July 8, 2016 at 21:48Photos from Varlamov. Honest business or misinterpreted law
Under the latest flash mobs, a small scandal around Varlamov was quickly lost, which from the point of view of copyright is quite curious and revealing.
To dive into the context, you need to look at two links:
www.business-gazeta.ru/article/315148 - This is probably the main text from which the story began.
www.facebook.com/groups/pressuha/permalink/1108364145904244 - Discussion of the situation in the FB.
For those who are too lazy to follow the links, but in vain, briefly the essence of the story:
Open to those who did not follow the links
The point is that Varlamov “put on the conveyor suits to those publications where his photographs are” (this is a quote). According to the publication, some of the photos they “found on the Internet” with already trimmed copyrights and didn’t know what they were taking, and some were used by them not for illustration, but as a bona fide quote, because the materials themselves were about Varlamov. Then comes the complaint that for non-commercial projects Varlamov always seemed to say that the main thing is not to forget to put his authorship on, and that he doesn’t make money on the photo, and now he’s changed his mind retroactively. And in general, there is an article about him, that is, authorship is indicated megacompact.
The following is the story of how Varlamov is suing the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, where he nearly lost once, but found a way to return the case and is now being re-examined.
There is a lot of text, at the end everything slides to the arrivals, which greatly spoils the feeling.
The following is the story of how Varlamov is suing the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, where he nearly lost once, but found a way to return the case and is now being re-examined.
There is a lot of text, at the end everything slides to the arrivals, which greatly spoils the feeling.
So. How are things with rights.
We started by writing to Varlamov asking for permission to use the photo you see in the title. An answer was received after 6 hours:
Greetings!
Just an article about Ilya and others?
If it is not offensive, then you can use the photo with reference to the source.
TO
Since the article is definitely not offensive, we have not encountered any problems with obtaining permission to publish. Why the editors of the publication, which, in theory, should already have eaten a bunch of dogs using other people's materials, could not make this simple body movement - it is not clear. The story with "we found a photo on the Internet" in theory tells us that someone should learn the equipment, but only indirectly.
Let's get back to the bottom line.
Is it possible to take a photograph just like that if it is the essence of the news, and in theory, as it were, it can be quoted. This, incidentally, is the position taken by VGTRK.
Let's take a look at the story in terms of copyright.
Although the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company sold the judge for the first time, as practice has shown, returning this case through the Intellectual Property Rights Court is not very difficult, because news is news, but photography is also a product of intellectual labor, and the news character does not cancel its protection.
From this story, you can squeeze two points in essence:
1) an assessment of the level of creativity
2) the stupid formula of the law on minimum compensation for one violation of 10 thousand rubles
1. The law protects only creative results.
But what is creativity in the law is not defined - whether there is creativity in the cat’s photo or not, the court determines. And with the court, everything is bad, because then, regarding the level of creativity in the law, there is a wonderful formula -1. The objects of copyright are works of science, literature and art, regardless of the merits and purpose of the work, as well as the way it is expressed.
On this basis, any daub can be recognized as a protected object.
As a result, the courts are not guided by the formula “Creativity is a plea for immortality”, they don’t evaluate the result from the point of view of an art critic or at least a critically-minded audience, but they evaluate photos on a purely formal basis of a “hurrying idiot” - he did something and okay - he needs to be protected .
AND!
One could agree with all this if it were not for item No. 2 - the minimum amount of compensation that cannot be reduced!
If it were possible to evaluate the photo at 1 ruble, then claims for copyright infringement would be many times less, because courts in such cases tend to give minimal compensation. But at the same time, in a situation where the author of a real work of art is really seriously affected, the author would suffer, because he would use his works in the tail and mane.
It turns out that the law is not so bad?
In any case, from our bell tower of people dealing with copyright, this whole story speaks mainly not about the “bad Varlamov”, but how hard it is given to people to think that yes, you need to ask the author for any photos. And if the photo seems to be unowned - google it before using it, and if the author is not located, refuse to use it, as though it would not be desirable.
In addition, an investigative experiment showed that obtaining permission to use specifically these photographs is a completely simple matter.