Posted on 09/13/2013 11:19:26 PM PDT by Windflier
Edited on 09/14/2013 6:38:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sarah Palin and her political action committee have been named in a copyright infringement lawsuit over the use of an iconic 9/11 photo.
The newspaper publisher North Jersey Media Group Inc. is suing the former Alaska governor for posting a copy of the image on Palin’s SarahPAC website and her personal Facebook page without permission.
The photo depicts three New York City firefighters hoisting an American flag among the rubble at the World Trade Center after the 2001 attacks.
fair use went out the window when she put her logo on the photo. See lower left corner.
You can’t copy-write or claim a copy-write on an image that has become Iconic to the point of becoming a national treasure... It is our picture, makes no difference who took it. At least, that is how the left would argue it if the roles were reversed.
Can you put your logo on a national treasure?
It belongs to whoever took the photo, or in this case, that photographer’s employer. It’s considered an original creation and is protected just as a book, a song, or any other original creative work. The firefighters themselves have no right to stop use of them (or demand compensation) as this was in public where no one has any legitimate expectation of privacy. EXCEPT if that image were used as a commercial advertisement to promote a product, which is not the case here obviously. An example of this would be, say, if MillerCoors were to take this photo and add graphics saying, “After you defend our country’s freedom, it’s Miller time”. Then the firefighters can sue over their images being used without permission, but only if they were personally identifiable in bthe photo.
But back to the original point, yes, the newspaper who empllyed the shooter who took the photo owns it and its use. They can license it to whomever they choose, or refuse to allow its use, except under one of the exceptions called “fair use” by the supreme court, which ironically enough includes parody of the photo.
As I understand it that unless an image is tagged with a copyright once it hits the internet that enters the public domain and is free to be used.
I am not a copyright attorney (or other variety) but I think that is incorrect. If someone posts a picture I took without my permission it doesn’t become public property.
Well, theoretically, if they’d copyrighted it in time, yes they could, if it were used commercially.
For example, the unique shape and profile of the Empire State building is copyrighted and can’t be used for commercial purposes. I have a friend who worked at a NYC radio station that used the outline of the shape of Empire in its logo and was successfully sued and had to change its logo as that image—the unique identifiable shape of the top of the building—was copyrighted by the building’s owners.
The protographer tho took the picture. If he was working for that paper andtook it under their auspices and in the course of his employment, then the paper owns it.
If a passerby took it and the paper bought the right to it, then the paper owns it.
The image was being used on a PAC webpage. PAC’s raise money...so the image is in a sense being used commercially without permission of the copyright owner. There is nothing sinister about the copyright owner complaining about unauthorized use of their photo for commercial purposes.
Whoever it was on Sarah’s PAC who used the photo without permission needs a little talking to about copyright law and intelectual property.
Using it on a personal page or non-proit website is a totally different matter.
Good Grief. This is such crap.
One may sue anyone they please....winning a lawsuit is a different matter. One must show damages. If they demanded she pull it down and she complied they have very little to base a case on.
Every one of those unlucensed uses could have been sued over. The reason they hanve’t is that the owner didn’t want to in those other cases. Why? Because there was no incentive to do so. Some every day citizen using it is uncollectable and the company would lose money on a lawsuit. they’d win the case but they’d lose money.
in Palin’s case, she is collectable...and they also obviously politically disagree with her, so they have a non-financial incentive to sue her to stop using it as well.
I got a cease and desist letter one day (I think it was from Columbia Pictures Television) for using the “Entertainment Tonight” theme music on the radio as a music bed for a daily concert information feature. but my station had a blanket ACSAP music license and that music was listed on the CD as being an ASCAP work, so we had a license to use it that way. I wrote them back telling them to shove it along with a picture of the CD jacket showing the ASCAP representaion and a copy of our active license for all ASCAP works.
They never contacted me again.
Doesn’t matter. It’s still a public performance or exhibition and can be stopped by the rights owner.
Your understanding is incorrect.
This is good, but contains a caution for all of us to think about.
As our next election approaches, we will eventually have to settle on several candidates.
Those several candidates will then run aggressive and successful campaigns.
HOWEVER. They will be subjected to copyright laws, out of proportion to what we see (as in none) against democrats.
Republicans have to be on top of the law.
In this case Palin may or may not have goofed.
Doesn’t mean I don’t support her - in fact I believe she is the best potential candidate out there.
But she’s a magnet for lawsuits.
Whoever took down that image did the right thing. I would imagine she could conceivably pay a token fee for this mix-up. (though I do not know this for a fact)
Be aggressive. Speak your mind.
However be careful about copyrights.
A woman who is pro-life, who succeeded without Government assistance, who isn’t a clip-haired, angry looking lesbian will never stand a chance.
The media will eviscerate her or anyone like her, and the sheeple will follow their lead.
***********************************************************
........so, you seem to be arguing that “our side” should just GIVE UP ?
Having just returned from a couple years of living in foreign countries, I can tell you that you unequivocally that you are living in the greatest country that ever existed and we should not succumb to your argument and just “GIVE UP”.
You are INDEED right that ANY candidate the right puts forth will be, as you say, “EVISCERATED”. But, that is the mountain we on the right have to climb! We must be smarter (no McCain’s), more aggressive, tougher and determined!
“/s”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.