Re: Mike's PS, on a semi-related note has anyone tried www.tineye.com to look across the web for image usage? You have to register to use the beta, but there are some examples on http://tineye.com/cool_searches There's a handy bookmarklet and Firefox extension. Basically with those you can right-click on an image and it finds any other images that it thinks look like it.
As the Mona Lisa example shows, it might be handy if you believe an iconic image you 'own' is being used on the web unlicensed or, as with the Unilever example, you can (to some extent) use it to see where your institutional logo is being used, or if you've rebranded then where any old versions are.
Something of a novelty, albeit a clever one.
James
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Morley [log in to unmask]
Website Manager Tel. +44 (0)20 8332 5759
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew www.kew.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
From: Museums Computer Group [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Ellis [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 September 2008 11:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Image Copyright
Jon - if we're in the game of looking at full transparency, we should therefore also expose the MASSIVE costs incurred during digitisation and other projects in chasing, clearing, monitoring and legally supporting copyright. Let's not go pretending the alternative to the (miniscule) risk of getting sued is all roses, either :-)
ta
Mike
Ps. You'll only get found via Google Images if you've put image details next to the image. And in this example, we don't know the image details, so it's not gonna happen :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Pratty
Sent: 11 September 2008 10:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Image Copyright
This post was almost finished when Naomi's arrived, so I've modified it
slightly. I'm slightly worried that some posters seem to be regarding this
thread as draconian or even pessimistic. There's no need to see it like
this; it's just good sense to think about risk in advance. MCG is mostly
about technology advances, and yet technology is racing ahead of the laws of
copyright...
Assuming we have now moved away from Tony's offline copyright query:
1. Suzanne (and Naomi) hit the nail on the head here. Publishing something
you're not 100% sure about is something that can be risk assessed and
provison made for these cases. Mostly, litigants try to claim back from
publishers the usage fees they would have charged for the image. This could
range from a single fee for print use to a larger sum for web use. If you've
used a thumbnail and a larger pic, it's concievable the litigant will try to
claim for the thumbnail use. It's possible litigants might claim damages for
the use of the image, in the sense that if it is used online, then the
future value of the image is possibly degraded due to its presence in Google
Image searches, blogs etc. Once an image is out in the wild, you have
allowed it's use by everyone. As Naomi says, you'll be required to remove
from your server any copies or surrogates of the image in question.
2. Responding to Mike and Frankie's points
a) as Naomi says, the real picture of how much legal activity is out there
is obscured by the fact that in most cases, where there's been a judgement
in court, or an out of court settlement, participants are usually required
to sign a confidentiality agreement. In publishing and journalism this sort
of thing goes on frequently.
b) litigants sue whether or not the copyright infringing agency has got
spare cash lying around. A recent case in Scotland concerned a sailing
charity who were sued for image copyright infringement on their website and
they ended up being closed down.
c) Google Image search allows certain kinds of litigants to easily keep tabs
on their property - as a freelance myself in the past (and now once more) I
always did periodic searches to check on when and where my work was being
used.
d) it's true major media organisations sail close to the wind every minute
of the day, making moment by moment judgements about the legal safety of
copyright materials. But the staff making these judgements invariably have
professional journalism qualifications, which involve in-depth training
about copyright, defamation and libel risks. Professional publishing
organisations will always also have their own legal eagles to run an eye
over anything that raises any queries, before it goes out.
Importantly - major media publishers will have really good publisher's
public liability insurance to act as a backstop just in case it does go
pear-shaped legally, which it will do from time to time. Policies like these
(Hiscox Insurance are good - they do policies for 24HM and lots of arts
orgs) are not that expensive, and provide peace of mind if you intend to
publish online frequently. Such policies usually require basic info about
what is published, how often and by whom (ie who does the writing); it is
often the case that such policies require someone in the production team to
be a trained journalist or for the content to be reviewed and checked
legally. Where this leaves the blogging fraternity I don't know.
See you in court!
Jon Pratty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Image Copyright
100% with Frankie here.
I'm always interested to know how much actual legal action really *does*
go on, particularly around institutions in our sector who aren't exactly
well known for having spare cash lying around. Reasonable risk is IMO
covered by the points Frankie makes below. I think Brian Kelly once
wrote (or quoted) the percentage likelihood equation around copyright:
= likelihood of anyone finding it (incredibly low) x likelihood of them
caring (really low) x likelihood of them wanting to take any action
(incredibly low) x likelihood that they'll actually go through with
legal action (infinitesimally low) x scale of likely legal action,
especially given we are cash-poor as a sector (tiny)
= really, really, really REALLY (REALLY!!) low risk...
As Frankie says, it's for each individual to decide whether this risk
balances the benefits of getting material out there. Personally, I'd
rather get on with it than worry all the time. But hey. That's me.
Tony - my advice - take the risk, do what you can to mitigate, use
Flickr Commons and what other devices you can, but don't catch the fear
;-)
cheers
Mike
>>>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Frankie Roberto
Sent: 10 September 2008 23:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Image Copyright
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Jon Pratty
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> I know from experience that it's no use using worthy-sounding phrases
to
> protect against copyright litigants. They will find an angle to get
you if
> they can...
>
Legally speaking, you're probably entirely right. I'm not even sure that
there currently is even any provision for 'orphan works' within English
&
Welsh law (though I think they're working on it, see the Gowers review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellec
tual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm
).
The law is, I imagine, about far more than just the actual written laws,
otherwise lawyers, courtroom theatrics and out-of-court settlements
would
never take place. If you're going to make a risk assessment, I think you
should consider...
a) the likelihood of a copyright owner finding out about their work,
spotting that you've used it, and being then being unhappy with your
publishing it. Especially if you've already made an effort to establish
the
owner.
b) the likelihood that, if all the above were true and they did contact
you,
they wouldn't be satisfied with a speedy take-down, small payment or
attribution credit. I'd guess that this would satisfy most people in
most
circumstances.
c) finally the likelihood that, if a) + b) were true, they would
actually go
ahead and take you to court, despite all the bad publicity that would
ensue
from taking a noble public institution with public education as its aim
to
court. The media would surely be on your side!
All this is, of course, a RISK assessment, and some institutions might
not
be comfortable with taking any risk at all, even if the risk is
minuscule
and the rewards are great. Also, the risks might vary from pretty
unlikely
to very very very unlikely depending on your circumstance - for instance
I
imagine that selling prints of an artwork that you think it out of
copyright
is probably more risky than taking an old family photo from 1962 whose
family you can't trace and publishing a copy online in an educational
microsite.
My overall point is to encourage people to be pragmatic about these
issues
and to make judgements, as this is what big businesses, who are much
more
likely to be sued, do. I know from friends in the radio industry, for
instance, that they break strict copyright law all the time, by playing
clips of things they haven't been able to get permission for, or making
shows available for listen again online without clearing 100% of all the
necessary rights (which is nigh on impossible).
I'm not saying you should ignore copyright law completely, but if you're
working in good faith, for a good purpose, then I don't think you need
to be
too paranoid about the minutiae of what's technically allowable!
Cheers,
Frankie
P.S all the usual disclaimers about not being a lawyer, this not being
legal
advise, or constituting an attorney-client relationship, blah blah blah,
apply.
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit
the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
Unless otherwise agreed expressly in writing by a senior manager of
Eduserv, this communication is to be treated as confidential and the
information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose
for which it has been sent.
If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient
of this communication, please contact the sender immediately.
No employee or agent is authorised to enter into any binding agreement
or contract on behalf of Eduserv or Eduserv Technologies Ltd., unless
that agreement is subsequently confirmed by the conclusion of a written
contract or the issue of a purchase order.
Eduserv (Limited by Guarantee) – company number 3763109 - and
Eduserv Technologies Ltd – company number – 4256630 - are both
companies incorporated in England and Wales and have their registered
offices at Queen Anne House, 11 Charlotte Street, Bath, BA1 2NE.
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
Unless otherwise agreed expressly in writing by a senior manager of
Eduserv, this communication is to be treated as confidential and the
information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose
for which it has been sent.
If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient
of this communication, please contact the sender immediately.
No employee or agent is authorised to enter into any binding agreement
or contract on behalf of Eduserv or Eduserv Technologies Ltd., unless
that agreement is subsequently confirmed by the conclusion of a written
contract or the issue of a purchase order.
Eduserv (Limited by Guarantee) – company number 3763109 - and
Eduserv Technologies Ltd – company number – 4256630 - are both
companies incorporated in England and Wales and have their registered
offices at Queen Anne House, 11 Charlotte Street, Bath, BA1 2NE.
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|
