The Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation has nothing to do with original OP question. That decision dealt only with small thumbnails of an image. 1. He was publishing pictures on his blog before X17 could post them on their site, or in their magazine. Diminishing their value, and costing them money. Doesn't matter in copyright infringement if the photos have been published.... and how exactly did he get a hold of images that weren't published anywhere? 2. They asked him to cite, or reference their site when grabbing images directly from their site. He refused. The copyright holder may allow you to use an image if credit is given, but merely giving credit without permission is still copyright infringement on a celebrity blog. 3. They asked him to stop using their images, since he refused to cite them and their site. He refused and claimed fair use. Anyone can claim "fair use" .... but Perez is now paying for photos after spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees. A DMCA can get you removed from Google, but you have to be the copyright owner, and be able to PROVE IT, plus swear out an affildavit. Wrong. You don't have to prove you are the copyright holder, you have to state that you are the copyright holder. No one said anything about someone else filing. Why would someone who isn't the copyright holder file anyway? A DMCA takes about 5 minutes to do on a word processor. You sign it, and fax it. I have done it many times and google has always complied. If you lose your adsense account, you don't ever get it back, and you don't get paid. Secondly, you can just as easily get RE-included to the index if you remove the offending material, and swear out an affidavit that you removed the offending material, and you waive G from liability. It doesn't remove the liability from getting sued by the copyright holder. Bottom line, don't take something that isn't yours unless you are willing to face the consequences.
Wrong. It deals with the internet, and "fair use". Plus a specific case. Maybe if you read the heading, "Fair use on the Internet" Read the facts of the case, and then you would know. Again, you are talking in absolutes. Not the real world. Seems to be a pattern. That he may be. And many "anyone's" may. But as you can see, the court clearly defined fair use in regards to the internet in the four principals. That's fact. Not internet esquire. The real fact of the matter is... if you get contacted, or a C&D, by a celebrity, or some company representing a music, media interest.. you simply remove it within 24 hours. They will then leave you alone. The people you read about, are begging to be made examples of. They refuse to comply, or remove what is being requested. Pirate Bay, Perez Hilton, and many others. THOSE are the people you read about. If you're going to walk the line, you remove stuff when you are in the wrong. End of the issue. "Could" they do this, that and the other? Sure. But the costs, and real world, plus basic common sense show the world doesn't work as you lay out in this thread. Should it come up where they, or I, see some copyrighted stuff. You shoot them a C&D and give them 48 hours to comply. If they refuse, or do not, then you "could" do something about it. If your point is nothing more than to show people things that "cooould" happen. Then you proved your point. My point is that there are clear FACTS that discuss fair use, and copyright images on the internet. People with genuine concerns do their own research. Many of the assertions in this thread are wrong.
Wrong. You can't cite a case that dealt only with thumbnails and compare it to usage of a larger original image...LOL!! There are hundreds of cases that have been won on images that weren't thumbnails. They also spent vast sums of money to win the use of thumbnails - that decision doesn't prevent anyone from still suing you for using thumbnails (but that wasn't the question). You can say that the chances are slim that you will be sued, but you're still taking a risk. My neighbor is a famous photographer and has thousands of celebrity images. He's a multi-millionaire and sues every single person who uses his images. He would sue over a thumbnail, he would (and has) sued brand new sites where he has no chance of collecting a dime. He doesn't care about the money, he considers his photos "art" and takes unauthorized usage very personally. He has lost far more than he as ever collected, but I'm sure a lot of people wish they never took one of his images. Most or all of the larger agencies may have a policy of not suing over infringement if the image is removed. It's their property and their right to decide if they want to. I have filed a DMCA with adsense and know at least some of the accounts were terminated. If you can't make money online without stealing someone else's property, then you should look for another job.
I actually produce original content for sites, and deal with not only original copyright, but have done C&D's to Youtube, Google, Rapidshare, MegaUpload, and plenty of other sites and boards. Oh. and DMCA's. So I have plenty of experience with this. and you have how much again? First hand experience? That is a real LOL.......... Thanks for playing, "internet esquire"...
I have filed many DMCA's and never had to resort to suing some scumbag who stole an image because every single one has folded (the average person who steals an image have a net worth that when combined with a quarter, couldn't buy them a cup of coffee). If they were a repeat offender, I would certainly sue them. I have spent a lot on legal fees with trademark infringement (seven figures) and have never lost a case. Some of those people have lost their business and home to pay damages and for the bad legal advice they got. It may not make me an expert, but it I'll bet its a lot more experience that you have...
It isn't. People interested in this topic can look up that actual case and read the facts. It has to do with fair use, and the internet. Not simply thumbnails. Something common sense, the ability to read, and anyone with real experience on this issue would understand. But you can believe what you like friend. I, unlike you, have nothing to prove.
Yeah, so much experience, you can't cite a single case of a commercial celebrity blog and the "fair use" of regular size images...LOL!! That pretty much states your case and knowledge (or lack thereof).
This statement speaks to your intellect on this issue, and your so called experience. I will leave it in quotes to stand on it's own merit for entertainment purposes. You can keep beating a dead horse. I am not going to fight with you. As I stated before, twice,... if some is really that concerned, and interested in this issue... "fair use and the internet"... they can go look up that case cited, and the rules laid down by the court. From there, they can make a judgment call on how they would like to pursue or forge ahead..
Ok Matlock, and keep looking for that case..... In 2002 the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California overturned a lower court summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant, holding that: 1. The thumbnails were fair use, not copyright infringements. It upheld the right of image search engines to display thumbnail copies of images within their search results so long as the website URL was linked from the thumbnail. 2. The in-line links that displayed the full picture were not fair use, so were infringing the exclusive rights of Kelly. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gary L. Taylor, J., 77 F.Supp.2d 1116, granted summary judgment for search engine operator based on finding of fair use, and owner appealed. On July 7, 2003 the Ninth Circuit modified its initial decision. They let stand the ruling about thumbnails and fair use, but reversed decision on inline links and remanded the case to the District Court for trial because the District Court had made a decision it shouldn't have made at that stage of the proceedings. On denial of rehearing, and withdrawing and superseding its prior opinion, 280 F.3d 934, the Court of Appeals, T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that operator's use of owner's images as "thumbnails" in its search engine was fair use. 280 F.3d 934 (CA9 2002)[1] On one of his web sites [2] Kelly says that after failure to reach a settlement, default judgment in his favor was obtained on the remaining issues on March 18, 2004. "Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff LESLIE A. KELLY, and individual and d/b/a LES KELLY PUBLICATIONS, LES KELLY ENTERPRISES, and SHOW ME THE GOLD and against Defendant ARRIBA SOFT CORPORATION, aka DITTO.COM in the sum of $345,000.00, plus reasonable attorney's fees in the sum of $6,068.20. s/Gary L. Taylor, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE." [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation So they were only ordered to pay $351,068.20 for the use of those images. LOL!!!