That Recipe You Shared on Facebook is Making Me Irate
Hold on a second, I need to jump up on my soapbox.
Ready?
Ready.
So. You. You, the person who sees fantastic recipes on Facebook and hits the Share link, QUIT BREAKING THE FREAKIN' LAW.
I'm serious.
I should probably back up for a second ... I think it first hit my radar about two months ago. I opened up Facebook and saw one of my photos. It was a photo from a recipe that I very definitely made up all by myself. It was a recipe that very definitely didn't exist on the internet before I posted it. Next to the photo were some of my words. Not all of them mind you, but some of them. Enough of them to describe how to make the food in that photo THAT I TOOK AND OWN AND MAINTAIN FULL COPYRIGHT OVER.
But I hadn't posted it on Facebook.
So, I clicked the link and found a whole page filled with recipes, intermixed with (IRONICALLY) Bible verse after Bible verse. Every one of the recipes had been illegally taken from a blogger's website. Apparently you can be a good Christian while breaking copyright laws.
That's what it is, by the way. IT IS BREAKING THE LAW TO TAKE A PHOTO THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE AND POST IT AS YOUR OWN.
More so, when you hit that Share link, you're being a GIANT jerkface. It's not "sharing" or "being nice" or a compliment when you share that photo that you have no right to share. The photo is stolen. You distributed stolen goods.
I don't know exactly what the law says about all of this, but I can point you to Facebook's Terms of Service. Go down to Protecting Other People's Rights and read the first line. They say it right there -- if you share content that is stolen, you are violating the Terms of Service.That means your account can be suspended without warning. Then how will you play Candy Crush all day long?
There's a right way to share content that you find on the internet and there's a wrong way. Let's go over it, shall we?
Posting a link to a recipe that you want to try? RIGHT WAY!
Copying and pasting a recipe into a post? WRONG WAY!
Posting a link to a blog that frequently posts content that you like? RIGHT WAY!
Downloading that photo of my daughter and posting it on your own Facebook account? WRONG WAY!
That happened, by the way. A few weeks after the recipe post, I found this photo of Alexis on a Facebook page.
As I always do when I find my copyrighted materials used somewhere without permission, I sent a polite message. Just a little, "Hey there! That's my photo. Could you please remove it?"
The page owner didn't take it down. Instead, she posted a rant about "stupid people who don't know how the internet works." No. Really. She said that. On a public page where I could see it.
So I sent a cease and desist email. Sadly, I have one saved on my computer. I have one because I send it at least five times per month. At least five times per month I spend my valuable time telling people it's not OK to steal my property.
After the cease and desist email, I got a reply. "I found the photo on the internet. If it's on the internet, I can use it."
FALSE! NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT TRUE!
The page owner then went to my Facebook page and left a rather lovely post on the wall, which hopefully no one saw because I deleted it and banned the person faster than you can say THE NERVE.
I filed a complaint with Facebook and the content was removed, but still. STILL. That's not the point. The point is why should I have to actively work to get other people to obey the law? I very seriously don't understand.
So.
So ... I guess my point is, please! Please do share my links and tell your friends how great I am! But please don't copy and paste my stuff and try to pass it off as your own. And PLEASE stop sharing those photos and recipe posts on Facebook. Not only do your friends think you are SUPER annoying (and they do!), you're encouraging someone to steal.
Stealing isn't cool. Never has been, never will be.
<end rant>
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Reader Comments (40)
really well placed watermarks...i'm telling you. They don't have to be obnoxious, but well placed so they can't be cropped out. people are jerks and seriously stupid about things sometimes.
@Ginger--Since all of my photos posted here are SOOC (except the chalk photos -- that's a whole other story), I would have to add time for every single post I put up. I just can't fathom spending more time doing things just so people won't steal. It would be like chaining my car to my house every night.
Everything you said is accurate, but let's see if I can give a legal perspective (please note, I am not giving legal advice, just explaining what the law is.). Simple rule, if you didn't snap the picture, write the post, create the work, you are not the "author" and if you want to use it, you need to first, ask permission, but if you're too damned lazy to do that, at least attribute (fancy legal word for SAY who the "author" is in some way or another). Another simple rule, just because you didn't know your we're breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't break the law. Everybody does it is also not a legal defense.
As a licensed attorney who actually knows a thing or two about copyright /trademark/intellectual property law, I rate those people who believe that if "it is on the Internet I can do whatever I want" right up there with those who believe "if its on tv/in the newspaper then it must be true" and "what do you mean, Steven Spielberg's depiction of [insert historical event] in [insert the name of any of his films based on a 'true' story] isn't accurate?"
According to the United States Copyright Office, "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. " see, www.copyright.gov (See how easy that was to tell everyone the source for my information?)
This means, legally, The minute you snap a picture or "publish" (e.g., write a blog post, website, poem, haiku, etc...) the author/creator/photogapher has a copyright in that work. You do not have to formally register the work with a government office to receive the copyright. You don't need the blessing of some higher power to own the copyright. The mere act of being the originator of the work gives you the rights to the work. The registration, paperwork filing, fancy certificate simply reinforce your ownership interest. That means that your work - except in very limited circumstances - cannot be used by another person/organization without the owner's permission or attribution. If you do, you have misappropriated the work and property of another. Misappropriation is another word for theft. If you're asked to remove it/cite it and you refuse, you violated the law.
A lot of people are under the misconception that recipes cannot be copyrighted. WRONG!!!!! Again, according the US Copyright Office, "A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection." Again, see, www.copyright.gov
In addition, there's this INTERNATIONAL LAW called the Berne Convention (officially known as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) that was adopted on 1886. The Berne Convention mandates its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries in the same manner it recognizes the copyright of its own citizens. The US is a signatory. 165 other countries are signatories. WHAT THE BERNE CONVENTION MEANS IS IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER IF SOMETHING IS ON THE INTERNET, IF YOU DIDN'T CREATE IT, DON'T USE IT WITHOUT ASKING FOR PERMISSION/ATTRIBUTING THE SOURCE!!
But what about the "fair use" doctrine, you say? Section 107 of the United State Code sets out a list of various instances in which the reproduction of a particular work MAY (not the same as WILL, people) be considered fair (for example criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research). A DESIRE TO SHARE A YUMMY RECIPE WITH THE WORLD IS NOT ONE OF THEM. A DESIRE TO SHARE A PRETTY PICTURE IS NOT ONE OF THEM. And lastly,A DESIRE TO DIRECT TRAFFIC TO YOUR WEBSITE/FACEBOOK PAGE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
Sorry for such a long comment. People's stupidity irks me probably as much as the theft of your work irks you.
And to further clarify what I meant by "WHAT THE BERNE CONVENTION MEANS IS IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER IF SOMETHING IS ON THE INTERNET, IF YOU DIDN'T CREATE IT, DON'T USE IT WITHOUT ASKING FOR PERMISSION/ATTRIBUTING THE SOURCE!!" is that it make no difference if you are in Pittsburgh, Paris, Pretoria or the Polar Ice Cap and you take someone else's work for use on your blog, Facebook page, whatever, the Berne Convention applies and you've broken the law.
Even if the author never, ever, ever discovers the misappropriated use of their work, you've broken the law. Stop doing it. It's not attractive at all.
If watermarking the photos would take too much time, what about placing your web address or blog title on a physical object in the photo itself? Like something ruler-sized that said "Burgh Baby", which you could put along Alexis' leg in this photo and can be used repeatedly (or like a place card for food photos). Many people who want to steal your work will likely post it as is or not at all. The jerk-wad who put up a fuss about the photo being on the internet probably would never bother photoshopping it out, if she's ever used it, so it might decrease the amount of stealing-without-attribution. Maybe.
Way to go not stalking her down and punching her in the face. "What do you mean I can't do that? Your address was on the internet, and according to you, anyone can use that information."
I bet pintrest gets your nickers in a was too. My guess is that most people don't realize that it's stealing. I know that doesn't make it right. They also probably don't realize that you can lose money from them not linking back tothe original source. Good luck,and I hope it doesn't drive you too crazy.
Michelle, you've put your finger right on a huge problem on Facebook right now - several groups of food bloggers to which I belong are trying to get FB to do something about this overall problem, but so far to no avail. If you report an individual post, they will take it down, but they do nothing about the broader problem.
To make it even worse, a lot of these pages are simply "like farming" so that the page can later be sold to anyone who wants to use it - so it's not like we are talking about some sweet old granny who is ignorantly stealing stuff to share with her "friends" on the internet.
I've had all of the same experiences with trying to get someone to take down my content, and I don't even bother anymore - I go right to reporting them to FB. Some of these people will send their followers to flood your wall with nasty stuff, and even report YOU to FB. Ignorance abounds.
And I agree with you about watermarking - not only is it a pain in the butt, but I am too vain to have every photo on my site watermarked. I don't like how it looks, though I have a post up right now that has been stolen so many times from my old blog that I watermarked the photos on the new blog.
Our best defense is to flood FB with complaints and for bloggers to have each others' backs and let people know if you see that their content has been stolen.
If you can't take two seconds out of your day to place a watermark on your photos (and, literally, that's all it takes), then you deserve to have your photos stolen. Create a watermark, save it, and then copy it onto every photo. And, really, it's not the end of the world.
I'm confused. If you don't want people to EVER share your photos/recipes/links on social media, why didn't you put it behind a paywall or some other obstacle from the very beginning? I think it's a little odd to maintain a blog and a public social media presence and then become angry when your readers tell their friends they like your stuff, but it's your right to be outraged at whatever you find outrageous. I get the whole stealing and false accreditation thing, obviously, but it seems odd to protest sharing on social media stuff that you made available on a public social media feed.
THANK YOU for writing this, very well put. I've been having tons of problems lately with the Facebook recipe issue. I don't even bother with the person, I just report straight to Facebook. HOWEVER, omg is it a huge time suck. And a big ol' wtf to the comment above? If you don't put a watermark you DESERVE to have your photos stolen? I guess that's a prime example of what's wrong the entire world in general today. So much ignorant entitlement going on.
I'd love to tell you watermarks work... but they don't. Not really. I put watermarks on all of my photos, yet there are still people out there who republish them without permission - often times cropping the watermark out first! Yup. Even professional media sites do it. Talk about THE NERVE.
It is frustrating that so many people believe anything on the internet is free for them to use however they wish. I can get pretty worked up about it! But I'm trying to learn to let it go. Ultimately, we're fighting a losing battle. We spend so much of our valuable time sending DCMA takedown notices and following up on them, but there will always be the next person to fight. These days I save my efforts for sites who repost my content that are earning revenue from it - via ads on their site or selling products or whatever. The rest I've mostly learned to live with. I just don't have the time or resources to fight the huge number of people on the internet who are not aware of / do not care about copyright laws.
If you're using Wordpress, there are some plugins that will watermark automatically for you.
The problem is messed up copyright laws and a lack of education. They don't teach internet copyright in schools (nor to teachers). People just assume because it's out there, it's for the taking. You know what assuming does ;)
I'm not a blogger so I have no clue, but how do you find these posts if they aren't including your links? And I disagree with the person saying you deserve to have your photos stolen, but wouldn't a watermark be a fairly quick way to at least direct traffic to you, if someone does share it? My work is often reproduced without my permission but the watermark at least lets people know who made it. I personally find it pretty easy because I'm usually editing the photos/videos before posting.
My mom and my doctor/family friend are notorious about posting photos and recipes like this to my Facebook wall because they know I like to cook and bake. And it infuriates me. So I use it as an exercise to hunt down the blogger whose work has been stolen and contact them so they can report the offending page. Usually I leave a snarky comment with a link to the original work on the photo, too, but that seems to get deleted or I get flamed.
I dealt with something similar a few months ago, too - I noticed an Etsy shop that was stealing photos from bloggers and using them to sell the recipes that went along with them. I reported them and hunted down some of the bloggers to let them do their own reporting -- and it still took AGES before the shop was shut down. Sometimes I hate the Internet. Mostly just all the awful people on it.
I don't think anyone ever described this scenario as "the end of the world." But it is wrong in the eyes of the law as well as ethically wrong. As a journalist, our publication has had to involve our lawyer, who specializes in media and copyright law, because people are too lazy and brazen to understand stealing is stealing, whether virtually or physically. Our newspaper operates behind a paywall (because, wouldn't it be dumb to give away our hard work for free? yes, it would) and people still steal. Funnily enough, we have never lost a court case in this matter, so yes, it is a big deal, and yes, Michelle is in the right and those who steal are in the wrong in the eyes of the law. Even if I didn't work in this business, I would still be a) afraid of stealing someone's work because of legal repercussions and b) wouldn't feel right doing it because it would make me look incredibly lazy and stupid when I was found out. When a person steals, they need to face the consequences. That's one of the most simple lessons children are taught at a young age, and yet, so many adults think it's OK. Whether it's because they don't understand copyright law or are lazy or uncreative (or all three), that doesn't make it right. Sure, this is a public blog, and I'm sure Michelle is flattered when someone shares her work - in the appropriate manner. These people who are stealing could so very easily avoid this by sharing a link and attributing it correctly to BurghBaby (which can be done in one or several ways) and avoid any legal or ethical mishaps. Anyone standing up for people who do this is either completely misinformed or guilty of doing it themselves. I'm not sure which is worse, but please, take five minutes and do some very simply Google research before you assume Michelle (and others in similar situations) are overreacting.
It's not the sharing, per se that is the issue. It's the sharing, without the permission/knowledge of the author/passing it off as your own because you failed to attribute/cite/link back/credit the author/creator. Just because something is on a website or blog, out there for public viewing doesn't me people can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Just because NBC/ABC/CBS posts episodes of their shows on their website doesn't mean I can take that same episode and put it on my website without their permission. Yes, people do this, but eventually, the network discovers it and asks the site to take it down. Where it appears on YouTube, Hulu, and similar sites, the site has come to a financial arrangement with the network through licensing fees and permission for it to be there has been given.
It's no different for a blogger or other website creator. The author has a property interest in the picture/article/whatever. It doesn't matter if it is what's known as intangible property. Saying someone should have to watermark a photo in order to protect their property is nice, but it's not the law. Finders, keepers, losers, weepers isn't the law either even though probably 99.9% of people think it is. Finders, keepers without making an attempt to find the weeping loser and the loser not coming forward after a set period of time is pretty much the law in every state. The fact that you don't get caught doesn't mean you haven't broken the law, either.
It takes what? All of five minutes to send an e-mail and ask; ten second to type "photo by" or link back?
I sorry this happened to you. I'm sorry this happens to anyone. Even before the Internet I always worried about copyright. Sure I'd mail myself my scripts with a signature over the seal so the postmark could establish a timeline, but I always wondered if one of the far off places I sent my work to had used it without my knowing possibly even without my name.
Comments like many of those above prove that people don't understand this issue. Using a watermark is optional. There are many reasons not to use it, but it doesn't mean people should be taking your photos anymore than someone deserves to have their house robbed because they don't have an alarm system.
And @Erin sharing and stealing are too very different things! Anything that ties back to the original source is fine and great. If you click on it and end up right here that is perfectly fine! It's when people extract and reuse without sending to original source that it is wrong. Even saying "source: burghbaby.com" is wrong if they don't have permission to use the image.
It's so hard to create whether it's words or photographs or paintings. Every piece is a piece of the person who made it. Not respecting copyright is more than a monetary issue (particularly for people like me who don't make much money from art). Copyright violations are violations of the people who made the work. They are disrespectful and selfish.
Okay, so this subject makes me a tad irate too.
To those blaming the victim - hush.
Yes, those recipe photos make me stabby. Most people don't give any thought to where it came from so they don't mean harm when they share or repost...but still.
Laughing @ People not grasping that you can take any and every post on here and direct link to it on your Facebook or whatever weird internet world you dabble in.
@Erin....Links are ok...Stealing is wrong
When you right click/save and re-post Items like pictures on your own social networking pages/blogs where you are the author/editor/creator of the content that is posted without PERMISSION and CREDIT to the source ex: Theburghbaby.com - YOU ARE IN THE WRONG
@Brickhouse Why should she have to take her time to watermark images when stealing the images is a violation of the law on every one of these sites terms of service.
I haven't posted any photos of consequence lately, but I'm gearing up (literally - look out B&H!) for a career move and I'm seriously considering paying for a service like digimark. They actually notify you when your photos are used so at least you can find them easier. It seems unfair to have to go to the expense, but some people really suck and the Internet has made it easier for them to do so.
I'm kind of an a$$hole when I see blogs that post pics without attribution, especially if I know the author doesn't have the skills to produce that work. I will usually comment about photo credits and let them know (here's that a$$hole part) that while I may enjoy their content, I can't continue to visit a site that uses other people's work without permission and/or credit. It's kind of a dick move, but so is stealing and it's important to me. Helpful hint: if you do this don't subscribe to comments ;-)
I shake my head at the ignorance of some people. There is a big difference between sharing a picture of a recipe you like and giving credit for it (Hey, check out this great recipe I found at BurghBaby.com! I think we should try it because it sounds great! or Check out these neat chalk drawings from BurghBaby.com! They're really fun!) versus just taking the picture and giving no credit (Look at these cupcakes! So yummy! or Chalk drawings! Fun and creative!)
Think back to high school people. If you did a book report and wrote down word for word what someone else had already written, your teacher would have called it plagiarism and failed you. The same thing applies to photos. If you didn't take it, give credit where credit is due. That's all anyone asks.
And no, just because there's no watermark doesn't mean the picture "deserves to be stolen". I'm pretty sure my jaw hit the floor after reading that. Really? I mean, really, REALLY?
I'm sorry you and so many other bloggers have to deal with this. It's sad, it's unfair, and it's frustrating.
Are you kidding me with the person who told you they wouldn't take your picture down? What must it be like to be that person? To think if you found something on the internet it's yours and that if someone politely asks you to remove it you should be an asshole? I cannot. I really just cannot. I would very much like to go to their house and take their car. And when they tell me to give it back say, I found it on the street, that's public property, therefore, now it's mine.
Gah. I have rage.
I'm sharing this blog post, by the way. In via a direct link to here. Because it's awesome and there are several on my FB feed who need to read it. Because you're awesome.
Oh, and the response to your response to having a picture OF YOUR DAUGHTER stolen and shared without permission? THE NERVE. Some people just need to be smacked.
I normally really enjoy your posts, and I have visited your page nearly every day for 2 years, but I have to respectfully say that this post is probably the last I'll read. I agree with the person who questioned your issue with the sharing of your stuff when you're posting it on what is essentially a social media site. I'm sure 99% of the recipes posted on allrecipes.com weren't actually born out of the poster's mind either. I want to agree with you on people taking photos of Alexis from your website, but then again, you are also posting them for the entire world to see. On the photo side, I suspect it now bothers you because you have a photography business, and someone posting a picture without giving you credit is cheating you of some free advertising.
I understand that the sharing of words/pictures/recipes without giving due credit is illegal, but I think the fact that it angers you so much is what turns me off a little. I thought the original point of this blog was to document Alexis' childhood, but lately it seems like it's less about that and more about sponsored posts (the whole #brakeformilk thing on your Facebook posts is a good example). I suspect that it's become more of a commercial endeavor for you than a documentary on your daughter's formative years, and I think that's probably why you are so angered by the sharing of your stuff. And it is certainly your right to do that...it's your blog and if you've found a way to turn something you enjoy doing into some reasonable compensation, more power to you. But for me, I don't think reading your blog is as satisfying to me as it used to be for that reason. I started reading it as a mother going through some of the same things you've gone through, but I feel like we're on different paths now. So, best of luck to you.
I hate that this happens. But. I was told (by my own lawyer friend - not a copyright attorney, though) that recipes are difficult to copyright. Change a few words in the directions to make it your own and it is. That being said, people who USE the internet (aka someone who is posting YOUR stuff) should know how to at least link back out of respect. Because if you don't respect other people's work, they're not going to respect yours. And why do mean people just suck SO BAD?!?! Photos with no discernible "author" though - that trips me up. How far back do I have to trace it before it just becomes public property (like a pinterest pin/repin/repin/etc)? I'm pretty sure I've just posted, say, a photo quote without going far enough maybe. However, if someone contacted me and said it was theirs you can be sure that I would respect them enough to do whatever they asked (remove or credit). Sorry you're dealing with jagoffs.
It looks like maybe my point wasn't entirely clear enough. I love when people share my stuff. Truly. I don't love when people copy, save, and post my stuff. It sucks in every way shape and form. You wouldn't walk into the mall, grab a shirt, and decide to put it on without paying for it. That's what taking a photo and posting it as your own content is. It's stealing, plain and simple.
But, the bigger thing is that I really hate when I see other people's content taken. Michelle from Brown Eyed Baker, for example, is someone whose work I see all over the place. I can barely manage to make and photograph one recipe per a week, so I have an immense amount of respect for how much work it must be to do it five times per week. She deserves credit for her work and she deserves to be paid for it. If I went to work and my company decided not to give me a paycheck because "anybody can do that," I'd be more than a little upset.
Really, though, this post was about how much I loathe the Facebook pages that do nothing but post stolen content and photos. The "content farmers" know better and don't care. Facebook lets them continue, despite the thousands of complaints they get per day. Then people who are just trying to enjoy a little social media get lured into spreading the stupidity for miles and miles. Nobody is winning in the whole game except for the "content farmers." They are selling the pages for thousands and thousands of dollars. It blows my mind that anyone would defend them. They essentially walk into the mall, grab that shirt, walk out without paying, and then turn around and sell it.
@The Mommy - As a lawyer who does have copyright experience, while the ingredients/listing/directions for recipes are not copyright able, it's the presentation of them that is. What people are objecting to are those recipes that someone posts on their blog/website that are then copied EXACTLY as originally posted verbatim, complete with the exact same design, layout and photos and then shared/linked/reposted on another blog/website/Facebook page with ABSOLUTEY ZERO acknowledgement.
A copyright doesn't last forever, though, so you don't have to search back to the beginning of time for photos.
"Under current Copyright Law, the copyright term for works created by individuals on or after January 1, 1978, is the life of the author plus 70 years. For "works made for hire," the copyright term is 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of its creation, whichever is earliest. The copyright term for works created before January 1, 1978, is a complicated determination and may require help from your General Counsel or the Copyright Office.
The current Copyright Law established dates at which Copyright protection for unpublished works expires and those works pass into the public domain. Unpublished works created prior to January 1, 1978, and not published, will pass into the public domain 70 years after the author's death or at the end of 2002, whichever is later. Unpublished works created prior to January 1, 1978, but which are published between then and the end of 2002, will pass into the public domain 70 years after the author's death or at the end of 2047, whichever is later.
Additionally, all works published before 1923 are now in the public domain." See, www.cendi.com
So the short, general answer to how far back you should search to find the author/creator of works in the public domain? 1924
Meaning, even though it's on the Internet, if it a picture of something that was taken after 1923 and the photographer didn't die more than 70 years ago (1943 for the mathematically challenged), then please presume that even though it's "public" it's not in the public domain.
@Ex Pat - So it's the photo or the quote that I should credit? Some people take a famous quote and put it over their photo (like Eleanor Roosevelt and her "hot water" quote). My other problem is that if someone posts it on their site and DOESN'T credit it and I assume it's theirs and credit them (instead of the original) am I the one breaking the law or would it be them? It does get complicated around the internet so most times I don't use photos from other people (although I did just put in a quote/photo about running after Boston and now I'm worried I didn't do it right...crap).
Never even thought about it and if I have shared your recipes by likeing or saving to my timeline I am so sorry and will stop immediately. I would never take a receipe or phot without permission but I might like one not knowing that it had been stolen.
Fair use act permits us to re-post images etc for the purpose of comment, reporting, teaching, etc. So facebook, pinterest and blogging has not made a bunch of criminals out of us. It's only illegal if someone is making a profit off of your work and you can only sue someone if you registered your item for copyright. If you don't want people to share your stuff.. then keep it to yourself or put a disclaimer up on your page (or the suggestions made by others on this page).
Uh, fair use does not mean what you think it means. Please actually go and pull the actual law, annotations and court decisions and then you will find out that it is not as simple as you posting something for the "purpose of comment, reporting, teaching, etc". Fair use does allow "reuse", but also requires ATTRIBUTION!!!
In addition, an author/creator DOES NOT HAVE TO REGISTER THE WORK FOR IT TO HAVE COPYRIGHT PROTECTION!!! While the author/creator can only receive damages for illegal use of their work if the work has a registered copyright in many cases, that is not true in all cases. The person using another's work w/o permission or attribution doesn't have to make a dime from the illegal use.
Also, there's no such thing as the "Fair Use Act". There is a "Fair Use Doctrine". Doctrines and acts are not the same thing.
Acts are laws that exist through the passage - or enACTment - of bills by a legislative body (I.e., Congress). They are also known as statutes. [Quick breakdown of laws in order of hierarchy: constitutional, statutory, regulatory. Case law is also a carrot that is the result of a court's interpretation of one of the other three.]
A doctrine is, according to y dog-eared law school copy of Black's Law Dictionary, "A legal rule, tenet, theory, or principle. A political policy." (There I go again, citing [otherwise known as ATTRIBUTING] the source for my information.). It is based on leal precedent as determine by case law and other interpretive decisions. It lays out the rules, so to speak, set forth in the law.
This ends today's installment of "Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense when you break the law."
Got the info from legal pages at a university, law office and from an on-line legal encyclopedia. I was looking for the facts to support this post (instead of simply accepting the words of a blogger/commentators) but found instead the protection for those who do share photos and such on FB/Pintrest. Of course I looked it up. I also did NOT argue that registration is necessary for copyright. I get that. I said you could not sue unless the item is registered (also from legal pages).
I always cite. I just thought I'd remind you all of the other protections out there for those who are not trying to profit off of other peoples' cool stuff and are simply re-posting. Clearly it is wrong to claim credit for someone else's work, but (according to the law) you need to be registered in order to sue...
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), an action for infringement of the copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408(f) before the commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1 month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action instituted under section 411©, no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for —
(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.
reposted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412 It's best to offer a citation for your proof. Where is your proof in the law that you can sue someone for reposting to FB or pinterest without registration?
Some fun reading:
http://www.blogher.com/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-using-photos-your-blog-my-story
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2013/04/23/facebooks-i-fcking-love-science-does-not-fcking-love-artists/
http://about.pinterest.com/copyright/
http://iambaker.net/what-every-facebook-user-needs-to-know/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57526539-93/facebook-shutters-the-cool-hunter-for-copyright-issues/
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1935920/facebook-users-unknowingly-breaking-copyright-laws
I could go on and on and on ...
Really wish I would have known I could have skipped law school, the stress of the bar exam, all those years of continuing legal education, annual licensing and more, including assisting on several copyright infringement cases and even teaching some intellectual property seminars. I could have looked some things up in a law library, Internet search engine and developed a firm grasp and understanding of the law. Would have save me a ton of money and time.
The law is more than simply regurgitation words on paper/webpage. It's cases and cases of precedent decided by the courts, also known as stare (pronounced starry) decisis, and based on what they've determined the words to mean, not what a regular person thinks it means. It's a living, breathing construct, that, like any field, can only be understood after years of study and practice.
I honestly don't get why people find this so hard to understand. It seems pretty simple to me - if your motivation is truly to share something (whether it is a great recipe, an interesting post, a cool photo), then you do just that - share it - post a link. I do it all the time. If you instead cut/paste the content & present it without credit or permission, then one can only assume your motivation was to take credit for work that is not your own. Because sharing would be accomplished a lot more quickly & easily by the latter.
fascinating that certain individuals can be so rude.
i'm also now even more convinced that fucking facebook is the devil.