Your Copyright Fears are a Little Over-Exaggerated

I seriously doubt that publishers and authors are going to come after you for posting a photograph of them that's not in the public domain.

This is just as bad as Wikipedia with all this licensing non-sense. These ridiculous fears negatively affects the information that ends up on this site. Why can't the users realize this? And why does the owners of the site let you guys get away with all this?

-Greg

Be your opinions as they may, the site has decided that it is going to follow the law.

An author tried to get an image of himself removed just this week. In that case, he didn't actually own the image he tried to get removed. Not sure if he was reclusive or what. If he did own it though, LT could have been on the hook for $100,000 statutory damages.

$100,000 adds up quick.

>3 KingRat:
Mightn't he still have a "personality rights" grievance?

Christiguc,

Your reply sounds like your attacking me in some form. Being a smart alec as you may, this site - regardless of what a "few" authors may or may not want, is not likely to be taken to court for a few photographs. Especially if those photographs have been previously published and the author consented to it. If this weren't the case, celebrities wouldn't have their images plastered all over the internet the way they are.

>4 BOB81: I don't know.

I suppose I'm not changing the world with this dicussions so eh, whatever.

You live you learn. You LibraryThing, you learn. You Wiki - you pull your hair out!

-G

Why was christiguc flagged?

I don't see any reason for the flag, either.

There is no reason for christiguc's post to be flagged!

> 5

I've said this before, and will say it again:

Whether or not it is likely that LT will be sued, remember that it is LT who will be sued, not the individual members, and we have no right to impose that risk on LT. We should err on the side of caution.

I'd far rather spend a couple of minutes sending a permission request to an author/publisher/photographer than taking that chance.

ahem. the below is not legal advice; merely legal information.

11>

LibraryThing has a safe harbor for user-generated content (17 USC 512) -- at least, for copyright infringement. And for most other state-based tort claims there is a statutory immunity (47 USC 230, "Section 230"). Thus, LT is in a pretty good position, so long as their policies are in good order.

That said, LT's policy is, I believe, permission requests for author photos. Personally I think that's okay, not as a matter of law, but as a matter of social responsibility: people's privacy may not be wholly protected by law, nor immune from pressures by publishers, but as ethical people we should generally try to protect and respect it. So, as an ethical matter, I don't think one should, generally, post pictures of living persons without their permission, in any new context.

(And btw -- while it is true that LT might appear to be the more attractive defendant, for any one act of infringement, it's quite likely that the original poster would also be sued. LT would get off due to its immunities & safe harbors. The original poster would still be on the hook.

I would *also* like to note that, wrt copyright infringement, if one has a good faith belief that one's use was a fair use (17 USC 107) or any other good faith mistake, then the court may choose to drop statutory damages to $200. 17 USC 504. Also, if the item is not registered at the Copyright Office before or within 30 days of learning of the infringement, then there are no statutory damages whatsoever; only actual damages are available, which is difficult to prove, and the case can be dismissed altogether in certain circumstances.)

#4 > Regarding personality rights (better termed "right of publicity") not all states recognize it, and those that do, would generally have significant limitations on the claim, roughly equivalent to descriptive or fair use. I imagine a reference work would be okay in most such cases, although one couldn't really say without knowing the applicable state law and the particular use. And, again, LibraryThing is protected by Section 230, and, again, if the material was removed on request then one would really have to prove extraordinary harm to get a court to take the claim seriously.

Damages aside - there's the more basic question of presenting oneself as a "decent web citizen" - which is exactly what Wikipedia does as well.

You have two ways of looking at this:

1. I want pictures - they make MY site look great and spiffy, and you're famous and it's all over your dust jacket anyway! Heck, everyone knows you can just right click and download anway - heck, what flikr user will go after us? Gimmie!

2. Hello! We're a book site, and we try to connect authors and readers in a meaningful way on the internet. I'd like permission to use a photo, is that okay?

One shows a level of professionalism, one does not. If you're looking to see if a site is serious about being in it for the long haul, which attitude are you looking for - especially if you're an author, a paying member, a publisher for early reviewers, a data buyer or an investor?

>1 woodyallenfan: I apologize if my comment came across as rude--it absolutely was not intended as such. It was a brief reply, and while I was attempting to avoid critiquing your opinions in any manner whatsoever by not putting them in issue, I did want you to know what the stated policy of LibraryThing has been.

Yes, LibraryThing has a safe-harbour from suit in many cases where posting a photograph is a violation of copyright. In my opinion, a protection from punishment (or even a small chance of punishment) does not condone and should not encourage disregard for the underlying law. And I think that goes somewhat to the morality issue lquilter brings up. And the responsible stand that LibraryThing has taken, in many areas, with just one example being the requirement of getting proper permission from the photographer or copyright holder as opposed to stealing and then waiting for someone to complain is, if I had to pick one, the main reason I hold LT in high regard above other such sites and gladly contribute, as I am heartened by their approach. It's professional, it's considerate, and it is acting with regard to the law.

christiguc was flagged three times?

14 > Actually, my ethics point was relating to privacy, not copyright law. In my opinion, the use of authors' photographs to illustrate entries in a catalog would certainly be a fair use, and fair uses are in no way unethical -- they are built into the structure of copyright law to further the public interest, including the interests of the copyright holder.

I smell sockpuppetry in whoever flagged christiguc. Nothing there even remotely deserved flagging.

>17 lorax:

Me too.

And completely off topic, isn't it quite the coincidence that the only three people who catalogued this book all took the time to rate it and write a review; and they all thought it was greatest thing since cheese.

#18 - plus they all reviewed it on the same day, which just happens to be the same day they all joined LT on 27th December 2008. Spooky coincidence that.

The only abuse I could see in #2 was the abuse of misusing the red flag in a perfectly reasonable message by Christiguc.

#18

And one of them reviewed another book by the same author, where despite having a library consisting mostly of SF and fantasy, they say they don't usually read science fiction (but made an exception for the Greatest Author Ever, naturally).

Pity it's probably not provable puppetry.

Also completely off-topic, the Superbowl was yesterday.

Too bad there is not an option to unflag a comment as abuse, like there is for reviews. I see no reason why Christine should have been flagged for post #2. If I said "You're entitled to your opinion, but the site is going to follow the law," would that be construed as abusive? Because that's basically how I take post #2.

>20 lorax:
Couldn't Tim prove it? IP address? If he had the notion.

> 16

he use of authors' photographs to illustrate entries in a catalog would certainly be a fair use, and fair uses are in no way unethical

At some point in the distant past, Tim said that "fair use" did not apply to posting author images on LT. (That used to be stated on the "Add a picture" page, but is now only in the Wiki.) Which is why I flag images that people post claiming "fair use". If Tim doesn't want them here, they shouldn't be here.

24 > Tim said that "fair use" did not apply to posting author images on LT. ... If Tim doesn't want them here, they shouldn't be here.

These two statements are orthoganal, but I fear that by putting them together some confusion is created.

We can all agree that Tim has the ability and right to set LT policy.

But let us not misstate the law, since that just confuses things. Tim may say whatever he likes about fair use, but he doesn't determine it; he only states his opinion about it. (As for that matter do I.) While I can cite a string of cases that support my contention that authors' photographs in a catalog would be deemed fair use in a court, there's no way of knowing without actually litigating it. Even on his own site, Tim does not determine whether a use is fair or not, and the determination is not his to make -- it's a legal determination.

So flagging things because Tim doesn't want them here is appropriate, because it's his policy to flag those kinds of things. But that's not the same thing as flagging them because they are not in fact fair use.

Sorry to be persnickety -- I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm a librarian as well as a copyright lawyer so I'm fairly obsessed with accuracy about fair use and copyright law.

Kudos for the original posters's name.

Trademark of his unauthorized use of his image and likeness rather that copyright of said image.

See Woody Allen v. American Apparel.

Only a $10M risk defending with a social parody answer.

Who's up for starting a defense fund to test fair use? (Not me, my budget it too tight.)

OMG you guys are sooo funny!

Some photographers have contacted the site asking for *their* photos to be removed, so obviously there's some merit in LT covering its ass.

Whether I think it's a bit much? Probably, but we seem to be doing okay regardless.

(deleted - not relevant enough to this topic - I'll repost elsewhere)

You know, I've been meaning to ask -- how does one over-exaggerate?