Legal Right vs. Ethical Right

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so I came across this on facebook, and it bears discussion:



Heroes of Copyright Infringement – The Photographer litigation against SyFy/NBC
Copyright.
Overlooked?… Misunderstood?


cop·y·right Wow, little bit of condescension here for us. There'll be more later.



noun



1: the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.




The word is best broken down as.. the right to copy your work. The most important set of words in that definition? – “…authorize others to do the same”


That is pretty much what did not happen with the SyFy show “Heroes of Cosplay” with numerous photographers. Yes, that is right – a nationalized television show using images for promotion AND on the weekly episodes without written permission from the authors and copyright owners of the images; The PHOTOGRAPHERS.



As you may know, Heroes of Cosplay is using dozens of images on their show to introduce costumes and the cosplayers/stars of the show. Who do you think took those pictures? Not SyFy – which is what they should have done from the start. I mean c’mon, they are NBC Universal – do you really think they didn’t have the funds to properly pay a photographer to follow them and shoot? Or possibly, they liked the quality and concepts of the photographs already taken so much that they just used stolen images from the cosplay community of photographers. But for some reason, they didn’t feel like paying them like REAL photographers – because that makes sense, right?


Now, don’t get me wrong – SyFy used a third party company to get in contact with a few photographers in question and got them to sign over specific images. This small portion even signed away all their rights to the show for ZERO COMPENSATION – Why would they do this? Don’t get me started on that.. since it is a completely different topic on “knowing the quality of your work and pricing your licensing accordingly”. But, I won’t really get into that here. And here's that condescension again. Seriously, why is it so bad that these photographers got to advertise their work to millions of people on Syfy for free?


http://bgzstudios.com/blog/photography/heroes-of-copyright-infringement-the-photographer-litigation-against-syfy/

In any event, they do have their legal rights, which I'm not going to be debating here, because there's no need to. They quite legally correct, but we come to this part, the letter they sent to SyFy, which apparently was their first communication with SyFy:


Dear Maureen Granados or Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that numerous [examples] of my copyright protected photographs have been used as part of your online presence for the Syfy TV Series "Heroes of Cosplay" without seeking prior authorization, without proper compensation, and without attribution. This is a violation of national and international copyright laws.

As copyright owner, I have a number of exclusive rights under the "Copyright Law of the United States; Title 17 of the United States Code." These exclusive rights include the right to reproduce work, and to publish and communicate the work to the public. (including by way of sale, media, broadcast or putting the work online). It is an infringement of copyright to do any of the acts comprised in the copyright in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the work, or to authorize such an act, without the permission or license of the copyright owner.

I hold all of the original high-resolution image files, so it can be proven at any time that I am the rightful creator and owner of the images.

Oh yeah, they also sent that email to every person working with the show, so it got to be spam as well.

Now, I get that they were the wronged party here, but it isn't something that hurts them, and in fact, gives them advertisement of their work that can lead to future business. I don't see why they're acting like the company personally stole from them. It could have easily been a misunderstanding, or a result of incorrect or incomplete information, but they started the whole thing off on a very aggressive footing here.

The question here is where does asserting your legal rights get overshadowed by the ethical imperative to handle things in a more civilized manner?

I also can't understand their shock at SyFy's reaction, who obviously went on the warpath about possibly getting sued. The woman from SyFy did try to talk, but apparently her stuttering was really bad (enough to merit insulting her about it on the internet. so damned mature.), and is now on her heels playing defense because of BGZ. BGZ spammed their email inboxes, issued them a bill straight off with the threat of legal action, and left no room for negotiation. Yeah, I'd be a bit worried about others doing the same in this instance, and circle the wagons.

I can't help but think that a polite discussion with the woman that did not come after a threat would have yielded far more positive results than straight out threatening them.

[Noir]

Now, I get that they were the wronged party here, but it isn't something that hurts them, and in fact, gives them advertisement of their work that can lead to future business. I don't see why they're acting like the company personally stole from them. It could have easily been a misunderstanding, or a result of incorrect or incomplete information, but they started the whole thing off on a very aggressive footing here.

The artist is given not credit, link, or attribution. How is it an advertisement if no one knows its you? The only possible way to find out would be if someone emailed SyFy to ask who the artist was, and even then only if SyFy kept a list of works that they'd taken - and if they did, then why aren't they using that to accredit.


The question here is where does asserting your legal rights get overshadowed by the ethical imperative to handle things in a more civilised manner?

I think SyFy where in the legal and ethical wrong. They are the ones that should of contacted the artists for a civilised chat before taking the work, and at the very least after taking it they should of put up the proper credits.

[DragonStryk72]

The artist is given not credit, link, or attribution. How is it an advertisement if no one knows its you? The only possible way to find out would be if someone emailed SyFy to ask who the artist was, and even then only if SyFy kept a list of works that they'd taken - and if they did, then why aren't they using that to accredit.



I think SyFy where in the legal and ethical wrong. They are the ones that should of contacted the artists for a civilised chat before taking the work, and at the very least after taking it they should of put up the proper credits.

But does that remove any impetus on anyone else's part to be civil as well? Again, Legally, they're correct, but you're saying if one person is discourteous to you, even if they have done so unknowingly, then that obviates all ethical actions from that point?

Actually, if you read the whole thing, SyFy hired a firm to do just that, to talk to the photographers, and get the releases on the photos. However, if the information they received was incorrect, by either accident or design, does that mean they were personally slighting these people to such a degree that there is no other recourse?

I don't know, to me, this is the situation that defines whether you are ethically sound or not, because really, ethics only really count when they're tested, right?

[revelarts]

There are a LOT of cases of people posting their artwork and Photos on the internet and large companies and overseas companiies using and even reselling the work without notification or permission. Even more smaller companies get away with it.

And to often larger companies can and have ignored the lone artist asking for compensation.
while larger companies often use lawyers to threaten other who use their copyrighted material. Disney is notorious for it. They've threatened and sued small day care centers for having Mickey painted on the wall.

I created a tee shirt and posted it on the internet for sale. It had some original art and the words "who's your daddy" on it. I got a formal cease and desist letter from a law firm that threatened to sue and said they wanted part of any profit i had made at that point because they owned the term "who's your daddy". i went to a lawyer and found it was true, they did. And was told the reason that the letter so threatening was because the copyright holder , in case of litigation , must show they are protecting their copyright. They may not have wanted to sue me really, or to get money from other small fry, but if they were to have a real suit it helps to prove your serious about your property if you can show the court, in writing, that you have been actively protecting it from the infringements you are aware of.

I don't see a problem with the letter except for the lack of professionalism it shows. He should have had a lawyer handle it. And there was no need for "spam".

But ethically sure, if your dealing with a neighbor or the Local mom and Pop, sure he should have had a softer approach, they probably didn't know any better.
But the SYFY Channels does KNOW better. They KNOW they are stealing.
It'd be very Jesus like to approach a large self conscious thief and ask them kindly to pay for the things they've stolen.
But not a lot of people go there.

[DragonStryk72]

There are a LOT of cases of people posting their artwork and Photos on the internet and large companies and overseas companiies using and even reselling the work without notification or permission. Even more smaller companies get away with it.

And to often larger companies can and have ignored the lone artist asking for compensation.
while larger companies often use lawyers to threaten other who use their copyrighted material. Disney is notorious for it. They've threatened and sued small day care centers for having Mickey painted on the wall.

I created a tee shirt and posted it on the internet for sale. It had some original art and the words "who's your daddy" on it. I got a formal cease and desist letter from a law firm that threatened to sue and said they wanted part of any profit i had made at that point because they owned the term "who's your daddy". i went to a lawyer and found it was true, they did. And was told the reason that the letter so threatening was because the copyright holder , in case of litigation , must show they are protecting their copyright. They may not have wanted to sue me really, or to get money from other small fry, but if they were to have a real suit it helps to prove your serious about your property if you can show the court, in writing, that you have been actively protecting it from the infringements you are aware of.

I don't see a problem with the letter except for the lack of professionalism it shows. He should have had a lawyer handle it. And there was no need for "spam".

But ethically sure, if your dealing with a neighbor or the Local mom and Pop, sure he should have had a softer approach, they probably didn't know any better.
But the SYFY Channels does KNOW better. They KNOW they are stealing.
It'd be very Jesus like to approach a large self conscious thief and ask them kindly to pay for the things they've stolen.
But not a lot of people go there.

Actually, this is literally just the one photographer. I don't know why it keeps getting pluralized by people discussing it, but SyFy contacted every other photographer and got the permissions. That's what they hired the company to do

They weren't stealing. Its like when you're leaving the store, and you accidentally left a product of theirs in your pocket without thinking cause you were juggling your phone and dealing with your kid. Then, before you can correct the mistake, the cops cuff you and shove you in the back of the patrol car.

I never get this hate for large corps off the bat. To just blatantly assume that they're the worst people, and above making even a single mistake. I mean, they're still a bureaucracy at a certain level, so clerical errors occur, because there are still human beings working there.

I could understand the degree of aggression if they had attempted more civilized resolution, but this was like calling for the restaurant manager because there was ice in your soda, and you'd asked for no ice. Is that really the world we want, where a single mistake that could be easily remedied must be taken to court?

[revelarts]

I hear you,
i don't want to assume large corps are the worst either but if i see they are using my work without my permission. The idea that it's a mistake isn't 1st thing that comes to my mind.

sure it could be, And personally i'd try to call and get compensated without a nasty letter but how are you to know if calling them won't just tip them off and allow them to start blocking you from compensation. It's a business transaction with an unknown party with a lot $$ and lawyers on call to protect them. It's not UNethical to cover your own arse. seems to me.

Where i worked, a photographer thought we'd stolen his art. Our org wassn't a media group so the "mistake" makes sense. And it was a mistake. And we paid his fee right away after we negotiated.
A bill and demand letter doesn't mean it still can't be negotiated.

SYFY channel, NBC etc are media orgs they deal with copyright all day everyday. film, photos, music likeneses, products etc..
To assume that it's just a mistake right out the gate is not what i'd think. But after the stuttering phone call from the rep I'd think they didn't know what they were doing or the right people weren't handling it.

And i agree DS no it's not the world i'd want but, more and more, it is the one we've got.