Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AdamWho]

I have a friend who is an artist and very creative.

Recently I was asked at work to make a short presentation of someone or something outside of the company who I thought was particularly creative.  I naturally thought of my friends work.

Using images from flicker I created a presentation describing his work and why I thought he was creative.  There was no intent to use the images for personal or company gain, the presentation was solely for informational purposes, complete citations were given.  My intent was that of a personal friend and fan promoting his friends work and creativity.

I didn't ask permission before hand to use the images (screen captures from flicker).  When I told the friend at a latter date he was very angry and sent a bill for use of the images.  I was shocked and dubious of his claim since it seemed to be a case of fair use and conforming to section 107 of the copy right law.

Does anyone have an opinion or advice? 

adamwho

[Smokin]

Not a lawyer, but IMO your friend needs to take the stick out his @#!.

I would say its fair use (yeah Im assuming alot) and your friend, like many artists, tend to act irrationally when it comes to copyrights. If the guy has not registered his work, then he can try and seek damages if he wants (zero). If he wants to try and extort money by thretening a lawsuit, then thats messed up.

If his work is online and avilable for the public to view, then whats his beef? Seems like a silly thing to get upset about.

[AdamWho]

A new wrinkle:

My company lawyer would rather pay this guy off then fight with him over a lawsuit.  The hitch is, the company gets to use the images in perpetuity (forever) which I know the artist will object to..... so I suspect we will be at square one again.

 

[Smokin]

Yeah, the more a company has to lose the more it will be willing to settle. Its unfortunate because this ass will think he "protected" his property and really all he did was extort money. His ignorance will fuel others into believing this is a normal way to react.

The hitch is, the company gets to use the images in perpetuity (forever) which I know the artist will object to..... so I suspect we will be at square one again.

That does not sound right, your friend can bill for selling copies of the images or sell some rights to use the images, but paying a bill does not mean you get unlimited rights to use the images any which way you want. Sad situation ,why not try kissing his ass and letting him feel like he is doing you a favor to get yourself out of this mess?

[AdamWho]

That does not sound right, your friend can bill for selling copies of the images or sell some rights to use the images, but paying a bill does not mean you get unlimited rights to use the images any which way you want.

I think this is their way of showing due diligence towards him, if he refuses, which is will, it gives them an argument that they tried to be fair... only a guess.

...why not try kissing his ass and letting him feel like he is doing you a favor to get yourself out of this mess?

Kissing ass is not exactly my mood.  During our conversation he suggested since I make (a lot) more money then him I should just pay for my "mistake."

[Smokin]

Sad, well hope you find better friends after this.

One last thing that might be possible to check out is that I believe flickre may sell prints or copyies (At least they used to when it was yahoo photo). If he gave Flikr permission to sell copies throuh some type of user agreement, you might have some legal advantage by buying some prints from Flickr.

[AdamWho]

One idea.  Since I physically own some of the original art shown in the images, what rights do I have with regard to copyrights.  Do I own the right to use the images as I see fit?

[Smokin]

Within reason yes. For example, if I own a video or music that I purchased legally, I can legally play or display the work from myself or a small group of friends.

You can't however publish or charge people to view the work just because you bought a legal copy.(commercial use) Is showing a legal copy for a work presentation fair for the purpose of maybe exploring a commercial endeavor or whatever you were doing fair? I think so.

(I know I'm butchering that explanation, I'm hoping a real lawyer chimes in)JSonnabend?
 

[mactheknife]

Whether you are infringing or not has nothing to do with whether you own a physical copy.  The copyright law makes it clear that ownership of a copy is distinct from ownership of the copyright.

Probably the best argument against your liability would be that it is a fair use.  (I'll leave it to someone else to do the analysis...) But what strikes me is that he has suffered little, if any, damages.  I would check to see if he has registered his work.  If he hasn't, he can't get statutory damages or attorneys' fees, only actual damages.  Then my argument would be, hey, since you've suffered $0 in damages I could let you sue me (on your own dime) and win $0, or I could pay you $1 to drop the subject.  Just a thought.

[Isaac]

If he hasn't, he can't get statutory damages or attorneys' fees, only actual damages.

In some cases you can acquire statutory damages for acts of infringement that occur prior to registration.  I'm not sure the facts presented completely rule out this possibility.

[Smokin]

In some cases you can acquire statutory damages for acts of infringement that occur prior to registration.

Like when? If the work is currently "unpublished"?

[AdamWho]

Whether you are infringing or not has nothing to do with whether you own a physical copy.  The copyright law makes it clear that ownership of a copy is distinct from ownership of the copyright.

I clearly understand that with regard to something like a movie on a DVD but it seems like it would be different for owning the original work of art.  All other renditions of the art except mine are the copies.

How do I check to see if the images I used are registered? 

[AdamWho]

So I figured out that the images are not registered using the US Copyright Office search
http://www.copyright.gov/

This means that if he were to sue then he could only ask for actual damages. Since there were no damages then I am unlikely to be in much jeopardy when he refuses to sign the "use in perpetuity" agreement and then we refuse to pay.

[Isaac]

This means that if he were to sue then he could only ask for actual damages. Since there were no damages then I am unlikely to be in much jeopardy when he refuses to sign the "use in perpetuity" agreement and then we refuse to pay.

Assuming this is a work created in the US, he has to register (or at least apply for registration) before he can sue.  It's possible to expedite registration if there is infringment.  Registration is cheap.  I believe the registration is effective on the date it is submitted completely.

If he registers the work within 3 months of first publication, he may be able to obtain statutory damages.

[AdamWho]

If he registers the work within 3 months of first publication, he may be able to obtain statutory damages

It didn't happen, the images in question have been published for a year+.

So I would be safe just saying sorry and cutting off the friendship.  So once he refuses to sign the "use in perpetuity" agreement (and we refuse to pay) then he can chase me for actual damages (= 0$) on his own dime, he can come to his senses, or he can just drop it.....