What a disgusting story, big corporations act like this all the time simply because they don't expect the 'little guy' to step up and bite back.
The gall to do this sort of is incredible, what bugs me is how people that come up with this sort of thing sleep at night. Corporate accountability is really rare.
Corporate accountability is rare because no one holds them to account. This man's a 25-year veteran photographer, he clearly knows it's wrong and has enough balls to do something about it.
The unfortunate thing is that barely 1% of people would know how wrong taking someones photographs is and has the balls to make someone account for it. If more people knew about these stories, knew that they could get a big cash payout then everyone who has a photo stolen would be talking to their lawyer, which would make it a very harsh environment for big corporations to play games like this.
> If more people knew about these stories, knew that they could get a big cash payout then everyone who has a photo stolen would be talking to their lawyer, which would make it a very harsh environment for big corporations to play games like this.
The thing I find most amusing about this whole affair is that the provision for the statutory damages that AFP might suffer was actually the result of big industry pushing for draconian penalties for copyright infringement by the little guy. I won't exactly be full of sympathy if a big company finds that the same rules apply in reverse...
When Mr. Morel posted his photographs on Twitter, he made no notation that he was in any way limiting the license granted to Twitter or third parties or that he was in any way limiting the ability of Twitter and third parties to use, distribute, or republish his photographs.
Wow, this is really desperate on AFP's part if this is what they are relying on to justify their alleged right to use the pictures. It is way beyond doubt that a copyright holder retains rights to his copyrighted works even though they might be posted to the internet. In posting them, he gives at least an implied license to the internet host to display them publicly in the venue itself but it is utterly absurd to conclude from this that any third party can simply hoist them for his own profit. The fact that a sophisticated news organization would resort to such an argument strongly suggests that they have no defense to the photographer's claims.
This issue came up on HN not long ago when the idea was floated for publishing comments from this site in a monthly magazine format and the question came up whether the person who sought to do so had to get individual permissions from each of the posters. My comment on why individual permissions were needed (with some legal citations for the copyright law) is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1262546.
The AFP lawsuit filed in Manhattan is for declaratory relief and for commercial disparagement. Most people, when victimized by others, have no idea that an adverse party can take their attempts to fight back and use it as a basis for suing them in a distant forum. Here, the photographer made claims that his copyrights had been infringed. This allowed AFP to file its lawsuit asking a court to consider the photographer's claims, to weigh them against its contrary claims that no copyrights had been infringed, and to render a judgment one way or the other on the issue (with AFP asking the court for a judgment that the copyrights had not been infringed). This sort of legal action can be used as a bullying tactic by a big player to force a smaller player to settle up or incur significant legal expense (on the other hand, for what appears to be a legitimate use of the same tactic by Google, see http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i8...). Here, the tactic has obviously backfired on AFP, since the photographer, in effect, responded with both guns blazing with counterclaims that put AFP at risk for some serious liability.
By the way, this piece sorts through the legal issues fairly astutely. It is well written from that perspective (and otherwise).
I was actually surprised at the level headed tone of the piece and the solid legal footing, most of the time stuff like this is 'shooting from the hip'.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a 'tit-for-tat' law, stating that if you sue someone on wrongful grounds that the rest of the world can use your arguments in court against you as precedent in the future.
That would make companies and individuals alike tread a lot more careful before bringing nonsense like this to court.
Don't do to others what you don't want done to you...
Btw, it's great to have you back as a regular contributor on HN, we don't see eye to eye on some stuff but that doesn't mean I'm not always parsing your comments and learning from them every chance I get. Between you and patio11 you could start a site of your own!
If he wins it will set a nice precedent. But I'm afraid that not everybody would go to all that trouble (trials are long and expensive), and so "little guys" will only be marginally safer in these kinds of situations.
5 years ago I took a picture of a cup of coffee and uploaded it to Wikipedia. It's been the picture used on English Wikipedia's coffee page for quite a while.
I see it used EVERYWHERE. When using TinEye I can find hundreds of places using it, only a fraction actually giving attribution like the license requires. But, I don't really care.
However, recently I noticed a hotel was using the photo in an advertisement at SeaTac airport, clearly breaking the CC license I put it under. A friend thinks I should send them a bill. What do you guys think?
Presumably you put it under CC-BY-SA, not one of the noncommercial-use-only CC licenses, or Wikipedia wouldn't be able to use it. The hotel could have used your photo legally in their ad if they had properly attributed you.
However, under the Federal Circuit precedent set by Jacobsen v. Katzer, I think they're still liable for copyright infringement, and you're still entitled to monetary damages.
On March 26th AFP responded, filing suit in Manhattan federal district court claiming Morel had “made demands that amount to an antagonistic assertion of rights”.
I don't think this is well phrased. From what I can tell "antagonistic assertion of rights" is a legal phrase that appears in the counter suit, but is not the reason AFP is filing suit. "Antagonistic" is being used as a purely descriptive, and not a judgemental term (more like, say "declaratory" than "malicious").
That said, I can't say I'll be too torn up if the phrase "antagonistic assertion of rights" hangs around AFP's neck like an albatross.
Good catch--- it appears in a paragraph discussing why the court should consider the case at all, so is mostly a jurisdictional comment. Courts are by default reluctant to issue declaratory judgments, because the U.S. legal system requires an "actual case or controversy" to consider a case. So AFP is arguing that, by setting up an "antagonistic assertion of rights", Morel has initiated an actual controversy over the matter that the court should consider, i.e. it's not just AFP asking for a declaratory judgment on a purely hypothetical issue. Of course, Morel's countersuit dispenses any doubts on that point.
I think it's important to realize that he is Haitian. Imposing your demands on a Haitian in matters dealing with his own catastrophe is kind of presumptuous, don't you think?
These are not my demands, these are my prayers. Presumptuous? ...possibly, I am not here to pass judgement but if the same were to happen to me then I would donate it without a blink. Also I feel that natural disasters, while the majority are localized, do not belong to the nation of their happening - they belong to all of us. We are all on Spaceship Earth and we are all humans. When I peronally give donations I do not consider it an 'imposition', so why should campaigning others to follow suit be considered as such? You can downvote me all you like but I personally think the world would be better if everyone were more generous, and I will stand by my view.
If natural disasters belong to all of us, should this particular photographer be more generous than other people with some dough to spare? Wealthy people are mentioned all the time on HN. What prompted you to state your prayers in this case?
Your comment confronts this one individual with a lot of undue and unbalanced pressure and responsibility that he really has no reason to be accountable for.
And the downvotes aren't affronting the view that the world would be better if everyone were more generous.
He's not asserting ownership of a world event. He's asserting ownership of a picture. I dunno if you've ever tried it, but good photos are incredibly difficult to take. When a good photo of a powerful event crops up, it can often define the event in the public's perception.
Why is it stupid to assert the right for compensation?
What happens to the woman on the picture displayed, though. If she survived, hopefully she deserves a share, too? Did she have to give consent to having her picture published?
No, because they are being used in a journalism context. A signed model release form would be necessary if you wanted to use the photo for, say, advertising.
EDIT: That "no" refers to whether her signed consent is necessary, not to whether or not she deserves compensation. That is between the photographer, his conscience, and any damages he receives from this suit.
In general, photojournalists don't need consent forms.
In fact, in most places in the western world you don't need consent forms if the photos are taken in public, period. It gets a little trickier when it's a portrait or something. But if you go out on the sidewalk of a busy street where people have no expectation of privacy and start snapping photos, they really don't have any claim to the revenue from those photos.
Journalism has different rules. But in general in the US the law deals with "Expectations of Privacy." If the party in the picture has a reasonable expectation of privacy then yes, consent would be required.
"Photographic works often are portraits of specific persons. They may, but need not necessarily be, commissioned by the portrayed persons. Many copyright laws contain provisions that require the author to get permission from the portrayed person when publishing the portrait.
In case the portrait was not commissioned, e.g. a photo taken on the street, the portrayed person should demonstrate some likelihood of damage that can arise from the publication. A famous person could for instance argue that he normally charges for photos, and so the unauthorized portrait robs him of this income."
The gall to do this sort of is incredible, what bugs me is how people that come up with this sort of thing sleep at night. Corporate accountability is really rare.