[flagged]
A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
31–40 of 78 posts
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#32“This undermines the entire point of the open graph protocol (at least for images). If you have to manually review every image that you include then what's the point in it being a machine protocol?” Bingo. Ianal but it feels like if you provide an image via an open graph link, you’re implicitly licensing that image to consumers of the Open Graph protocol to be displayed alongside a link/link metadata. If the media co…
Wonder if it was like that law firm that Ars Technica wrote about[0], that seeded porn videos, then went after people who downloaded them.
Things did not end well, for that lot.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#33This is incidentally also why anonymity is a good thing, but unfortunately you're too late to take advantage of that.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#34#include In the US usage like this may be considered "Fair Use", however UK copyright law is less generous in its "Fair Dealing" and associated exceptions to copyright[1]. This is a problem when standards are pushed by US tech companies but don't consider the rest of the world. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
Yeah, one of the tests for "Fair Dealing" exceptions to copyright in Canada is ... could you have produced you work without infringing copyright. If so, then it's not Fair Dealing.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#35Displaying a thumbnail is considered fair use. You got fleeced.
Is it actually? There is no explicit carve-outs in fair use laws for the use-case of thunbnails that I'm aware of, so where is the case law on this?
Any number of large companies are doing it without being sued, with no better justification. They company is just scammy and going after people too small and scared to resist.
It kind of irritated me that he immediately capitulated in a case that was obviously frivolous. Then posted it; has he no shame?
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#36This is the new source of income and a lot of media orgs are getting paid - take ANI in India. Theyve been hitting YouTubers like Mohak Mangal, Nitish Rajput, Dhruv Rathee with copyright strikes for using just a few seconds of news clips which you would think is fair use. Then they privately message creators demanding $60000 to remove the strikes or else the channel gets deleted after the third strike. It s not about…
> It s not about protecting content anymore it's copyright extortion.
It's always been about copyright extortion.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#37This is the new source of income and a lot of media orgs are getting paid - take ANI in India. Theyve been hitting YouTubers like Mohak Mangal, Nitish Rajput, Dhruv Rathee with copyright strikes for using just a few seconds of news clips which you would think is fair use. Then they privately message creators demanding $60000 to remove the strikes or else the channel gets deleted after the third strike. It s not about…
'Which you would think is fair use' - I must admit I wouldn't think that. When I consider Indian content creators making use of clips from Indian media organisations I can't really imagine why Indian copyright law fair dealing provisions, which are far narrower than the US provisions, wouldn't apply. Sure, you get to argue the strike on Youtube using their DMCA based system, but that has no legal bearing on your liability under Indian law.
I really like this aspect of US copyright law. I think the recent Anthropic judgement is a great example of how flexible US law is. I wish more jurisdictions would adopt it.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#38This is probably CopyTrack. They have hidden 1px tracker jnside email. These are extortion tactics.
I dealt with them before. Just ignore them and stop opening email. They asked 800 euro for 2 small images. Since a OP is in UK the tought they can do triple price.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#39> But ultimately, the easiest and cheapest option for me was still to pay. The chance that it was taken further and the potential cost in terms of money, time, energy from me was too high, higher than the license fee — even if I didn't feel it was justified. So I paid the fee and moved on.
Although it's an interesting and relevant writeup/intellectual property conundrum, I'd feel like the move would have at most been to pull the archive offline and delete or mark the email as spam, assuming the unlikely case that it's not actually automated extortion. There's a few likely angles I thought about hypothetically having taken, but ultimately I firmly don't believe my lack of having read an email or my actual mail constitutes having taken any action at all. If I was interested enough in the problem, I'd just let them decide to track me down some other way afterward. Things are only as enforceable as they are.
That said, I've had collections calls ending up in my voicemail for years, and they are sure as hell not getting paid and haven't tried to take me to court afaik.
Edit: Incidentally, I quite like the dynamic background graphic. A neat art style and reminds me of recent macos backgrounds.
Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used
#40This is the new source of income and a lot of media orgs are getting paid - take ANI in India. Theyve been hitting YouTubers like Mohak Mangal, Nitish Rajput, Dhruv Rathee with copyright strikes for using just a few seconds of news clips which you would think is fair use. Then they privately message creators demanding $60000 to remove the strikes or else the channel gets deleted after the third strike. It s not about…
'Which you would think is fair use' - I must admit I wouldn't think that. When I consider Indian content creators making use of clips from Indian media organisations I can't really imagine why Indian copyright law fair dealing provisions, which are far narrower than the US provisions, wouldn't apply. Sure, you get to argue the strike on Youtube using their DMCA based system, but that has no legal bearing on your liab…
> Indian copyright law fair dealing provisions, which are far narrower than the US provisions
Are they really? I've been believing the opposite. What fair use does US allow that India doesn't?