Update to these stories: "THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR USING OUR PICTURES" Part II" and "Blogs, Photo and Copyright:"Hey, I drove that Porsche Boxster for two days, but frankly, I didn´t want to use it, I just wanted to make advertisement for Porsche!"
After the messages from Jason Calacanis "Fair Use for photos on the web and in blogs: a modest proposal to avoid a major battle", "Blogs, Photo and Copyright: Winning the battle, but let’s not lose the war" and the mutual comments from Jason and us the debate continues in "More on blogs, photos and fair use…" (The Jason Calacanis Weblog):
Looks like the first New York Times v. Bloggers using their Photos issue has sprung up: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/main/archives/000442.html.
The New York Times should set a policy that bloggers can use 25% of the original picture if they link back to the site. If I was the New York Times I would even provide the blogger-approved photos.
Use this as a chance to tap the power of blogs—surf the wave, don’t fight it.
[©Toycamera]
The background story is simply that Apartment Therapy came up with a story that Apartment Therapy -- how to say -- uses pictures from the NYT:
BUT on Thursdays, our coverage largely is about The Times' House and Home section, there is no doubt about it. People are reading about them through us.
Ms. Rohrlich [from the NYT] was very upset and wanted us to know that they worked very hard at The Times and those photographs we copied were copyrighted. Hmmm.
BoingBoing also picks the story in "New York Times gets mad at Apartment Therapy blog":
Yesterday the phone rang towards the end of the day and when we picked it up the voice on the other side of the line said, "This is Marianne Rohrlich." It was like getting a call from Elvis. Marianne Rohrlich?! Who we have been reading obsessively and PROMOTING obsessively for the best home section coverage IN THE COUNTRY? She is, however, not happy with us. "Did it occur to you that it is not right to just LIFT other people's work?" she asks me. ("Do you know what blogging is?" I want to ask.) "Our legal department is going to be calling you."
The number of comments to the post and furthermore the quality of their content clearly show that is a la mode that anyone even without a basic understanding of the background problem tries to comment this in a way like "I had a Shawn Fanning moment. Is this Napster 2004?".
Generously Dan Hunter (Wharton/Upenn) finally puts an end to this intergalatic nightmare of BLABLA in his comment:
I am a copyright lawyer and I'm being completely straight when I say that you are almost certainly liable for copyright infringement. Of course you shouldn't be, but you are. And even if you have the best fair use defense in the world--which you don't--you don't want to get into a lawsuit over this. You'll regret it. If they push it, make an apology, promise not to do it again, make it go away. (Link)
There are other news regarding this subject to be reported later today.
