TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Photographer wins $1.2M from companies that took pics off Twitter

97 点作者 cwan超过 11 年前

14 条评论

strict9超过 11 年前
I applaud this only because of Getty and AFP&#x27;s willingness to prosecute others for the same and their unwillingness to share photos for personal&#x2F;noncommercial use.<p>But this is a sad day. I&#x27;ve been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are.<p>Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera? Why is a picture some sacrosanct object but what someone says worthless? You&#x27;re pressing a button on a camera and then pressing some buttons on a computer later.<p>The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other &quot;creatives&quot; only shoot themselves in the foot by slathering watermarks, issuing crazy copyright notices, and using DRM on their photos&#x2F;creative works.<p>If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared. Encouraging the sharing of photos I&#x27;ve taken for clients has only increased my business. It&#x27;s better for society.
评论 #6786909 未加载
评论 #6786897 未加载
评论 #6786704 未加载
评论 #6787358 未加载
评论 #6786693 未加载
评论 #6786555 未加载
JacobJans超过 11 年前
I run a small publishing business that does a lot of Facebook Marketing. Our primary means of promoting our business is to use original content posted regularly to our Facebook pages. These are usually images that we create ourselves. Our competitors, however, use an endless stream of pictures, cartoons, photos, etc that were created by other people. They use other people&#x27;s creative work to promote their business, for commercial gain. Their page is filled every day with content from other people, copied and posted directly on Facebook. Occasionally credit is given, occasionally it is not given.<p>Recently, they used one of our images on their page. They gave no credit, no links to our site, no compensation, or anything. They did, however, link the image to their Pinterest page, which in turn linked to their Tumblr. All giving the impression that they created the image, owned it, and had the right to use it.<p>A successful Facebook meme has significant monetary value. The &#x27;response&#x27; of a good meme is predictable, and can easily reach hundreds of thousands of people. When they posted this image, it did very well. It got thousands of likes and shares. Of course, this happens every day, and not just to us. People steal images all the time. It seems to be &quot;the Internet way.&quot;<p>It is easy to turn a blind eye to this. And usually, we don&#x27;t mind. But when a direct competitor steals an image and uses it for their own gain, it really pisses me off. It also harms my business. Each time a Facebook image is posted, it loses some of its value. Once someone has &quot;liked&quot; it, they&#x27;ve already liked it, and are less likely to respond in the future.<p>But, that&#x27;s just one small piece of the issue. The fact is this competitor has built their business on stealing other people&#x27;s content, in order to build an audience for their Facebook page. They&#x27;ve become rather successful. We are more successful, but are fighting an uneven battle because of our unwillingness to steal.<p>My only question, now that they&#x27;ve stolen one of our images, is what to do next. My goal is to &#x27;level the playing field&#x27;, so that I don&#x27;t have to compete against thieves. Perhaps a scary letter from a lawyer is in order? They&#x27;re in South Africa, and I&#x27;m in the United States.<p>I have a feeling, though, that this simply isn&#x27;t a fight that I can win. Respect for copyright is almost non-existent these days. Look at the rest of the posts on this discussion.<p>Sigh.
评论 #6787376 未加载
评论 #6787453 未加载
评论 #6786720 未加载
评论 #6789136 未加载
评论 #6788947 未加载
评论 #6787555 未加载
评论 #6787379 未加载
michaelhoffman超过 11 年前
The hypocrisy of major copyright holders never ceases to amaze me. Getty would go after a business that redistributed Getty&#x27;s photos for profit in a heartbeat.
评论 #6786710 未加载
tommorris超过 11 年前
The astounding thing about this case is how little due diligence Getty and AFP did. In my capacity as a Wikipedia admin, I&#x27;ve handled copyright-related issues with images and text.<p>We put an enormous amount of volunteer labour into tracking copyright violations and removing them: if a photographer complains that someone has uploaded a copyright violation, our volunteers will go and forensically examine EXIF data, look at upload metadata on sites like Flickr, check for digital watermarks, check on Google Images and other search tools to try and trace the upload history of the image. And even after all that work, it still feels like it&#x27;s not quite good enough.<p>On image licensing, I&#x27;ve emailed government lawyers to verify that our interpretation of their national copyright policies is correct.<p>Meanwhile, I&#x27;ve worked with people in the commercial sector whose modus operandi for producing social media campaigns is &quot;open up Google Images&#x2F;Flickr&#x2F;YouTube and pinch all the things!&quot;<p>If I can trace the copyright claims on an image by using tools like Google Image Search, so can AFP and Getty. Not just for copyright purposes, but due diligence to make sure the metadata checks out with the photojournalistic claim made of the image. That they aren&#x27;t doing so ought to give one pause before trusting agencies like AFP to report the news.
Oculus超过 11 年前
This ruling seems like a good thing to me. Just because a photographer&#x27;s work is easier to copy and use doesn&#x27;t mean we should be able to use it without proper compensation. It&#x27;d be similar to someone taking code from a website&#x27;s source file and using it (In this hypothetical scenario the code is usable and not minified).
评论 #6786614 未加载
jws超过 11 年前
AFP discovered the photos on a Twitter account other than the photographer&#x27;s with their copyrights already stripped. It would have been interesting to see how much of the blame should lie with that Twitter user.<p>This was irrelevant however since the judge found that Twitter&#x27;s TOS only allows retweeting and personal use, so commercially using the image was a violation of the TOS. I&#x27;m not sure how a Twitter TOS violation turns into DMCA damages. I suppose the judge didn&#x27;t want to get into policing all the LOL cats on the internet.<p>In one sense this has parallels to the clip art wars. Lots of vendors sold misappropriated clip art in their collections. Buying it in good faith is not protection for the end user.
评论 #6787127 未加载
评论 #6786707 未加载
评论 #6786931 未加载
评论 #6788077 未加载
评论 #6786926 未加载
alextingle超过 11 年前
This is fantastic news. I always thought that the best way to undermine the stupid copyright regime was to make sure it was applied fully to big businesses. If only all of the other thousands of small rights holders whose works have been used without permission could also get million dollar payoffs, I think we&#x27;d see reform <i>post haste</i>.
Zigurd超过 11 年前
Photography is in a strange place. For one thing, it&#x27;s remarkable that that concepts that negatives are rarely sold, and that the print constitutes the artwork, have carried over to digital photography. Both the bits as they emerge from the camera, and the results of a photographer&#x27;s digital darkroom work take the place of the developed film, and prints, which are often the output of an ink jet printer, have roughly the same value in the fine art market as as exposed emulsion on paper, and to some extent exist side by side.<p>The artificiality of shoehorning digital photography into the same rights framework as evolved for chemical photography creates these stresses. At least there ought to be different categories of images and rights.
RexRollman超过 11 年前
I am glad to see this result. Getty and AFP seek to control their own material with an iron-clad hand but don&#x27;t respect the rights of others.
评论 #6786668 未加载
评论 #6786655 未加载
sixQuarks超过 11 年前
So does this mean that Buzzfeed.com is going to be sued for $1 trillion?
ctingom超过 11 年前
How does this effect the ability users have to embed Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook posts? If someone embeds a Tweet that contains a photograph is that considered fine under Twitters policy?
mrcactu5超过 11 年前
I don&#x27;t understand. Isn&#x27;t anything we tweet public domain?
评论 #6787302 未加载
cddotdotslash超过 11 年前
So, serious question, does this mean that users of Twitter&#x2F;Facebook can sue CNN, Fox, and other news sites that lift pictures from their pages without permission?
评论 #6788087 未加载
husein10超过 11 年前
On one hand I want to cheer since this is an example of David winning a small scuffle against Goliath.<p>But on the other hand, the legal tools being employed by David in this case are the same tools that Goliath uses to limit speech on the web today.<p>Let&#x27;s not forget that the copyright system is an anachronism that needs to be dismantled&#x2F;rebuilt to suit the modern world. Just because the result in this case leaves you satisfied doesn&#x27;t mean that the system in its current form is unacceptable.
评论 #6788086 未加载