Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(110,265 posts)
21. Fair use doesn't allow the use of an entire image without permission, and it doesn't
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 01:29 PM
Sep 2014

allow the publication of stolen images.

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/08/tabloid-publication-of-stolen-photos-is.html

In 2008, Reynoso borrowed a SUV from Oscar Viqueira, a paparazzo who also used to work occasionally for the couple as a driver and bodyguard during their stays in Miami. Apparently, Reynoso left the memory chip of Noelia's camera in the car, and Viqueira found it. When Viqueira looked at the files on the chip, he found the photos of the secret wedding and thought it appropriate to capitalise on the files to extort money that apparently Reynoso already owed him. When his plan failed, Viqueira sold the photos to Maya for $1,500, without the permission of the couple.

SNIP
Noelia and Reynoso decided to sue Maya Magazines and Maya Publishing Group, claiming that they had infringed their copyrights by publishing previously unpublished photos of their clandestine wedding.

Analysis
The district court granted Maya summary judgment on the ground that publication of the images was fair use, but the Circuit Court reversed. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown, who delivered the Opinion of the Court (with Judge Milan Smith Jr dissenting), found that that this case read like a "telenovela", but that the tantalising and even newsworthy interest of the photos did not trump a balancing of the four non-exclusive fair use factors.

SNIP

As commented by The Hollywood Reporter, the decision is a huge victory for celebrities, in that it sets an important precedent. For instance, "Hollywood attorney Marty Singer dealt with the leak of a sex tape involving clients Rebecca Gayheart and [Grey's Anatomy Dr Sloan/]Eric Dane. Because Dane was holding the camera, the lawyer argued, he had a copyright interest in the video. Had a lawsuit against Gawker continued instead of settling, Dane might have been able to enjoy the same kind of victory just given to [Noelia] and Reynoso."



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I refuse to look at them PeoViejo Sep 2014 #1
Even if the damage is done, so to speak, one need not participate in the exploitation oneself. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #2
I'm abivalent on this, in practice. Helen Borg Sep 2014 #3
Me neither, by and large. Even if I think it's tacky at best. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #5
..but you are giving Money to the perpetrators. PeoViejo Sep 2014 #6
But anyone who looks is including himself or herself in the group that is hurting these women. pnwmom Sep 2014 #15
Lol, I looked and... MoleyRusselsWart Sep 2014 #11
Very funny....... PeoViejo Sep 2014 #12
Le Results Blue_Adept Sep 2014 #17
To the alerter MoleyRusselsWart Sep 2014 #30
that's twice RussBLib Sep 2014 #45
You are not the furthest thing from misogynistic kcr Sep 2014 #51
Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #59
You're right, I don't know you. I can only go based on what you post here. kcr Sep 2014 #62
I will concede MoleyRusselsWart Sep 2014 #63
Nah, you're just a scumbag whose posts I'll never value. abelenkpe Sep 2014 #56
Lol, scumbag? MoleyRusselsWart Sep 2014 #61
Stop - please stop JustAnotherGen Sep 2014 #65
That was over the top. But I don't blame people for getting irritated. nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #70
"Is (theoretically) getting aroused by the sight of a beautiful naked women suddenly Misogynistic??" nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #69
this article is a terrific read. Daniel O'Brien explains the issue perfectly BlancheSplanchnik Sep 2014 #4
He also does not hold the victims totally blameless either, refreshing. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #8
that's good too. he sure put responsibility where it BELONGS, in this article. BlancheSplanchnik Sep 2014 #66
He usually does get the point about many different things Warpy Sep 2014 #54
Cracked used to be a weak version of Mad Magazine, so BlancheSplanchnik Sep 2014 #67
Just throwing out there that... MoleyRusselsWart Sep 2014 #7
Another excellent article from Cracked... SidDithers Sep 2014 #9
Agreed. John Cheese has some very insightful columns there too arcane1 Sep 2014 #28
A owned a thing. B stole it. Let's blame A for having the audacity to own a thing in the first place progressoid Sep 2014 #10
A owned a thing. A still owns a thing Fred Drum Sep 2014 #13
Violating copyright is a type of theft. And viewing someone's stolen pnwmom Sep 2014 #16
wrong in so many ways Fred Drum Sep 2014 #18
If he continues with that show, they have the right to sue him and they will win. pnwmom Sep 2014 #19
fair use clearly applies Fred Drum Sep 2014 #20
Fair use doesn't allow the use of an entire image without permission, and it doesn't pnwmom Sep 2014 #21
i don't think you understand fair use Fred Drum Sep 2014 #23
I don't think you do. The US appeals case I just referred you to is much more related pnwmom Sep 2014 #24
as i said, every case is different Fred Drum Sep 2014 #26
If he's displaying whole, unpublished (by the copyright owner) images, he will lose on fair use. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #31
from 17 U.S.C. § 107 Fred Drum Sep 2014 #32
The part you deliberately left out is the key part: pnwmom Sep 2014 #33
please continue Fred Drum Sep 2014 #39
Please read the article discussing the Appeals Court decision. It discusses the four factors pnwmom Sep 2014 #40
Fair use doctrine is a fairly broad one. hifiguy Sep 2014 #36
The issue concerns an artist and a gallery, not a broke teenager. If they are sued, pnwmom Sep 2014 #38
Try and prove up the damages, though. hifiguy Sep 2014 #42
Copyrights are property. progressoid Sep 2014 #22
copying them would be a copyright violation Fred Drum Sep 2014 #25
Right. And copyright violation is a crime. progressoid Sep 2014 #27
i agree victim blaming is WRONG Fred Drum Sep 2014 #29
The FBI says that copyright violation is theft. pnwmom Sep 2014 #34
lucky for us that the FBI doesn't write the laws Fred Drum Sep 2014 #41
They enforce the laws, and determine who they will prosecute. pnwmom Sep 2014 #52
as i've stated a couple of times now Fred Drum Sep 2014 #57
They can be charged with theft of intellectual property, because intellectual property was stolen.nt pnwmom Sep 2014 #64
we're just arguing past each other Fred Drum Sep 2014 #68
Idiotic Logic sub.theory Sep 2014 #35
There is a difference between justifying something and hifiguy Sep 2014 #43
More blaming the victims sub.theory Sep 2014 #47
Bullshit. hifiguy Sep 2014 #48
Bullshit yourself sub.theory Sep 2014 #50
I was not referring to that particular theft. hifiguy Sep 2014 #60
Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #44
It is theft and it's a crime sub.theory Sep 2014 #46
i'm not minimizing anything Fred Drum Sep 2014 #49
Useless sub.theory Sep 2014 #53
i agree with this Fred Drum Sep 2014 #58
But A owned something that I think was immoral! Blue_Adept Sep 2014 #14
If I grope your ass on the train, you still own it, right? hunter Sep 2014 #37
Celebrities bore me. cwydro Sep 2014 #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Cracked: "What We RE...»Reply #21