RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Rights’

Facebook Rights Manager updated to give photographers more control over their images

23 Sep

Facebook has announced a new rights management feature designed to give creators more control over their images. On Monday, Facebook product manager of the creator and publisher experience Dave Axelgard said, ‘We want to ensure Facebook is a safe and valuable place for creators to share their content.’ Key to that goal is the newly announced Rights Manager for Images.

Instagram is the dominant image-based social network at the moment, making it a valuable platform for creators…but it’s not without its controversy in the industry. Parent company Facebook is taking steps to address some of the criticism with its new Rights Manager for Images, which builds upon the existing Rights Manager to give photographers control over where their images appear on the social platform.

Rights Manager is a customizable tool found within the Facebook Creator Studio platform, which is built for creators to give them an element of control over their content across both Facebook and Instagram. The tool works by enabling users to add their content, after which Facebook will scan the two social platforms to find the content if it is posted on either.

Reposted content found on another user’s Page or profile can be removed or, in cases where it may be beneficial to the creator, the owner can either add an ownership link to the content or simply monitor the repost going forward. Creators have the option of adding exemptions for partners who have permission to share the content so that it isn’t flagged by the Rights Manager tool.

The newly announced Rights Manager for Images is described by Axelgard as a new version of the tool that is designed to offer management of photos ‘at scale.’ As with the original version of Rights Manager, Facebook requires creators to submit an application to get access to the tool.

The application includes selecting which Pages the user may want to protect, what type of rights owner they are (individual, publisher, etc.), the type of content that needs protected and similar details.

Facebook notes that this Rights Manager tool exists in addition to a number of other options creators have, including what it refers to as a ‘fast and effective’ intellectual property reporting system, as well as a policy for dealing with repeat copyright offenders and more. The tool ultimately gives creators the ability to prevent unauthorized sharing of copyrighted content, potentially bringing an end to reposts on Instagram.

It’s unclear how many creators have access to the Rights Manager, which addresses only one aspect of copyright issues on social media. Facebook has been criticized for failing to give Instagram users the ability to limit the sharing of public posts, something that was recently brought to public attention due to a couple of lawsuits earlier this year.

Facebook indicated earlier this summer that it may give Instagram users the ability to disable sharing or embedding posts, which would, for example, prevent media companies from embedding images to get around paying the photographer a licensing fee. The social media company complicated the matter in June when it clarified that its terms of service does not include sublicensing embedded content.

Though this may give creators more control over where their images are embedded, critics have said that it still places the burden on creators to find and police the use of their images due to Instagram’s readily available sharing and embedding tools. As well, the presence of these tools implies to users that they are allowed to embed public content on other websites without getting permission from the photographer first, potentially putting them at risk of unwittingly violating a photographer’s copyright.

Instagram told Ars Technica back in June that it was ‘exploring the possibility’ of offering users the option of disabling the embed tool. Such a feature remains unavailable at this time, however, meaning that Instagram users must make their images private if they don’t want users to have the option of sharing them.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Facebook Rights Manager updated to give photographers more control over their images

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Associated Press criticized over social media rights requests for free content

20 May

Lawyer and self-professed ‘copyright geek’ Mike Dunford recently drew attention to the Associated Press’s controversial requests to use content posted on social media. He shares a copy of the social media release form the AP asks social media users to agree to, breaking down each part with an explanation and issues related to them. Though some of the AP’s presumed concerns are legitimate, according to Dunford, he ultimately claims that the release terms are ‘abusive across the board.’

The controversy started when lawyer Jay Mashall Wolman shared a tweet from Associated Press editor R.J. Rico, which has since been deleted, bringing attention to the AP’s social media release form. Wolman then shared several other similar content requests made by the Associated Press and its employees, each asking different social media users whether they took the content that caught the AP’s attention, as well as whether the AP could use it for free.

The requests are joined by an image of the AP’s social media release form, which asks the person who captured the content to read the message, then to respond to the message containing the form with an agreement to the terms. The AP’s social media release form claims for itself:

…world-wide, non-exclusive right to (and all consents to) use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, edit, translate, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display the content throughout the world in perpetuity by any and all means now known or hereafter created in all media now known or hereafter created; an AP shall further have the right to license these right to others…

In addition, the social media release form includes a section that requires the user to agree to be responsible for any copyright matters that may result from the use of the content by AP or any entity it licenses the content to, stating:

[The social media user agrees that] you are the copyright owner or the copyright owner’s authorized agent and that you are fully entitled to grant these rights in favor of AP and that there is no agreement or other restriction preventing this grant of rights. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the AP and its licensees from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses arising from any breach or alleged breach of these representations and warranties.

Wolman tagged multiple people in his tweets, including Dunford, who gave a long commentary on the release form in a tweet thread of his own.

Dunford points out that though Twitter’s terms may allow the Associated Press to embed these tweets in its online articles without getting prior permission, he ‘wouldn’t want to rely entirely on that.’ There have been examples of controversy over publications embedding tweeted content without getting explicit permission to do so. Dunford also points out that embedding isn’t useful for the AP when it comes to video and printed content.

Requesting that a social media user allow a major news company to use the content for free is problematic when it comes to paying content creators for their works. However, Dunford zeroes in on the social media release form terms, claiming that they are ‘MUCH more of an issue’ than simply asking to use content without paying for it.

Dunford points out that the AP and its lawyers are at ‘a substantial advantage’ over the unrepresented social media user when it comes to securing content rights. Digging into the actual terms, Dunford points out multiple concerns, including that the AP’s release form gives it the right to license the social media user’s content and it gets the non-exclusive right to forever use the image as if it owns it. ‘It’s abusive,’ Dunford says.

The biggest concerns start with the second paragraph, however, with Dunford stating in his tweets:

National Press Photographers Association (NPAA) General Counsel Mickey Osterreicher weighed in on the matter with a tweet of his own, encouraging content creators to refrain from agreeing to terms like this:

Wolman found examples of AP employees tweeting the social media release form dating back to 2015.

For social media users who fail to see the potential harm in accepting terms like this, an anonymous legal Twitter account allegedly belonging to an Australian lawyer detailed some of the problems users may encounter, including the fact that owning the copyright to the content doesn’t protect the user against potentially being sued over it in the future.

Wolf points out, among many other things:

You’ve heard of bots that do automated DMCA takedowns. Imagine that there’s an automated DMCA takedown of your video. Imagine that results in legal action over who has the rights to the video. You don’t have to imagine too hard, it happens all the time.

Now imagine that you’ve agreed to indemnify the AP for the costs of bringing/defending those proceedings.

Wolf concludes his commentary with a solid point, stating, ‘Can’t afford a lawyer? Then you definitely can’t afford to grant indemnity.’ The Associated Press has not commented on the criticism and concerns.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The Associated Press criticized over social media rights requests for free content

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Appeals court upholds photographers’ rights on ‘fair use’ online image thefts

01 May

The US Court of Appeal has reversed a controversial decision that allowed a company promoting a film festival to use a copyrighted photograph on its website without having to pay the photographer that took it. In the original ruling the District Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia allowed the fee-free grab of the image under the rules of ‘fair use,’ thus signaling it’s okay to lift pictures from a photographer’s website.

An exhibit provided in the appeal showing Brammer’s photo as it was seen on his Flickr profile. Note the clear ‘All rights reserved’ icon in the lower-right-hand corner.

Fortunately, in a new ruling, the Appeals Court has determined that the use of the picture was not acceptable ‘fair use’ and that Violent Hues Productions did indeed infringe the copyright of stock photographer Russell Brammer. In a test using four criteria the court found that Violent Hues Productions’ use of the image failed on all counts to pass as ‘fair use’. The court set out the criteria for fair use as being that the image shouldn’t be used for commercial purposes, whether the image had been transformed by the copier, how much of the image that was used and whether its use had an effect on its market value.

An exhibit provided in the appeal showing Brammer’s photo as it was seen on the Violent Hues’ website.

The image, showing a placed called Adams Morgan at night, was downloaded from photographer Brammer’s Flickr site and used by Violent Hues Productions to illustrate a ‘Plan Your Visit’ page on the website of the Northern Virginia International Film and Music Festival. The company initially claimed it didn’t know the image was copyrighted, despite Brammer using the words ‘All rights reserved’ beneath it. Violent Hues Productions also claimed the image was transformed by its cropping of it, and that the use was informational and of benefit to festival goers. The court ruled though that the cropping was done only to make the proportions of the image match others on the same page and that it didn’t constitute a ‘new expression, meaning or message’. The court also found that had the company paid Brammer for the picture its ability to inform festival goers would not have been hindered.

It was also ruled that ‘if Violent Hues’ behavior became common and acceptable, the licensing market for Brammer’s work specifically, and professional photography more broadly, might well be dampened.’

It was also ruled that ‘if Violent Hues’ behavior became common and acceptable, the licensing market for Brammer’s work specifically, and professional photography more broadly, might well be dampened’ and the court went on to state ‘If the ordinary commercial use of stock photography constituted fair use, professional photographers would have little financial incentive to produce their work’.

In its conclusion the court said ‘What Violent Hues did was publish a tourism guide for a commercial event and include the photo to make the end product more visually interesting. Such a use would not constitute fair use when done in print, and it does not constitute fair use on the Internet. Violent Hues’ affirmative defense thus fails as a matter of law. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.’

The ruling is especially important as it underlines that commercial bodies do not have the right to lift images from the Internet to use for their own ends without paying the photographer, and that photographers do have protection from those that seek to behave in this way. The court specifically acknowledged that ‘the Internet has made copying as easy as a few clicks of a button’.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Appeals court upholds photographers’ rights on ‘fair use’ online image thefts

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Netflix acquires rights to Kodachrome: a movie about the final days of the iconic film

16 Sep
Photo courtesy Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF)

Netflix has acquired the rights to Kodachrome, an upcoming Jason Sudeikis movie about the last days of the Kodachrome film era. The news was first reported by Deadline, who is claiming that Netflix paid $ 4 million for the rights and plans a widespread theatrical release that could cover theaters in major regions around the world—including the US, UK, Canada, and Japan.

Kodachrome the movie revolves around a father and son on a road trip to get to one of Kodak’s photo processing labs before it closes down forever. The screenplay was inspired by a New York Times article about the last lab in the world that was processing the now-iconic film stock; in the movie, the characters are racing against time to try and get four rolls developed before it’s too late.

True to the film’s theme, Kodachrome was shot on film, not digital, and features the acting talents of Jason Sudeikis, Ed Harris, and Elizabeth Olsen. Here’s hoping it comes to a theatre near you… and pays proper tribute to the analog legend.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Netflix acquires rights to Kodachrome: a movie about the final days of the iconic film

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Russian gay rights story wins World Press Photo contest for Danish photographer

17 Feb

A photograph that highlights the difficulties facing sexual minorities in Russia has won the World Press Photo contest’s top prize. ‘Jon and Alex’, from a project called ‘Homophobia in Russia’, shows an ‘intimate moment’ between a gay couple from St. Petersburg and won Danish photographer Mads Nissen the Contempory Issues category of the competition, as well as the first prize for a single image, netting him 11,500 Euro and Canon DSLR equipment. See winners

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Russian gay rights story wins World Press Photo contest for Danish photographer

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Photo Contests – Is that a contest or Rights Grab?

16 Oct

A Guest Post by Dale Wilson

Photo Contest

Photo contests have been around since the days when chemistry was first introduced to develop light sensitive cellulose – in other words, since before photography became a popular hobby in the 1930’s.

What has changed, however, is the intended flavour of the contest. It wasn’t long ago the photo contest was a vehicle that promoted the pleasurable pursuit of photography as a hobby and rewarded excellence in craft.

However, in the past decade, photo contests have more often than not become a rights grab by preying on unsuspecting entrants who have absolutely no idea what all the legal talk translates too. For example, the following text is copied from a recently announced contest by an internationally recognized environmental NGO that I have supported for years. Its rules read, in part:

By entering (reference to contest deleted) the contest, you retain the rights to your works while granting XXXX (sponsors name deleted) the unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual right to use, reproduce, communicate, modify and display the works (in whole or in part) for any purpose without any fee or other form of compensation, and without further notification or permission.

By participating in this contest, you release and agree to indemnify and hold harmless XXXXX(reference to contest deleted) and its employees, directors, officers, affiliates, agents, judges and advertising and promotional agencies from any and all damages, injuries, claims, causes of actions, or losses of any kind resulting from your participation in this contest or receipt or use of any prize.

So, what does all this mumbo-jumbo mean and how does it relate to the photographer who wants to have some fun with their pictures?

First, because the contest sponsors are using a lot of legal jargon, it behoves the photographer to understand some of the terms. But first, let’s do a very quick primer on photography and copyright. As a preface let me first say this is NOT LEGAL ADVICE, but opinion based on more than 20 years as a professional photographer who has had to learn Copyright legislation by default.

In most free countries of the world, the moment you release the shutter on a camera the image is by default copyrighted in your name as the author of the work. There are a few exceptions, but as an amateur they probably don’t apply. As the owner of copyright, only you have the right to authorize reproduction of that photograph. Furthermore, you also have the right to have your name associated with the work in what is known as moral rights. Refer to the copyright legislation in your country, but for the most part this should hold true for countries subscribing to the Berne Convention.

With that out of the way, let’s get this in context. First, don’t be swooned by having your name appear in print – by law, in most cases, the publisher is compelled to identify you as the photographer under the Moral Rights conditions of the Act. That is the easy one.

What does Royalty Free mean? RF is a picture reproduction term which means the publisher is only compelled to honour you with a ‘reward’ just once. When they add all these other terms be aware that you could very well be providing them the authorization to re-sell your picture, or allow any company of their choosing, to use your picture without any further reward (royalty) coming back to you. The clause of “Royalty Free in Perpetuity” in all likelihood means the sponsor will be gaining something tangible from the use of your free source photo for many, many years into the future. This, in my opinion, is wrong and these contests should be avoided at all costs.

What does “Forever hold harmless and Indemnify” mean? This is the one clause that should send the largest red flag waving from the highest yardarm you have ever seen. Avoid at all costs, as it has potential to cost you more than anything you have ever owned, or will own.

Basically, by giving the sponsor the right in perpetuity to do whatever they wish with your picture you are saying they can use the image in any way they might decide without ever having to consult you prior to that use. In reality the sponsor could potentially sell that image of your neighbour’s young teen (even though you had permission to take the photograph) to a condom manufacturer for advertising purposes without you ever knowing. Your neighbour eventually sees the image, and rightfully flies off the handle and sues.

The publisher says “Not our problem” the photographer indemnified us from any and all claims. Ultimately you have absolutely no say in how the image is used, yet you assume any and all liability. Yes, you are giving the sponsor the right to sell that photo as a stock image so they can earn an income for their cause, and you have provided them the authority to do so just by entering a well intended photo contest for fun – regardless if you are a winner, or not!

Only you can decide whether you wish to enter a contest that demands indemnity against any and all claims. I can only say to you: I never would; it really is that plain and simple.

Before you enter that contest, read the entry rules, and, even more importantly, understand without reservation exactly what you are agreeing to merely by entering an image in the contest. Unfortunately, photo contests really have become the messenger for the time worn saying “the devil is in the details.”

Incidentally, I no longer offer visual or financial support to the NGO whose contest rules I have adapted for this entry. Common logic would suggest a sponsor should have the right to reproduce winning and honourable mention photos for the purpose of promoting future contests.

Once you understand the contest rules, ask yourself: Is this a bona fide contest that promotes and rewards excellence in my hobby, or is this a rights grab with a devil that may come back to haunt me?

See more of Dale Wilson’s work at his website.

Post originally from: Digital Photography Tips.

Check out our more Photography Tips at Photography Tips for Beginners, Portrait Photography Tips and Wedding Photography Tips.

Photo Contests – Is that a contest or Rights Grab?



Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Photo Contests – Is that a contest or Rights Grab?

Posted in Photography