Dropping the copyright rule (?)

So, Mr. Tim, since you brought the topic up buried in another thread over in another group, let's here your thoughts in a dedicated thread.

Should we drop the "copyright rule" and rely on DMCA type takedown notices?

a) it's your company and your liability.

but...

b) I know I would be pissed if I found my photos on a site that didn't ask first (or didn't follow the CC licenses I use on them).

c) it's a pain to find places that use my photos on the web. photo searching is harder than searching for text. I can find places that copy my text much easier than I can the photos.

d) on the other hand it would make flagging a hell of a lot less time-consuming: check for inappropriate content, check for dupes, check for covers where authors are supposed to be.

e) perhaps somewhat of a hybrid approach. promo photos taken from publisher sites are assumed to be okay, but unsourced or pictures from personal sites / flickr / etc., are not.

promo photos taken from publisher sites are assumed to be okay

But there are many, many that are not okay from the publishers' sites. I don't think that would be a safe approach, especially since it is really easy to contact the publishers (and they are very good about responding - positive or negative).

I think LT's current approach shows a respect for individual property, and I think the higher standard speaks well of it.

I think LT's current approach shows a respect for individual property, and I think the higher standard speaks well of it.

As someone who just yesterday had to email a site asking them to remove one of my copyrighted photos, I wholeheartedly concur.

I am not upset by the fact that copyright holders have to do their own enforcement -- it's built into the system, and it's a good thing that it is. Copyright, like other tort / private property type rights & wrongs, is premised on personal rightsholder enforcement. "Having" to email a site to ask them to remove your photo is precisely the right one gets with a copyright. The idea that intermediaries -- like LibraryThing -- are potentially liable to copyright holders for actions of third parties is, in my judgment, both unfair and unwise. And it's way out of control. I'll hop down off my secondary liability soapbox now.

On to another topic. On balance, I wonder, do people think that more authors would want their photos in sites like this one, or not? Any anecdotal support for either position?

> 4

On balance, I wonder, do people think that more authors would want their photos in sites like this one, or not? Any anecdotal support for either position?

If I were an author, I'd want my photo (assuming it was a good one!) on a site like this.

As far as ancecdotal support, if the responses I've had from the permissions letter are anything to go by, authors do. I have not yet had an author turn me down (though a few have not answered). The only turn-down I have had came not from an author, but from a publisher, and that was because they didn't own the rights to the photo (the photographer did).

>4 lquilter: If it were easy to find my photos in use, I would wholeheartedly agree that it should be the rightsholders' responsibility to police. Problem with photos is that finding my photos ain't easy. LT can be a good citizen by being pro-active about keeping photos without documented provenance off the site. Sure, they don't have to. It could hide behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions, but that's not going to endear them to photographers. Users might like it, though.

>6 KingRat: Legally, it is the rightsholders' responsibility to police. I don't think authors in 1825 had it easy, either, finding infringements and tracking down infringers. I do sympathize with photographers, but unfortunately we do not have a copyright law for photographers -- we have a copyright law which covers a myriad of different materials, with different ways of copying, different professional norms, different relationships with different users. With copyright law burdened by such differential responsibilities, it is necessarily a rough rather than a refined tool.

I'll stop thread-hijacking now.

I know legally it is.

Legally if I see someone breaking in to the neighbors apartment I don't have to stop them or even call the cops. But it sure would be the neighborly thing to do to call the cops.

Same deal here. It would be the neighborly thing to do.

Of course, criminal activity is a matter of public enforcement, which makes this comparison a little less relevant. There are strong public benefits to prohibiting burglary per se, and not assuming it's the individual's duty to enforce.

For better or worse, there is a quite different balance of interests in enforcement of copyrights. It should be abundantly clear, for instance, that the majority of people are not interested in enforcing the thousands of copyrights that they hold, and it would be clearly contra the public interest to make their enforcement a public or third party responsibility. And needless to say there are many important qualifications, limitations, and exceptions to copyright infringement which wouldn't really apply to, for instance, burglary.

In my view, if one sees a likely violation, the neighborly thing to do is contact the person legally and ethically responsible for enforcing. For criminal activities, sure, police, third parties, and the individuals affected, all have legal or ethical responsibilities. For copyright infringements it seems neighborly for a witness to notify the copyright holder.