Let's say I go to a site such as Myspace, Friendster, etc, and I take one of the images of a person on there. Is it legal for me to repost this image on my own website? Such as if I made a hosting website and I took a picture of a girl talking on the phone and used it in my banner, is this legal or illegal?
No, you do not own copyright to the picture. You can ask permission of copyright holder to use it, of course poster may not have the copyright on picture to begin with. For this reason I try to take my own pictures to use on web.
Nice advice Smyrl, you can be sure that you are never gonna get sued when you use your own or your family's images, or better yet, draw a few cartoons IT
I saw an episode of Judge Judy where a lady was running a website showcasing african americans.. She took some guy's picture off a college website and used it. Apparently he didn't like how it was being portrayed and sued her over it. Judge Judy said that because he put it out there for the whole world to see, he had no expectation of privacy and it not being used elsewhere... I realize it's Judge Judy.. but she's usually tough as nails... Basically the only point I'm trying to get across is that often times in these matters, as much as we think we understand the law, it comes down to the interpretation of a judge. I've seen many cases for this type of thing go both ways. I've seen many cases where site owners have been sued for defamation based on comments of their users go both ways.. It's really a crapshoot. But the simple answer is, if you're not sure, don't do it.
TV law is just that. Please don't mistake that for real decisions based on legal precident and actual law. Seriously. While many of the Judges, starting with Wapner were actually real Judges at some point, many of the TV rulings are pathetic and have nothing to do with reality in a courtroom.
Wow, you seem to think that they're just actors or something who just come up with crazy rulings without following the law. They're ALL real judges. And I'm sure this is exactly how most small claims courtrooms operate. I don't know why you see some great divide between TV judges and non-TV judges... They all just interpret the law and make rulings. Which was my point entirely. It really had nothing to do with Judge Judy, I was just using it as an example to demonstrate that these types of cases are often times at the whim of the judges interpretation of the law. If it was based entirely on precedence, you wouldn't see such widely varying decisions on similar cases (non TV cases I might add). You also have to take into account the venue, meaning small claims or otherwise and the state. States aren't required to follow precedence established in another state. And actual law is usually left to the interpretation of the judge...
Yes, they are just actors. TV judges have no obligation to follow the law, and often don't. Believe what you want.
Copyright infringement law is pretty clear. If you don't have permission, you can't use it . It's hard to comment on some tv case where all the details aren't given. Perhaps the TOS on the site where this person originally posted the picture said you were giving up certain usage rights - who knows? It's just like posting a picture on istock photo - in doing so, you are granting certain usage rights and can't come back later and claim you didn't like how it was used. Small claims court decisions can be a real joke - many times they are pro-tem (not a regular judge) and they are often making 5 minute decisions. This person might not have even claimed copyright infringement and it's not up to the judge to make your case. Copyright infringement can be criminal. You can be forced to pay a usage fee - even after taking the image down. You can be sued for any revenue the site produced. The chances of a Joe Schmo suing you over a personal photo they posted are probably pretty small - but that doesn't make it legal, or means you aren't taking a risk. For a $1 or $2 you can choose from hundreds of thousands of photos on sites like istock - certainly not worth taking the risk.
if you need stock photos, there's some great sites with lots of good ones that you wont get in trouble for using. i use http://www.sxc.hu for my photos, they're all usually quite nice.
What it comes down to in my opinoin, is that if you are using someone else's photo without their permission - then you are breaking copyright laws..Now what judge judy says may be one thing, but in a real court of law I think you are going to have a hard time winning that case..especially if you're a business. It doesn't take Einstein or Watson to figure out the verdict in a case like that..So I would say like smyrl said, get your digi cam out and snap some shots yourself..better safe than served..lol
- 100% true. - Virtually all the judges you see on TV are real lawyers although it doesn't mean they are *good* lawyers. Usually there is staff that does the research on more complex decisions although I've seen some ridiculous "decisions" that were more about morality checks and sensationalism than any real attention to the law. Judge Hatchett is a good example of sensationalism and a showcase for humanity and media stars of color. - Perhaps the person reporting on this case here didn't fully comprehend all the legal subtleties involved in the case. It sounds more like that is what is involved. Fact is you cannot just rip off someone's private photos from their site to use as their own. It's basic copyright law and, IMHO and don't want to sound harsh, also violates the laws of common sense.
My first inclination is to chuckle when thinking of Judge Judy ruling on an internet copywrite case. (every time I think of these television courtroom shows I think about Judge Reinhold and William Hung and the Hung Jury band from the 3rd season of Arested Development). But, you do raise a good point, small claims court judges are VERY unlikely to know the law very well when it comes to the internet. Judge Judy, for example, dealt with social services cases when she was a "real" judge (I saw the E! true hollywood story or something like that one time..) So I'm sure she knows what she is talking about when it comes to child custody cases or domestic disputes, but I think she's probably out of her league on the internet, same as a lot of small claims court, or even county or state court judges. What she was saying in her determination is that by posting something like a picture on "that fandangled internet thing", it automatically becomes public domain. I think we all know that is definitely off base, that would make most intelectual property rights null and void as soon as they hit a website. I do get your point though, there is still a lot that is open for interpretation when it comes to the internet, and I would imagine it would be VERY difficult for a common individual to take any action beyond a cease and desist. Just comes down to ethics and morals at that point.
if you want to put a photo on your website and the photo isn't yours.. then you can host it on any image hosting website .. and nobody can sue you ! Because you are not hosting that image! Just my 2 cents
Ala: You are still using it, you can get sued of course and the lawyers will kill that smartness of yours in a few arguments IT
I hear what you're saying but want to protect the integrity of some of my fellow colleagues. As I said before, many of these judges do have staff and most of these cases are simple issues. They are ALL prescreened. Many are designed to be Jerry Springer cases because they provide maximum entertainment value. But that doesn't mean that in the better law shows -- like Judge Judy -- that they just ignore the law completely. I've heard them have a good time but then cite a law to apply to the case that is usually on point. The fact that "rights of publicity" were brought up shows a sophistication far beyond just regular IP issues. Another person familiar with the law can back me up on this. When it comes to the Internet, most things are very clear. Stealing images like this instance is so manifestly clear it's funny to hear all the theories people rationalize as to why you can do things. If you don't put copyright symbols on your pictures it becomes public domain, etc. etc. etc. The difficult issues on the net - and there are - are usually not simple ones. For example, what is YouTube's liability as a host of pirated information that they know or should know is on there? There are other issues where the law hasn't yet caught up to the technology, including spam related laws. So getting right to the point, the liability is easy to conclude in theory. Don't confuse this with the prohibitive cost of enforcement. What if someone blows off your cease and desist letter? They are challenging you to hire an attorney to do something about it and that is why most copyright infringement like stealing someone else's picture goes unpunished. Just anger the right person and you'll see just how clear many of these laws are regarding that fandangled Internet thing.