Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim • Hacker News Board

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#21

Post by advisedwang » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

mock-possum wrote: post #14

> there is a dearth of evidence on the record that Messiah knowingly failed to credit the Photographer when she posted the Parker Train Photo on her blog ... Messiah merely found the Photo on Google Images by searching “army fashion,” saving the file on her computer without altering the Photo or the filename, and then publishing the Photo on her blog. She testified that at that time, she looked for a watermark, could…

> Since when is ignorance an excuse

Since 1998. This is a claim under 17 USC 1202, created by the DMCA, which explicitly says requires intent.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#22

Post by bawolff » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:02 PM UTC

doctorzook wrote: post #16

This seems... troubling to me. Essentially, the judge found that this qualifies as fair use because (a) publishing this with commentary is "transformative" even through "Defendants used the exact, unaltered [photo] in the blog post"; (b) "the blog post is not focused on the [photo]"; and (c) "there is no indication that [the use] impacted or has potential to impact the market or value of the Photo". As an amateur pho…

> By the reasoning here, a company (as in the commercial site here) can use my photos so long as the use is incidental and doesn't earn them too much money -- or at least impact my revenue, which is currently $0.

That is how copyright has worked since forever. This isn't something new. Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights (and attribution rights. In some countries also the integrity of the work). Its not meant as a way for you to fully control what happens to your creative output.

This particular case does seem very borderline though, if you are selling (or potentially selling) your photos, them using it as an illustration without permission is something that would be commercially negative to you and speak against fair use. I wonder to what extent the judge wasn't thrilled to be bothered by something with so few views and as a result was more sympathetic to thd blogger. I'm somewhat doubtful this would go the same way if it wasn't about something so inconsequential.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#23

Post by poly2it » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:02 PM UTC

mock-possum wrote: post #14

> there is a dearth of evidence on the record that Messiah knowingly failed to credit the Photographer when she posted the Parker Train Photo on her blog ... Messiah merely found the Photo on Google Images by searching “army fashion,” saving the file on her computer without altering the Photo or the filename, and then publishing the Photo on her blog. She testified that at that time, she looked for a watermark, could…

Do you search the name of the photographer every time you download a creative commons image? The vast majority of people simply do not care about copyright.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#24

Post by ghaff » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:06 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #17

kmoser wrote: post #3

Lots to comment on but this stood out: > “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.

> Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing. Training is not neccesarily sufficient for it to be a derrivative work, just like if you learned to draw based on famous drawings doesn't mean every single drawing you ever made is infringing. Obviously there are cases where it could be infringing, its going to depend how close the output is to the or…

I'm largely out of this space now but my understanding is that some copyright cases around model training are winding through courts but I haven't seen anything definitive come out. The IP lawyers I know are skeptical but we'll see.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#25

Post by doctorzook » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:07 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #22

doctorzook wrote: post #16

This seems... troubling to me. Essentially, the judge found that this qualifies as fair use because (a) publishing this with commentary is "transformative" even through "Defendants used the exact, unaltered [photo] in the blog post"; (b) "the blog post is not focused on the [photo]"; and (c) "there is no indication that [the use] impacted or has potential to impact the market or value of the Photo". As an amateur pho…

> By the reasoning here, a company (as in the commercial site here) can use my photos so long as the use is incidental and doesn't earn them too much money -- or at least impact my revenue, which is currently $0. That is how copyright has worked since forever. This isn't something new. Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights (and attribution rights. In some countries also the integrity of the wo…

If a company stops publishing a book or piece of software, is it free to share because there's no longer an economic interest?

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#26

Post by ravenical » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:09 PM UTC

doctorzook wrote: post #25

bawolff wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By the reasoning here, a company (as in the commercial site here) can use my photos so long as the use is incidental and doesn't earn them too much money -- or at least impact my revenue, which is currently $0. That is how copyright has worked since forever. This isn't something new. Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights (and attribution rights. In some countries also the integrity of the wo…

If a company stops publishing a book or piece of software, is it free to share because there's no longer an economic interest?

Well, it ought to be.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#27

Post by tadfisher » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

jterrys wrote: post #12

kmoser wrote: post #3

Lots to comment on but this stood out: > “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.

Ye olde double edged sword On one hand aggressively punitive copyright claims stifle creativity and innovation in transformative art. On the other hand, generative AI reopens that transformative creativity.

Reminder that the original copyright term was 14 years, with a single 14-year extension.

If this were still the norm, it would feel crazy that blockbuster movie studios are still recycling comic book characters from the 1950s.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#28

Post by akramachamarei » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

jagged-chisel wrote: post #18

ralph84 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except everyone who has tried to argue that in court has lost.

Has this been argued? I'd love to read some actual court decisions.

Here are some cases (mined from Wikipedia sources):

Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal.) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv...)

Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal.) (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...)

Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y.) (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...)

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del.) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv001...)

The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.) (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...)

Richard Kadrey et al. v. Meta (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25984135-richard-kad...)

Bartz v. Anthropic (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25982181-authors-v-a...)

---

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#29

Post by doctorzook » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

ravenical wrote: post #26

doctorzook wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company stops publishing a book or piece of software, is it free to share because there's no longer an economic interest?

Well, it ought to be.

I'm okay with that. What troubles me is that there seem to be two sets of rules at play.

Re: Blogger defeats photographer's copyright claim

#30

Post by p_l » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 8:20 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #24

bawolff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing. Training is not neccesarily sufficient for it to be a derrivative work, just like if you learned to draw based on famous drawings doesn't mean every single drawing you ever made is infringing. Obviously there are cases where it could be infringing, its going to depend how close the output is to the or…

I'm largely out of this space now but my understanding is that some copyright cases around model training are winding through courts but I haven't seen anything definitive come out. The IP lawyers I know are skeptical but we'll see.

EU AI Act is moving towards genAI output being non-copyrightable and that you'd need to actually prove derivative character from a specific copyrighted work(s) to claim infringement.

AFAIK american law is going towards similar setup.