on it, BP denied it, then sorta admitted it, but won't explain the details.  Then, to make matters worse, it got caught <a href="http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-fakes-another-oil-spill-photo-this.html" target="_blank">with another Photoshopped image</a>.
<br /><br />
So, whether you're a petty criminal, or a giant multi-billion dollar multi-national, perhaps you should layoff the Photoshop when trying to make yourself look sympathetic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/12212210290.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/12212210290.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/12212210290.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-a-tip</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100720/12212210290</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:52:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Amazon And Perfect 10 Settle Lawsuit; But Details Are Sealed</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1847518280.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1847518280.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Perfect 10, the adult entertainment publisher who simply freaked out about its magazine photos appearing online and mistakenly sued Google and Amazon for finding their images (that others had uploaded) via their search engines, never seems to want to admit that it sued the wrong entities.  Every time it sues a third party (it also tried suing payment processors), claiming copyright infringement, the courts end up tossing out the lawsuits (there was a lower court ruling in Perfect 10s favor that got <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070516/153840.shtml">overturned</a>).  But, on the whole, Perfect 10s track record in these lawsuits is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/124727.shtml">pretty dismal</a>.  Yet it keeps on trying.  Last year, a lawsuit against Amazon was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/0237254925.shtml">dismissed</a> after the court pointed out that Amazon was clearly protected by the DMCA. 
<br /><br />
 It appears that Perfect 10 and Amazon have <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-22/amazon-com-perfect-10-settle-suit-over-nude-pictures-update1-.html" target="_blank">finally settled that lawsuit</a>, though they aren't releasing the terms and conditions of the settlement.  Given that Amazon won so handily in court, you'd have to imagine that Perfect 10 basically gave up to get the settlement.  Still, it's unfortunate that the details aren't being made clear, as it would give confidence to other companies who are sued in similarly misguided lawsuits.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1847518280.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1847518280.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1847518280.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>doubt-amazon-paid-much-if-anything</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100223/1847518280</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://twitter.com/copycense/statuses/7394511066" target="_blank">Copycense</a> points us to a writeup by a patent attorney named Steve O'Donnell about <a href="http://3cpatents.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=2979&#038;PostID=110816" target="_blank">copyright and blogging</a>.  Why a patent attorney is writing about copyright is not clearly explained.  Initially, since the title of O'Donnell's post was "How many copyrights does your blog infringe?" I thought the post might be one of those blog posts that reminds us how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml">frequently</a> everyone "technically" infringes on copyright incidentally and how this demonstrates <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/0041554839.shtml">how screwed up copyright law is</a>.  But, no, instead, this appears to be a serious "warning" claiming that most bloggers are risking the potential of $150,000 fines by using images they find online.
<br /><br />
Copycense points out the irony that O'Donnell uses an image in the post itself and notes that the image <i>appears</i> to be in the public domain, but isn't sure.  However, I think a bigger issue with the post is hidden in this sentence:
<blockquote><i>
If you find a picture on Flickr, another blog, or somewhere else online and upload it to your own blog (or worse yet, inline link to it from your blog) without permission, you're committing a copyright violation. 
</i></blockquote>
First of all, that's not necessarily true.  Obviously it depends on lots of other factors -- but I really question the parenthetical.  Would inline linking (usually called "hotlinking") to an image be copyright infringement under any circumstance?  I understand that it's considered <i>rude</i> and generally frowned upon in internet circles (and, in some cases the hoster of the original file will "get back" at the hotlinker by changing the image to something different... and potentially nasty).  But is it copyright infringement?  Technically, a hotlinked image is no different than a link to an image.  The difference in code is minimal.  The image itself is never "copied" onto your server.  All you are doing is telling a computer to go visit the original version of the image, which was put there on purpose.
<br /><br />
We've had similar discussions in the past about whether or not it could be copyright infringement to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070703/144358.shtml">embed</a> an infringing video on your site -- and the situation is basically the same with hotlinked images.  The content still resides on the original server and is not copied to the new server at all.  If the content itself is infringing, then perhaps there's a (really, really, really) weak case for contributory infringement, but in O'Donnell's post, he seems to be implying that even hotlinking to an authorized image would be copyright infringement, and I just don't see how that makes sense from a technological or legal perspective at all.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-don't-think-so...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100105/0109067611</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Unblurred Google Satellite Images Is The Equivalent Of Yelling Fire?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/0353514089.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/0353514089.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this month, we wrote about how a politician in California, Assemblyman Joel Anderson, was looking to force Google and other providers of online mapping/satellite offerings to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1700193971.shtml">blur images</a> of schools, churches and government buildings.  News.com ran an <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10193237-60.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">interview with Anderson</a>, where he attempts to defend his proposed legislation as a matter of public safety.  He claims that there is no good reason why anyone would need to clearly see these buildings online, and that it can <i>only</i> be used for bad purposes:
<blockquote><i>
Who wants to know that level of detail? Bad people do. 
</i></blockquote>
Apparently, Anderson is the final determiner of what good people do and what bad people do with online maps.  Then, when pushed on the fact that forcing companies to blur images of public locations might not pass constitutional muster, Anderson claimed that it was the equivalent of yelling fire:
<blockquote><i>
But since when do you have a First Amendment right to yell fire? This falls under the same category.
</i></blockquote>
I'm curious how that's anywhere near the same category.  One is deceiving a bunch of people with an alarming false statement, where the resulting response can put people in danger -- and the other is an accurate representation of a building.  Am I missing something?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/0353514089.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/0353514089.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/0353514089.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-what-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090312/0353514089</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:27:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Germany Finds Google Images A Violation Of Copyright Law</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081014/0038512534.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081014/0038512534.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ US courts have recognized, reasonably, that an image search engine like Google's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070516/153840.shtml">is not infringing on copyrights</a> when it displays thumbnail images as a result of a search.  However, it appears that German courts are not quite so understanding.  Two new rulings in Germany <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&#038;sid=a_C1wVkCvPww" target="_new">say that thumbnail images are, in fact, copyright infringement</a>.  The German court's reasoning was: "It doesn't matter that thumbnails are much smaller than original pictures and are displayed in a lower resolution. By using photos in thumbnails, no new work is created."  While I'm certainly not as familiar with German copyright law as I am with American copyright law, this statement still doesn't make that much sense.  
<br /><br />
The purpose of copyright law shouldn't just be concerned with whether or not a new work is created, but the purpose of what's being done.  So it's difficult to see, for example, how a thumbnail that links to the original can possibly do any harm.  If the "artist" behind an image doesn't want it found in Google, don't put it online.  If the complaint is that someone else put the image on Google allowing it to be indexed, that's not Google's fault, but whoever put it online.  Suing Google makes little sense -- and a judge finding against Google makes even less sense.  Google has made it clear it <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10064740-93.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">intends to appeal</a>, but it's troubling that a court would rule this way in the first place.  It suggests, at the very least, a less than complete understanding of how an image search engine works.  It also should raise questions about whether or not this ruling effectively makes any sort of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking" target="_new">inline hotlinking</a> of images copyright violations as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081014/0038512534.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081014/0038512534.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081014/0038512534.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>needing-safe-harbors</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081014/0038512534</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 09:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Singapore Firm Claims Patent On Hyperlinked Images</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1450451234.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1450451234.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah silly patents.  Remember back when British Telecom thought that it held a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/001215/1316214.shtml">patent on hyperlinks</a>?  And then there've been multiple different <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/015710104.shtml">patents</a> claiming ownership of the idea of putting an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060526/1144205.shtml">image</a> on a website.  Well, it appears that a company in Singapore has recently merged the two ideas into its own patent, and boy, is it ever ready to sue just about everyone.  <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/27/1643258&#038;from=rss">Slashdot</a> points us to the news that Singaporean image search firm Vuestar Technologies claims to <a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/techguide/smb/0,3800010798,62041802,00.htm" target="_new">hold a patent on linking images from a website to another site</a> and is <a href="http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/legalnews/57100.html">sending out</a> threatening letters to a bunch of websites.  No one has linked to the actual patent so it's difficult to see what it really covers -- but the idea that a recent patent would cover the concept of linking images seems preposterous.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1450451234.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1450451234.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1450451234.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080527/1450451234</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>