What's a copyrighted image ?

[Doggett]

I think I read (and I could be wrong) that you're not allowed to post copyrighted images. Well, what are they and how will I know I they're copyrighted ?
Are film posters copyrighted ?


Help, please.

[ER]

Sorry, mate, better defer this one to the owner of this site. I could help you with copyrights concerning written materials, but images and what's tolerated here had best go straight to the top.

[Andrew]

Big question, in truth.  The quick answer is that any creative work is copyrighted, which includes photographs, posters, etc.  Making a copy of a copyrighted work is a no-no, but using parts of it can be fair use.  Using a much smaller version of a poster or cover art is usually OK - but copyright is very subjective.

Also, copyright is not like trademarks.  Copyright owners can pick when and how to enforce their copyright.  Quite often they do not mind if someone uses part of (or a reduced sized) image in a way that is pretty much free advertising.  You also could get into de minimis with images that are greatly reduced in size from the original.

I don't have as much time as I'd like here.  What exactly are you looking to post? 

The site always operates under copyright.  Every now and then I get a notification from a copyright owner, or a DMCA notice.  I prefer to avoid those when possible.

[Rev. Powell]

[I wrote this before Andrew's response, but I'm going to post the whole thing anyway].

I'm not the owner of the site but I can answer the question in a greatly simplified way.

A copyright is an "exclusive" right to duplicate an expression (picture, text, sound) in a fixed medium (image, digital file, book, recording) for a fixed period of time.

Every picture is copyrighted, unless it's specifically placed in the public domain.  (Yes, film posters are copyrighted--but see below).  

If you take a picture of something, you own the copyright to it, by operation of law.  

Even if a picture is copyrighted, there are exceptions which allow someone else to duplicate or publish an image.

1.  Fair Use.  A small part of a work (examples: still or clip from a film, quotation from a book) may be reproduced for purposes of scholarship, parody, artistic transformation, commentary, or review.  (This is why Andrew can post stills from the films he reviews).  So, if you're posting a film poster or still along with a film you're reviewing, that's likely to be fair use and you are probably entitled to use the image.      

2. Public Domain.  After a copyright expires, it goes into the public domain and can be freely used by anyone.  It can be difficult to tell if something is in the public domain, but there's a good chance anything produced in the US before 1964 qualifies.

The third exception isn't specific to copyright law, but there's a general maxim that the law doesn't concern itself with trivialities (the "de minimis" exception).  That is to say, "no harm, no foul".  If the image you're reproducing is for noncommercial purposes AND it's not harming the rights of the owner, no one cares that the copyright is technically being violated.  Many times, with stills or posters, the copyright holder would actually be glad to get the free advertising/exposure for their film.

(Some people wrongly think if a use is noncommercial, it's automatically "free use".  This is wrong.  Even if the copyright violator is not making a profit off putting a movie or song on youtube, they're costing the owner a potential sale).  

If you're posting a picture on the bad movie war thread, or a movie poster in the poster thread, it's probably not technically fair use, but it is de minimis.  My avatar (and most avatars) is a de minimis violation.  Think of it this way: if you're not causing the owner of the image to lose a potential sale, it's generally OK to use the image.  

I'm sure Andrew takes a common sense approach to these things.  

Andrew, I'd be curious to know what kinds of things you're getting copyright notices for.  Is it the fair use stuff in your reviews? 

[Trevor]

   
Think of it this way: if you're not causing the owner of the image to lose a potential sale, it's generally OK to use the image.  

This makes me wonder about how much money I'm causing the poor schmuck (whose image I use as my avatar) to lose in potential sales.....

As regards public domain in the use of archival footage or stills, we still recognize copyright, even if that 50 year period has passed.

[BTM]

This makes me wonder about how much money I'm causing the poor schmuck (whose image I use as my avatar) to lose in potential sales.....

Whoa, dude, I thought that was a picture of you!

Now, I'm all embarrassed and stuff...

[Trevor]

This makes me wonder about how much money I'm causing the poor schmuck (whose image I use as my avatar) to lose in potential sales.....

Whoa, dude, I thought that was a picture of you!

Now, I'm all embarrassed and stuff...

It is a pic of me, don't worry. 

[Jack]

Andrew, I'd be curious to know what kinds of things you're getting copyright notices for.  Is it the fair use stuff in your reviews? 

I posted some pictures of various types of birds in a birdwatching thread I started a while back.  The owner of one of the pictures was rather ticked off that I posted his copyrighted photo.  I imagine I did a Google image search and went straight to "show full size picture", and never looked at his website to see his copyright notice.  Just something to watch for in the future.

[Rev. Powell]

   
Think of it this way: if you're not causing the owner of the image to lose a potential sale, it's generally OK to use the image.  

This makes me wonder about how much money I'm causing the poor schmuck (whose image I use as my avatar) to lose in potential sales.....

As regards public domain in the use of archival footage or stills, we still recognize copyright, even if that 50 year period has passed.

That's one of the reasons you can't make generalizations about copyrights: the laws of different countries differ, even though there's been some attempt to standardize them recently.

[Rev. Powell]

Andrew, I'd be curious to know what kinds of things you're getting copyright notices for.  Is it the fair use stuff in your reviews? 

I posted some pictures of various types of birds in a birdwatching thread I started a while back.  The owner of one of the pictures was rather ticked off that I posted his copyrighted photo.  I imagine I did a Google image search and went straight to "show full size picture", and never looked at his website to see his copyright notice.  Just something to watch for in the future.

If you'd read this thread first, you would have realized that every photograph is copyrighted without having to visit his website first! 

Using a picture of a bird noncommercially in a birdwatching thread on an out-of-the-way message board sounds like the definition of de minimis to me.  Frankly, it sounds like the guy was being a jerk.  But if it were me, I would still honor any request to take the picture down.   

One of the areas where people may legitimately object to using their photographs are professional photographers who make a living by selling their work.  Such folk usually take the precaution of preventing hotlinking or putting ugly logos over the picture.

It's more likely nowadays that people will be upset with you stealing their bandwidth by hotlinking than stealing the actual image (especially since most of them already stole the original image from somewhere else!)  I admit I've been guilty of stealing bandwidth, too, though I try to be selective about who I steal it from  .       

[Andrew]

I've only had one complaint about one of my reviews in the last few years, and the person actually made a mistake.  Once we started discussing the issue, I determined that he had confused my site with another.  I sent him a link to my review for the movie and he apologized.  The other site was apparently offering most or all of the film for download.

The last three complaints I've had were all in reference to forum posts.  The gent about the bird images takes them himself.  Apparently he has been having a big problem with people actually stealing the images to use on their sites, even claiming ownership themselves.  That is why he was so concerned.