[ianvisits]

I will comment on this.

Yes, I used the term troll from my background many years ago writing about patent trolls, so maybe it irks people, but people who complain about one word in a much longer article are maybe... missing the point.

Anyway, as you will probably notice from the article, I am not "picking the first photos that is convenient", but being sent the banner images etc by event organisers to promote their events.

Yes, I can go back with a form for them to fill in and confirm they have copyright clearance etc., and doubtless they'll check, and confirm they have from photo agency X, and maybe I should also check that the photo agency has issued clearance, and that they themselves have validated that the photographer has verified they definetly took the photos... etc etc etc.

You can see that there has to be a point at which you accept that someone in the chain is being honest.

The issue isn't me nicking photos that are convenient, but accepting that a photo sent to me to use in an article/event listing has been cleared by the PR/marketing dept that is sending it to me.

The majority of problems come from small orgs who may seem to lack an awareness of copyright, so to protect myself, I am now taking the decision not to use their images unless I have built up trust in the sender.

However, even large orgs have been caught out - one example was the large theatre that paid for a license to use an image in a marketing poster, only for the stock agency to object to it being used on my website because the license (weirdly) only permitted use in their publications and no where else.

That's a large org trying to do the right thing, and I am trying to do the right thing, and still getting hammered by... well, yes, they're copyright trolls.

[basisword]

Surely you just have them sign a standard form that they have the correct license to allow you to use the image? Then, if you get targeted by a license holder the burden is passed to the people that told you they had the license. Regarding the larger org “trying to do the right thing”, they still failed to do their job properly. These license agreements are usually quite clear and specific in my experience. Their inability to understand it is the issue. They need to hire someone who can. I might not fully understand the tax system but I still have to follow it and “I tried my best” is not a valid excuse.

[Anduia]

If you read the article, he knows this but choses not to burden charities with those fees.

[basisword]

Charities, even small charities, have lots of money. They can handle small license fees. They want to comply with the law/regulations/licenses just like any other business.

[cpach]

I don’t think all orgs he’s dealing with are charities proper. AFAICT some of them are tiny volunteer-run groups. I think we safely can assume that not all of those groups have vast amounts of funding.

[basisword]

Fair enough. I still feel like you shouldn’t take stuff that’s not yours. The OP has made the right decision if they don’t want to deal with the overheads of ensuring the images are properly licensed, but denigrating people for catching you out on it isn’t a good look imo.

[cpach]

I guess the reason he wrote on his blog is to inform the users about the change. Why someone posted this to Hacker News though, I’m not sure… It doesn’t really invite to very interesting discussion, IMHO.

[fortran77]

> hen, if you get targeted by a license holder the burden is passed to the people that told you they had the license.

Well, not really. The contract you propose will merely give this guy the right to sue his client. He'll still directly owe the moeny to the person making the copyright claim, because that's how liability works.

[qingcharles]

Right, it's a chain. The burden is still on the guy at the top and the shit rolls downhill.

What I want to know is -- what would stop a photographer anonymously uploading his entire portfolio to Wikimedia and then suing them for publishing all his images?

[krisoft]

> because the license (weirdly) only permitted use in their publications and no where else

What is weird about that? You can buy the licence cheaply with restrictions and you can also pay much more for a less restricted version.

This makes perfect sense, if anyone who licences a picture could freely re-licence it to anyone then the original creator could only sell a licence once therefore they would have to ask much more for that licence to be able to make a living.

> people who complain about one word in a much longer article are maybe... missing the point

I don’t think so. The complaint goes to the hearth of the article. You cannot complain about people enforcing their copyright and at the same breath admit that they are right. If they are right then they are not copyright trolls.

Now if you would tell us a story where one of these people were trying to shake you down for an image you clearly and evidently had the copyright for that would be a different story. But your story as told undermines the phrase you are using, which is the core of the article.

As it reads you are chaffing that you have been ripping off people’s work (without intending to) and now they found an avenue to complain to you.

> I can go back with a form for them to fill in and confirm they have copyright clearance etc.

That is not what the form should say. What it should say is that they (named organisation if you trust them to be around, or named individual if you don’t trust the organisation) will pay any copyright fines you receive in relation to the images they gave you. This is a contract between you and them, so talk with a lawyer to make sure it can be enforced and has all the right elements.