The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Copyright Question to Ponder Options
MelissaMe
Posted: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 12:36:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,320
Neurons: 339,308
Location: Gualala, California, United States
The copyright laws are draconian in many instances, some even strangling innovation and are definitely not doing the right thing by the human race.

Here's an interesting quandary, all right, to read about.

Quote:

GLENN FLEISHMAN 10.04.16 5:00 AM

Could a copyright lawsuit involving a renowned photographer of American iconography enable a new kind of scam in which ne'er-do-wells send out threatening letters demanding licensing fees for public-domain works—and that those actions are both legal and unstoppable? It could, in the form of an unintentional side effect that has cropped up at the edges of copyright law.

The case involves photographer Carol Highsmith, whose work you'd recognize even if you've never heard the name. Sometimes called "America's photographer," she's taken iconic photos of scenes from the White House to the saguaros in the Sonoran Desert to oversized roadside attractions. She was surprised to receive a letter in December 2015 from a company called License Compliance Services on behalf of the photo-licensing agency Alamy demanding that she pay a licensing fee for the use, on her foundation's website, of one of her own works.

The surprise was twofold: Not just that it was her photograph, but also that, since she'd turned over her photographs for free use by the public years before, to her mind, nobody could charge for them, much less insist on a license. Highsmith had dedicated her work to the public starting in 1988, which was formalized through an agreement signed in 1991 with the Library of Congress (LOC). In the intervening years, she has supplemented the initial offer with additional gifts.

Her shock wore off after she spoke with a representative of the firm attempting to collect payment—and it turned into ire. So she called her attorneys and filed suit on July 25 of this year, demanding statutory copyright damages from several companies that list her work for resale or issue demand letters for rights payments. This includes a claim against Getty Images that could go well over a billion dollars, since the agency offers 18,755 of her photos for licensing. Highsmith's suit seeks substantial but far lower sums against Alamy and the licensing contractors. (An amended filing from August 17 throws in more: Allegations of "false advertising and unfair competition" under federal and New York state law, which involve additional potential damages, though not on the scale of the alleged copyright violations.)

But can Highsmith sue for copyright damages if she donated her work to the LOC? The suit largely hinges on the ineffability of the public domain.

And should Highsmith be unable to sue effectively, it might open the door to much broader, more illicit attempts to demand fees—not by Getty Images and other legitimate stock-photo firms, but by those who know they have no right to collect them.

In her 1991 LOC agreement, Highsmith wrote: "I hereby dedicate to the public all rights, including copyrights throughout the world, that I possess in this collection."

Jennifer Jenkins, the director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at the Duke University School of Law, says that there's no specific statutory language that lets a copyright holder define something as free of copyright. The general convention, she says, is that there has to be "an intent to abandon copyright and an overt act of intent to abandon copyright." Jenkins says that the initial portion of Highsmith's contract clearly encompass both.

If so, it's impossible for her to prove infringement, because "there can only be infringement if there's copyright," Jenkins notes. The Library of Congress even notes on a rights and restrictions page for the Highsmith collection that "Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain," which would back that interpretation.

"It sounds to me like she successfully dedicated her copyright to the public, in which case she has nothing left as leverage," says Robert Brauneis, a copyright and constitutional expert and professor at George Washington University Law School, whose 2010 research into the ownership of "Happy Birthday to You" contributed significantly to that song finally being deemed effectively in the public domain. (Brauneis is currently consulting on suits filed by the "Happy Birthday" plaintiffs' attorneys to have two other classic songs declared free of copyright.)

In a motion to dismiss filed September 6, Getty Images noted, "Plaintiffs’ four claims against Getty Images . . . are all an attempt to regain some measure of legal protection for the Highsmith Photos that Plaintiff Highsmith relinquished years ago." (When asked to comment, Highsmith referred Fast Company to her attorney, who didn't respond to questions about the suit. Getty declined to comment due to active litigation.)

Jenkins says, "It seems like Getty did something wrong. They took photos that are not theirs and put their watermark on them and charged people for them . . . [but] it's not illegal to charge people for public domain works." Getty cited a number of examples, including public-domain books sold on Amazon.com.

However, the public domain is a slippery place. It's more readily defined by an absence: work that no longer has copyright protection. Work that has fallen into the public domain includes all published items in the U.S. up to 1922, and an increasingly smaller amount of work over the next 64 years. Almost nothing since has entered the public domain without intent. Everything else requires research.

The U.S. Copyright Office, a division of the LOC, won't provide any guidance to those asking whether a given book, photograph, movie, or other work remains under copyright, be it donated or lapsed. It doesn't register donated works, either, so there's no central registry for work like Highsmith's. The Library of Congress specifically declined to comment about Highsmith's copyright, citing pending litigation.

It might seem that this situation is crystal clear, since Highsmith signed an agreement that she appended to her lawsuit. But after the seemingly unambiguous statement that she signed in 1991 to donate rights to her photos, things get murky in that document. Jenkins notes that the public domain dedication "could plausibly be contradicted by other parts of instrument of gift that placed restrictions that indicate she still is retaining other rights."

And that's what Highsmith's amended lawsuit argues: She never intended to abandon her copyright at all, because following the dedication noted in her 1991 contract, she also required attribution:

The Library will request, through its standard procedures, that when material in the Archive is reproduced by those who have obtained reproductions credit be given as follows: The Library of Congress, Carol M. Highsmith Archive.
Highsmith added in her amended suit in August that she didn't have the benefit of counsel while writing her 1991 agreement, implying that it's not legally precise enough to constitute a dedication. Jenkin says, "There's going to be a lot of room for interesting arguments."

Assuming that the judge in the case doesn't agree with Getty Images that the Highsmith suit should be dismissed, the court will ostensibly decide whether she retains any rights before this even reaches a jury stage. If so, the case proceeds in a fairly straightforward way. For the billion-dollar-and-change alleged misuse of copyright that Highsmith levies, she has to prove that the photo agencies not only falsified the copyright notice for her images (by labeling some of them as oddly as "Photo by Carol M. Highsmith/Buyenlarge/Getty Images" or omitting her name altogether), but also that they did so with the intent to infringe on her rights, rather than by lack of attention to detail. In the other non-copyright allegations that have lower damages attached, there's less need to prove intent.

But here's where things once again get tricky. A court decision could spawn a new email and snail-mail scam that would be tacitly legal and impossible to fight.

If a court finds Highsmith did dedicate the work into the public domain and that because she has no ownership of the work, she has no grounds to pursue action for "false advertising and unfair competition," "deceptive acts or practices," and so on, as alleged in the suit, then anyone can send out demand letters for licensing fees for any public-domain work without any basis in reality. For instance, a publishing house could receive a licensing-fee demand for printing an edition of Shakespeare's Macbeth or, more insidiously plausible, one of the 46 Sherlock Holmes short stories that have lapsed into the public domain in the United States.

Someone receiving such a letter would have no way to know whether or not it could be safely ignored. And if the recipient researched the copyright and hired an attorney, there might be no way to have a lawsuit heard, should the Highsmith case set a precedent.

Brauneis says that if a court finds copyright law is paramount, and that without a violation under a section of the Copyright Act, "there's no other cause of action that can be brought, that essentially declares anybody can go into the business of selling the Brooklyn Bridge to people."

A victim of such seeming fraud would have no recourse because without an owner to pursue action under copyright law, there wouldn't be any other basis. Brauneis finds this potential "morally abhorrent," but sees it as an unfortunate possible outcome. He notes, "All those emails that come from Nigeria about cash someone had discovered, would all be about: You need to license from me."

This case received a lot of attention at its initial filing because of Highsmith's reputation and her stirring photos of U.S. symbols. Both Jenkins and Brauneis agree that it's not the cold legal facts that have provoked so much public discussion and outrage. "It makes a case emotionally," Jenkins says. Furthering that idea, Brauneis notes, "It generates sympathy to say, 'I was trying to give this to the public, and you greedy people reprofitized.'"

Highsmith certainly didn't intend this potential outcome, and a savvy judge should be able to avoid creating a path for enabling scams. But it reveals the amorphous borders of the public domain: An inexhaustible commons that could have fraudulent toll booths erected all around it.


Copyright Law Questions

This is my only now.
Gary98
Posted: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 3:19:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/23/2014
Posts: 1,583
Neurons: 2,010,368
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
She definitely has the right to sue Getty or anyone who want to charge her for using her own work.
Axel Bear
Posted: Thursday, October 06, 2016 1:47:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/5/2015
Posts: 981
Neurons: 22,368


This raises the question which I have mentioned in the past: does this above posting have any effect on the use by posters on this forum to (mis)use images found on the internet.

Can the posters here expect a bill in the post any day soon for the use of plagiarized material ?



Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite: Joseph de Maistre
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, October 06, 2016 9:00:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,919
Neurons: 136,883
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

Well yes, the OP has shamelessly quoted GLENN FLEISHMAN without getting a license from me to do that.

Surely the lawyers can't be THAT stupid!

People should be paid for producing something.
If she has produced something (photos) and has said that anyone can copy them freely, then how can someone else charge for copies?

That's like someone fencing off a bunch of land, saying "That's MINE" and renting it to others - stupid!


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
MelissaMe
Posted: Thursday, October 06, 2016 10:58:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,320
Neurons: 339,308
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Squatters law actually allows that.

Quote:



Couple loses land to squatter's rights law

BY JIM DINO (STAFF WRITER) / PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 5, 2009


If you own a piece of property, it's a good idea to know what is going on there.

If you don't, you could end up losing it.

A Valley woman can attest.

The woman and her husband purchased a large parcel of land a few miles away from their home as an investment, and sort of forgot about it.

Meanwhile, a neighbor to the land used it for 21 years and then claimed ownership, using the old "squatter's rights" law in Pennsylvania.

"We purchased it in the 1970s, as an investment," the woman said. "We paid the taxes on it every year, but never looked at it. We thought, who is going to steal it? It's land. You can't put it on a flatbed and haul it away."

Also, the neighbors of the land were friends of the couple.

"These were people we knew all of our lives," she said. "We were not aware what was going on with the land."

When the couple decided to sell the parcel to raise money for their four children, they discovered the plight of the land.

"We had a buyer, so we hired a surveyor," she said. "That's how we found out about it. When we hired the surveyor, we got served with papers that (the neighbors) had put in a claim."

Then, lawyers for both sides began to negotiate and the result was that the neighbors ended up with 55 percent, the lawyer for the couple 25 percent and 20 percent for the couple.

"Hopefully, we can still sell it," she said. "One of the reasons we didn't keep up with what was going on there was that the land was off then beaten path. The land was a few miles away from our house. And the land was landlocked. We went out to see it, and it was a very bumpy ride "

The woman said she and her husband could have opted for a jury trial to get the land back, but then they took the risk of losing all of it.

"We didn't want to go to trial," she said. "This could have dragged out for years. We didn't want to do that."

So they took the deal.

But the woman wanted to use her unpleasant experience to educate others.

"It's just not ethical," she said. "I wouldn't do that to somebody. It's so much like stealing. (The neighbors) didn't pay the taxes on it, nor did they have the deed. We paid the taxes on it, all those years.

"I think people should be made aware that this law exists," she continued. "I don't want to see this happen to someone else. We should teach children in school skills they will need to live, like how to balance a checkbook and how the stock market works. We should also teach them about the law."

The law is called adverse possession, and what happened to the woman is relatively common across the United States, according to attorney William Hoffmeyer, of the Hoffmeyer & Semmelman law firm of York, experts in land law.

Hoffmeyer said any neighbor who permits use of their land for 21 years can lose the land to the person using it.

Hoffmeyer said the law arose when Pennsylvania was being settled by William Penn.

"It started when land was going to waste," Hoffmeyer said. "The law was created so that if someone else could use the land, they got it."

Hoffmeyer said there are four key concepts for someone to claim, or lose, adverse possession.

"Those words are open, notorious, hostile and visible," he said. "Open means if someone is doing something with the land right out in the open and not hiding it," Hoffmeyer said.

"Notorious is if anybody knows what is happening on the land. Visible means one can see what is being done with the land, and hostile means what is being done with the land is against the rights of the true owner."

There are some ways to fight the law. Hoffmeyer said.

"If the landowner could take action to eliminate any of those words," he said. "For instance, to eliminate hostile, the landowner can take specific legal action against the user. They can tell them they are no longer permitted to use the land, and if they continue to do so, a trespass action will be filed against them. Or a court injunction could be filed, that forbids the people on the land."

Hoffmeyer said he encounters many cases of adverse possession in his daily practice.

"We see it quite a bit," he said. "It happens many times with people who inherit land from their parents. They don't live anywhere close to the property, so have no idea what is going on there. Out of loyalty to their parents, they pay the taxes on it every year, but never look at the property until they discover a neighbor is trying to take it from them.

"It also happens when neighbors around a property inch over a boundary line," Hoffmeyer continued. "A less-than-desirable neighbor may mow the lawn over the line; or plant trees, flowers or shrubbery over the line, or install a fence over the line."

It is up to the property owner to monitor such activity, and stop it as soon as he or she learns it is happening, Hoffmeyer said.

"You can write a letter to the neighbors, telling them they are trespassing," he said. "In the letter, you tell them if they don't cease and desist, you will initiate a trespassing action against them."

Hoffmeyer said in one case, a landowner who had sold land around him noticed his new neighbors were moving in - literally - toward him.

"The landowner sent the neighbors a letter which stated they all acknowledged and understood they were not acquiring ownership of the land, but were being permitted to use it," Hoffmeyer said. "They were also told they had to assume the liability for the property they are using."

Copyright ©2016 The Standard Speaker


This is my only now.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.