Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday August 09 2018, @11:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-wouldn't-upload-a-bear dept.

The European Court of Justice has determined that a website must get permission from the copyright owner of an image before it can use the picture itself – even if that photo or illustration is readily available elsewhere.

That may seem like an obvious conclusion, however, the official advice delivered to the Euro court by its general advocate argued otherwise, with disagreement centered around the legal definition of what represents a "new public" when it comes to publication.

The question asked of the ECJ was: "Whether the concept of 'communication to the public' covers the posting on a website of a photograph which has been previously published on another website without any restrictions preventing it from being downloaded and with the consent of the copyright holder."

The court ruled on Tuesday that yes, it does. And that has huge implications for anyone in charge of a website.

[...] The implications are huge: it will embolden copyright holders to demand payment from any website that hosts their images. And that could potentially force millions of websites to take down all their pictures if they are hit repeatedly with payment demands.

It will also mean that every website – even school websites – will have to make sure that they only post images that they have permission to post. And pretty much everyone is going to have to reeducate themselves about what is and is not allowable online.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday August 09 2018, @11:50PM (6 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday August 09 2018, @11:50PM (#719691)

    How about an explicit exemption for non-profit schools, dear IP leeches ?

    Besides that, it's pretty natural that "he did it first" is not an excuse to profit from someone's work without permission.
    And since everyone has cameras, and there's a lot of CC stuff, and there are multiple image banks, it's not exactly difficult to get material on most topics.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Friday August 10 2018, @12:19AM (1 child)

    by edIII (791) on Friday August 10 2018, @12:19AM (#719703)

    This is true. 10 years ago I took over control of a few systems, including the website, of a medium sized business. I worked with the web developer to remove all images that we couldn't prove we own. That proof had to be that it was available online, with explicit royalty free permissions for others to use. We made a copy of it. The other accepted proof was a receipt, for a royalty-free image. All web pages and media content had an accompanying manifest that detailed the sources.

    Of course, none of this will stop the vultures and bullies. Even though we had iron clad proof of proper licensing, those assclowns at YouTube constantly allowed our stuff to get flagged for IP violations. What was so damned frustrating, was that the people behind the flagging claimed ownership, but were too fucking stupid to realize they were going after all the legal users as well as the IP infringers. YouTube didn't make it easy at all to contest these bullshit DMCA takedowns either.

    So even with a receipt, you will still be fucked with. The only license that really works anymore is the CC. That's only because there aren't some fraudsters with the balls to claim ownership yet.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @08:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @08:02PM (#720052)

      the people behind the flagging claimed ownership, but were too fucking stupid to realize they were going after all the legal users as well as the IP infringers.

      So, contact the company, ask for a refund on your purchase, and let them know they will not have your business again. Problem solved?

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 10 2018, @01:05AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 10 2018, @01:05AM (#719714) Journal

    From an American point of view, this decision doesn't look really great. But, what about licenses like Creative Commons? It doesn't seem to great a burden, all things considered, to only use images that are actually licensed for public use.

    Although, fair use seems a lot better. At least as long as people are conforming to the intentions of the fair use laws.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @06:06AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @06:06AM (#719817)

    In the Netherlands there is an exemption for education. But it doesn't apply to the public internet, it applies to the classroom. There is no objection to using the kid's presentation in the classroom, but publishing anything on the internet needs permission from the copyright holder. As copyright law is harmonized across the EU to a large extent I wouldn't be surprised if this is true Germany as well.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @12:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @12:53PM (#719890)

      In the Netherlands there is an exemption for education. But it doesn't apply to the public internet, it applies to the classroom. There is no objection to using the kid's presentation in the classroom,

      This appears to also true in Germany, and this is what the child was responsible for doing.
      Unfortunately, the school (not the child) later uploaded the presentation to their public website, and shit ensued.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @08:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @08:05PM (#720055)

    Schools already have an exception for educational usage. They do not have an exception for marketing usage, which was the purpose of the website.