tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post3329857447357490586..comments2024-03-20T00:37:30.189-04:00Comments on Photo Business News & Forum: Morel v. AFP, AFP v. Morel - Which Way Blows the Wind?John Harringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-76896629856762459062010-10-19T16:54:51.346-04:002010-10-19T16:54:51.346-04:00This is not about what Twitter did with the images...This is not about what Twitter did with the images, it's about what AFP did with the images. I'm not aware of AFP agreeing to any licensing whatsoever in this instance.<br /><br />--Mark Loundy<br />Twitter: @MarkLoundyMark Loundyhttp://www.loundy.org.commoncents/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-25666841931362492452010-10-11T14:47:57.526-04:002010-10-11T14:47:57.526-04:00It seems that most forget that Morel posted his im...It seems that most forget that Morel posted his images under "extenuating circumstances." The fact that Morel could even photograph while devastation was occurring around him is an act of courage. A lot of greed occurred in getting "first hand news" images out to the world (including the sad fact that another photographer stole another's work and tried to claim ownership). We have some moral issues here.... The judge was right in his Bertrand Russell quote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-13929682108084968532010-10-06T22:54:21.657-04:002010-10-06T22:54:21.657-04:00>>I don't see how telling a photographer...>>I don't see how telling a photographer today to stay away from social networks can be seen as part of 'best business practices'. <br /><br />I didn't say "stay away" in general, but to avoid using it as a conduit for their images. I use Facebook/Twitter/etc for all sorts of things.<br /><br />>>>Moreover, your blog is a free internet service provided by Google. Can we now suggest AFP and Getty to come over here and scrape the images of your blog?<br /><br />No. That would be a breach of my copyright.<br /><br />- JohnJohn Harringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-41738064511293839002010-10-05T11:40:46.680-04:002010-10-05T11:40:46.680-04:00Articulate opposing viewpoint:
http://blog.melche...Articulate opposing viewpoint:<br /><br />http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/10/05/bring-in-the-clowns/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThoughtsFromABohemian+%28Thoughts+from+a+Bohemian%29Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-87596912956426354792010-10-05T10:32:34.223-04:002010-10-05T10:32:34.223-04:00John:
I guess I missed the part where AFP is an &...John: <br />I guess I missed the part where AFP is an "Affiliated Site" of Twitpic. When did that happen? If it didn't, then I don't see how AFP claims a right to use the images. Twitpic' TOS state, "Twitter gets rights to content it carries over it's proprietary network. Their conveyance of those rights to third parties - in this case AFP, is perfectly within the bounds of their rights, and Morel is out of line."<br /><br />It's not clear if you can only use Twitpic if you have a Twitter accont (they have OpenID as an alternate method on their sign-up page), so I don't buy the argument that Twitter's TOS has any relevance in this case. I'm not in disagreement if AFP wanted to reuse Morel's "tweets" (the text he posted on Twitter). However the images are on a different service, which is not owned by Twitter. <br /><br />In my opinion, the bigger issue is what Suero did in misrepresenting the images as his own. If Morel had added CMI (Copyright Management Information) via embedded photo metatadata, then either Suero removed this or AFP ignored it. Twitpic is one of the few services that does preserve photo metadata (XMP, IPTC, Exif, etc.), so it would have been there if Morel had added his contact info, etc. From what I've read, Morel uploaded to Twitpic, and send out a Twitter post with a link to Twitpic. Suero downloaded the images and reposted on his how Twitpic account and then contacted AFP, who then used and licensed the images to others. What we don't know is if Morel had embedded copyright notice, contact info, etc. Whether Suero removed this, and what AFP saw in the images they distributed. <br /><br />DavidDavid Rieckshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02745213003950808869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-6264284622340619342010-10-05T09:37:16.523-04:002010-10-05T09:37:16.523-04:00My reading of the TOS, as well as many others, is ...My reading of the TOS, as well as many others, is that they are there to allow Twitter to have open feeds to third party applications. They're there so that TweetDeck and Tweetie (now "Twitter for iOS" something or other) and all the other third party applications can freely "redistribute" your tweets outside the Twitter.com website and out onto your phone or iPad.<br /><br /><br />True, the language is broad enough to be interpreted by a court of law to mean that Twitter can take everything you post there and publish a book without paying you, or sell your pictures without recompense, but the "social contract," if you will, is that we authorize Twitter to redistribute our tweets so that everyone using Twitter can see them.<br /><br />That all said, it's better to be safe than sorry, I suppose, and just not post anything interesting where others may see it in the hopes of promoting your work to larger groups. Photography: It's all about the compromises.Augie De Blieck Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11793387911509826036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-55552875553270838582010-10-05T08:37:04.766-04:002010-10-05T08:37:04.766-04:00I don't see how telling a photographer today t...I don't see how telling a photographer today to stay away from social networks can be seen as part of 'best business practices'. Let alone labeling it 'unprofessional'. <br />Moreover, your blog is a free internet service provided by Google. Can we now suggest AFP and Getty to come over here and scrape the images of your blog?brunohttp://www.brunodc.benoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-73648678182113224292010-10-05T07:13:14.305-04:002010-10-05T07:13:14.305-04:00John,
I don't see how the Twitter TOS is relev...John,<br />I don't see how the Twitter TOS is relevant. You can't upload pictures to Twitter, and they don't claim any license to linked material.<br /><br />The way I read the TwitPic TOS, there is a very broad license for Twitpic to do whatever it wants with the photos, and that extends to its successors and affiliates.<br /><br />I don't think users have the same unlimited license. <br />The only broad license to redistribute is *within the service itself*, unless TwitPic has actually formally licensed the image to a third party (which it seems to have the right to do, by my reading). <br /><br />Unless AFP has a contract with TwitPic, then it would be limited to use the photos "through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service". I don't see where these TOS let a simple user reproduce the content outside of TwitPic.<br /><br />Of course neither of us are lawyers.peter kroghnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-42390697688453892692010-10-05T04:20:09.041-04:002010-10-05T04:20:09.041-04:00John why don't you read the transcript of the ...John why don't you read the transcript of the court case? <br /><br />AFP's laywers are NOT arguing that TWITPIC's terms and conditions gives them a license to sell the photos. <br /><br />AFP argued that Twitter's terms apply because TWITPIC is linked to it. <br /><br />Umm, let's see what the judge made of that:<br /><br />'THE COURT: So let's see. You claim that the two<br />23 different terms of service have to be read together.<br />24 MR. KAUFMAN: Correct.<br />25 THE COURT: But isn't that contradictory to how you<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.<br />(212) 805-0300<br />11<br />09o2agaA<br />1 interpret the Twitter terms of service?<br />2 MR. KAUFMAN: I don't see how.<br />3 THE COURT: Isn't your best argument that it is<br />4 ambiguous? What do the Twitpics terms say?<br />5 MR. KAUFMAN: They don't discuss this at all. They<br />6 are not contradictory. They have -- they talk about language,<br />7 but they don't talk about third-party uses. It is silent as to<br />8 that. They just don't refer to it. There is no contradictory<br />9 language. They talk about you own your copyrights and other<br />10 kinds of things like that, but they don't discuss the reuse<br />11 aspect of it.<br />12 And, again, as we pointed out in our footnotes, your<br />13 Honor, this is not a unique interpretation of AFP for the<br />14 purposes of this motion. Again, the court is allowed to take<br />15 judicial notice of what's out there. People are re-twitting<br />16 and re-Twitpic'ing pictures by the hundreds of thousands a day.<br />17 This isn't just something that, all of a sudden, out of the<br />18 blue, we are coming up with. This is a regular, constant<br />19 occurrence that tens of thousands of people, hundreds of<br />20 thousands of times a day are also interpreting it the same way,<br />21 for better or for worse, but they are.<br />22 THE COURT: Is that somebody else on Twitter like<br />23 Suero?<br />24 MR. KAUFMAN: Suero, yeah.<br />25 THE COURT: Right? Suero, a thief, right?<br />SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.<br />(212) 805-0300<br />12<br />09o2agaA<br />1 MR. KAUFMAN: Suero took --<br />2 THE COURT: That's your argument?<br />3 MR. KAUFMAN: No, other people are allowed to --<br />4 THE COURT: So the multitude is doing it; therefore,<br />5 it is okay.<br />6 MR. KAUFMAN: No, no.<br />7 THE COURT: It was Bertrand Russell who said you<br />8 shouldn't follow the multitude into evil. Remember that?<br />9 MR. KAUFMAN: Unfortunately, I don't read enough of<br />10 Bertrand Russell.<br />11 THE COURT: He was one of the greatest philosophers of<br />12 the 20th century.<br />13 MR. KAUFMAN: I know who was, but -- I certainly know<br />14 who Bertrand Russell was.<br />15 THE COURT: It is worth the read.<br />16 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, your Honor.'duckrabbitbloghttp://www.duckrabbit.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-51468305437837901002010-10-04T21:07:24.064-04:002010-10-04T21:07:24.064-04:00Correct. Twitter is only entitled to license out w...Correct. Twitter is only entitled to license out what you post - in this case, just the link.<br /><br /> - JohnJohn Harringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-20054326044178359952010-10-04T20:22:24.012-04:002010-10-04T20:22:24.012-04:00Great and informative post.
Reading your excerp...Great and informative post. <br /><br />Reading your excerpts of the Twitter TOS leaves me with a question however. Photographer A posts his photos to his own blog (which he hosts on his on servers) and posts a link on Twitter. While Twitter can resell the content - in this case the link - it would not be able to license photos. Is that correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com