Are photos taken of TV screens copyrighted?

[skieur]

Well, I have not found the exact part of the American copyright act which is very long, but summaries on the net related to education specify 10% as a substantial part and in video it is 10% or 3 minutes which ever is less.

It should be noted also that ephotozine, washingtonpost.com, and PC World among others have articles on the net on How to take photos from the tv screen. ephotozine even had a celebrity as the sample screen shot. I would seriously doubt that these kinds of articles would be this common if it were illegal.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

It should be noted also that ephotozine, washingtonpost.com, and PC World among others have articles on the net on How to take photos from the tv screen. ephotozine even had a celebrity as the sample screen shot. I would seriously doubt that these kinds of articles would be this common if it were illegal.

You are assuming that they are doing it without permission, which I doubt very much.

It is not hard for well known entities such as the Washington Post and others to ask for, and get written permission in a very short time, this is likely what happens all the time moreso than them openly breaking copyright laws.

As far as "educational purposes"... I still think that this requires permission. A legitimate educational institution will ask for permission to use any copywrwitten information and will likely get permission faster than someone that wants to do it for promotion or profit. This is just my opinion, not known fact.

I think that if one is in doubt, just call a legal expert in this area and get a definite answer. We're mostly hobbyists and professionals here... very few are legal experts.

 

[skieur]

You are assuming that they are doing it without permission, which I doubt very much.

It is not hard for well known entities such as the Washington Post and others to ask for, and get written permission in a very short time, this is likely what happens all the time moreso than them openly breaking copyright laws. .

Washington Post could certainly NOT get permission to demonstrate how copyright laws could be broken by showing people how to take photos of broadcasts, UNLESS no copyright laws are being broken.

As far as "educational purposes"... I still think that this requires permission. A legitimate educational institution will ask for permission to use any copywrwitten information and will likely get permission faster than someone that wants to do it for promotion or profit. This is just my opinion, not known fact..

As someone who has advised schools in that area, it does not requre permission in either Canada or the United States and they won't get it expeditiously either. As a matter of fact, they may be charged for using material that they have the rights to use under the law without permission.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

Skieur, unless you have a shingle from a US aw school somewhere and are not telling us, I would still strongly advise people not to blindly follow such advice from an "unknown" on the internet. Whether you recommended something or not doesn't make it legal or illegal.

Get it straight from a local lawyer that knows for sure, people.

 

[SpeedTrap]

It would also be advisable to look into laws that cover fair use.
If you are writing an article, and you are using the photo as a refrence material you can probably use it on terms of fair use.

 

[skieur]

Skieur, unless you have a shingle from a US aw school somewhere and are not telling us, I would still strongly advise people not to blindly follow such advice from an "unknown" on the internet. Whether you recommended something or not doesn't make it legal or illegal.

Get it straight from a local lawyer that knows for sure, people.

I am not recommending any particular action. I indicated what the copyright act says and video is different from published works. The decision that you talked about related to former Gerald Ford and Harper Publications was interesting. My impression is that Harper Publications made an incorrect legal move in using fair use as a defense instead of countering that there was no prima facie case for prosecution because it involved less than a substantial part and therefore no violation took place. The difference is that an argument over no case for prosecution would relate to substantial part only, whereas the argument over fair use brought in other factors including commercial use etc. which acted against the defendants. Choosing a local lawyer does not always help unless he is an expert.

I indicated that 1 still frame was less than 3 minutes and less than 10% of a work and there is no indication at the moment that such action violates copyright or that any permission is required to take such a photo. As in photos taken in a public place, use of such a photo may be limited, depending on the nature of the individual photo and the manner of its use.

You implied that lawsuits are common whether warranted or not. I agree but also pointed out that they cost money to prosecute and will not be taken on by lawyers on a contingency basis unless they are sure they are going to win. This certainly doe not fall into that category.

So, copyright situations are like navigating through a minefield. Whatever you decide to do, might be right or wrong, win or lose, including how carefully you chose a lawyer. Know the law and ask the right, appropriate questions. that is my recommendation.

skieur

 

[gsgary]

If it is in a public place and in veiw of the public isn't it fair game ?

 

[skieur]

If it is in a public place and in veiw of the public isn't it fair game ?

In general terms, yes, it is fair game for taking pictures. Use of such a photo for advertising purposes however, requires a model release. The nature of the shot could invoke the application of other laws such as defammation for example and lead to a lawsuit if the background of the shot or placement of the photo in a group or display implied or suggested something negative about the person who was the subject of the photo.
Another approach which led to a lawsuit was the shot of a property that a realtor used on his web site. He had a right to take the picture, but putting it on his web site suggested it was FOR SALE and listed or that he had sold the house, all of which were untrue. The owner sued because he was being harassed by realtors and clients wanting to buy his house.

skieur

 

[gsgary]

In general terms, yes, it is fair game for taking pictures. Use of such a photo for advertising purposes however, requires a model release. The nature of the shot could invoke the application of other laws such as defammation for example and lead to a lawsuit if the background of the shot or placement of the photo in a group or display implied or suggested something negative about the person who was the subject of the photo.
Another approach which led to a lawsuit was the shot of a property that a realtor used on his web site. He had a right to take the picture, but putting it on his web site suggested it was FOR SALE and listed or that he had sold the house, all of which were untrue. The owner sued because he was being harassed by realtors and clients wanting to buy his house.

skieur

I'm sure it could be used for editorial in the UK

 

[skieur]

I'm sure it could be used for editorial in the UK

Editorial use is valid in Canada, US, UK and in most western countries.

skieur

 

[abraxas]

I took photos yesterday of a city event, and want to use them with an article I'm writing. Can I do this without breaking copyright laws? I would appreciate an answer from anyone ASAP. Thanks loads. (pun intended. )

You're kidding right?

Sounds sloppy. Too tired to go snap some shots yourself? What kind of publication would run something like that? I'm thinking that if it's for your junior high newsletter, homework, or something like that, you shouldn't have a problem. Just tell them, some guy on the internet said it was okie-dokie.

You legal eagles are cracking me up.

& congrats on your second post!

 

[ussearch]

Are the screens very visible? Can you make out what is on them or is it sort of in the background. If the screenshot is not identifiable, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Joves]

If it is in a public place and in veiw of the public isn't it fair game ?

Technically yes it is. If she is speaking of a news article then she can use it. Especially if it was a public event. Now if she stepped into say private property and, shot things in that area, she needs permission to publish it. City events are open to media and, thefore open to being published.

 

[skieur]

Now if she stepped into say private property and, shot things in that area, she needs permission to publish it. .

Uh,NOOO! Private property is totally irrelevant. Anyone can publish an editorial photo taken on private property in Canada, US, Britain, or several other countries.

skieur