Create, Consult, Control
News & commentary on intellectual property issues.
Jan042010 | Steve O'Donnell
How many copyrights does your blog infringe?
If you are a blogger you’re probably familiar with blog scrapers (sites that take other people’s content and republish somewhere else). Bloggers have a good reason to be upset about scrapers; after all, it is someone else taking your work. However, most bloggers don’t give a second thought about snatching a picture online and using it for a post.
If you find a picture on Flickr, another blog, or somewhere else online and upload it to your own blog (or worse yet, inline link to it from your blog) without permission, you’re committing a copyright violation.
By grabbing whatever picture you find that fits with your post you’re risking damages up to $150,000 for a registered work. Admittedly, that number is an extreme possibility, and probably one that would never be levied against a blogger, but it is technically possible. A more likely damages award would be $750 for a registered work, plus lots more in attorney fees.
Most graphic files you encounter online are not going to be registered with the copyright office, in that case damages would likely be limited to actual damages and an injunction to take down the picture, plus whatever you have to pay your attorney.
More likely than someone suing you for scraping their .jpg is them sending your ISP a takedown notice, which is probably going to result in them taking your site down until you remove the picture. It’s less onerous that taking a $150k hit, but still not good.
If you want to be a good internet citizen, and have the moral authority to complain if your blog gets scrapped, don’t take from others. There are plenty of sources for Creative Commons images, Google Image Search’s Advanced tab will pull such images, as will the Creative Commons' own home. Just make sure you comply with the license.
Image published in 1906 found on cyberlawcentre.org and is from the Library of Congress' Bob Hope Vaudeville and American Variety Archive.
Recent Posts
- Does a twitter follow have a value? What does this mean for RT contests?
- XXX Domains. Should you care?
- Steve Jobs, 1955-2011
- Who doesn’t like free porn?
- My ex-employee is using my customer list and materials!
- Can I get sued for this?
- A painless trademark dispute
- DC vs Batmobile custom car seller
- The Days of Turkey Roll
- Steveodonnell.com, now with fewer penises



Comments
Flickr's Creative Commons section is my favorite place to go looking: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons.
And just because something's published on the internet, doesn't mean it's up for grabs.
Here's a great site which explodes 10 common copyright myths:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Thanks for the excellent post!
I'm a lawyer. Are you? If not, I see no reason to justify my legal opinion to you.
My post was for general legal advice and not for any specific client or fact-pattern.
Copyright protects the author's rights to reproduce, perform, and make derivative uses of their work. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html Depending on one's actual fact pattern and perhaps where a lawsuit is litigated, it is far from clear whether an infringement exists or not for an inline link. The goal of my post was to alert bloggers to the possibility of legal action so that they can make somewhat informed decisions.
As you said: Copyright protects the author's rights to reproduce, perform, and make derivative uses of their work...
Linking (embedding, hotlinking) does nothing of the sort. I do see the infringement if you grab an image and distribute it from you own server/domain, but to link/embed an image you do not at any time distribute that image. Unless you are going to argue that telling people where an image can be found is infringement (of course we are assuming that the original placement of the image was non-infringing) I can't imagine where you are coming from.
The defendant was pro se, and it settled before a final judgement, so we can only guess what would have happened if he was represented by counsel and the case went through an appeal.
This is a developing area of law. One thing everyone agrees on is that there is no infringement if you have permission to use an image/inline link. Other than that, it's going to depend on the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case.