Is this "fair use"?
A photograph, said in the article to be copyrighted, is taken from an online blog and photoshopped up for a political attack ad:
A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it.
The photographer will probably win a copyright lawsuit, but unless the image was actually registered at the copyright office, the damages wil be limited.
This is very definitely a case of copyright infringement. The copyright, which came into existence at the moment the photo took tangible form, can be registered at any time even AFTER the infringement. The plaintiffs just have to be sure the registration is in place by the time they are heard by the court.
Many countries do not have copyright registration.
I'm not sure that is correct in the US.
Originally Posted by Benoît99
In the US, if you have actually registered a physical copy of your image you are entitled to triple damages; with out the physical registration, the image is still copyrighted, but you are limited to actual damages - generally, the actual commercial use of that image.
I think copyright infringement is only the half of it.
Those guys' image was published without their permission. Although they were in a public place, you can't publish identifiable images of other people without permission.
Further they were defamed in the public media. They were singled out as deviates, using an image that they had given no permission to publish and which was used in violation of somebody else's copyright privilege. There is also intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On top of all that, this group, "Public Advocate of the U.S." has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That put them on the hook for some major civil rights violations.
Then, to put a big dollop of whipped cream and a cherry on top of the whole thing, that guy, Delgaudio, the chief of this group is also the County Supervisor of Loudoun County, Virginia.
That could potentially put him afoul of some major state and federal civil rights statutes. Specifically, 42 USC, Section 1983, also known as the Civil Rights act of 1871. To paraphrase the law, anybody who, "under color of law," deprives another of his civil rights is in violation of the law.
If it can be shown that Delgaudio, even remotely, used his position as County Supervisor to further or perpetuate his actions against the plaintiffs... to use a legal term... his ass is grass!
Last edited by Worker 11811; 09-26-2012 at 08:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The original poster asked if this was fair use - that implies a copyright issue.
You bring up issues outside of fair use/copyright use.
The issue of legal defamation is far beyond 'my pay grade' and probably should be outside the scope of this forum.
In the U.S., you can register your copyright at any time but there are advantages to doing so within five years after first publication.
The U.S. Copyright Office says:
"Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works."
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
The copyright issue seems pretty clear cut. Most of us agree on that, hands down, but, secondary to that, we, as creators and users of images, need to be aware of problems arising from publishing pictures of others without permission.
Defamation and civil rights issues come third. I only mentioned them as additional "gotchas."
I agree that these issues are tangential to the question at-hand and to the forum, in general.
My reason for mentioning all that was merely to highlight the fact that, when you use an image without permission, you potentially open up a knarly can of worms.
Suffice to say that use of that image was a no-no on many levels.
Yes, I realized you have 5 years to formally register an image in the US; what I'm NOT sure about is how this affects infringement issues that happen before the formal registration is made.
There was a thread here recently discussing image release issues for people in some beach photos.
Originally Posted by Worker 11811
It's gotten too easy to misuse images. At the recent Democrat National Convention, during a segment designed to honor the US Military, a image of many naval ships at sea was projected on the screen behind the speaker. It turns out, people watching noticed that the radar antennas on the ship were Russian and NOT US; someone had grabbed a stock image from someplace, not noticing they were Russian ships and not US ships.