Slashdot Mirror
Photographers Want Their Cut From Google's Ebooks
It's not just the writers anymore: carluva writes "The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and several other visual artist groups are suing Google over its digitization of of millions of books, claiming copyright infringement related to images within the books. The photographers initially wanted to be included in the authors' and publishers' class action suit, but filed their own suit after that request was denied. Google and others assert that images are only included in the digital copies when permission has been obtained from the copyright holder."
The American Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Association has announced they intend to claim royalties for scans of books printed on paper produced by members of APPMA!
I think this is just becomeing a suing opportunity. Anyone that has anything to do with Google sues them because they have so much money. Hell, Google has been sued for linking to sites not using robots.txt or having thumbnails or images or.... the list goes on.
People are greedy and Google has money. Of course everyone sues it whether or not it is doing no evil.
I think that's the reason Google left China. There were piles of lawsuits in Chinese legal systems filed against Google by Chinese authors, Google decided it was easier to quit by claiming Chinese censorship
Most photographic work is licensed in a rights managed fashion. The payment calculated for the image is based on usage and distribution. What Google is attempting to do, is no different than a publisher initiating a second print run, sometime generating income for them, without compensating the photographer a second run. In most walks of life, we call that stealing.
Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories.
You mean. Google recently used some photographs of yours on Google News, as the 'thumbnail' image to represent the collected coverage of major stories, linking back to the original online newspaper which originally published your photograph.
This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use.
Who says? You do, but you're a little biased. Aren't you.
This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.
Yes, Google links thumbnails and summary information to online sources. It does the same thing on its search engine, which is also a for-profit operation. And it does this with the robots.txt (or sitemap.xml) permission of the original newspaper that published your photographs. If the original newspaper had just listed the folder in which your photograph was in, and told the googlebot not to index your photograph, then google wouldn't have used your photograph (to make a thumbnail out of it).
It seems your original beef is with the newspapers that published your photographs, not google. I think many would argue that indexing, linking to, publishing the summary information, and automatically making thumbnails, all because the original web site permits you through the robots.txt file, falls well within the purpose of 'fair use'.
Where she used to use lesser cameras, pictures taken with her Canon are quite often very dramatic and interesting.
People who use better tools end up with better end results with the same skill set? Shocking.
you give rights to a writer to use your photos in his/her book and get paid.
google makes previews of books. the previews contain your images.
you go sue google, DESPITE you have already been paid.
basically, you want to be paid double. in lieu of all the honest people who work, and get salaries only once a month for what they do, not twice.
the court should charge those photographers for wasting public money for time courts lose for dealing with that case, and some additional punitives.
Read radical news here
I never realized that fair use was based on pixel count. I can't believe how silly these pro-Google comments are becoming.
Time to return to old values that worked till they got changed. Let the originator hold rights to the invention or work for a short time (4 years) and if they can't make a profit from it in that time, tough shit! The world marches on. If they are talented they will make more. If not it was a fluke and who cares! This copy and patent crap is taking up too much time and waaaay too much progress.
Senator Bono blowing Mickey f**kin' rat is a perfect example of the crooked kind of crap that got the U.S. in the mess it's in now. Thank God for trees and skis. Now if we could get the rest of the crooked bastards on a tough slope drunk and blindfolded.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I suspect /. is being Astroturfed today.
Do you even know how the internet works?
Here is what a I wrote to another twit.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1610916&cid=31768624
"Imagine the uproar if a GPLed program had its codebase relicensed and did so without the consent of all the copyright holders
If that was remotely what was happening, you would nearly have a point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I guarantee you that Shakespeare never copyrighted his work, so I don't see how your example applies to this discussion.
People who make money taking picture without paying for what they are taking picture of complain about not being paid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why do you talk about wedding photographers as the only type? That's like "the painters are those guys who paint houses".
The real art is not taking pictures for the driver's license. A picture from World Press Photo can sum up an half hour documentary in one frame. Robert Capa, for example, as a fucking genius.
Dilbert RSS feed
I never realized that fair use was based on pixel count.
You should have done. It's obvious.
A sufficiently reduced-quality image (or a detail from a larger image) is perfectly analogous to a quotation from a written work. It serves to convey the essence (or a detail) of a particular work without reproducing it in toto. Past a certain point, however, the exercise becomes a case of wholesale copying i.e. no longer Fair Use.
If that weren't the case, then I could sue you for using the same white and black pixels that I used in a graphic this morning, or the same alphabet (or phrases, if you like) that I used to create my last newspaper column.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
What about fair use? If I buy a music CD, I can make private copies of it. Why should it be different with books? According to a professor of law at DePaul University, it probably isn't: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437812
Dilbert RSS feed