Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
This probably isn't the best place to ask for legal advice, since so much will depend on jurisdiction (country or state) and whether the person is considered to have a valid case in the first place (again this will depend on jurisdiction and law covering it).
I'm not a lawyer, but believe a good approach is to try to work out a favourable solution amicably, rather than needing to deal with any legal proceedings.
Note: These are my personal opinions only.
Provided that the pictures are or at some point have been part of the public domain, it would be difficult to argue that you're violating any copyrights of the person who originally made and/or uploaded their picture, especially if credit is given (i.e., such that one could reasonably assume you're not pretending to be the person depicted and/or the author of the picture). The worst that could happen to you would being asked to remove the upload in question.
Provided that the pictures are or at some point have been part of the public domain, it would be difficult to argue that you're violating any copyrights of the person who originally made and/or uploaded their picture, especially if credit is given (i.e., such that one could reasonably assume you're not pretending to be the person depicted and/or the author of the picture). The worst that could happen to you would being asked to remove the upload in question.
"Public domain " is not some catch all get out clause for posted images. Copyright still remains and you would be violating copyrights according to each relevant jurisdiction. However the question is how far a copyright holder (usually the photographer not the model unless a selfie) wants to bother to pursue any claim.
"Public domain " is not some catch all get out clause for posted images. Copyright still remains and you would be violating copyrights according to each relevant jurisdiction. However the question is how far a copyright holder (usually the photographer not the model unless a selfie) wants to bother to pursue any claim.
What I meant was that by uploading a picture (for instance, a selfie on Instagram), you already accept that people will not only look at it but also download it, or print it out, or share it with other people by uploading it somewhere else. Of course, if that person then decides that they no longer want this picture to be part of the public domain, they could then demand from those who uploaded it elsewhere to take it down as well. That is pretty much the extent of possible legal action in this scenario—after all, it's not like you hacked their phone and shared pictures that weren't meant to be shared.
What I meant was that by uploading a picture (for instance, a selfie on Instagram), you already accept that people will not only look at it but also download it, or print it out, or share it with other people by uploading it somewhere else. Of course, if that person then decides that they no longer want this picture to be part of the public domain, they could then demand from those who uploaded it elsewhere to take it down as well. That is pretty much the extent of possible legal action in this scenario—after all, it's not like you hacked their phone and shared pictures that weren't meant to be shared.
Certainly, but legally the “owner”of the photo (typically the photographer or publisher) still holds a copyright, which we should be respectful of. In many of these cases people are permissive, especially when they don’t have a business model around monetising them, and this is where the community gets to enjoy them and share them.
Unless an item is explicitly released into the public domain or the copyright is under 75 years (in the US at least), then it is not in the public domain, instead the copyright owner is simply being more permissive. The act of posting on social media is not releasing an image or video into the public domain.
If an owner claims on their copyright to have an image removed, then the best course is to respect that decision and move on. It is always better when people are amicable, since it opens up the possibilities to a compromise and discussion, or at the very least avoids creating bad blood.
There are many reasons a person may want to act on their copyright, including wanting more control over the distribution, avoiding association with an entity or person they don’t align with and a change in how they present themselves in public. There are certainly others, and while you may not agree with it, you should be respectful of their decision.
Again, I’m not a lawyer so this is based on my understanding of copyright law, through presented case history in the media and interactions.
Yes, this is my understanding as well. My point was that if someone uploads an image here that was previously uploaded on someone's Instagram, and that person then decides to seek damages for violating copyright, such a case likely wouldn't have much merit, provided that person never reached out to the uploader and asked for the picture to be removed. In other words, the worst that could happen is the copyright holder reaching out to an uploader and asking for removal. Obviously, if you then refuse to comply, legal trouble may follow.
What I meant was that by uploading a picture (for instance, a selfie on Instagram), you already accept that people will not only look at it but also download it, or print it out, or share it with other people by uploading it somewhere else. Of course, if that person then decides that they no longer want this picture to be part of the public domain, they could then demand from those who uploaded it elsewhere to take it down as well. That is pretty much the extent of possible legal action in this scenario—after all, it's not like you hacked their phone and shared pictures that weren't meant to be shared.
That isn’t the legal definition for public domain, though. Copyright still obtains for photos shared publicly, unless the rights-holders have explicitly claimed another license, such as a Creative Commons, copyleft, etc. Photography is interesting because in addition to copyright (which would cover the photographer and director, if there is one) it is also covered by privacy and publicity rights. If I wanted to use someone’s Instagram photos in a film, legally, I would have to get a license from the rights-holders, the standard rates of which depend on how many seconds the work in question is on screen.
However, I don’t think anyone is on the hook here for uploading pictures to the site, since either models or photographers can ask for the photos to be removed, and there are already guardrails in place to ensure that photos by or of photographers/publications/models that do not wish to be on this site are eventually deleted. If someone persistently flooded the site with paysite content and blacklisted models, maybe they would be on the hook.
Granted, as mentioned above, jurisdictions vary, so I would take all this with a grain of salt!
I thought IG snd FB had in their terms and conditions that any photo uploaded there belongs to them?
The copyright of the original image remains the uploaders but when you signup and nobody reads the full terms and conditions you have to agree for them to reserve the right to potentially use it for their own purposes eg for promotion, to train AI etc
I thought IG snd FB had in their terms and conditions that any photo uploaded there belongs to them?
No. The intent is provide them an unrestricted license to distribute the image and video. Essentially showing it on their website, in a way that they don't need to negotiate anything, and essentially do what they site is designed to do, without legal repercussion. Though then they also reserve the right to use it for other purposes, as PP1000 indicates. This last part is probably an uncomfortable one, but I believe it essentially is there to allow them to change how they use the image or video on their website, without requiring a new agreement.
As to damages, that "cdcd" was concerned about, first they would need to demonstrate the type of damages (if there really are any) and ill-intent. Ideally they would simply ask for a take down and you'd comply, before going all-legal.
Rather than trying to get legal advice from non-lawyers, I'd recommend looking at case history (directly or media stories) and seeing how it was dealt with elsewhere. Also consider whether the notion of "fair-use" (US law) applies in any situation.
Some recent media reports where celebs get sued for posting photos of themselves they haven't got permission to post Even if a model posts themselves on their Insta , if the photographer doesn't' like that, they could end up in trouble though if there's a mutual arrangement whereby one promotes the other, it can help:
Some recent media reports where celebs get sued for posting photos of themselves they haven't got permission to post Even if a model posts themselves on their Insta , if the photographer doesn't' like that, they could end up in trouble though if there's a mutual arrangement whereby one promotes the other, it can help:
That's primarily the paparazzi agencies doing some light copyright trolling to make a quick buck (kinda tracks with their inherently parasitic business model). All those get settled out of court, since they really don't want to spend millions to get complex copyright questions tested in court. But that only happens because their is a readily identifiable person/org with enough money to shakedown a quick settlement. Some random website user with a burner email whose probably broke "judgement proof" anyway? Good luck with that.
The websites are covered under the DMCA Safe Harbor as long as they comply with take-down requests.
What I meant was that by uploading a picture (for instance, a selfie on Instagram), you already accept that people will not only look at it but also download it, or print it out, or share it with other people by uploading it somewhere else. Of course, if that person then decides that they no longer want this picture to be part of the public domain, they could then demand from those who uploaded it elsewhere to take it down as well. That is pretty much the extent of possible legal action in this scenario—after all, it's not like you hacked their phone and shared pictures that weren't meant to be shared.
Holding something for private use is different than re-publishing. A suit requesting damages would need to establish that you made some sort of financial gain by re-publishing or otherwise harmed the original copyright holder's reputation. That is rare because it takes resources to bring a suit, and attorneys don't like taking cases they can't win.
Copyright protection is automatic under US law, but enforcement is up to the copyright holder. A US attorney is not going to bring a criminal case of a crime against the public. Any lawsuits are civil, not criminal. Regardless, DMCA gives creators legal leverage if they submit takedown requests and assert ownership (as a_fan_of_things mentions above).
For casual cases (like someone reposting your photo without credit), most platforms will remove infringing content quickly if you submit a takedown request, no lawyers needed). Most normal citizens do not have desire (or capacity) to monitor their content for infringement and submit takedown requests. Companies like Sony and OnlyFans sure do, though.
If you're serious about copyright (like a media corporation, a professional photographer, a commercial artist... or a muscular content creator), registration with the U.S. Copyright Office before or within 3 months of publication gives you access to full legal remedies, including statutory damages and attorney’s fees in a lawsuit. But even without registration, you can still file DMCA takedown requests and assert your rights — you just have fewer legal options if the issue escalates.
Can a user be eligible for a legal case if a female wants to prosecute said user for uploading her pictures?