|
OK. The story that made me think of this question is a sad one. A
local nine year-old girl dropped dead the other at soccer practice for
no apparent reason. That's is tragic, but after I got past that, I
thought of something after reading the newspaper article about it.
The paper published what appeared to be a professionally taken school
portrait of the girl. You see this in many stories about missing
persons, dead people, etc.
In gerenal, the copyrights of a professional protrait remain with the
photgrapher (or company). Most such photos now have copyright notices
on the reverse side.
Is it a violation of copyright for the paper to have published the
photo, notwithstanding the nature of the event? The copyright is the
copyright... right? Does a newspaper have any defense if the
copyright owner decides to take any action. Though I would guess that
the copyright holder would never try to enforce it in this
circumstance.
|
| |
| |
OK. The story that made me think of this question is a sad one. A
local nine year-old girl dropped dead the other at soccer practice for
no apparent reason. That's is tragic, but after I got past that, I
thought of something after reading the newspaper article about it.
The paper published what appeared to be a professionally taken school
portrait of the girl. You see this in many stories about missing
persons, dead people, etc.
In gerenal, the copyrights of a professional protrait remain with the
photgrapher (or company). Most such photos now have copyright notices
on the reverse side.
Is it a violation of copyright for the paper to have published the
photo, notwithstanding the nature of the event? The copyright is the
copyright... right? Does a newspaper have any defense if the
copyright owner decides to take any action. Though I would guess that
the copyright holder would never try to enforce it in this
circumstance.
I'm not aware of any "sympathetic use" exception in 17 USC ...
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 19:29:55 -0400, "Liz" <liz@tiredofspam.com.easynews.com>
wrote:
Is it a violation of copyright for the paper to have published the
photo, notwithstanding the nature of the event? The copyright is the
copyright... right? Does a newspaper have any defense if the
copyright owner decides to take any action. Though I would guess that
the copyright holder would never try to enforce it in this
circumstance.
I'm not aware of any "sympathetic use" exception in 17 USC ...
There is, however, a news reporting exception.
It appears that the UK excludes photographs from this exception.
The news reporting exception is also not absolute, and I doubt even
a news agency could choose to use, as an example, an Annie Leibovitz
photograph of a celebrity, especially if it were entirely possible to get
their own.
This is a species of fair use, and doesn't apparently exist on its own.
Apparently, analysis of it would be based on the same criteria as any
other fair use analysis.
(Roy Export Co. v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 672 F. 2d 1095, 1099-1100,
215 U.S.P.Q. 289 (2d Cir.) ( No Circuit that has considered the question,
however, has ever held that the First Amendment provides a privilege in the
copyright filed distinct from the accommodation embodied in the fair use
doctrine. We conclude on the facts of this case that CBSs efforts to secure a
First Amendment news-reporting exception to the copyright laws cannot
succeed.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826 (1982))
|
| |
| |
In article <rk35h0h20psa628qdicc5vj1jmpdief22d@4ax.com>,
Curtis CCR <curtisccr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
OK. The story that made me think of this question is a sad one. A
local nine year-old girl dropped dead the other at soccer practice for
no apparent reason. That's is tragic, but after I got past that, I
thought of something after reading the newspaper article about it.
The paper published what appeared to be a professionally taken school
portrait of the girl. You see this in many stories about missing
persons, dead people, etc.
In gerenal, the copyrights of a professional protrait remain with the
photgrapher (or company). Most such photos now have copyright notices
on the reverse side.
absolutely correct.
Is it a violation of copyright for the paper to have published the
photo, notwithstanding the nature of the event?
No.
The copyright is the
copyright... right?
Yes.
Does a newspaper have any defense if the
copyright owner decides to take any action.
absolutely. 'Fair use' exemption in 17 USC 106, for 'news reporting'.
Though I would guess that
the copyright holder would never try to enforce it in this
circumstance.
not if they know the law. <grin>
|
| |
| |
Does a newspaper have any defense if the
copyright owner decides to take any action.
absolutely. 'Fair use' exemption in 17 USC 106, for 'news reporting'.
that's 107 and there's nothing "absolute" about it ...
|
| |
| |
In article <v55nh01ovokie9b4juns2jroegehsjqmfi@4ax.com>,
Liz <liz@tiredofspam.com.easynews.com> wrote:
Does a newspaper have any defense if the
copyright owner decides to take any action.
that's 107 and there's nothing "absolute" about it ...
The question was 'does a newspaper have *ANY* defense..' [emhasis added].
While it is not an 'absolute' defense, the 'news reporting' defense
*absolutely* does exist. The language used -is- correct.
Yes, I did typo on the section number, and didn't catch it.
|
| |
| |
In article <v55nh01ovokie9b4juns2jroegehsjqmfi@4ax.com>,
Liz <liz@tiredofspam.com.easynews.com> wrote:
The question was 'does a newspaper have *ANY* defense..' [emhasis added].
While it is not an 'absolute' defense, the 'news reporting' defense
*absolutely* does exist. The language used -is- correct.
strictly speaking, you're right; I'm afraid a lot of people would read your
reply as indicating that fair use is a perfect defense ... and I assume you
well know that it isn't even close to that ...
|
| |
| |
|
