Slashdot Mirror
Copying Photos Found on Internet is Fair Use, Virginia Federal Court Rules (petapixel.com)
Michael Zhang, reporting for PetaPixel: A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won't be happy to hear: the court ruled that finding a photo on the Internet and then using it without permission on a commercial website can be considered fair use. The copyright battle started when photographer Russell Brammer found one of his long-exposure photos of a Washington, D.C. neighborhood cropped and used by the website for the Northern Virginia Film Festival on a page of "things to do" in the D.C. area.
Brammer then sent a cease and desist letter to Violent Hues Productions, the company behind the festival, and it responded by immediately taking the photo down. Brammer then sued the company for copyright infringement, and it responded by claiming fair use. In his ruling, the judge said, "Violent Hues' use of the photograph was transformative in function and purpose. While Brammer's purpose in capturing and publishing the photograph was promotional and expressive, Violent Hues' purpose in using the photograph was informational: to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area. Furthermore, this use was noncommercial, because the photo was not used to advertise a product or generate revenue."
Brammer then sent a cease and desist letter to Violent Hues Productions, the company behind the festival, and it responded by immediately taking the photo down. Brammer then sued the company for copyright infringement, and it responded by claiming fair use. In his ruling, the judge said, "Violent Hues' use of the photograph was transformative in function and purpose. While Brammer's purpose in capturing and publishing the photograph was promotional and expressive, Violent Hues' purpose in using the photograph was informational: to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area. Furthermore, this use was noncommercial, because the photo was not used to advertise a product or generate revenue."
They found a picture of buildings which they then cropped. A key point is that they were using it AS a picture of buildings, not as art.
Also they made no money from it and took it down upon request. That doesn't influence the copyright on the photo, but it establishes who the actual douchebag is. Or it establishes good faith if you want to use the term.
I'm more interested in knowing if it's illegal to ever take the "same" photo.
copy movies as well? they are just moveing photos?
Hang on, if Violet Hues had used say a screenshot from an MPAA/RIAA movie belonging to Sony, Disney or their evil cousins, the "ruling" would have been very different. VH would be 100% gone and the Copyright Holder would be licking their lips in dollars awarded. But not all Copyright Holders are equal... Some lone photographer, "ah s---w them."
It seems a little malicious that he sent the c&d, they complied, and THEN he sued them anyway.
I know law has little to do with reasonability, but it would seem reasonable to say:
- you can use pictures you find on the web, unedited, for non commercial purposes
- if the owner sends a cease-and-desist you must remove the image
So this lets people generally use images that they find on the web without too much worry. If a photographer wants to keep their images safe they can just watermark them, stamp their website on them etc. If you edit the image you can be assumed to be trying to evade copyright and be punished accordingly.
That doesn't seem too unreasonable either way?
-Styopa