Archive for the ‘Photo Legal Issues’ Category

Analyzing the Orphaned Works Law

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

One of the most debated issues in the landscape of photography today has been the pending Orphaned Works Act of 2008.   Recently, Dan Heller has posted a wonderful historical comparison of the Orphaned Works Act to the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Law.  While every photographer has an endless list of tasks on their Not Done Yet list, it’s important for us all to stay up to date on this topic.

Regardless of what happens with this law, it has been great to see and hear how active the photography community at large has been in discussing and rallying action on this topic.  A great example of how the web has triggered engagement in the democratic process within the United States.

Another Angle of Facebook’s Rights Grab

Saturday, March 15th, 2008

A recent post by Jim Goldstein about Facebook’s rights grab raises some timely issues for photographers regarding protecting their rights. I wanted to share an alternative view of this situation along with some things that FocalPower is working on that helps to address this recurring problem.

First, photographers need to be extra aware of their legal rights around their work and how those rights can be impacted when ever they put a photo anywhere (digitally or physically), consider it Photo Business 101. However, in today’s world you can’t afford to not place your photos online; there is too much potential for missed exposure and revenue. Some photographers are rightfully cautious and place a small resolution set of images online. The thinking goes that if someone were to steal the image and try to make a print, they can’t make that big of one. The reality is that if someone takes your image from a website and tries to make a print, there are limitations to the quality just by the nature of the photo being online. Photos online are resized to 72pdi and converted to the sRGB color space because that is the optimal settings for online viewing; these are also not optimal or even that great for printing an image.

I would rather go in the other direction. I want to place a large image online. I want my viewers to be able to view as large of an image of my work as possible so they can appreciate the detail and push them over the emotial edge of buying my work. This is exactly what FocalPower is working on providing (we already have it in an early alpha release).

Beyond that, I also want to (no, make that need to) be able to share my images in the multitude of places online where there are huge audiences and the potential to increase the visibility of my work. And this goes well beyond the typical having samples of my images on Flickr. For most photographers, Flickr will not drive new business to you as most people on Flickr are other photographers and, as I have said before, the quality of the reviews you can get on Flickr are not worth the effort. FocalPower is also working on this issue as well. Being able mange photos centrally but yet share them anywhere you need to in order to increase awareness or spread your brand.

An Alternative View of FaceBook’s Terms

With recent experience in building apps for Facebook, I know that in order to provide the fastest possible viewing experience for their users, they do a lot of work to keep content close to their servers. Most of the popular applications on Facebook are actually running in the same data centers as Facebook. This means that when users access a page that contains that application, the application will run as fast as the page.

I have a hunch that most of the legalize in the Facebook Terms was placed there by lawyers trying to protect Facebook from what the engineers had come up with to ensure a fast responding site. By caching some of the smaller images, those that get displayed the most based on how Facebook works, Facebook can guarantee that their site will perform fast for their users even if the site where the content is originally published is not performing fast.

Does this make it right for Facebook to do this? No!

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is the right thing for Facebook to be doing behind the scense without being completely transparent about it. When they were dealing with a primary audience of College students, the user’s didn’t really care. Now that they are trying to grow and expand beyond that audience, the users are much more savvy and care about these facts. Something that I think Facebook is slowly starting to realized considering they just hired a new COO who understands these type of issues. Unfortunately, even with a new COO on board, the company might not actually change their ways until their customer base raises enough of a noise about the issue.

So, where does this leave photographers with sharing their photos on Facebook’s ever growing audience base? That is a decision that each photographer must make on their own. Personally, I would never upload a photo to a site that took my rights away, I can’t think of a short term gain that would be big enough for that long term loss. The good news is that this is getting awareness amongst photographers. Is it now time to raise that awareness officially to Facebook?

Fine Print and Photos

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

I came across a post over at Photoprenuer today that talks about how Facebook Claims Right to Create Derivative Works from Members’ Photos. Essentially by clicking on that “I accept the Terms and Conditions” check box on Facebook, you are agreeing to give Facebook a perpetual license to use (or sublicense) the photos you upload to their site.

The liberal attitude and actions that more and more organizations are taking to infringe on your rights over your work can be scary. And most of the time you don’t even know that your rights are being taken way form you…when was the last time that you actually read through a Terms and Conditions document? I came across another example of this last year when I picked up a flyer at a botanical garden for their photo contest; if you submitted any photo to their contents you granted them a license to use your work for what ever they wanted…including making prints of it and selling it in their gift shop!

This just shows that you have to be careful and read the fine print. As a photographer, this is especially true on any site where you plan to upload any of your photos. This is one of the reasons why we are building the FocalPower platform to manage and share your photos online using widget technology. The ability to include you photos on other web properties without actually placing them on the servers of those properties. You remain in control of your photos even after sharing them!

Using Facebook as an example (we do not support Facebook yet), you paste the widget code that allows you share your photo on your Facebook profile, but you don’t actually upload your photo to Facebook. When someone views your Facebook profile, that viewer’s browser actually downloads the photo(s) from FocalPower, not Facebook. Two of the main advantages of this are the control and statistics that can be provided to our users.  Another powerful advantage is when you share a portfolio using a widget you can change the contents of the portfolio after you share the portfolio and all new viewers will see the latest changes, regardless of where the portfolio was shared. Alpha Users are now starting to explore the multiple advantages of widgets based photo sharing, so stay tuned.

(Full Disclosure: FocalPower has it’s own set of Terms and Conditions–someone has to feed the lawyers. We do have a clause in there that grants FocalPower rights to use our subscriber’s photos but only for the purpose of marketing the FocalPower services and full credit will be given to all photographers when their work is used in that fashion. {See Section License Granted by Subscriber to FocalPower} The reason we have that clause is to allow us to help expand visibility of our subscribers work.)

What are Your Legal Tendencies?

Monday, January 14th, 2008

A few days ago I came across the Washington Post article Hey, Isn’t That… which talked about the all too familiar issue of late: finding your photography used by a commercial entity without proper authority or compensation. The examples given in this story are a bit old news to anyone who follows the Photo Attorney blog. But analyzing this situation can quickly become a slipper slope of blaming social photography sharing sites of not providing enough protection for their user’s images and/or blaming the Creative Commons licensing platform for creating this huge grey area of legal use.

The whole point of social sharing sites is to allow you to share photos…make them accessible to your friends and the world. If they started to lock down access to your photos, their whole value proposition goes away; and that’s not even taking into consideration the technical cost and challenge needed to add those controls (see Flickr’s latest outage). Meanwhile, Creative Commons was created to fill a void in the current copyright law to enable and protect the authors in this evolving publishing world…the new world of the self-publishers, mixes, and remixes. One of the best descriptions of this new world is given by Larry Lessig, the creator of Creative Commons, during his TED talk How creativity is being strangled by the law (A must watch video!).

Photographer’s today have to understand the legal issues and options that are available and use the ones that they are most comfortable with. Some prefer creative commons, while others prefer the tighter copyright. It is up to each photographer to decide what makes the most sense for themselves.

Regardless of the path that a photographer follows, one thing is clear: to protect yourself you should place a watermark on your images. This allows everyone to clearly see the protection limits you place on your work. And if you choose the tighter copyright, it provides a higher cost to any potential infringer of your rights.

Creative Commons, Legal Issues and Tools

Tuesday, November 13th, 2007

San Francisco Photographer Jim Goldstein has a wonderful posting out today titled Creative Commons: A Great Concept, I’ll Never Employ. Photographers today need to understand the legal landscape involved with their craft. While Creative Commons is fairly well known in certain circles, many photographers don’t really understand the details of the creative common licenses. Nor do they think about the long term ramifications of their choices. These are just some of the items that are discussed in the article.

It is also surprising how few tools photographers have that help us deal with these legal issues. We have numerous tools that allow us to be more productive working with our photography (i.e., Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom) but why don’t we have tools that help us automate the other critical areas of our craft? The areas that are, in many ways, more critical to our long term success. The areas that we either waste time with today or don’t spend the time with that we should?

Speak up fellow photographers…

Copyrighted Graffiti? Careful What You Photograph!

Friday, June 29th, 2007

I came across an interesting article in the New York Times: Walls of Art for Everyone, but Made by Not Just Anyone. This article talked about graffiti artists who are paid to graffiti are are starting to take legal action against photographers who photograph their work and make money from the photographs.

Most photographers would feel the same way if one of their photos was used by someone without pay. But how many of us have thought about the legal rights of a graffiti artist when we take a picture of some graffiti? Makes you wonder where the boundary lies and how far some people will push to move that boundary.

It’s very clear that as a photographer you have to understand some aspects of the law. What do you legally have the right to photograph or sell an image of? The ImageCatalog, a micro-stock agency, posts a list of what it considers Copyright and Trademark Infringement. Interesting resource to consider next time your out shooting.