| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Question for Loundy...does TOS really indemnify site owners?
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:37 AM on 03.02.11 |
->> http://youarenotaphotographer.com/submit
Ok, so this site is pretty funny... And it suggests you only upload your own photos... but the record-keeping and image documentation doesn't go into depth and require addresses and other traceable information.
But the Submission Guidelines and TOS are written to indemnify the site from unauthorized submissions, and put the legal burden on the submitters should there be any unauthorized photos that *somehow* wind up on the blog, and surely, in the soon-to-follow humor book...
Syl Arena's Sribd rip-off is just days old at this point, too.
My question is this: Do TOS and submission guidelines such as this truly protect the website/end content provider from legal actions? And wasn't there a report recently where a major video website was covertly uploading ©-protected content under this same 'submitter-responsible' TOS to try to shield themselves from legal action, while having ©-protected video in their searchable database? |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 03.02.11 |
->> Putting the legal burden on submitters to avoid legal hassles for the users is not new. When asking for handout photos some newspapers and wire service(s) use a lawyer'd form for the submitter to fill out and sign giving the recipient permission to use the photos. Part of the legal wording is that the submitter is the copyright owner or has the legal right to represent the copyright owner when giving out the pix. With this in hand, the media outlet can claim no wrong doing because it was acting in accordance to the written permission allowing the use/distribution of the photo(s). The form puts the person who signed it on the legal misrepresentation hook. Whether this has ever been challenged in court, I have no clue. But if it ever goes to court, that will be the media's defense most likely.
I had to use such a form when getting handout photos from government agencies, police, private people, etc. And the forms were sent to NY to be filed with the images.
However, I declined picking up handout photos that looked like they were done by a pro or studio because inside me I wasn't comfortable with the situation because the submitters didn't appear to comprehend the legal ramifications and I didn't want to take advantage of them. It was a personal/professional choice on my part. But when I did come across such situations, I sought out the pro/studio for permission/licensing even though the submitter said it was okay to use the images.
However, another end run that I and other colleagues were instructed to use to circumvent copyright usage restrictions is to make a photo of the person holding the photo and/or other elements that show the photo being displayed -- not copied. For example, even though the photo was the majority of the canvas, including a person's hands holding it makes it a photo of the picture; not a copy. And if the photo was on the wall, it would be shot with other photos on the wall too even if the others were small and out of focus; or the framed photo sitting on a coffee table or atop a piano. Now if the end user/paper chooses to crop down to just the photo within the photo, then any copyright violation(s) would be on their shoulders because that is not how the image was transmitted to them. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:31 PM on 03.02.11 |
->> Jack,
Practically speaking, only a judge could answer that question after a civil trial.
Websites like this do enjoy a good bit of protection under federal law, but they do have to remove material after being notified BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER that the material is posted without permission.
--Mark |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 03.02.11 |
->> And unfortunately, by the time the copyright holder has issued a cease and desist order the benefits of using the image(s) have already been achieved free of charge.
That's like taking a car for joy ride and then being told not to do that by the vehicle's owner. The usage stops, but the free loader has already had the fun. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|