Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Photographers Want Their Cut From Google's Ebooks

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the search-for-images dept.

Google 240

It's not just the writers anymore: carluva writes "The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and several other visual artist groups are suing Google over its digitization of of millions of books, claiming copyright infringement related to images within the books. The photographers initially wanted to be included in the authors' and publishers' class action suit, but filed their own suit after that request was denied. Google and others assert that images are only included in the digital copies when permission has been obtained from the copyright holder."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmmm (3, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767722)

I wonder how this will develop.

Re:Hmmmm (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767844)

I wonder how this will develop.


Re:Hmmmm (4, Funny)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767978)

I think this one is clearly black and white.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768066)

Especially on a Kindle.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768102)

nah, that's a grey area.

Re:Hmmmm (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768230)

You guys are so negative.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768428)

A nice vignette is worth 1k words. How much that is in cash is unclear.

Re:Hmmmm (0, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768478)

Bad pun is bad.

But I am sure some arrangement will come of it. But personally, I think there should be a far different class and set of rules for photography and photographers. They are out of control and their expectations are unreasonable. Photography is NOT hard. I know people can go on and on about skill and knowledge and blah blah blah. It's taking pictures. There's just not as much work involved as there is with ANY other type of "creative work." My wife is no professional photographer. She has a background in publishing and design, so perhaps that does better enable her "eye" as it were, but the real secret as far as I'm concerned is her Canon Rebel camera. Where she used to use lesser cameras, pictures taken with her Canon are quite often very dramatic and interesting. Same person. Different camera. Here's what I find even more interesting. We have been to several weddings and she took pictures at all of them. Some of them had professional wedding photographers there. Her pictures were quite often better than these professionals who actually had even more expensive cameras to the point where it actually made the customers angry asking "what did I pay all this money for?!"

I hate photographers and their over-blown, baseless egos. They capture events... sometimes expressly for you, then they hold each print for ransom and get very huffy about your wanting to use pictures of yourself in your own way for your own use. Worse still, these photography guilds and the like have managed to harm consumers who might actually take good pictures by themselves. How? Simple. Take some good quality pictures to be printed somewhere. If they even suspect they are professional images, they will refuse to print them out of fear of being sued. If I recall, there was even a story or two about this very topic here on Slashdot some 5 or 6 years ago. It's nonsense and should be reigned in.

I have to say, if I ever run into that problem in the future myself, I'll probably sue the photographer's guild or whatever has caused this fear to harm the consumer. It has to be stopped. (That goodness I live in a country where you can sue for just about anything... right or wrong.)

Re:Hmmmm (3, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768538)

Where she used to use lesser cameras, pictures taken with her Canon are quite often very dramatic and interesting.

People who use better tools end up with better end results with the same skill set? Shocking.

Re:Hmmmm (0, Flamebait)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768648)

No but that is part of my point. How can someone justify a desire to get paid ridiculously when all they did was buy a new camera? Sure "it's an investment" but it's not what I would consider to be a creative effort as their skill hasn't been the influence so much as the equipment.

Most of us agree already that intellectual property goes too far. When it comes to things like movies and music and books, there is at least some real creativity. Photography? Not so much. (Sure, I took great pictures of my son for his graduation out doors and got really good results thanks to my use of cardboard, white school glue and aluminum foil... I used it to decrease the harsh shadows from the strong over-head sunlight. Good technique? Yes Good results? Yes! Creative? No.)

Wedding photographers, burn in hell!

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768958)

You're saying that knowing how to properly use tools in a creative endeavor is not a creative skill. You're pretty wrong. The technical part of a creative process is just as important as the... "inspirational" part.

You're essentially saying that knowing the proper brush to use for a work is irrelevant when discussing the skill level of a novice vs expert painter. On the contrary, it's that sort of skill in selecting your tools that allows the resulting work to look more refined.

Yes, there are artists who can create masterpieces with very rudimentary tools. Most creative folks are not quite that masochistic, however.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768656)

Self-service print kiosk.

For larger prints, use one of the various mail order places - email / upload the images for them to process. Simple and likely cheaper than a b&m place.


Re:Hmmmm (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769096)

I've always believed that photographers outright sold their work to authors and/or the publishers. Quite likely that isn't the case with all photographers. Magazines come readily to mind as an exception. Authors who sold works to old pulp fiction magazines often retained the rights to their works, and had those works published again, in other forms, years later.

But, for the most part, I suspect that photos and images contained in old physical tree books were actually bought and paid for, and the photographer retains no rights to the images.

Whatever - I foresee another huge silly mess in the courts. Yet another group of "intellectual property" owners wants to assert rights that have never existed before.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768994)

I wonder how this will develop.

Meh, they're just after the exposure.

Photograpers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767738)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

  • Linus Torvalds [] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
  • Richard M. Stallman [] , spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
  • Alan Cox [] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [] , which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [] on leftist commie propaganda site as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [] slut [] !

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [] . To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware [] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual [] practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake [] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals [] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, [] an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis [] , glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual [] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual [] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

And Red Hat [] is secret homo [] slang for the tip of a penis [] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other [] automatically.

The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously/anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherent gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [] users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

Even the title 'Slashdot [] ' originally referred to a homosexual [] practice. Slashdot [] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, [] .

The editors of Slashdot [] also have homosexual [] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [] . (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis [] discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot [] runs on Apache!

The Apache [] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual [] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS [] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'


What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [] -calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [] child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus [] , Slashdot

Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina [] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator [] .

ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [] .

Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h [] , Slashdot

Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 [] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT [] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [] . Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man [] . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee [] , Slashdot

Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl [] (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

One scary thing about Perl [] is that it contains hidden homosexual [] messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual [] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

And PHP [] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase [] , Slashdot

Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual [] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

*sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [] 's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [] . Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman [] .

Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

What the fuck?

I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [] tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well bugger me!

ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Fuck right off!

IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD [] , which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain [] . You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [] (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted [] cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat [] , but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual [] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO [] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

And after that, the models will want their cut (5, Informative)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767776)

The complexity is that a modern book can have a large number of owners, who may have come together and agreed to publish a given book, or even a given edition of the book. But republication, translation, adaption for the stage, movies, song lyrics, etc., all need to be negotiated separately. It gets even crazier with video, since then you have musician rights, composer rights, etc.

I think Lessig gave us one of the best reads on this problem a couple of months ago: []

Re:And after that, the models will want their cut (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767812)

"The complexity is that a modern book can have a large number of owners, who may have come together and agreed to publish a given book, or even a given edition of the book..."

Such that books are even offered incompletely. I purchased an online version of a classical art textbook to save money. I'm about a third of the way through the book and I've already seen 4 or 5 "This image removed due to copyright restrictions" in a fucking 180-day subscription to a classical art textbook for which I paid seventy bucks(in before idiot/sucker, I needed the commentary). Omitted were photos of paintings and sculptures that any tourist could frame and snap. For those interested, the book is Gardner's Art Through the Ages as purchased through coursesmart []

Fortunately, The Pirate Bay offers a wide variety of top-notch textbooks at low, low prices. The losers, of course, are the people who pay for the content.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:And after that, the models will want their cut (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768336)

I don't see what the problem is unless you want to profit from slicing and dicing somebody else's work.

Re:And after that, the models will want their cut (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768866)

unless you want to profit from slicing and dicing somebody else's work.

sounds like most every job. Photographers/miners/carpenters takes a piece of something nature created, and cuts it up. Musicians take the same instruments and notes compilations of others, programmers build upon what others did... Google pays the artists for any artwork they claim, they just don't want to negotiate with every single photographer, so they set a rate higher than what 99% get currently, and give them the option to take it or leave it.
I would prefer google to sell e-books afford-ably and artists get their cut, than to have a greedy lawyer hold everything up because the middle men don't want to loose control, and convince a few artists to allow them.

Re:And after that, the models will want their cut (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769024)

Well, I'll admit that it's difficult to get in touch with nature and the inventor of musical notes is difficult to contact too.

Re:And after that, the models will want their cut (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768918)

Are you suggesting that I ought not to be allowed to, say, slice and dice Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet,' changing the script and setting as I see fit, adding new elements, and staging a performance for profit? I'm not Shakespeare, after all, and I guarantee you that Shakespeare never gave me permission to do so.

Re:And after that, the models will want their cut (2, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769042)

I guarantee you that Shakespeare never copyrighted his work, so I don't see how your example applies to this discussion.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767778)

that was so bad I had to reply.

and in a follow-on report ... (4, Insightful)

nblender (741424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767802)

The American Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Association has announced they intend to claim royalties for scans of books printed on paper produced by members of APPMA!

Re:and in a follow-on report ... (1)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768024)

Let's not forget the typesetters that created the fonts. And the trees, that so graciously provided their pulp.

Me too (2, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767814)

I think this is just becomeing a suing opportunity. Anyone that has anything to do with Google sues them because they have so much money. Hell, Google has been sued for linking to sites not using robots.txt or having thumbnails or images or.... the list goes on.

People are greedy and Google has money. Of course everyone sues it whether or not it is doing no evil.

Re:Me too (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767988)

If Google wants to assert copyrights to the books they scan so they will have to negotiate with the actual copyright holders to all contents of the book they scan. Boohoo.

Re:Me too (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768026)

As a photographer, my clients have the option for a complete copyright buyout of the images they commission me to photograph. Often times they don't, but some do at a much higher rate, and they can do whatever they want for unlimited time. Those that don't purchase all the copyrights, license the images for a limited amount of time for a specific medium type and size (print and/or online ad, pamphlets, billboards).

Personally, Google doesn't affect me because I started my photography business relatively recent. The aforementioned a la carte fees were common in the film era as it explained to the client what they were getting. I recoup those costs in "creative" or "photography" fees, but that in itself doesn't sound too tangible to clients, and it's the same reason lawyers charge by the minute they talk on the phone, or words they type when writing a letter (or just by per completed letter, depending on lawyer). But it works somewhat if I can convince them to pay me by the quality of work instead of volume (1 image delivered).

I think Google just further erodes an outdated business model of charging by medium. In the digital age, especially when dSLR can make anyone a "pro" photographer instantly, photographers should focus on producing quality work and charging accordingly, instead of high volume stock-quality photography and trying to license it by the medium, size, and region.

Re:Me too (5, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768028)

Why I agree this is probably a huge case of opportunism, The fact remains google are evil bastards in how they are handling this and really they deserve what they get. An system that can take your property and requires you to "opt out" rather than opt in deserves to have as many law suits thrown at it as humanly possible.

Re:Me too (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768332)

There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energise the demolition beams.

Re:Me too (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768550)

More and more people will start to see that Google is not the savior of the world. It is just a company with shareholders. And whatever it goals are, it will do anything to achieve that goal, including changing the laws in their advantage if needed.

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768556)

The fact remains google are evil bastards in how they are handling this and really they deserve what they get.

I'm inclined to disagree.

Google is offering a service that will benefit a lot of us, and as that service will hurt some of us, they are offering to pay those whose business is harmed by it. They aren't quibbling over paying anyone, they are just trying to find a blanket way to offer payment to those who deserve it. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do this other than thru class action lawsuits/settlement agreements.

Re:Me too (1, Flamebait)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768762)

They aren't quibbling over paying anyone, they are just trying to find a blanket way to offer payment to those who deserve it

No they aren't. They are trying not to pay anyone. They committed large-scale commercial copyright infringement. Then, in response to a lawsuit, they tried to cut a deal. If Google had been held to the same standards as individuals, they would have had to pay $7,500 to $150,000 per book. Those are the statutory penalties in the USA. For the number of books they've made available, the statutory fines could have bankrupted the company.

If Google had really been acting in a non-evil way, they'd have pushed for the law to be changed to require compulsory licensing for out-of-print works and tried to reach an agreement with the publishers before hand for in-print works. Instead, they used a legal loophole to try to get a special exemption for them (but no one else) retroactively.

Re:Me too (4, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768980)

That comment is so full of bullshit, I'm not even certain where to start.

Wait, I know, lets start at the start:

  • What did Google actually do originally
    • Google went to select libraries and asked their permission to scan in the works that the libraries had access to.
    • Google intended to make the works which were in the public domain available online for free
    • Google intended to make the works which were still covered under copyright search-able, just as a website is, and include them in Google's index.
  • What has Google already made available online
    • The only items you can currently view in full on Google's site are the books they have PERMISSION to display, either from the copyrights holder or by virtue of the book being in the public domain
    • Books Google does not have permission to display in full are in some cases search-able (depending on whether the copyright holder has told Google block the book or not

What is evil about what they were originally working on? Where is the blatant disregard for copyright that you are stumping on about? The fact that the GBS greatly expands their plans and what they are doing is not because that is what they were originally planning, it's because that's what the lawyers were able to AGREE upon when they sat down at the table!

Re:Me too (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768996)

No they aren't. They are trying not to pay anyone. They committed large-scale commercial copyright infringement. Then, in response to a lawsuit, they tried to cut a deal.

As a previous manager once had in his .sig: it's often easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

A lot of civil rights have been advanced by "doing" instead of "asking" and then demanding that society respond. Now, this isn't on the same civil-rights level as a black woman sitting at the front of a bus, but it's still civil rights nonetheless. Google may be less altruistic than Ms Parks, but it's still a discussion that needed opening.

Re:Me too (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768624)

A) It doesn't take ANY PROPERTY at all. The fact that you can't recognize that throws some serious doubt that you even know what copyright is.

B) It's just a pointer to data.

C) It brings more revenue to the holder.

D) Providing information to the masses is not any more evil then a library or fair use.

E) What you, and a lot of other people, don'y realize is that by design the internet shares information. That is the default behavior. That is why it's opt out.

It;s like putting a sign on a bulletin board and then whining that other people can read it.

It's not Google, its the fucking way the internet works.


What property? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768814)

> An system that can take your property and requires you to "opt out" rather than opt in deserves to have as many law suits thrown at it as humanly possible.

Well, I don't believe that IP is property, so I'll have to disagree with you there. There's no way to drag books online (which is where they need to be to be useful) except to do this wholesale, and I'm sorry, but I don't care about the estates of long-dead artists who are out to get another buck or two. Hell, they'd make money if only they signed on to this, but the lawyers wouldn't make as much by not suing, so go figure.

Anyhow, any book that doesn't get digitized will fall into much-deserved obscurity soon enough. I wish they'd make sane copyright laws so that anyone (not just Google) could do this, but that's not going to happen any time soon, so I guess I'll disagree with you and say that I'm glad we're finally getting a digital library.

If authors want to stand in the way of progress, they shouldn't complain about getting run over by it. Nobody cries for the buggy whip makers.

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768908)

So are photographers. They take photos, quite possibly without the subjects permission and then claim copyright over them. I.e. they expect to make money from a picture of you, your family, or you dog doing something unusual, for the rest of their lives, plus a number of decades, and to be able to pass this income stream onto grand children and probably beyond.

Actually, I don't mind when they create the composition, rather than opportunistic snapshots or paparazzi shit, and especially coming into schools to take photos of my kids even though I never signed any consent forms.

Re:Me too (2, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769010)

As much as I initially hated their methods, I can't say I'm completely against it now, having used it a bit.

It's a small glimpse of what a sane copyright policy might allow. Yes, it's a fucked up walled garden, but even the equivalent of a Disney park ride take on what reasonable copyright policy might look like is exciting. It's possible it's the only time I'll see something like that in my lifetime, if it gets shut down and the idea doesn't spread.

Re:Me too (5, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768060)

I don't see how it is so cut and dried. If these artists have legitimate copyrights and Google is presenting the image in results, it certainly could be argued that is a form of republishing. Whether you agree or not, the issue is not exactly just 'me too.' While there may be an element of that TFA is pretty light on details as to what the plaintiffs are claiming represents unauthorized republishing of their work.

Re:Me too (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768382)

The people who wrote the books or took the photographs had nothing to do with Google until Google tried to rip them off. It's annoying how people defend Google's version of "manifest destiny".

Re:Me too (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768932)

As someone who is still trying his Android Market money from Google, I'd say people sue Google because it's just as evil as other megacorps, especially those two with the half rotten apples or broken chairs

slightly off topic I know. Just got that literally 2mn ago from Google. My question (asked a year ago) was how can I get my money if I'm not in the USA. Emphasis mine.

Hello Sammy, Thanks for writing in. Apologies for the delayed response. If you wish the change the locale of your Google Checkout account, you will need to create a new account. In order to do this, you would also need to pay to register a new Android Developer account. After doing so, our team may be able to move your applications over into that new account that you plan on linking with a France Checkout account. If we can assist you further, please let us know. Regards, The Android Market Team

And so it goes.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767868)

And the devaluing of information continues....

I understand old contracts wouldn't compensate for what the internet is capable of, but from this point forward, it is not economically sound to think any creative work you produce, can be kept away from the information machine. Try your best in the court system, but that is just a money pit, and the internet is an information vaccum. Get used to it.

If it can be digitized, it will belong to the internet ages. That is all.

Re:And so it goes.... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767966)

And whoever digitized it without the right to do so, or forwarded copies without the right to do so, will pay. That is the law.

Re:And so it goes.... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768346)

"Will" is such a strong word.. the law means diddly squat unless you can enforce it effectively.

Re:And so it goes.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768786)

Fuck "the law".

"The law" needs to be updated to reflect the modern age. Obsolete laws need to be repealed, and replaced with laws that reflect the mores of society.

Re:And so it goes.... (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768490)

That's OK. We don't need movies like Star Wars or Avatar in the future, Youtube production values should be enough for anyone.

Next up (0, Troll)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767930)

The typographers are gonna want a cut too.

So will the company that made the font the book was printed with.

So will the company that manufactured the paper the book was scanned from.

So will the company that manufactured the scanner.

The company that manufactured the USB cable the scanner was plugged in with would like a cut too.

And the company that manufactured the USB port on the computer.

The musicians are gonna want a cut when Google scans a music book.

The coders are gonna want a cut when Google scans a programming book.

When a book contains maps, the cartographers and explorers will want a cut also.

The author of the typesetting software's gonna want a cut too.

By the time this is all done, it's going to cost Google more to make a book available, than the price people will be able to pay to see it.

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768232)

I would argue that you would need to learn the difference between companies selling a *product* for end-use (paper stock, USB hardware, scanner, pens) vs. *content* creators (writers, photographers, typographers, musicians, etc).

The latter can sell or license copyrights, but it's usually the latter. Make no mistake, Google is a for-profit company and not an NGO, educational, religious, or charity organization. Photographers typically get a cut for image published outside those aforementioned realms; in it, fair-use is invoked which is fine, but when they use it as a fund-raiser or PR tool, we charge them appropriately at a lower fee.

Stupid laws (0, Flamebait)

supradave (623574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767996)

Copyright that last forever is the problem here.

Current U.S. copyright for an individual is life plus 70 years and for a corporation 95 years. Since both of those are longer then the U.S. life expectancy, copyright is now infinite. I guess Jack Valenti got his wish.

Re:Stupid laws (2, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768210)

No, the problem is that Google thinks it can just violate the copyrights of people who have contributed to the books they scanned. And even more ridiculous is they think they can set up an opt-out system in order to negate these copyrights.

Imagine the uproar if a GPLed program had its codebase relicensed and did so without the consent of all the copyright holders. Then after getting in trouble, they still continued with the relicensing effort and the only way you could assert your rights was through their opt-out system that any number of copyright holders may not even know about. Do you not see the problem with that?

How about we just expire those rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768350)

Let's set that expiration for, oh, three years. That oughtta fix the whole problem right there. Bang! No worries.

Re:Stupid laws (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768680)

I suspect /. is being Astroturfed today.

Do you even know how the internet works?
Here is what a I wrote to another twit. []

"Imagine the uproar if a GPLed program had its codebase relicensed and did so without the consent of all the copyright holders
If that was remotely what was happening, you would nearly have a point.

Photographs (5, Interesting)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768010)

I'm a newspaper photographer. I'll offer this perspective on Google's respect for copyright:

Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories. This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use. This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.

Now, it's common in the news business that publishers use breaking news photos without permission, because they need to publish them quickly. But they ALWAYS pay afterwards, market rate, without question. This side of the business works on trust.

When I sent Google a bill, their first reaction was exactly what it should be: They would pay the market rate. They rang up to get my banking details for fund transfer, and that should have been the end of the matter.

Then they wrote to me saying that they wouldn't pay. They even denied publishing the images, which was clearly untrue. They told me that to take the matter further I would need to file a DMCA complaint -- and in doing so I must give Google permission to publish the DMCA complaint online. I believe this is outrageous! I only sell my pictures to UK publishers, yet here was a US company publishing my work without permission, and telling me that I would need to pursue them through the US legal system!

This gives me a fairly clear view of Google's attitude to other people's copyright. It seems that Google will take what they want, publish it however they want, profit, and then to hell with the people who originally produced the material in question.

Re:Photographs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768088)

I think that's the reason Google left China. There were piles of lawsuits in Chinese legal systems filed against Google by Chinese authors, Google decided it was easier to quit by claiming Chinese censorship

Re:Photographs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768190)

Why is it outrageous that a you need to go through the US legal system to dispute a financial problem with a US based company?

Re:Photographs (0, Flamebait)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768966)

It is outrageous. He should sue the London office instead:

Google London
Google UK Ltd
Belgrave House
76 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9TQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)20-7031-3000
Fax: +44 (0)20-7031-3001

Re:Photographs (3, Informative)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768238)

Google likely believes use of your images falls under "fair use" in the same manner as those shown on Google Images, and hence feels no obligation to pay.

I assume the images in question were shown as smallish (ie. 80x80) thumbnails?

You might be able to strongly encourage Google to pay, if you can document them using the images out of context ... but I presume the images all linked to the related news items that contained the full size images. And thus, to reiterate, likely why Google feels no obligation to pay.


Re:Photographs (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768574)

"Google likely believes use of your images falls under "fair use" in the same manner as those shown on Google Images, and hence feels no obligation to pay."

Which is like having your neighbor say it was OK to use your pool without your permission because they did the same thing to the guy down the street.

Re:Photographs (3, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768752)

Which is like having your neighbor say it was OK to use your pool without your permission because they did the same thing to the guy down the street.

No, it's more like if your house is plainly visible from the sidewalk, with no tall hedges, or anything else obstructing the view, and your neighbor stands on the sidewalk and looks at it. The house may be your property, but he is perfectly within his rights to look at it, if you haven't concealed it in some fashion.

Remember: Copyright is defined by statute, and is limited; it does not cover absolutely anything regarding a work. An author's rights in his work stop at the border of fair use (among other things). Fairly using a work simply does not, and cannot infringe, by definition.

Of course, I'm not surprised to see the sort of rent-seeking behavior that you seem to condone. We just have to stand firm against those who would disparage fair use (which, because fair use is meant to promote public policy with regard to copyright, is really a disparagement of copyright as a whole).

You mean a Pool isn't the same as copyright? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768856)

Whoosh. The point is that Google (if it used the quoted argument) would be trying to establish a legal precedent for their behavior based on their own similar questionable behavior in the past. Such an argument is both circular and inefficacious.

Re:Photographs (5, Interesting)

nblender (741424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768268)

So if I understand you correctly, you want google to pay 'market rate' for an 80x80 portion of a picture that you took with your EOS 5D-II? How small a part of your image does google have to use in order to qualify for "fair use"?

Re:Photographs (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768512)

The size of the image does not matter. Resizing does not matter. Have you seen tv shows where they mask paintings on the wall? They do this because otherwise they might be liable for copyright infringement. The fact that that image is much smaller then in real life does not take away the copyright that is on it.

I completely am against the copyright system how it is now, but that does not mean that Google should be able to do whatever it likes.

Re:Photographs (4, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768704)

Actually no, they do it because they either have a marketing agreement with opposing vendors who didn't want free advertising to be given to the competition or because the image was TRADEMARKED and they were worried the use of it in their show might bring legal trouble on that front.

Unless they have an incompetent legal department, they are never doing it because they fear they are infringing copyrights, as it'd be a 100% slam dunk when they showed up for court and said "Your honor, fair use."

Re:Photographs (1, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768602)

I never realized that fair use was based on pixel count. I can't believe how silly these pro-Google comments are becoming.

Re:Photographs (1, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768744)

Almost as silly as your Google-bashing has become.

No, not really.

You are still miles ahead of them. Keep it up, everyone loves a clown.

Re:Photographs (1)

kharchenko (303729) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768316)

It could be that your case was exceptional, but from what I've seen Google News only shows tiny thumbnails of images that are published on the newspaper's website. If you click on the thumbnail to view the image, it takes you to the source - a site of the publisher has decided to use this particular photo.

I don't see a difference between that and showing the excerpt of the article's text under each heading, or analogously the excerpt of the webpage cache in the normal search results.

Re:Photographs (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768584)

The difference is that they have to obtain permission to present that picture in a different format due to transformation.

It's the reason Deviant Art's EULA has you give them non-exclusive permission to transform/use your works, so they can generate thumbnails.

Now, I'm sure that Google won't agree with this thought process, but there's definitely a legal argument to be made.

Re:Photographs (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768798)

No, they don't. It's been established fairly solidly in case law that thumbnails are fair use when used as results for search criteria.

Deviant Art's EULA is more likely to cover the fact that they actually sell prints of works you upload to them if you allow them to.

Re:Photographs (4, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768852)

And indeed, that argument was made in Kelly v. Arriba Soft, back in 2002. The court in that case decided that image thumbnails produced as search results were a fair use.

The use was commercial, which counted against defendants, but transformative (instead of being pictures qua pictures, they were merely search result) which counted for. The pictures were creative works, but published, which counted against, but not so much against as it might. They copied the entire work, but this was no more than necessary for users to be able to identify the results, so it counted neither for nor against. And the use as thumbnails in search engine results didn't harm the market for the images themselves, so that counted for.

Re:Photographs (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769080)

I suppose my question would be, is going to performing a search that returns results? Does it count as a "search" if it only happens on the back end?

Re:Photographs (5, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768532)

Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories.

You mean. Google recently used some photographs of yours on Google News, as the 'thumbnail' image to represent the collected coverage of major stories, linking back to the original online newspaper which originally published your photograph.

This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use.

Who says? You do, but you're a little biased. Aren't you.

This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.

Yes, Google links thumbnails and summary information to online sources. It does the same thing on its search engine, which is also a for-profit operation. And it does this with the robots.txt (or sitemap.xml) permission of the original newspaper that published your photographs. If the original newspaper had just listed the folder in which your photograph was in, and told the googlebot not to index your photograph, then google wouldn't have used your photograph (to make a thumbnail out of it).

It seems your original beef is with the newspapers that published your photographs, not google. I think many would argue that indexing, linking to, publishing the summary information, and automatically making thumbnails, all because the original web site permits you through the robots.txt file, falls well within the purpose of 'fair use'.

Re:Photographs (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768710)

You do know that Google News is a totally automated service, right? "Google" didn't use the photo, they're not trying to steal from you. Fair use is not publishing. Moreover, tiny images are fair use, Wikipedia does it all the time. Why does it fail to surprise me that a person in the media is ignorant and doesn't check his facts?

Re:Photographs (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768772)

"and in doing so I must give Google permission to publish the DMCA complaint online"
of course. You sent someone a notice, they have every write to put it online. IF you sent one to me, I would put it online as well.

OTOH, you post makes for a nice made up story. All nice and tidy.

I wonder why an alleged photographer from the UK would pretend to know what fair use is in the US, or why they think everyone viewing the photo would owe them money.

Maybe the industry will finally become a rational industry instead of a bunch of people who think they should get paid repeatedly for the same piece of work.

Fucking leeches. YOU disagree? then tell me how much did you pay for permission to take the photos?

Re:Photographs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768934)

Andy, I believe you are based in the UK and likely you are already familiar with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 especially in the arena of fair dealing, however you may wish to look into Freedom of panorama.

Now, I have no idea what the context your image is, but if it falls under fair dealing/Panoramafreiheit you may have to pursue the issue through the US legal system simply because the USA concept of Fair Use is not quite the same as Fair Dealing.

Anonymous Non-Lawyer

Re:Photographs (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768990)

I agree with pretty much everything you've said...except this one point:

here was a US company publishing my work without permission, and telling me that I would need to pursue them through the US legal system!

Of _course_ you would need to pursue it in the US legal system! I mean, you could perhaps get it removed from results with a UK court order, but that's it. They're a US company, publishing from the US. UK courts do not have jurisdiction over things that occur on US soil. You might as well complain that the UK isn't enforcing their labor laws in Chinese factories...

seismic activity normal says usgs on cnn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768076)

that's funny no?

checking their globe; we note a normal week of activity to consist of +-200-300 reportable events. today it reports >1058 events so far this week.

in addition, other type events that used to occur every 100-200 years are now happening daily, or 'normally' as uncle sam would put it.

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, where there's no # FUDging, & in fact, a total absence of deception. the lights are coming up all over now. our only purpose here is to care for one another. anything else is temporary illusion supplied by man'kind' hoping/helping to keep our eye off the 'ball'. see you there after the big flash?

Photographers' LAWYERS want their cut from Google (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768106)

There, fixed that.

It's the digitizing that's wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768134)

Even if they don't display the pictures to anyone, they still made digital copies without permission. That's against long-standing copyright law.

what's so wrong with scanning (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768136)

I don't understand this or the earlier related dustup.

What's wrong with scanning the books? Sure, if they later publish without permission the scans or OCRs of the scans or whatever, that's worth getting worked up about. But suing over simple scanning? I don't understand.

What's so wrong with just scanning them? Doesn't the internet archive do basically the same thing? I highly doubt they pay anyone for the privilege -- instead relying on fair use.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768240)

The process of scanning the books isn't the problem. The issue is that Google did so without getting permission from many authors of the books. Digitizing someone else's copyrighted work without their permission has never been allowed under any exemption to copyright infringement.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768372)

I'm pretty sure that ripping MP3s for personal use from any source, even analog sources has been legal. If I take a book and scan/OCR it for personal use I'm pretty sure that's OK too. They'd be hard pressed to sue me for showing someone a clip of that scan or someone else hearing my MP3. Now if I start giving out copies of that book or music then I am in violation of copy-write.

but, IANAL, This is my understanding and how I live. I have mp3 rips of all my CDs and I have many OCR scans of books I have bought.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768406)

spellcheckers are fun.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768560)

If you're referring to his use of "copy-write", a spell-checker wouldn't catch that.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768606)

You'd be hard pressed to find a case where someone was sued for copying/ripping with no distribution.

But, Google isn't doing it for personal use, and that's the difference here.

If the work was actually in public domain, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we'd be over at Project Gutenberg,et al, reading it.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768678)

Addendum: "copying/ripping something they themselves already owned a legal copy of"

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768894)

I'm pretty sure that ripping MP3s for personal use from any source, even analog sources has been legal

That's actually very variable. In the UK, for example, it's technically illegal (but, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court), while in the USA it's probably legal but state copyright law may not permit it (copyright law in the USA is really fun - take a look at how moral rights vary between New York and California some time, then contrast either to any other state selected at random).

There is, however, a massive difference between ripping your CD collection to MP3s for private use and ripping your CD collection and putting it on the Internet (especially on a commercial site, generating income from adverts). The former is probably legal, and won't get you in trouble even if you live somewhere where it technically isn't. The latter has, in the USA, a statutory fine of at least $750 per work, up to $150,000 for wilful infringement (i.e. cases where you know the work is copyrighted and you don't have permission to copy it).

Remember Napster and Remember what happened to them just for facilitating individuals doing on a small scale what Google is doing on a large scale?

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768294)

Walk into a library, scan all the books, store it on your hard drive.
Walk into a video rental store, feed all the disks into your DVD drive and store it on your hard drive.

They're making copies and don't want to pay the copyright holder.

Now if they were to publish them without getting permission then that would be an even bigger deal.

They're not an educational institution or government agency so they don't get the same protections certain academic organizations get for copying material in some countries.

Re:what's so wrong with scanning (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768488)

Intent. Google isn't scanning books for archival purposes, but rather with the intent to distribute / sell many of them.

Copyright doesn't necessarily preclude copying, but it does significantly limit the conditions under which one can do so.


I'm confused (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768142)

"Google does not make available any of the visual material that might be in the books, unless the copyright holder has agreed to it", claims Google. Photographers do deserve to be compensated if their copyrighted material has been published online, but Google claims they have never done that without permission. If Google is omitting the pictures (which makes sense because they are not searchable), then they are doing the photographers a favor by publicizing their work online. If they are publishing the artwork without permission, then they certainly should pay for it.

Re:I'm confused (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768726)

This reminds me of my youth when I had long hair and my mother said I didn't have to have it cut, just shaped.

If Google scans photographs, those photographs are available to a lot of people within Google even if they aren't formally published online.

If they aren't going to publish them, they have no need to scan them. If they want to publish them, they're free to scan them after they get permission.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768788)

Google presumably owns a copy of each book it scans. Scanning it is fair use. Publishing it is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Also, what you are proposing would greatly the cost of scanning books... what if there is text and a picture on the same page? Better to create a digital image of the entire book and keep it secure, so that better OCR techniques can be used on it in the future.

Does fair use really scale? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769000)

"Google presumably owns a copy of each book it scans. Scanning it is fair use."

I don't know if Google does own a copy of each book - did they claim that?

When I was in high school a teacher bought a humorous book for her humor in literature class. She made copies for all the students to study from. Later she had to stop it because of copyright issues.

Google's employees are several orders of magnitude greater in number than our class was. How can making a work available to thousands of people be considered fair use simply on the basis of purchasing a single book?

You may disagree with copyright law, but the courts aren't going to render it meaningless by stretching the idea of fair use past the breaking point. Nor should they.

I'm a member of one of the organizations named (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768168)

Most photographic work is licensed in a rights managed fashion. The payment calculated for the image is based on usage and distribution. What Google is attempting to do, is no different than a publisher initiating a second print run, sometime generating income for them, without compensating the photographer a second run. In most walks of life, we call that stealing.

I'm afraid of generalization (1)

nunojsilva (1019800) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768218)

If I understand it right, Google is being sued for scanning copyrighted works - I don't completely understand the legality of this (I'm not from USA, nor do I know its legal system). Of course, it seems logical that if Google is giving away verbatim copies of the books they should have permission to do so. Maybe showing just - e.g. - 5 pages per user is allowed under some exception (fair use, etc.)?

But what I'm really afraid is if somebody just decides Google should pay a tax on every book they scan, no matter if they actually need that permission or not (sometimes, people give their works away for free, or copyright expires). Just like those taxes that are paid to play musics publicly, which are also sometimes incorrectly applied to public performances of CC music [] .

Re:I'm afraid of generalization (1)

phatcabbage (986219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768302)

... (sometimes, people give their works away for free, or copyright expires).

Yeah, I used to believe in fairy tails too.

the wi-fi on my iphone 3gs only worked for 2 days (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768290)

when i called them, they suggested i send them 400$ to replace it. not very good customer relations. a few days later 3g came to my area so i haven't missed much due to the defective product.

the gadget is cool, but i'm surmising something comparable, that's affordable is in the wings/already available, & likely the wi-fi will work more than one day. let me think, wi-fi gadget + skype clone.... that will be steve's/att's swan song. at least he got a new pancreas out of the deal.

i'm guessing they should be having a recall, but we all know how costly that is? even more than integrity i guess?

bullshit of the first order (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768572)

you give rights to a writer to use your photos in his/her book and get paid.

google makes previews of books. the previews contain your images.

you go sue google, DESPITE you have already been paid.

basically, you want to be paid double. in lieu of all the honest people who work, and get salaries only once a month for what they do, not twice.

the court should charge those photographers for wasting public money for time courts lose for dealing with that case, and some additional punitives.

Return to Values that Work (3, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768644)

Time to return to old values that worked till they got changed. Let the originator hold rights to the invention or work for a short time (4 years) and if they can't make a profit from it in that time, tough shit! The world marches on. If they are talented they will make more. If not it was a fluke and who cares! This copy and patent crap is taking up too much time and waaaay too much progress.
        Senator Bono blowing Mickey f**kin' rat is a perfect example of the crooked kind of crap that got the U.S. in the mess it's in now. Thank God for trees and skis. Now if we could get the rest of the crooked bastards on a tough slope drunk and blindfolded.

Alternative headline (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31769054)

People who make money taking picture without paying for what they are taking picture of complain about not being paid.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?