Newspapers Hunting Down Bloggers that Infringe on Image Copyrights



+ Add a Comment


I live in CO and let me tell you, the Denver Post sucks. First of all, what their saying is bull shit. Second, no one cares if they fail. I guess papers should start suing morning news shows whos hosts hold up the mornings headlines in all the papers.


On top of that, ied like to see them try to sue me for something i post form their papers when im not the one who owns the server the image is on. And yes, i will continue to use images from the Denver Post in my blog at liberty. Ive been giving image credit in my blogs, maybe from now ill some how forget to credit TDP if this is how their going to behave.



OK, I can see suing an individual if the person is taking credit for *and* selling pics, but they're going to start suing bloggers for borrowing a pic? Soooo....for example, some lady who writes a food blog in her spare time uses a a pic of a salad or something from the food/dining section and gets sued for $6000 over a (maybe) $10 picture? Bullsh*t!

I'm gathering that the company buys the copyright, but does NO f-ing work that goes behind it, and sues, just like patent trolls. There's no harm demonstrated regarding this company, because they're buying the copyright solely to sue, not to actually use. They're not going to sell the images or publish them...just use them as a catalyst to sue. "Righthaven" will wither and die when cases start piling up and the courts see what's really going on and realize there's absolutely no harm done to Righthaven. They have to show the burden of proof in a civil suit, and there's going to be no proof of harm if the questions are posed correctly. If the judge, the defendant's attorney or jury asks for it specifically and correctly, what can they say? We own the copyright, but no, we are not deprived of anything because we are not intending to sell or otherwise use the items behind the copyrights.

Because patent trolls (and now copyright trolls) cannot demonstrate true burden of proof regarding harm, unrealized and realized, it should be easier to compose legislation to automatically forward dockets falling under this to the garbage can.



So are they saying whats said and made public to everyone is off limits to a blogger who quotes it? Coming Soon: "Copyright Companies Hunt Down E-mails that Infringe; Whats Privacy?"  This would bother me if i actually blogged but its not as bad as the HUUUUUUUUUGE grey area that companies use to say your infringing by using songs in a youtube video.



What? Nothing about how the EFF is currently on top of Righthaven, shredding it to small chewable pieces?




Ars Technica has been covering this for months.



As a blogger I can see both sides of this but I do have to say that many fellow bloggers out there over step the bounds way to often.

The newspapers have to pay for rights to use the images so why do we think we should be able to use them for free. The photographers are just trying to get paid just like anyone else. Most of these guys are working freelance like most of the blogging world so it only seems fair that they receive compensation. You wouldn't want another blog or new site stealing your stories and making dough of you so why would you in turn want to do the same?

On the flip side some of the lawsuits are absurd. $6k for the use of an image?? On a high traffic site that might take some traffic from the original source maybe. But a small time blogger hardly does much in terms of actual damages.



No different than Patent Trolls. They may have a point, but they tend to be asses about it and in what civil society will allow being an ass to be profitable.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.