Reezekeys Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 I recently played a gig in London where a photographer took pics, and they were posted on the venue's website. On the band's FB page, we posted a link to this page. As I understand, the photographer has a problem with this. Anyone a copyright lawyer here? FaceBook is chock-full of links to pages with pictures. Again: our FB post did not have the pics lifted from the page, just a link to the page itself, on the venue's official web site. At my peril, here is the link: https://www.royalalberthall.com/about-the-hall/news/2019/july/exclusive-photos-average-white-band-bring-the-funk-to-the-royal-albert-hall/?fbclid=IwAR2k2Goq5d_2kcMfg2KtLn9RuvnPgkWyj80VrktV2K0TaTxNPOHk9CrVPlY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawback Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 I cry horseshit. Did the photographer have permission from the band to take photos of their performance? Did the photographer work for the RAH? Sell them to RAH? Are the photos being used to promote the venue and/or the photographer? PS - Congratulations!! Quote ____________________________________ Rod Here for the gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Dan Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 It's in the public domain. It would be different if you had it directly hosted on your site without crediting the photographer. I'm no lawyer, though, Quote Dan Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudyS Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Im also no lawyer, but cant imagine linking to a site with legit content is copyright infringement. Cool gig though! Quote Rudy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Martin Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 There is no legal issue unless the venue didn't have permission to post her photos. The page has a "SHARE THIS" tool on it specifically for sharing it to social media. Quote -Mike Martin Casio Mike Martin Photography Instagram Facebook The Big Picture Photography Forum on Music Player Network The opinions I post here are my own and do not represent the company I work for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reezekeys Posted July 7, 2019 Author Share Posted July 7, 2019 Thanks for the replies guys. Yea I didn't think there was an issue either. The photographer's web page has her bio, which says she's the "official photographer for Royal Albert Hall." And the web page where the pics are displayed is on the official web site for the hall. And thanks Mike I didn't see that "share this" link. That kinda caps the deal, I think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docbop Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 In our ever increasing litigious world some sites are saying linking to them without permission is a copyright violation, but in your case it's the photographer not the RAH complaining. I would tell the photog to take it up with the RAH who probably hired the photog. I would just wait and see who sends you a cease and desist decide if you want to push it or just remove the links. But I would say contacting the RAH in writing show you intent to do the right thing and take the wind out a photog with a lawyer friend. Disclaimer... I'm no lawyer, just someone who would call BS on some like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reezekeys Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 I'm not privy to how this is playing out. Last I heard our fearless leader was negotiating with the photographer to get use of the pics for our own promotional purposes. As posted on the web site they are rather small (800 x 500) so nothing that could be printed, obviously. But the main thrust that simply posting a link to the RAH web page that hosts these pics, which were taken by the official RAH photograper hired to do this, is violating a copyright, seems outlandish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Lobo Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 But the main thrust that simply posting a link to the RAH web page that hosts these pics, which were taken by the official RAH photograper hired to do this, is violating a copyright, seems outlandish.I agree. And I agree with Docbop that the photog should take it up with RAH although the photog is credited on the RAH website. If providing a link to a web page with copyrighted material is a violation of copyright, then basically everybody on Facebook is in violation and all the links I receive or send in email are violations too. That means everybody who is ever on the internet. Good luck with that lawsuit. Quote These are only my opinions, not supported by any actual knowledge, experience, or expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscapeRocks Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 It depends on if you're deep linking or inline linking, and why. Most courts have held that simply linking to another site that has copyright items is not actionable. Linking to the pictures themselves which allow users to bypass copyright protections (deep linking) can be actionable Inline Linking (embedding) does raise copyright concerns. Quote David Gig Rig:Depends on the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawback Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 As I was implying that I think theres a point to argue. If the RAH / photographer are basically promoting themselves with images of you and your property (whether they had fine print contractual permission or not); AWB should be able to promote themselves with links to the page. Its cross promotion. The images are basically low res thumbnails and theyre useless for anything else outside of online. As David says, if the band wants to upload the photos to their website (or access the high res originals) they of course need to secure permission and post credits. As it stands, the credits are there on the RAH site. Quote ____________________________________ Rod Here for the gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Martin Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 If you had downloaded and re-posted the images on Facebook that would be a problem. When you post a link, Facebook will automatically create a "preview image" of the destination page. Maybe the photographer didn't realize this. Quote -Mike Martin Casio Mike Martin Photography Instagram Facebook The Big Picture Photography Forum on Music Player Network The opinions I post here are my own and do not represent the company I work for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Lobo Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Did the photographer have permission from the band to take photos of their performance?I think this is also a valid point. If the photog has a problem with a band posting a link to the venue's page (where the photog is the official photographer for the venue and is credited on the venue's page), then the band should reply that they have a problem with being photographed without express permission from the band. It may be in the contract with the venue that the venue can take pix and post them on their web page, but it's worth pointing out to the photog that the band may have issues with the pix. This has come up in local gigs and jams that I have experienced. People take pix and - even worse - videos that may poorly represent the band and post them on Facebook or other places. I know of instances where a bandleader had to tell people not to post pix and videos without his permission. If you can't control what gets put out there about your image and performance, you may end up regretting it. Quote These are only my opinions, not supported by any actual knowledge, experience, or expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeronyne Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Tit for tat is not going to win anyone an argument. Permission to photograph and permission to use a photograph are as different as ukulele and keytar. It muddies the issue to talk about what's fair and what is legal. Here is some relevant info written by attorneys. Linking to copyrighted materials And the English perspective. Quote "For instance" is not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reezekeys Posted July 9, 2019 Author Share Posted July 9, 2019 Very interesting, the two links above seem to show (to this non-lawyer) that the UK may be a little stricter in its interpretation of online copyrights. To summarize, the first link (USA law) says "No court has ever found that deep linking to another website constitutes copyright or trademark infringement. Therefore, you can link to other websites without serious concerns about legal liability for the link itself...", also "While there is some uncertainty on this point, a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that inline linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link; the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material." [my bolding] The second link (UK law) has this: A copyright holder therefore has the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit: any direct or indirect, temporary or permanent, reproduction of the copyright work in whole or part, by any means and in any form; and any communication to the public of their copyright work. Doing either of the above acts without the copyright holders consent infringes copyright. Still, this was the official photographer hired by RAH to produce content for their website, which had a "share" button for anyone to post it to Facebook or other social media sites. So, case closed (says the non-lawyer!!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon May Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 While there is some uncertainty on this point, a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that inline linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link; the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material." I would argue (in my imaginary lawyers wig & gown) that inline linking DOES make a copy of the original photo linked to (image A). The image on the linkers site (image B) is not the original image. Image A does not disappear from the source site when it is linked to. Both images exist at the same time, ergo and erstwhile, B is a copy of A. :-p Quote "I'm well acquainted with the touch of a velvet hand..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.