LJ userpics copyright infringement
May. 30th, 2008 10:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyanitedWell, it looks like LJ has taken action against copyright infringing userpics.
http://community.livejournal.com/cat_macros/3925204.html
____
However:
Basically the same as with Youtube and many other sites - the sheer number of copyright infringements is so high that reacting only to reported infringements is the only way to handle it and be legally safe.
(Until copyright holders don't sue for the infringement but for making the infringement possible/doing nothing to prevent it, which was an issue between Youtube Japan and some japanese media companies.)
____
For basic, paid and permanent accounts this should be no problem - should we ever be 'caught' by copyright holders, a C&D may be all we have to fear, and no compensation for past use of the material will have to be paid, as long as we're not making any profit with our journal.
The user in above mentioned case was only asked to immediately remove the icon in question. Had they done so, the matter would have been resolved, afaik. They chose not to comply. They claim they went/were taken to court. (There's no publicly available proof for it, though.)
__
A few months ago I was personally involved in a case of copyright infringment regarding images published on a website. The website was owned by a business and the business undoubtedly benefitted from having the image in question on their website. They got a C&D letter from the copyright holder's lawyer. They did not have to pay a fine, but they were charged a flat fee for using the image in the past and were offered a deal to be allowed to continue using it. They paid for past use and removed the image, replacing it with one of their own. (I was involved in so far as I created the new image and surrendered the copyright.)
__
I think the profit aspect is a HUGE reason to keep TakaWiki ad-free, for example.
But I also wonder about LJ and plus accounts (= ad supported, incresed number of user icons) and copyright infringing user icons, as the copyright holders may argue that LJ is making profit from ad-carrying journals with these icons.
At the end of the day, though, I still think we're safe.
I know that I hold the copyright to two (one and a half) of my icons, and I'm using another two with permission of the copyright holders. I don't feel bad about the rest because I'm sure it doesn't affect the profits of the copyright holders. It's 100x100 pixels pictures, for love's sake, all they may actually do is increase the desire to spend money on the original material. But I know I'd be very miffed and might be inclined to start drama if someone used the icons I created without my persmission (and without credit). Saying: I understand copyright holders who ask for their material to be removed for personal reasons, whatever they may be.
ETA: *looks at journal layout* That might be more of a problem than any userpic...
http://community.livejournal.com/cat_macros/3925204.html
____
However:
"LiveJournal also does not 'search' for copyright violations on LiveJournal, such as in the community you mention -- infringing material must be specifically reported to us."
"As for your location, your LiveJournal account is stored on servers that reside in the US -- therefore, the usage and content of your account is bound by US law, including copyright law."
Basically the same as with Youtube and many other sites - the sheer number of copyright infringements is so high that reacting only to reported infringements is the only way to handle it and be legally safe.
(Until copyright holders don't sue for the infringement but for making the infringement possible/doing nothing to prevent it, which was an issue between Youtube Japan and some japanese media companies.)
____
For basic, paid and permanent accounts this should be no problem - should we ever be 'caught' by copyright holders, a C&D may be all we have to fear, and no compensation for past use of the material will have to be paid, as long as we're not making any profit with our journal.
The user in above mentioned case was only asked to immediately remove the icon in question. Had they done so, the matter would have been resolved, afaik. They chose not to comply. They claim they went/were taken to court. (There's no publicly available proof for it, though.)
__
A few months ago I was personally involved in a case of copyright infringment regarding images published on a website. The website was owned by a business and the business undoubtedly benefitted from having the image in question on their website. They got a C&D letter from the copyright holder's lawyer. They did not have to pay a fine, but they were charged a flat fee for using the image in the past and were offered a deal to be allowed to continue using it. They paid for past use and removed the image, replacing it with one of their own. (I was involved in so far as I created the new image and surrendered the copyright.)
__
I think the profit aspect is a HUGE reason to keep TakaWiki ad-free, for example.
But I also wonder about LJ and plus accounts (= ad supported, incresed number of user icons) and copyright infringing user icons, as the copyright holders may argue that LJ is making profit from ad-carrying journals with these icons.
At the end of the day, though, I still think we're safe.
I know that I hold the copyright to two (one and a half) of my icons, and I'm using another two with permission of the copyright holders. I don't feel bad about the rest because I'm sure it doesn't affect the profits of the copyright holders. It's 100x100 pixels pictures, for love's sake, all they may actually do is increase the desire to spend money on the original material. But I know I'd be very miffed and might be inclined to start drama if someone used the icons I created without my persmission (and without credit). Saying: I understand copyright holders who ask for their material to be removed for personal reasons, whatever they may be.
ETA: *looks at journal layout* That might be more of a problem than any userpic...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 06:26 pm (UTC)As things are, I don't think we're doing anyone any harm, but of course it's not up to me to define "harm" for Hankyu.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 07:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 01:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 08:37 pm (UTC)And yes, layouts are probably the biggest culprit... but they're pretty! >_>
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 09:03 pm (UTC)But it wouldn't suprise me if it were true, as Stephanie (who formed the Yahoo Group and for awhile had pretty much the only English zuka fansite on the web...) reported being contacted by folks claiming to represent Hankyu, asking her to take the photos off her website. She never did (she went to college and pretty much lost interest in Takarazuka, abandoning her site...) and I don't know if she ever heard from them again or not.
I find it hard to believe that Hankyu isn't aware of all the fannish activity these days, so my guess is they're choosing to ignore the "little" stuff like icons and layouts, and focusing their attention more bootlegs and such...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 01:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 07:59 am (UTC)If worst absolutely came to worst, Hankyu could make us take down the pictures and the Otome profiles on the wiki. I would be sad, but for me the most important part of the Wiki is the cast lists and the information on individual sienne pages with which shows they've been in and which roles they've played. I've seen lots of Japanese sites that do the same for a given actress. And man, it was a real pain in the neck when the Wiki was down.
I really, really love my userpics...honestly, there are so many LJ icons out there that I'm not sure if Hankyu has the time or money to send a cease and desist letter to every Live Journal user with a Takarazuka icon. Personally I feel like it would only hurt them. That being said, I would (grudgingly) go along with their decision.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 08:04 am (UTC)And I intend to keep it that way.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-03 04:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-07 03:26 pm (UTC)Though Youtube was mainly responsible for letting fans into Zuka, I wouldn't be surprised if Hankyu(heck, even Theatre Equity who is notorious for removing The Phantom Of The Opera videos), would push legal action anytime soon(whether or not the copies are Sky Stage or Official Releases).
Also, those Elisabeth videos might say farewell if the Vereinigte Bühnen Wien or Edition Butterfly might catch them(they own everything Elisabeth as well as other shows by the creative team of Elisabeth).