I get that there's some wiggle room here, but I think the headline was far insulting to the photographer than was warranted.
The license, at least on its face, appears to require forbid companies charging to his photographs. At least that's probably how most people would read it, and most people aren't attorneys (thank goodness).
I believe that he did the right thing. You have to keep companies honest, especially in the USA, and I think the judges erred.
I settled out of court with a company I sued. They took one of my tweeted photos and attributed it, verbatim, to Twitter. I see news channels doing this all the time, attributing videos "Courtesy of YouTube". That's just inexcusable, and 9 out of 10 times, the plaintiff will prevail in an attribution case because the companies don't know what they're doing when they're racing to rip off content. In this instance, the defendant actually chopped off my copyright from the bottom. It was a large company, but I didn't get much, a few grand, but it was better than nothing.
People think photos on the Internet are free for them to use, and if someone takes the time and trouble to fight, we all owe them a debt of gratitude, because regardless of our online chest-pounding, most of us would take it laying down.
At the very least, the headline was insulting to the photographer, and it was more critical than warranted. It's easy to criticize, but it's hard to actually see things, such as a court case through.
The Internet has shifted the doer/gawker ratio far in the favor of gawkers. Instead of doing things, 99% of people appear to spend their days judging what other's do. My hat's off to anyone that gets off their ass and makes a go of it, and this suit wasn't as silly as indicated. He could have legitimately prevailed.
Much respect to those who take risks instead of choosing the safety and security of judging behind anonymous screen names.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Rex.
I Don't Think This Headline is Entirely Accurate
I get that there's some wiggle room here, but I think the headline was far insulting to the photographer than was warranted.
The license, at least on its face, appears to require forbid companies charging to his photographs. At least that's probably how most people would read it, and most people aren't attorneys (thank goodness).
I believe that he did the right thing. You have to keep companies honest, especially in the USA, and I think the judges erred.
I settled out of court with a company I sued. They took one of my tweeted photos and attributed it, verbatim, to Twitter. I see news channels doing this all the time, attributing videos "Courtesy of YouTube". That's just inexcusable, and 9 out of 10 times, the plaintiff will prevail in an attribution case because the companies don't know what they're doing when they're racing to rip off content. In this instance, the defendant actually chopped off my copyright from the bottom. It was a large company, but I didn't get much, a few grand, but it was better than nothing.
People think photos on the Internet are free for them to use, and if someone takes the time and trouble to fight, we all owe them a debt of gratitude, because regardless of our online chest-pounding, most of us would take it laying down.
At the very least, the headline was insulting to the photographer, and it was more critical than warranted. It's easy to criticize, but it's hard to actually see things, such as a court case through.
The Internet has shifted the doer/gawker ratio far in the favor of gawkers. Instead of doing things, 99% of people appear to spend their days judging what other's do. My hat's off to anyone that gets off their ass and makes a go of it, and this suit wasn't as silly as indicated. He could have legitimately prevailed.
Much respect to those who take risks instead of choosing the safety and security of judging behind anonymous screen names.