27 replies to this topic

[TheRealDrew]

It's simple. Any photographs taken at a sporting event are subject to the licensing agreements on the ticket. However, a lot of what is written ISN'T always enforceable in a civil court. So long as Jeremy post those pics for fair use (not intending to sell those pics), he is quite safe.

Fair use is really copyright concept more so than a trademark or other ancillary right concept (though sale/profit does often factor into whether or not there is name/likeness/trademark/palming off/Lanham Act etc. issues). And in copyright not offering something for sale is not a bright line safe harbor for whether a use falls into fair use. It is a factor, but not determinative. And many things on these types of licenses may be unenforcable, such as certain waivers of claims, which is usually looked at from a public interest point of view.

It's all about fine lines. If anything, the Times would have to pay BOTH the NHL for publishing an unauthorized picture and using someone's image without their permission. It's usually the agency like Getty and their photogs who would go after the unofficial photographer, and it has happened before. But only because those photographers advertised their unofficial pictures for sale.

Interestingly enough the times may be protected to some degree under the concepts of First Amendment issues in the context of a sporting event/news, with the wrinkles of ex-U.S. publishing and the rest.

Again this is not legal advice.

Not trying to offer any either. Again just interesting how all of this could play out. Makes you wonder how anything can ever get done

[Giles]

How is a UK company protected by the first amendment .. ?

[Drew]

Fair use is really copyright concept more so than a trademark or other ancillary right concept (...Lanham Act etc. issues).

Fair use on trademarks as based on the Lanham Act statutories can be applied here. The fact is (if I haven't misread Jeremy's flicker page) that the NHL trademarks are incidental and do nothing against the NHL. The only interested party may be Getty, which is negated by the fact the photo was not put up for sale. They'd probably be more mad at the times for not approaching them first than go after some internet guy posting a pic of an NHL game.

Interestingly enough the times may be protected to some degree under the concepts of First Amendment issues in the context of a sporting event/news, with the wrinkles of ex-U.S. publishing and the rest.

The first amendment does not apply here since it is a UK company and Jeremy would be making his claim in the UK. Even IF it were in the US, a publication cannot use a copyrighted image without permission, even on the internet. Taking it down does not absolve their initial infarction.

Giles
Generally since the UK is no longer a US lackey , our laws don't really apply in the UK, unless that UK company is being charged in the US.

[TheRealDrew]

Fair use on trademarks as based on the Lanham Act statutories can be applied here. The fact is (if I haven't misread Jeremy's flicker page) that the NHL trademarks are incidental and do nothing against the NHL. The only interested party may be Getty, which is negated by the fact the photo was not put up for sale. They'd probably be more mad at the times for not approaching them first than go after some internet guy posting a pic of an NHL game.

Fair enough. I usually find some of the times of blanking out logos and the rest a tad silly for just the same reasons.

The first amendment does not apply here since it is a UK company and Jeremy would be making his claim in the UK. Even IF it were in the US, a publication cannot use a copyrighted image without permission, even on the internet. Taking it down does not absolve their initial infarction.

Again not saying there was not copyright infringement, there was. As to mentioning the First Amendment that was in the context of the earlier comment of the following, and that they would have some protection as a news agency as a general concept and the ex-U.S. wrinkle was referring to the same things you mentioned

It's all about fine lines. If anything, the Times would have to pay BOTH the NHL for publishing an unauthorized picture and using someone's image without their permission. It's usually the agency like Getty and their photogs who would go after the unofficial photographer, and it has happened before. But only because those photographers advertised their unofficial pictures for sale.

Giles
Generally since the UK is no longer a US lackey

Ouch

[Simon Rogerson]

"Again, not a good idea to do that, you could get a letter like the following"

No, you just won't. I know this.

[John Bantin]

http://copyrightserv.../uk_law_summary

[jeremypayne]

Too funny.

The "speed" of the modern world is astounding.

Over the past couple years and really in earnest this past summer, I have re-discovered my long-dormant passion for photography.

In September I bought a Canon G9 (having had a G7 over the summer) ... on December 9th I read a story in The New York Times about "fake" tilt shift photography.

That week, I started playing with the technique.

On December 29th, the Times Online (web edition of the Times of London) "stole" a fake tilt-shift image that I had posted on Flickr for a story on the "micro-trend" of fake tilt shift images ...

And now, in January 2008, I now have a blog where I reference the whole story.

www.jeremypayne.net

[bartusderidder]

Cool Jeremy, worth a try !