Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet Is Fair Use | Hacker News Reader

Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet Is Fair Use

petapixel.com

41 pointsslr55510 comments

The title here is a little deceiving. The court just found that in this particular case, use of the photo met the factors that determine fair use.

Title is pretty far off. It was found that regarding that case alone it was fair use for this one PHOTO (not photoS like the article notes).

Also the person using the photo took it down as soon as they found out it might be copyrighted so nobody got the all clear to use the photo long term here or anything.

And it is not "photos" but just a "photo".

This is an appeal if I've ever seen one.

Boy howdy!

- It's used on a commercial site for non-commercial purposes? Anything used on a commercial site is arguably there to increase the site's financial value.

- They didn't know it was copyrighted? Unless you see a notice of a CC license or such, that photograph was under copyright the moment the shutter was clicked.

I think it was a reasonable solution, the article's title is click-baitish in that the ruling was for a non-commercial use.

Also, the infringer swiftly complied with the takedown notice.

So, don't go around using non-attributed photos :)

Attribution is not really the issue. Don't use photos that you didn't take yourself, unless you have acquired permission to use them. I am moved to make this point because I have the impression that many people actually think that "giving credit" somehow immunizes them from damages for copyright infringement.

Some readers of this site think it is okay to use google image search, and then do whatever they please with the images they find. Photography copyright is very trivial for a lot of people not into photography. I compare it to China's policy of software copyrights: willful ignorance. Even when it is explained, it is ignored. I can't explain it to them, and I can't understand their stance either. I get frustrated, and have to let it be before it becomes hostile.

IANAL, and I'm not a huge fan of copyright (life plus infinity anyone?), but I disagree with you here.

Seems to me that the judge grossly misused the 4 aspects of the copyright text.

Transformative doesn't apply to the use of the work, it applies to the work itself.

There is no "good faith" use defence against copyright infringement.

The "factual" nature of the photo is a red herring. Yes, the photo is "factual" in the sense that you could go to the same spot, with the same camera, on the same day of the year, and take a photo with the same settings and create a photo with incredibly similar characteristics. That would be non-infringing, because of the "factual" nature of the work. That the work is a photo of the real world doesn't make it immune to copyright.

Previous publication does nothing to diminish copyright.

I also disagree with the "didn't hurt the market" argument here. Thing is, AFAICT, that website is part of the market for the photo. Furthermore, that the website didn't onsell the photo is irrelevant - the website is the copyright infringement.

Seems like a slam dunk appeal to me.

Yeah, dude didn't get to use the photo or anything as a result of the ruling. The legal question was about his actions before he took it down. Judge decided his choices were reasonable and fair use.

Dude still took it down as soon as he knew something was up, and he's still not using it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com