Copyright, fair use and the struggle against online image misappropriation. -Jason Shultz
Jason Shultz goes in-depth on the issues many people face today in terms of copyrights and misappropriation of images. Shultz describes the issues that Lane Hartwell, a freelance photographer, faces with placing photos online with flexible copyright licences.
Many artists and photographers in the media today like to allow others to use their photos, but in Hartwell's case, when the idea behind these images gets distorted, issues often times arise.
Shultz continues the article by explaining that, although very inconsiderate of users to take Hartwell's photos and not credit her properly, it is not illegal. Hartwell's use of flexible copyright licences allows users to do so.
Ethically, such acts as taking others' only photos and including them in your own are wrong. However, from a legal standpoint, this is allowed.
Sections 106 and 107 of the Copyright Act balance each other out in these certain situations, and when it comes down to the court system dealing with copyright issues, they look at the four factors (purpose of use, whether original work was published/fictional, amount of work taken, and potential for harm to the original work).
The article ends with Shultz explaining that in such disputes dealing with smaller scale (not-corporations) we should look more towards ethics rather than try to gain justice through the copyright laws.
Personal Response:
When uploading photos to the web, especially social media sites, we must be very careful, and make sure to read all that information we skim right past. Such information would be copyright, privacy policies, etc. Artists must make the decision to allow others to use their work, or not to. When choosing to be flexible with their copyrighting, these artists must know what others are capable of, because unless you are a big-time corporation, you don't have a good shot at winning over a case dealing with copyrighting. In a period where mostly everyone gains their information via the web, users must be very careful what they chose to share, and keep educated on each website's particular policies.
Penelope Umbrico (Suns)
Photo taken from here
I don't believe that Penelope Umbrico's works are examples of misappropriated images by any means. Yes, the individual images were posted by others, but Umbrico was not using the images to harm the original purpose. She took these individual pieces, and created her own work of art by using them. Also, Rules and Regulations on sites such as Flickr, which Umbrico found these sunset photos, are very flexible in regards to copyright information.
http://www.penelopeumbrico.net/Suns/Suns_Index.html
Fair Use of Photography On A Blog -A Photo Editor
In this article, a photo editor and blogger breaks down what he personally finds to be "Fair Use".The editor lays down some guidelines for online bloggers when including photos in their personal works. The first, and most simple way to properly credit the original artist behind the photo is to ask for permission to use their work.
When working with the image for the purpose of criticism, research, news reporting, teaching, etc. you should include the photographers name, and the link. You should be sure to not use too many of the artist's images, screenshot the page which the image was found, and include the photographers site address.
Personal Response:
This short but sweet article gave some very helpful pointers to anyone who might need to include someone else's photos in their work. I found it very helpful, especially when working through my blog.
The Fair Use Exception -University System of Georgia
This article kicks off by including the four factors which are needed in order for use of copyrighted material to be fair. The 4 factors include; 1)purpose of use must be for non-profit educational purpose, 2)nature of the copyrighted work, 3)amount of work used compared to how much is copyrighted, and 4)the effect it places on potential market/value.
Purpose and character of the use is the only of the four listed factors that must be looked deeper into in order to deem the use fair. The problem arises in that, the interpretation of this can be very different for everyone.
The article then breaks down the four factors, in depth.
Purpose and Character of Use: Non-profit uses are favored over commercial uses. "Transformative" work, or work that isn't verbatim or identical to the original, are also favored. Lastly, multiple copies for educational use are favored as well.
Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Educational and informative work is favored over fiction. Tests and workbook pages that are created for the purpose of re-purchase, should be carefully inspected by instructors, in that, it would not qualify as fair use if used incorrectly.
Amount of Work Used: Thumbnail images are favored over full detailed copies of the copyrighted image. Also taking the "heart of the work" also becomes problematic.
Effect on the Value of or Market for the Work: Closely linked with the factor in terms of purpose of use.
Personal Response:
This article, very similar to Shultz's article, does a good job of listing the 4 factors which the court system takes into account when dealing with copyright problems. This article, however, breaks the factors down in-depth and includes examples which I, as a reader, found very helpful.
The AP/Shepard Fairey Dispute -Jonathan Bailey
Shepard Fairey created a poster of president Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. The photo originated from a photographer for the AP. When the photo became popular, AP discovered that their photo was being used, and recreated, and they sued Fairey for copyright infringement.
The case brought forth a few issues:
1)Copyright Ownership- Obama was not a full-time employee at the time the photo was taken, meaning that contractual issues become unclear.
2)Fair Use Issues- Fairey's work was a very transformative version of AP's original shot of Obama, and was for political use, which is a very specific form of non-commercial use.
3)Lack of Assets- Fairey earned no revenue from the making of this poster.
The history of the AP comes into play in the issue. In the past they have argued quite a few cases of online issues, leading them to become banned to a particular site.
Bailey believes that this case will take a while to come to a conclusion. He has high hopes that the case will bring forth some answers to the many questions of artists and web users in regards to fair use.
Personal Response:
I don't believe the AP will win in this case, because when bringing forth a case such as this as a precedent for future cases. In some cases, this may be a good thing, however; in others, it may hurt one party severely.
The Associated Press V. Shepard Fairey -John Harrington
According to Harrington, Fairey did infringe. The controversy stems to whether or not the AP, or Garcia, are deserving of any revenue. There is, however; a case for an injunction. This is because, the fact the the photo originated from the AP, this could cause some to believe that Obama is a celebrity endorsement for the company.
Harrington also includes the debate in regards to Garcia, and who holds the copyright. When dealing with Garcia as a freelance photographer, the rights are shifted if contract is signed.
AP Blasts Obama 'Hope' Artist in Copyright Flap -David Kravets
Shepard's image has been described as "computerized paint by the numbers" and "copy-and-paste style". This brings forth good reasoning why the AP could become angered by the stealing of their image.
The AP claims that Fairey has reeled in $400,000 in total sales of this generated image. Fairey believes this image has been transformed into something abstract, and brings forth a powerful meaning that is totally different than what Garcia and the AP has originally had. Fairey also states that from the get-go, he made it known that the photo came from the AP, and argues that this causes it to fall under "fair use". Also the profits were all donated to charity groups.
Personal Response:
After reading this article, I'm stuck on whether I believe the AP stands a chance at this case or not. Both sides bring forth a good argument, but I think this debate is far from over.
Shepard Fairey Is Fined and Sentenced to Probation in 'Hope' Poster Case -Randy Kennedy
Fairey has been sentenced to two years of probation and received $25,000 in fines for tampering with evidence in the AP/Fairey 'Hope' poster case. Fairey received this for destroying documents, and creating documents in order to hid the fact that he did use the photos that originated from the Associated Press.
The two later agreed to share rights to the 'Hope' image, and create more merchandise showing the particular image.
Personal Response to Fair Use, Copyright, and Plagiarism Articles:
My eyes have been opened to the issues brought forth when "borrowing" images from others. I have learned the importance of the four factors behind "Fair Use" arguments, and I plan to use this information as I put together my own work from here on out.
I, as an artist, plan to learn from the Shepard Fairey controversy. I have learned that, when in doubt, contact the original artist, and always make sure to give them credit for their words or images.
