It’s not always easy to determine what falls under fair use of images. But if you ask for a permission to use a photo and get rejected, it’s pretty clear what you should (not) do, right? Still, sometimes people don’t realize that “no” means “no,” and they decide to use the photo after all. This is what Fox News did on 26 October when reporting about bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc.
The Cinematography Database was one of the more recent YouTube shows I really started looking forward to the each week as new episodes were released. Now, the creator of the show, Cinematographer Matt Workman, has been forced to shut down the show in its current format over Copyright issues.
In the latest video to the Cinematography Database channel, Matt explains what happened, his decision to end the show in its current format, and possible plans for the future.
The news has become the news.
January 11th, 2016, Fox News will battle it out in the courtroom against North Jersey Media Group, publisher of The Record and the Herald News, over copyright claims that state Fox News used iconic images from the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center without permission.
As artists, we find the ‘Fair Use’ doctrine to sometimes be beneficial, but sometimes to be extremely disturbing. I guess illustrator Danny Quirk subscribes to the latter according to a post he made concerning Madonna using his work on her shows under that doctrine.
Danny has a series of illustrations called Dissections which shows medical sketches (the kind you find in old medical books), combined with living humans. This was his senior project for Pratt institute.
Danny claims that an artist called BessNYC4 [NSFW] pasted a photo of Maddona’s face on his drawing and that they were used in her social media. Any many young artists, Danny was first very happy for the fact that his art was so widely exposed. But then he realized that he was not getting any credit for his illustrations. Danny claims that he tried contacting Maddona’s agent and got no response.
Danny got even angrier when he discovered that those illustrations were also used in Madonna’s shows. Being annoyed he posted about it until his lawyer told him to take the post down as BessNYC4’s work was protected under the Fair Use doctrine for being transformative enough.
Danny got annoyed enough that he shared his frustration on his page which got thousands of likes, shares and comments. I am attaching his letter after the jump.
If you were to take a screen shot of someone’s Instagram account and try selling it, two things would happen. The first is that you’d be told you’re violating the copyright of the photographer whose photo you’re selling, and secondly you’d be laughed at. Extensively.
It turns out, though, that if you’re famous enough you can take such a screen shot and not only bypass copyright but also make a fortune doing so.
The secret: slap some text on it.
Richard Prince has been using this method and some of his “artwork” is said to have been sold for $100,000.
UPDATE: the chart was wrong in in more than one way, we took it down. You can still see the original link in the article, but I do not suggest following its advice, you can read more about it here.
There is a lot of confusion surrounding copyright law and when it’s okay or not okay to use photographs that are not your own. Fortunately, Curtis Newbold, AKA The Visual Communications Guy, created this handy flowchart to help you assess when, why, and where you can use certain photographs. If you find yourself frequently questioning the legality (or morality) of resharing an awesome photo you came across on the internet, you may want to bookmark the chart for quick access.
The flowchart (click here for a big version) makes it easy to understand the differences between Copyright, Fair Use, Creative Commons, and Public Domain–four topics which are often the source of great confusion. On the flipside of things, the chart may also be useful to photographers who wonder about their own photographs and the purposed in which others may redistribute them.