| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Beginner Issues > Topic: Copyright question. |
Topic: Copyright question.
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 7/26/2008 7:19:35 PM | show profile OK, let's say you get a photograph off a company website that shows its facilities. And let's say this photograph would be hard to get otherwise (picture of something on private property), but has useful, pertinent, newsworthy information. For example, if the picture shows a zoning violation, or maybe not even something illegal, but something that contradicts the company's claim, or maybe it just illustrates some relevant detail -- like the location of one building in proximity to something else that had a "locater map" quality. My first question is, under the three scenarios I just described (picture of an illegal activity; picture of something that's not illegal but contradicts a company claim; or picture gives a pertinent visual image to give the reader of the story more of an idea of what you are describing), under those three circumstances: does copyright law apply equally? Second question: can the company sue you under any circumstances for using an image off its website. Part of my brain says that in the third scenario it would have good cause to sue, in the second scenario it would be "iffy" and in the third scenario it wouldn't be able to sue you. The other part of my brain wonders if "Fair Use" covers all three of these scenarios. Clap, clap! Discuss! |
| Grateful Deadline | Posted – 7/26/2008 8:49:10 PM | show profile >>under those three circumstances: does copyright law apply equally? << Lord heavens, yes! If you write about an illegal activity or a contradiction, do you want somebody swiping your story and running it? Same difference. I don't anything you've described falls under "fair use," but you could look it up on the U.S. Copyright Office Web site. |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/27/2008 12:26:15 PM | show profile ** . . . can the company sue you under any circumstances for using an image off its website.** Absolutely. And, just because it's posted on the website does NOT mean the company owns it. We deal with permissions all the time, and you'd be surprised how many third-party images are out there. Whoever posted the image on the website might not even know who owns the rights. For example, companies publish annual reports filled with images. Did the company take the photos? Are they stock images bought for one-time use? Did the original photg, although not credited in the AR, sell one-time use only? Especially if you are running what will be a controversial piece, I'd dig to find out where the permissions are owned. Again, you might be really surprised and without doing any digging and just assuming that the pic is fair game, you could open yourself up to a mess of trouble. |
| chucho | Posted – 7/27/2008 2:50:21 PM | show profile In this case it's a company website with high resolution images of its facilities. The company owns the rights to the pictures. What I want to know is if the photographs depict a newsworthy element, whether this puts the images under "fair use". OK, let me simplify it with a hypothetical: company is being sued, and its own promotional photographs depict something that backs up the plaintiff's claims. Does that fall under "fair use"? Let me make a really obvious and unrealistic hypothetical to illustrate why I don't think this is so cut and dry: company has an image on its website (ostensibly as "rights reserved" high-rez PR pictures for the media to use) that inadvertently shows evidence of a crime. Does that mean these images now fall under "fair use"? If that's too nuanced, how about this: company has a "rights reserved" promo pic -- but if you zoom in you see a company representative shooting a worker in the face with a shotgun. Does that image now fall under "fair use" (a copyrighted company photo, but also evidence of a crime). Can a newspaper now run that copyrighted image because it shows evidence of a crime? My case is much more nuanced than this (image doesn't depict a crime), but I'm trying to figure out if anyone knows how "fair use" comes into play for company-owned and copyrighted PR images it posts on its own website as "rights reserved" (most company images come with a disclaimer that they reserve the right to those pics, but obviously if the pic is damming, they will claim copyright on the picture if you wan to publish it, if it obviously doesn't make the company look good). I hope that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback! |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/27/2008 4:42:46 PM | show profile **The company owns the rights to the pictures.** I think that answers all of your questions, regardless of how you're trying to use the photos. |
| chucho | Posted – 7/28/2008 9:43:43 AM | show profile So basically you can only use company pictures if you write positive things about the company? (Because they would be able to retroactively sue you for using copyrighted pictures off their own media center section of their site if they don't like the coverage you gave with the images?) if that's they case, why would anyone use these images if it's so cut-and-dry? It seem like you would always be exposed to potential copyright infringement suits if a company decides retroactively that it doesn't like the coverage for which it has provided images. That doesn't make much sense. So basically any company website images must ONLY go with stories that depict the company in a favorable light? |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/28/2008 11:19:27 AM | show profile No, it means that you need permission to use images owned by another company. If you were to go and take pictures yourself, you'd own the copyright and could do whatever you wanted with them. It has to do with ownership, not subject matter. ***** So basically you can only use company pictures if you write positive things about the company? (Because they would be able to retroactively sue you for using copyrighted pictures off their own media center section of their site if they don't like the coverage you gave with the images?) |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/28/2008 11:44:44 AM | show profile Opps, Wait, Monday morning foggyness. If the photos are in the media section for media usage, they are fair game for use. The company has already given permission to reprint, as long as you use whatever source/credit line it requires--make sure you check the creidt line because different companies use different language, and THAT--as stupid as it may seem--could be a flag for trouble. I thought you meant photos simply on the website. This is an issue I hear a lot about when the permissions person is going through everything before we go to print. Sorry for the misunderstanding. |
| chucho | Posted – 7/28/2008 11:51:49 AM | show profile OK, listen: a lot of companies have something on their web sites called a "media center", or something to that effect. And in that "media center" are high resolution photos that the company posts for use in the media. For example, Boeing has an entire section of high-rez images. If you call their media department, they don't ask you to send them a permission request -- they simply say "go there and you can find pictures". In other words, the permission is inherent in the fact that the company has placed high-resolution pictures in a sections specifically for the media to acquire them. However, those pictures are still under copyright. You do not need to "get permission" to publish these pictures -- they are available on the website with a notification that these images are under copyright, but available to the press. Again, I understand that aspect. And you do NOT need to get permission to use these pictures because permission is inherent in the fact that the company has posted them specifically for the media to use. What I want to know is if a company can retroactively go after you for copyright infringement if you publish images in an article that doesn't portray them in a good light. Does that make sense? If i take a picture of a company CEO off a company's media section of it's website, I have never had to solicit permission -- the PR people simply refer you to the site. But it does seem to be an ambiguous situation, so I am wondering if anyone here has ever used media shit form a company website in an article that doesn't shower said company with praise (in a cleverly disguised advertisement for the company, rather than an investigative piece). I suspect you are probably right -- this permission is probably dependent on you only using the images for articles that portray the company in good light (or at least isn't tactician) and that if you do so they can retroactively sue you for copyright infringement with some lame excuse like "well, you didn't get permission in writing even though we don't do that, we simply refer people to our site". Still it would be nice to know the specifics. Sorry, but the thing is there's a company that has an image on its website that is for the media, but is also copyrighted, and the story I'm working on is revolving around a lawsuit. The picture depicts something relevant to the story, but I guess if I'm not showering the company with praise, it can sue me for using it, right -- even though it's on their site specifically for the media? |
| chucho | Posted – 7/28/2008 11:53:00 AM | show profile >> media shit form << Er, I mean "media shot from" |
| westsidestory | Posted – 7/28/2008 2:28:05 PM | show profile chuch, permission is not inherent, or implied, on any website where you see the words "copyright...etc." Some companies do have on-web publicity areas where they make images available. This is becoming less common as mashups become more common - the potential for a corporate image to wind up in a damaging assemblage has the corp folks tightening up access, typically now you have to ask permission by email and/or register as a media person. Long story short, if you don't have a written permission to use ANY image on the web, you're in violation of copyright. If you want this particular image, why don't you just email the image owner and ask permission to use it? Nine times out of ten, there is no fee, and you will be protected no matter what you wind up using the image for. |
| westsidestory | Posted – 7/28/2008 2:31:58 PM | show profile retroactive stuff And yes, a copyrightholder can go after you any time if you've infringed according to statute. Copyright holders also have a year after publication to file a copyright, although statutory damages are only awarded if the infringement happened after the copyright date. However - Statutory damages are HUGE. Don't go there. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/28/2008 2:54:37 PM | show profile If a company has materials on their web site that are clearly indicated for media use, you can probably use them in a negative story without permission. I would read whatever guidelines the website says. --Sorry, but the thing is there's a company that has an image on its website that is for the media, but is also copyrighted, and the story I'm working on is revolving around a lawsuit. The picture depicts something relevant to the story, but I guess if I'm not showering the company with praise, it can sue me for using it, right -- even though it's on their site specifically for the media?-- |
| chucho | Posted – 7/28/2008 3:36:57 PM | show profile Westside, you do not need written permission to publish pictures that are placed on company websites explicitly for use by media, even if they're copyrighted. It's not that cut and dry. Promotional pictures are specifically made and posted (in high-resolution format) to be disseminated in the media. But they are still copyrighted pics, and often you are asked to credit the company for providing the picture. I've done this over the years and have never been asked to get written permission to use these images. In fact it would be strange to ask for written permission. The question comes when an article you write is something the company doesn't like, an article about a lawsuit that maybe at the end doesn't portray the company in a favorable light, and you use an image from its section specifically devoted to disseminating pictures to the press. My question is whether they can attempt to get you AFTER PUBLICATION for copyright violation if they decide they didn't like how the company was portrayed in the story. I guess the best answer is to forget about it and don't risk it. |
| westsidestory | Posted – 7/28/2008 4:33:27 PM | show profile Well, I guess my feeling is that a good move would be to have the permission secured first, then go ahead and write whatever you wanted, to cover your butt. |
