I'm not reselling the rights to the photos, I’m just sharing work I like, it goes under news reporting part of the fair use license, and should I receive any infringement claim from the copyright holders I will deal with it appropriately.
Some people here start tracking my posts saying its copy/past, plagiarizing and some other ridiculous accusations, I don't claim it's my work, the photos I post made the news and are masters’ work posted with the necessary credits. I really appreciate personal photography work posted here, but this category also needs this kind of posts to learn from.
I started this category with this kind of photography, and people appreciated it. I do it because I like sharing my passion for photography!
Blogging reward is not commercial use, commercial use would be reselling the rights to the photography, which is obviously not the case.
There have been a lot of talk about my posts in the #steemabuse channel, so I thought I clear it out a bit for people willing to understand, but some people here are just plain jealous, there is nothing I can do about that!
Interesting. Has something like this gone to court before regarding photography? Like, if Steemit had a paywall, as an example, and people came there to view the photos, would that change things? Does it matter if you have press credentials or not?
I also appreciate great photography, but I've hesitated to upvote content which I think might threaten Steemit as a whole. If any infringement claims do show up, would they be directed at individuals or the site itself? For me, these discussions are less about jealousy (though I'm sure there's a lot of that going around) and more about the future use, safety, and identity of Steemit and its users. If the platform encourages something which later creates legal troubles for everyone involved, that could be a nightmare.
Really glad to see you commenting here and explaining your position on the matter.
Infringement claims would have to go to the individual not the site. See Tumblr, for example. It basically exists by people sharing and reblogging content that doesn't belong to them, without any transformative activity applied to it. Now, they aren't making money, but, again, the money is coming from curation, not sales of the item, and most of these items are freely available online as it is. I do think attribution is essential, but Tumblr would've gone under by now if this was a massive legal problem.
@masteryoda: In case it gets buried on your most recent post, I hope you see my reply here. Thanks.
Usually, before taking an action in court, the copyright holders will send you a takedown notice, so you can remove the content that is subject to the infringement. Also I’m posting photography that has made the news worldwide, it’s usually safer, and I have no intention of deceit whatsoever. I think the chances of my posts going to court are very slim to non-existent because I’m careful what I post and how I do it.
Here’s a good article about it:
http://artlawjournal.com/fair-blogging-bloggers-copyrighted-images/
I will try to acquire some photography rights for my next posts, but posting international contests photos with credit is a safe bet, no one want to go to court against a blogger for that.
Read the article. This portion seems particularly relevant: "The amount and substantiality of the portion used of the copyrighted work will hinge on the overall content contained in your blog. Generally speaking, if all of your photos are coming from the same source, and you don’t have permission to use these photos, then you could be facing a pretty serious problem. Courts will understand if you’ve used a photo or two in a long blog post to illustrate your points and provide background, but they will not be lenient if it’s clear that almost none of your content is original." I also noted this portion: "While your use of the image may constitute fair use, you’re still infringing on an artist’s copyright, and it’s better to remove the photo than become embroiled in litigation. In addition, be sure that the majority of the content on your blog and within your posts are original or licensed works. If your blog were to come under scrutiny and it is shown that the majority of your images have been used without express permission, you may have a harder time proving fair use." Thoughts?
Yes I read that too, but like I said, i'm posting these photos as phtography news reporting, please see sean-king post above, he seems to have a better knowledge in regards to the legal aspect of the subject.
"Commercial use would be reselling the rights to the photography." Yes, but is commercial use limited only to reselling the copyrights? I don't know about the news reporting aspect..... Anyone out there in the Steemit world have legal experience with intellectual property?
Commercial use is not limited to reselling. For instance, if I display copyrighted material on my web page to draw an audience and then sell advertising on my page and profit therefrom, I have made commercial use of the copyrighted material even though I didn't resell it.
"...I have made commercial use of the copyrighted material even though I didn't resell it."
Exactly. Infringement can occur even if a business is using an image as a display. A grocery store once got in trouble for this very thing because they Googled images that ended up being used on their big window display. They didn't resell the image, but it could be argued that their window display resulted in sales, profiting the store.
The news angle seems a bit....eh. While, yes, news outlets used the material to report a story, the poster here is not a news outlet. They're an individual reaping benefits from posting such content. I personally believe that any profits earned should be split evenly among ALL the creators of the content, no matter if any one of them takes up the majority of the post.
Example: Say you use 10 photos in your blog post, each one by a different person. Even if your post is mostly text that you yourself have written, if you make $1,100 then I think fair would mean that each contributor gets an even share. Each person would get $100, including the writer of the post.
Fair use should also = fair gains.
I guarantee you that those news outlets got permission first. Most newspapers, magazines, and news websites have compliance editors whos job is just taking care of stuff like that.