Posts Tagged ‘legal’

FAQs: Copyright Guidelines for Content Creators

When you first launch your website, e-zine, blog, or newsletter, it’s an exciting moment. You can’t wait to fill your new forum with your original content. After a while, though, that forum starts to feel like a gigantic bucket with a hole in the bottom. No matter how much stuff you put into it, you still need more—to attract new visitors, to keep your audiences engaged, and to maintain your stellar rankings on Google. It’s when feeling that pressure to publish that a lot of people start asking this question:

Can I re-use content that I find on the Internet?

The short answer is: probably not. Copyright law is a muddle of “if…then” statements and rules that apply on a case-by-case basis. (If you’re interested in a detailed explanation, many college and university websites have excellent in-depth guidelines, like this one at Purdue, and this one at Northwestern University.) But sensible rules for copyright practice are a lot easier to absorb and use. Here are the guidelines that we give to our clients.

Your High School Teacher Is Still Right, Even On The Internet

One of the biggest misconceptions about the Internet is that copyright rules are different here than they are in print. They are not. In fact, most of the text and images that you’ll find on the Web are copyrighted, which makes the rules for web content not much different than the rules you had to follow for writing a term paper. (The good news is that you almost never have to write a bibliography.)

How can I legally use text from other sources?

Quote text, don’t steal it. When it comes to quoted text, you can’t go wrong by using the same guidelines used by The Huffington Post. They’ve been through the copyright wars, and have developed a set of standards that work well and that are easy to follow.

  • Use quoted text as a basis of, or adjunct to, original content. In other words, if you see something on the Web that’s relevant to your audience, write a fresh article about it—don’t just copy and paste.
  • Keep quotes short—no more than a few lines each. On The Huffington Post’s website, their longest uninterrupted quote is the equivalent of one long or two medium paragraphs.
  • Make quoted text obvious. The Huffington Post indents quoted text and puts it in a box with a background color. You can pick any style that goes with your publication’s layout or branding. Just be consistent and use that style only for quoted text.
  • Include attributes for every quote, with a link to the original source material whenever available.
  • As hundreds of sued bloggers have learned, you should absolutely never copy and paste whole articles, posts, or long portions of articles or other content. Providing attribution for borrowed content will not protect you.
  • Nor should you channel your inner fifth-grader and rewrite portions of articles, content, or other found material as your own. Even on the Internet, that’s still plagiarism. In the last few years, a number of online and print journalists, at least one bestselling novelist, and a famous historian, have all succumbed to sloppiness or temptation and did this, some “borrowing” and rephrasing only a few paragraphs of text. All experienced serious and very public damage to their careers. In 2010, in a scandalous and fascinating story, Cooks Source Magazine was basically destroyed when their long and shameless history of stealing Web content came to life over a single pilfered article about medieval cookery.
     
    If you’re inspired by something you read online, write you own spin or commentary on it, and reference the original. You see this all the time in online news magazines and the blogs and columns of professional websites, like Advertising Age. You can gracefully (and legally) reference the original by saying something like this: “James T. Kirk’s excellent article in Starships Today got me thinking: Are we really ready for the next generation of warp drives?”

How can I legally use images from other sources?

The rule of thumb for images is even simpler than the rules for text: Don’t use any image unless you have the rights to use it. This includes photographs, illustrations, maps, graphic buttons, bugs, and other artwork.

The reason for caution is that a simple image can have many layers of ownership. Let’s say you find a photo of a celebrity that you’d love to use on your website. Here’s who might have usage rights over it, and/or the ability to grant rights:

  • The subject, or, if the subject is deceased, the subject’s heirs or estate
  • The photographer
  • The entity that commissioned the photograph. For example, a magazine, newspaper, movie studio, advertising company, etc.
  • A stock photo agency contracted to manage the image. Getty Images and Shutterstock are two stock photo houses that license editorial images.

You don’t want to tangle with all those who have a vested interest in protecting their work—and protect it they do. In fact, when it comes to images, not much is in the public domain. Even works that you think might be safe usually are not.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Da Vinci died almost 500 years ago, long before the invention of copyright law. What could be more in the public domain than that? You’d think you could use that image with impunity. And you’d be right, to a certain degree. That’s why you see it on everything from coffee mugs to mobile phone covers to the seats of folding chairs (I don’t really get that last one, but, whatever).

The image itself is in the public domain. But a new work derived from the Mona Lisa—including a new photograph of it— is probably not in the public domain. Copyright of that particular photograph belongs to that photographer (and/or to the museum that commissioned it), and you might need permission to use it.

Once I have rights, can I use images for any purpose or medium?

No. When you commission a photograph or illustration, or buy a stock image, that purchase usually comes with some specific reproduction rights, but not others. These rights may range from very limited to very generous.

Limited rights might include something like the right to post a celebrity photo in editorial content on a website for a certain period of time. Extended rights may include the ability to reproduce the image in multiple media many thousands of times, and to use the image virtually forever. As you might expect, extended rights usually cost more than basic rights.iStockphoto’s licensing page is a good primer on how licenses work.

(Tip: If you’re hiring a photographer or illustrator to create original artwork for you, you’ll save money by negotiating up front for all the potential uses you’ll have later.)

What if I’m broke/a small business/a student/creating a personal website or blog/just starting out/not making any money/a non-profit/doing God’s work?

Sorry: The same rules apply to you, too. Some image sources may offer discounted rates for non-profits or educational purposes; it never hurts to ask.

What if I’m creating a parody?

Oh, well, then, knock yourself out. Mostly. Carefully. You’ve got a whole lot more leeway, as this PDF from the American Bar Association explains very well. But your use has to really be parody, and “transformative”— in that it creates something genuinely different and new out of the original idea. It doesn’t count if you’re creating ordinary content that you plan to call a parody in the event that you get a cease-and-desist letter from a copyright owner. (Interestingly, the Supreme Court gives much more leeway to parody than to satire. Read the ABA article for more info.)

Give me some good news: what images can I use?

Lots of stuff:

  1. Your own original images— photos that you take, pictures that you draw. Of course, you still have to follow copyright law with regard to the subjects of the photos; that’s why reality TV shows blur out logos and brand names on T-shirts.
  2. Original images that you commission: photographs, illustrations, logos, etc.
  3. Stock images. There are dozens of great resources for stock photos, illustrations, animations, even videos. Some of them cost as little as $3 each; some cost hundreds of dollars. Just be sure you buy the right license for your use. The small investment is worth it, and you’ll usually have access to images that are higher quality than anything you can snag for free. On this blog, and on the C3 Advertising website, we use stock photos, original art, and commissioned illustrations.
     
    Some of our favorite stock photo sites are iStockphoto, Veer, BigStock Photo, Getty Images, and Shutterstock.
  4. SOME images on file-sharing sites, like Flikr. Occasionally, designers, illustrators, and photographers will generously share their work under a Creative Commons or similar license. Read these licenses carefully for each image. Creative Commons licenses come in several flavors, and you must abide by the rules. Some allow sharing only on the web, some only for editorial or educational purposes, some only with attribution or if you promise not to alter the work.
  5. Free stock images. I include this resource for due diligence, but with rare exceptions, you get what you pay for. You also have to be cautious about the provenance of your free image sources. You don’t want to get in trouble because somebody else lied on the Web. Not that anybody would ever lie on the web…oh, wait…nevermind.

I’ve included a lot of detail here, but the rules are actually easy to follow. Until you get the hang of it, bookmark this page as a reference. And when you’re feeling frustrated that you can’t just copy and paste to fill your online bucket, remember this: Copyright laws are a good thing, especially for you. If you’re reading this, you’re a content creator of one stripe or another. The original content you create will benefit from copyright protection, too.

Disclaimer: The guidelines offered here are based on our experience in following copyright law as content creators across multiple media, and in helping our clients stay compliant as they create their own content. But since my formal legal education consists mostly of watching Law & Order, if you have a specific copyright question or issue, contact a lawyer.

Why I’m Still Worried About SOPA

I’m not a worrier by nature. Ask anybody. But I am worried about SOPA, the online anti-piracy act that was shelved last week after acts of desperation by Google, Wikipedia and others. Shelved – but not killed.

Thousands of words have been written about SOPA, many of them incredibly confusing. Discussion of the bill has been framed as a battle between entertainment Godzillas and Internet Mothras, as a watershed difference in generational mindsets, and as the monkey wrench that will wreck the international domain name system. Those in favor of SOPA argue that it’s necessary in order to assure rewards for creativity. Those opposed worry that it’s a dangerous erosion of our freedom of speech. Most technical experts say that it just won’t work: while capable of extraordinary harm, it’s highly unlikely to do much good.

These are worthy topics of discussion, but as a marketing and web professional, my SOPA worries are entirely different. I’m worried about web hosting companies that are so afraid of SOPA that they severely restrict what their customers can post on their own websites. I’m worried about hosting prices that skyrocket so fast and high that small businesses will be priced out of the Web. I’m worried about the end of the Web as a way for companies to engage in conversations with their customers, and its transformation into a series of dull, static, SOPA-safe billboards. Mostly, I’m worried about abuses of loopholes that amount to legalized extortion.

Here’s how SOPA works, and why it’s keeping me up nights:

  • Under SOPA, your domain could be blocked simply because your site is “capable of” copyright infringement. Think about it – what site isn’t capable of copyright infringement? It’s a bucket. I can fill it with nicely legal original content and some fully paid-up stock photos, or drop in a copyrighted picture of Elvis and an unauthorized chapter from Twilight. As long as I have control over my own content, I’m vulnerable.
  • Once your hosting company gets a court order to block your site, SOPA requires that they make it invisible and inaccessible to viewers in the U.S. within five days. Let’s be clear on this, because it’s nasty: We are talking about blocking your entire site and domain name. If you have one page with one questionable paragraph, photo, embedded video, or audio clip, your entire site is toast. The best you could do in those circumstances would be to buy a new URL, put up a new website, and hope and pray that your customers find you before you go out of business.
  • Under SOPA, your internet service provider is forced to play policeman on your website. It’s been pointed out many times that this could force ISPs to sensor content for their own protection. The costs of the staff required to police content adequately would be astronomical. Some ISPs might simply close up shop. Others would have to raise their prices by an order of magnitude. It’s not a far leap to think that some small businesses would be priced out of the internet entirely. So much for the Web leveling the playing field.
  • I can envision other unpalatable scenarios, too: web hosts banning the use of all non-original photographs or logos, for example. If you’ve ever had to call your ISP for technical support, just imagine what a nightmare it would be to manage this scenario: “We just got certified as a (Cisco Channel Partner, Organic Farmer’s Market, ISO 9001 Facility, Environmental Dry Cleaner). Who do we have to talk to for permission to use the certification logo on our website?”
  • In a SOPA age, you might also have it written into your hosting plan contract that you agree to bear all the legal costs your hosting company might incur to defend themselves in a legal wrangle over your site’s content. Can you imagine being liable for a $100K legal bill because one of your employees posted a Flickr photo on your company blog?

Most of all, I’m worried about Son-of-Righthaven.

Righthaven was a company that declared bankruptcy in September of 2011, after the courts put it out of its only line of business: filing copyright lawsuits against website owners, most of them bloggers.

Righthaven took on content creators as clients – a newspaper in Nevada was one – or simply purchased the copyrights of content outright. They then went trolling for violations, suing for the maximum $150,000 penalty, but settling for a few thousand dollars and transfer of the “violator’s” domain name to them. A typical target was a blogger who had used a news photograph, or quoted part of a news story, without permission. Before they were stopped, Righthaven filed almost three hundred lawsuits and netted hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements.

Now, I’m a passionate defender of copyright. My livelihood depends on generating original content for clients. My dad, a retired book publisher and author himself, is also a big fan of copyright. Ditto for my daughter, a screenwriter and film director. We’re three generations that like copyright protection, because as a family, we enjoy living in houses and eating food from grocery stores.

But it’s hard to imagine how SOPA will effectively defend copyright without opening the door to Righthaven-like abuses. I imagine Son-of-Righthaven lawyers have already figured out a long list of loopholes that will line their pockets. Until the loopholes are plugged one by one, the collateral damage could be huge. (Righthaven’s heyday lasted almost two years.) To accept that cost of protecting copyright is like trying to warm your house by setting it on fire.

What might happen under SOPA? Here’s one scary scenario.

Let’s say you’re a home-improvement company. A popular feature of your website is a section that invites customers to upload photos of their homes before and after renovations.

Far, far away, in a nondescript business park, in a suburb of Tampa or Wichita or Paramus, a young man trolls the Web looking for copyright violations. Son-of-Righthaven pays him minimum wage plus a bonus for every violation that he finds.

On your website, he finds a photo of a remodeled living room that was uploaded by a customer. Included in the photo is a limited-edition print by a famous artist. Or a movie poster. Or a can of brand-name air freshener. Or a box of tissues with the label on it. Or a kid wearing a celebrity T-shirt. Or, as The Daily Show has pointed out, a television set that shows a rerun of Newhart.

Son-of-Righthaven contacts the copyright holder and suggests a collaboration. The lawyers explain that you are a large company with deep pockets. They tell the copyright holder that you make a significant portion of your sales from your website, and can’t afford to have it shut down. Son-of-Righthaven is confident that they can get a large settlement from you to avoid court, making this a no-lose proposition. They’ll do all the work, and give the copyright owner a portion of the proceeds. “Money for nothing,” as Dire Straits so eloquently put it.

A few days later, you get a letter from the law firm saying that their client has agreed not to take action that will permanently close down your URL. All you have to do is to immediately take down the offending material, and pay them a settlement fee of tens of thousands of dollars. And you’ll probably do it, because you don’t want any of those other awful things to happen.

But there’s a better solution: Just stop SOPA.

SOPA is dormant, but not dead. It can come back to life at any time. If that prospect worries you as much as it worries me, tell your lawmakers how you feel.

Resources:

How SOPA would affect you: FAQ (c|net)

Say No to SOPA (A List Apart)

Letter opposing SOPA from Democratic and Republican house members (PDF)

Law Firm Finds Success Targeting Those Who Post Copyrighted Images (TIME Magazine)

The End of Righthaven? Lessons from A Serial Copyright Plaintiff (Cobalt Law Review Blog)