Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

alistairshepherd.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#71

Post by mreome »

Hobadee wrote: post #29
blindriver wrote: post #20

Displaying 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?

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corp.

Fair Use - Internet Publication - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Internet_publication

  > "... the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ... found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative"
Not exactly the same since this involved a search engine, but would seem to agree that preview thumbnails would be considered fair use.

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#72

Post by fc417fc802 »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #66
fc417fc802 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because it’s onerous doesn’t mean you don’t have a duty to do it. That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. A thought experiment. You are publishing an archive containing billions of items and expect that 0.01% will infringe copyright or be libelous or what have you. Can you legally publish that archive without manually checking every single item? What if you believe th…

> That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. You asserted that you don’t think “there is any expectation every single post […] is checked”. I think my answer was completely responsive to that point. > [You] expect that 0.01% will infringe copyright This means you either knowingly or negligently publish material you do not have reason to be non-infringing. The 99.99% of non-infr…

I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll.

> intent is not required in civil cases

Fair enough.

> You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you can cite precedent? To be clear, I'm not disputing the law as written but rather as practiced.

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#73

Post by d1sxeyes »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #72
d1sxeyes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That depends heavily on context. Anyway you're refuting a claim that I never made. You asserted that you don’t think “there is any expectation every single post […] is checked”. I think my answer was completely responsive to that point. > [You] expect that 0.01% will infringe copyright This means you either knowingly or negligently publish material you do not have reason to be non-infringing. The 99.99% of non-infr…

I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll. > intent is not required in civil cases Fair enough. > You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you can cite precedent? To be clear, I'm not disputing the law as written but rather as practice…

> I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll

Ah sorry, I misunderstood.

This example perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pic....

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/...

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#74

Post by fc417fc802 »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #73
fc417fc802 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll. > intent is not required in civil cases Fair enough. > You might get some leeway from the courts, but you would still likely be found liable for unlawful infringement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you can cite precedent? To be clear, I'm not disputing the law as written but rather as practice…

> I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll Ah sorry, I misunderstood. This example perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pic... . https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/...

But they used material from a play published 2 years earlier?

> the plaintiffs discredit this denial because of the negotiations between the parties for the purchase of rights in the play, and because the similarities between the two are too specific and detailed to have resulted from chance.

For a movie an analogous scenario to publishing an archive with infringing material might be unknowingly capturing a copyrighted piece of art in the background of one of your shots and then being sued for it. Except in that case you're profiting from the movie (at least presumably). To make it analogous to publishing archives it would have to be something that isn't profitable, perhaps uploading an amateur short to youtube.

Actually this provides a perfect example. If you shoot enough documentary footage in the city you are almost guaranteed to inadvertently catch something that's copyrighted at some point. Unfortunately the scenario breaks down because unlike the internet you can't easily retroactively edit all distributed copies of your video. Unless perhaps it's only available via streaming services? But then we're back to profiting again.

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#75

Post by d1sxeyes »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #74
d1sxeyes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't call you a troll, rather I suggested that the complainant in this case is acting like an IP troll Ah sorry, I misunderstood. This example perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_v._Metro-Goldwyn_Pic... . https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/81/...

But they used material from a play published 2 years earlier? > the plaintiffs discredit this denial because of the negotiations between the parties for the purchase of rights in the play, and because the similarities between the two are too specific and detailed to have resulted from chance. For a movie an analogous scenario to publishing an archive with infringing material might be unknowingly capturing a copyright…

I don’t think I’ll find a perfect example I’m afraid, just the key principles that underpinned other judgements.

With regards to the documentary example, I think that would come under “fair use” for the following reasons:

1. Transformative use (similar to news reporting)

2. Minimal impact on the market for resale/licensing.

However it’s worth noting in your example that folks are investing heavily in avoiding incidental copyright infringement (see for example dashcam footage on YouTube where songs on the radio are being either cut or pitched up/down or monetised to the rights holder rather than the publisher), which implies that folks cleverer than me, and probably with law degrees, at least see a risk of losing lawsuits over this kind of incidental infringement.

I appreciate that I pointed out that I can’t find a perfect example and then picked apart your imperfect example.

Maybe it’s best for everyone that there is no fully litigated perfect example of this?

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#76

Post by fc417fc802 »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #75
fc417fc802 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they used material from a play published 2 years earlier? > the plaintiffs discredit this denial because of the negotiations between the parties for the purchase of rights in the play, and because the similarities between the two are too specific and detailed to have resulted from chance. For a movie an analogous scenario to publishing an archive with infringing material might be unknowingly capturing a copyright…

I don’t think I’ll find a perfect example I’m afraid, just the key principles that underpinned other judgements. With regards to the documentary example, I think that would come under “fair use” for the following reasons: 1. Transformative use (similar to news reporting) 2. Minimal impact on the market for resale/licensing. However it’s worth noting in your example that folks are investing heavily in avoiding inciden…

> just the key principles that underpinned other judgements.

The issue I take with such an analysis is the numbers game, the lack of intent that brings with it, and the lack of damages for very minor violations deep in an archive. It doesn't apply to the author of the linked article but at least in the US large archives of content generated by third parties would presumably fall under the DMCA takedown provisions.

> it’s worth noting in your example that folks are investing heavily in avoiding incidental copyright infringement

I think that's what you might call "reasonable precautions". If the technology is widely known about and cheaply available and yet you choose not to use it you risk taking on the appearance of any infringement being intentional.

> see for example dashcam footage on YouTube where songs on the radio are being either cut or pitched up/down or monetised to the rights holder rather than the publisher

I think that's a natural consequence of automated draconian enforcement of corporate policies that are arguably quite user hostile. Certainly the system is actively abused by trolls of various sorts. Even things that are clearly fair use can potentially get your channel demonetized or even banned. Granted, the platform is also rife with users who blatantly and repeatedly violate copyright. The entire place is a cesspool in that regard.

Which is to say that I don't think it's an example of the current legal situation as much as a status quo imposed by corporate policy. (Granted at the behest of various lawyers.)

Re: A media company demanded a license fee for an Open Graph image I used

#77

Post by apple4ever »

twodave wrote: post #13

My initial reaction to this is that the licensor is a scammer and the author just got fleeced. I don’t know much about the law in the UK, but this tactic is almost identical to the one media licensing companies in the US used to go after old ladies whose grandkids had torrented movies on their internet connections. At least in the US there are many jurisdictions now where those types of cases are just immediately thr…

That was exactly my reaction too. No way would I have paid $1000 or whatever for this.

I also thought that maybe the person was the scammer, setting up a website where they could post what someone else did in their situation.

Post reply on HN