Copyright vs Fair Use

It's all over the news again. Now Microsoft and Google among others are contesting copyright warnings issued by major league sports broadcasts.

I have links to articles on this and other copyright issues on the Photography News page of my website.

Fair Use

What these issues boil down to is "fair use". What am I allowed to do with someone else's copyrighted works? These issues come up frequently when new methods of copying movies and/or music become available. When videotapes came around the movie industry was worried that their business would crumble because people could make copies of their movies. Same worries with DVD's and now the internet. Of course there has been, and probably always will be, some amount of bootlegging. That's not really what these articles are talking about as the reproduction and sale for profit of other people's copyrighted works is obviously against the law.

What if I'm not selling a copy? Can I record a TV show from my local cable broadcast? Of course I can ever since the VCR came out. Can I record that show to a DVD and play it for my kids on a car trip? I'm sure makers of DVD's for kids would hope I don't so they can sell me a DVD of the same program. But what if the programs aren't available on DVD or tape for that matter? DVR's have now given me the ability to record shows and watch them when I have time, and Slingbox gives me the ability to send those same shows to my cell phone if I want. Is that a fair use of copyrighted content?

Using Images

What can you do with one of my pictures? If you pay me to take pictures for you we will have a licensing agreement on how you can use those images. It may be very broad, or it may be very narrow. If you don't get an agreement what does that mean? Good question and one that probably has to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

I got a question from a real estate agent about this very question. A previous real estate agent had paid for images to be taken of a property. It had been listed and then taken off the market. The original agent did not get any license agreement with the images. The new real estate agent wondered if it was OK to use the images in a new listing for the property. I referred him back to the original photographer, but without a licensing agreement it was probably OK to use the images in another listing. They aren't reselling the images and they are being used for the same purpose they were originally purchased.

Now what if that client wanted to submit those images to a micro-stock photography agency and see if anyone would license them for money? As he is not the original copyright holder this is probably not advisable. The original photographer has the exclusive right to license or sell the images.

Money, Money, Money

I feel the line is drawn when money starts changing hands. This can get a bit tricky. With music sharing sites, no money changed hands, but each person who downloaded a copy of a song didn't go buy it on a CD, basically keeping the recording artist from gaining revenue from his work. Now we have DRM software (Digital Rights Managment) that attempts to keep copying to a minimum.

Personally, I don't mind if you use a copy of one of my images as a background on your computer. Using an image on a personal (non-commercial) website with a link to my website would be fine too.

Now if you start selling advertising space on your site and make money from people visiting your site, that's a different story. You are now choosing content for your website that will bring you income. If you choose one of my images because you think it will help draw visitors and gain you revenue, then my image is valuable. You think it will attract more visitors than other images. That value should be paid for.

What Do You Think

Copyright is a huge and complicated issue for photographers, the music and movie industries, and anyone else who creates copyrighted works. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Copyright Links

Copyright Basics from the United States Copyright Office
U.S. Copyright Office