Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Won't Take Up Copyright Decision That Raised Alarm About Embedding, Linking (hollywoodreporter.com)
The 2nd Circuit denies an immediate appeal in a case that challenges how news organizations used embedded photos of Tom Brady. The Hollywood Reporter: Back in February, a New York judge caused a bit of a freakout by issuing a copyright decision regarding the embedding of a copyrighted photo of NFL superstar Tom Brady. Now comes another surprise with potentially big ramifications to the future of embedding and in-line linking: The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an interlocutory appeal. Justin Goldman is the plaintiff in the lawsuit after finding the photo of the New England Patriots quarterback he shot and uploaded to Snapchat go viral. Many news organizations embedded social media posts that took Goldman's photo in stories about whether the Boston Celtics would recruit NBA star Kevin Durant with Brady's assistance. Breitbart, Heavy, Time, Yahoo, Vox Media, Gannett Company, Herald Media, Boston Globe Media Partners and New England Sports Network were defendants in the lawsuit, but many of these companies have since settled.
Heavy has not, and in February, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest shocked many legal observers with a decision that refused to apply the "Server Test," where the direct liability of a website publisher for copyright infringement turns on whether the image is hosted on the publisher's own server or is embedded or linked from a third-party server. Although the Server Test has been adopted in other jurisdictions, Forrest wrote, "The plain language of the Copyright Act, the legislative history undergirding its enactment, and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have 'displayed' a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act." She added, "Nowhere does the Copyright Act suggest that possession of an image is necessary in order to display it. Indeed, the purpose and language of the Act support the opposite view."
Heavy has not, and in February, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest shocked many legal observers with a decision that refused to apply the "Server Test," where the direct liability of a website publisher for copyright infringement turns on whether the image is hosted on the publisher's own server or is embedded or linked from a third-party server. Although the Server Test has been adopted in other jurisdictions, Forrest wrote, "The plain language of the Copyright Act, the legislative history undergirding its enactment, and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have 'displayed' a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act." She added, "Nowhere does the Copyright Act suggest that possession of an image is necessary in order to display it. Indeed, the purpose and language of the Act support the opposite view."
Photographer takes a picture o someone. Posts it to Snapchat.
Other news organizations run a story and include an embedded link to the picture.
Photographer is a cunt, and sues.
Moron luddite judge says "LOL I agree with cunt photographer".
An interlocutory appeal causes the natural progression of a lawsuit to pause because there's a question of law that needs to be resolved before proceeding.
In this matter, a citizen took a photograph and the media grabbed it and used the photo in news stories.
Appreciate that the news agencies are making money, but the photographer is not.
The interlocutory appeal is a request by the media, "Wait a minute! The photo is not stored on our servers. We don't take the position that we "own" it. We are simply embedding a shared photo from another place."
U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest shocked many legal observers with a decision that refused to apply the "Server Test," where the direct liability of a website publisher for copyright infringement turns on whether the image is hosted on the publisher's own server or is embedded or linked from a third-party server.
So, the judge said, "We're not going to call a time out and create a sidebar court session to determine provenance because the photo belongs to the photographer and it don't make a flying rat's ass where it's stored."
Photographers would benefit greatly if use of their work anywhere had to comply with copyright law.
This action might impact embedded links, as well.
Play like you are in your automobile as you read this and it will make a swell car analogy.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So basically the maxim "there are no free rides" is still in effect.
It's spelled "TANSTAAFL". You know, from TMIAHM. By RAH.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Because you're not in possession of the copyrighted image, but your mirror (the physical kind, not the server kind) is reflecting its image. Therefore, in the court's opinion it's a copyright violation. Brilliant reasoning.
If you somehow used a physical mirror (or series of mirrors?) to publicly display artwork that you didn't own or have rights to display, particularly if you profited from it, then, well, yes, that would likely be illegal.
No. This has no ramifications whatsoever to the future of embedding and in-line linking. "Interlocutory appeals" are appeals that are taken while the case is still in the middle of being litigated in the trial court. Interlocutory appeals are an extremely rare exception to the concept that a trial court is to hear the entire matter and issue a final writted decision, and then the completed trial decision is to be appealed.
Look at the link. Does the appealed order "resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the action"? The copyright infringement claim was the heart of the action. Is the order "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment"? No, an appeal from a final judgment of copyright infringement would squarely involve liability for embedding or in-line linking.
This was a purely procedural decision that the appeal was brought too early, and the appellate court wasn't having it.
Finish the trial, then come back. "I really really think that the ruling was wrong" is not a basis for interlocutory appeal.
Wanting to control the photo is fine. The cunt part is that they sued innocent third parties instead of the site that had transmitted the unauthorized copies (which appears to be either instagram or twitter; I can't tell) nor the people who pirated the photo (the users of the web browsers).
A non-cunt would have sued whoever had committed the infringement, not the web sites that told people where they can find the photo.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I think that's what the judge is saying -- it's not a simple issue of the image not being served from a particular place, what matters is things like the terms of service you quote. Note that even the summary says that the photographer posted it on snapchat, not twitter. The point is that if you are making money off of an image, it is not enough to just assume that the source of that image has the royalty-free rights to it. The assumption should go the other way, assuming that some monetary rights arrangement needs to be made with a verifiable rights-holder. And you can't evade that responsibility just by not hosting the photo yourself. This doesn't seem too unreasonable, since I think that knowingly linking to pirated content has been repeatedly found to amount to contributory infringement.
Your material / image for display and linking. That's what the public world wide web IS.
If you hadn't wanted and those things to happen, you would not have posted your stuff where it is accessible and viewable and linkable and searchable on the public WWW.
Copyright law, in my vague understanding, requires that the copyright holder take reasonable steps to enforce their copyright.
Placing your image in public view in a public square is clearly indicating your intention to allow viewing of and referral to the location of your image.
That act (of posting on public site) is essentially the opposite of taking reasonable steps to enforce your copyright.
If you try to enforce copyright after the fact, after you have already implicitly licensed your image for public viewing and for being referenced by publicly accessible URL, that is closing the door after opening it to let the horses out. That is disingenuous, self-contradictory, and should not be legally valid.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I'm not buying that. The web sites designed the web pages that embed or in-line link the images: they selected the photo, they created the layout, they created a derivative work that combined their content with the embedded or in-line linked photo, and they directed the web browsers to download and display the photo. You want to focus on who owns the equipment that produced the copy, but 17 USC 106 does not merely limit the reproduction of the work. The copyright owner also has the exclusice right:
* to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; and
* in the case of... pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works... to display the copyrighted work publicly.
So given that those activities are infringments, "whoever had committed the infringement" is not necessarily limited to the site that transmitted the copies and the users of the web browsers.
Not really. It's more akin to telling people living by a large stadium to open their windows on Wednesday night to listen to a Muse concert.