The Times is arguing that by uploading the images to the paper’s content management system, Strick granted ownership of the photos to the company.
via The Wrap Media.
The Times is arguing that by uploading the images to the paper’s content management system, Strick granted ownership of the photos to the company.
via The Wrap Media.
14 Comments
How does the LA Times figure that uploading to their content management system supersedes US Copyright Law?
Now I’ve heard everything.
Wow, that is ridiculous. I used to use Mediagrid as a CMS and when I had photographers upload images to our server, it was just so that we could have easy access to them. Same with photo agencies. WE STILL HAD TO PAY FOR THEM. Just because it’s on your server, doesn’t mean you own them. How preposterous is that argument???
Is there any specific terms of service of the site about the use of photos?
Say what???!!!!
How about those celebrity sites that let people upload images that aren’t theirs (mostly copyrighted) so that they aren’t legally responsible for paying for them? Now their websites/blogs are full of content/photos and they aren’t paying a dime for them. Shouldn’t these sites be responsible for what is uploaded to them, regardless if it’s being uploaded by the public?
US law provides a fair bit of protection for services which let 3rd parties upload photos. So long as the service complies with takedown notices, the uploader is liable for infringement, not the service. Think about it for a minute, and you’ll realize why sites such as flickr or youtube or vimeo couldn’t exist at all if they didn’t have that.
A summary can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Safe_Harbor_Provision_for_Online_Storage_-_.C2.A7_512.28c.29
It’s so absurd it’s getting laughable. What are they thinking? I’m so glad to see you’re standing up for your rights – and our rights. Too few will. Keep us posted!
Don’t use their car park if you go to visit.
Yes, the fine print at the LA Times parking gate says “You can drive your car in but it can never leave”. The owners must have listened to Hotel California a few too many times growing up.
That is absolute rubbish!
Obviously there exists a contract to use the pictures when Strick was “hired”, and it obviously does not give the LA Times the slightest right to use the pics after his “leave”, otherwise they would not use such a silly argument, but the contract instead. So the most likely explanation is that this case of rights management was not handled correctly internally, not necessarily on purpose, could also be a silly human error. And now the LAT struggles hard to escape the trap it dug itself. Nevertheless it’s worrying as it might win.
Reading this made me remember a situation on my side of the world, not too long ago. I work at a photo agency in Greece and when I contacted an editorial website to let them know that they have uploaded an image that we represent without our agreement, the answer I got was that if we can’t protect our images, it’s not his fault. He found the image randomly on the internet… probably from another editorial website that most likely paid for it. We sometimes, if not most times, work with ignorant people unfortunately. Sad to see this happens with huge companies as well….
It’s so unbelievable that it’s not surprising which is scary.
Comments are closed for this article!