Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Polls
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
 Sponsors
 Special Offers
 Our Store
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Student Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Copyright geniuses?
Les Hassell, Photographer, Photo Editor
Longview | TX | United States | Posted: 5:05 AM on 02.22.05
->> As a new member, I'd like to first thank everyone for the warm welcome; I hadn't been an official member for more than five or ten minutes and already had several emails welcoming me to Sportsshooter.com... quite a good first impression I must say!

Anyway, to the second point of this message. I recently got a Google alert on some images I shot last year that were being used on a website. After checking into it, I found literally thousands of photos and stories from various wire services (mostly AP) that are being hosted by
http://cryptome.quintessenz.org and http://cryptome.org neither of which have I authorized to host my images. The real kicker is they offer DVD copies of "their archives" containing the images and stories for sell at $100 a pop.

If anyone here has sent images or stories to AP relating, in any way, to the war in Iraq, you might want to check out the above sites to see if they are being used there as well.

I sent an email to quintessenz.org asking for an explanation and was told that they were only a mirror site to cryptome.org and were therefor not responsible for the content. This is bogus as the content is, in fact, hosted on the quintessenz servers. I guess they forwarded my email to cryptome because I soon received an email from them explaining that they were a non-profit organization only interested in increasing public awareness of the situation in Iraq and that the images and stories were downloaded from a public library with AP access. After pointing out what I felt was a violation in that the images were being hosted by an unauthorized site and being sold without consent, I was told to, "Get bent!"

I guess what I need to know is, am I wrong in thinking that this is a violation of copyright and are there any copyright geniuses on board at SportsShooter.com that might be able to tell me what my next move should be?

Thanks in advance,
Les Hassell
Longview News-Journal
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Barrie, Photographer
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 6:59 AM on 02.22.05
->> I wonder if they feel it is ok to copy and re-print books from the library and sell them?


I would contact an IP attorney. They obviously have already told you where they stand on negotiation for use of your images. I hope you did register the images with the copyright office tho.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Lian, Photographer
Sebastopol | CA | USA | Posted: 7:04 AM on 02.22.05
->> Les,

In reading your post, it's not clear who holds the copyright on these images. Do you own the copyright or were you working for a news outlet(s) that owns the copyrights and makes the images available to AP? If it's the latter, the answer is simple.

Who owns the copyright?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Scheuern, Photographer
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 7:22 AM on 02.22.05
->> I see they've posted your letters about your "attack" on their site: http://cryptome.org/dmca-attack.htm

Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason Grow, Photographer
Gloucester | MA | USA | Posted: 8:03 AM on 02.22.05
->> Keep us informed about what happens -- it's definitely interesting. Does your paper allow you to keep or share ownership of your copyright? It seems to me they lost their claim to fair use under the educational clause (and that was probably tenuous at best) once they started offering the cd collection... Their argument that the library offers the images with no restrictions seems a poor argument -- one can't check a book out of the library, scan all the pages and then offer it for sale online... I suspect that the likelihood of collecting any money off this organization is pretty slim and unless you actually share/own your copyright, the paper and AP will be the only beneficiaries of any judgement. There are others however who know much more about this subject than I.
jg
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Rickman, Photographer
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 8:13 AM on 02.22.05
->> The question stands. Who were you working for when you shot these images? If you were gamefully employed by a newspaper and they work with you on a work for hire basis, you have no legs to stand on. If you submitted your work to AP under their contract or were shooting for AP as a staffer you have no legs to stand on. If however you have been shooting for yourself and the materials were picked up by AP in an unauthorized manner, you just became a centipede if .......... you had the good sense and foresight to register you images with the US copyright office. So, whats the answer.

Rick
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason Grow, Photographer
Gloucester | MA | USA | Posted: 9:14 AM on 02.22.05
->> Just as an aside, I spent a bit of time looking around his site... best of luck I say -- even if you have all your ducks in a row, my guess is that the only result will be the stuff is taken down and probably only temporarily and only after dragging it into the courts -- http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel11072003.html and this: http://slashdot.org/interviews/01/10/29/2330241.shtml
I have grave doubts about a satisfactory result....
jg
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

TD Paulius, Photographer
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 10:50 AM on 02.22.05
->> Les: First of all, keep all copies of whatever those people send you. It seems as if from Jason's post, that they are one of the first amendment standard bearers. Well the First Amendment is no defense to copyright infringement. Strike one. 0 and 1.

Second of all, in my opinion, it is immaterial who owns the copyrigt in your images at this second. If you do (and you ahve registered) you can have some fun. If you do (and you HAVE registered), you can have some fun. If you do AND YOU HAVE REGISTERED(!), you can have some fun. Excuse me, that is usually Rickman and Grow's mantra, which are extremely important. For if you ahve registered, you can take advantage of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyrigth Act), which permits you to have the ISP of the site shut it down until the issue is resolved, or at least shut off the offending portion. If the images are yours and you have not regsitered them. Ball one. 1 and 1. If they are yours, go register them ASAP. Do a search on the boards for the proper procedure (FedEXP, etc.) If you choose not to register. Ball two. 2 and 1

Thirdly and lastly, if the images are not yours and were shot for your paper, agency, church, Freemason's club, club lacrosse team they are the owner. Go tell them about the infringement and ask if they have registered the images. Point out the archive fee and these guys are profiting off of their property. If they listen to you and do nothing, what can you do? Nada, zippo, zilch. Ball three. Ball four. They walk. If they have registered the images, have them talk with their legal department. Strike two. 2 and 2.
Maybe their legal department will then contact the ISP of the offenders and get them taken. Strike three. The offenders are out!

Good luck
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
Milwaukie (Portland) | OR | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 02.22.05
->> I am assuming that you shot this image for your newspaper, then submitted it to the AP. Why are you so bent out of shape then? What did you think would happen when you gave it to the wire? That it would not be used by anybody? That its ok for a hundreds of newspapers to run it without paying you and your paper, but you want to go after one little website? Give me a break. To me, member newspapers submitting stuff to the wire is just as bad as Joe Blow freelancer giving images away for a credential. Neither photographer ever sees money from it. And it takes away a paying gig for someone else. Seems silly to me. You say in your letter "if your website was an AP member it would be ok" and "if you linked to the AP image it would be ok." So if they did it either of those ways, you still would not see a dime, so why try and get money now?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Mike Brice, Photographer
Northwood | OH | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 02.22.05
->> Les,
If you shot this for the paper under a work for hire, and then it was submitted to AP, your next move would be to do nothing except tell AP, who is unlikely to do anything about it. You signed away your rights and have to legal standing to challenge the usage of the photo. Now if you didn't shoot this under the terms above, well you may very well have legal recourse.

Like Craig pointed out. It is interesting that staffers, submitting to AP are now surprised to see how far and wide their images are used without any compensation to them. Puts signing a work-for-hire agreement in an entirely different light when you realize that you have no control over the image you produced.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Les Hassell, Photographer, Photo Editor
Longview | TX | United States | Posted: 8:41 PM on 02.22.05
->> Thanks for all the replies. To answer a few questions from above. Yes, they are registered and yes, the copyright is shared by myself and my employer.

Fore Craig: I have no allusion that work sent to AP will never be used in any manner other than what was intended, but it is part of my job to prevent it from happening as much as reasonably possible not only for myself but for the other photographers at our paper. I am not deluded enough to believe I will always receive compensation every time my work is used however, I believe we are compensated when work is picked up and used by AP member organizations by the fact that the other contributing members are providing content for our paper. While I'm sure it is not 100% the case, I feel most of the time the works are being used within their original context. The issue I have is the cryptome "archives" being sold. Allowing my work to be used as fund-raising material for the organization implies consent and endorsement of the organization. Personally, I somewhat agree with the concept of cryptome; it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that I would donate to such an organization. However, it wouldn't be a donation of works done while in the commission of my employer. I have been asked by candidates to shoot photographs of their personal events that I have declined because I am recognized by the local public as an employee of the New-Journal and, by association, it could be construed as endorsement by the News-Journal. Thats not to say my employer controls every aspect of my photographic work, so long as it is not a conflict of interest, I am free to do as I will. If I were to shoot something newsworthy while off the clock, I would, out of respect for my employer, offer them first dibs but, if they decline or don't decide to embargo the work (this very rarely happens as it is not a tactic used by the News-Journal), its off to my agency.

Anyway, its not a headache I have to deal with anymore; I turned the matter over to corporate and as of this afternoon, I received an email from quintessenz.org informing me that the page had been removed from their server. Hopefully, thats the end of that.

Thanks again for the replies,
Les Hassell
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:23 PM on 02.22.05
->> Unless they've gotten licenses from the various authors and from the AP, the site continues to be a massive infringement. Despite his claims to the contrary, the site owner hasn't got a clue about Fair Use.

The contact person for the website is:

John Young
251 W. 89th St.
Apt 6E
NY, NY 10024-1739

212-873-8700
212-787-6102

The site is hosted on secure.net
http://www.secure.net/

If you complain to them, they may pull the plug on the site untill the dispute is resolved.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Les Hassell, Photographer, Photo Editor
Longview | TX | United States | Posted: 10:53 PM on 02.22.05
->> Thanks, Mark. I guess, all in all, thats the issue I was trying to make everyone aware of.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Prelosky, Photographer
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 11:38 PM on 02.22.05
->> Curiously, this appears to be the same John Young mentioned in a recent Reader's Digest ( I know, but my mom thought I needed more mail ) article regarding anti-security efforts in the post-911 world.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Les Hassell, Photographer, Photo Editor
Longview | TX | United States | Posted: 4:16 AM on 02.23.05
->> You're probably right, Dave. You wanna scan it and send it to me? I'll give ya a nickle... just kidding.

I think, as far as I'm concerned, its pretty much all taken care of. The file containing my image is no directly accessed on the cryptome site nor the quintessenz site. The only issue I have left is I'm sure the image is still included on the archives they are selling at cryptome but thats between Cox and cryptome, now. There are, however, still literally thousands of other images and stories posted and for sell on these sites for any that may be concerned.

I just hate that Mr. Young isn't my next door neighbor; I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I "borrowed" his lawnmower without permission to start my own lawncare service.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Copyright geniuses?
Thread Started By: Les Hassell
Message:
Member Login:
Password:


|| Sponsor Special Deals

Impossible Project Instant Lab
Available from: Samy's Camera | Price: $199.95
Notes: The Impossible Project Impossible Instant Lab creates beautiful instant photos from your iPhone 4/4S, iPhone 5/5S or iPod Touch 4th/5th generation.
-- More Info --



Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
What's your slogan? ::..