Spit & Polish: 11 March 2012

Watch out for potholes and speed traps on the information highway

I have  been watching the steadily growing row about who owns what on the internet. The "information highway", when it first arrived, was like manna from heaven. But now the booms are coming down. Just as there are speed traps on any other kind of highway, you risk being caught and fined for doing something illegal.

For example, Whitney Houston died recently. So, let's say that I was a huge fan and I wanted to write a comprehensive tribute to her life and work. I knew quite a lot about Whitney, but I got onto the internet and found pictures of her mother, Cissy Houston, a major singer in her own right, and I thought a picture of her would look good on my tribute page.

I did not know that Cissy had started her career as a back-up singer for Elvis Presley, Mahalia Jackson and Aretha Franklin. On Wikipedia there is a portrait of Cissy, shot by a commercial photographer when she was a much younger woman.

On Google Images, I found other studio portraits and record covers with great images of Cissy, obviously shot by a professional photographer. I downloaded those pictures and used them on my own website.

The question now is whether I stole those pictures or owe money to the photographers who took them.

This is what I read in the British Journal of Photography. Steve Hewlett of In Focus, an insurance company, says that professional photographers should take action to prevent their images from ending up on a site without authorisation.

"People aren't knowingly breaking the law, they just need to be made aware," says Hewlett. "Copyright belongs to the photographer. According to British law, copyright is granted at the point of creation. It belongs automatically to the photographer."

In the same article I saw this quote: "In the US, cases have been brought against Facebook users after they uploaded copyrighted photographs," says Keith Arrowsmith, intellectual property and media partner at law firm Ralli. "I have been involved in cases where consumers have been faced with demands for hundreds of pounds of licence fees after unwittingly using unauthorised photos online.

"There is a degree of naivety regarding what can and can't be used without permission. The facts speak themselves, however, and people do get caught and do get into trouble for using images they have found online without seeking prior permission."

So what comes next? Will there be an army of computer geeks hired by one corporation or another to trace anyone who has used a picture shot by a professional photographer as an illustration on a web story?

If they punish me for using that album cover of Cissy Houston, which was shot decades ago, how many people would I have to pay?

I guess the record company that released the album would send me a lawyer's letter. So would the professional photographer who took the original picture. Could the company who designed the album cover also demand payment?

The first question is whether they would really track me down and put the lawyers onto me for using a picture of Cissy Houston in an "In Memoriam" tribute to her career, and also that of her lost daughter?

My second question is whether it would be worth their while to take on the task of tracking me halfway around the world, to extort payment for the use of a picture I found on the internet.

Consider these statistics: "Facebook announced that 750-million photos had been uploaded on Facebook in the space of 48 hours during the New Year's Eve weekend."

Who is going to track those 750-million photos and who is going to benefit from the legal consequences of fining 750-million people?

But even on a small scale it could be a major issue. For example, you hire a professional photographer for wedding pictures, and you pay him for the work he has done.

But if you start sending dozens of those pictures to friend and relatives, would that photographer be able ask for more money? The deal you did with him was settled, but once other people were receiving the pictures, the photographer could be entitled to charge an additional fee.

Similarly, if I were to write a film review on my website and use images of the poster and the actors in the film, would the movie company charge me? Would the guy who created the movie poster send me a bill?

Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? There will be much discussion about this but right now, the "information highway" could end up plagued with potholes, greedy toll-booths and speed traps, very much like the roads the ANC is trying to foist upon us.