What responsibility does a site like Post Secret have to protect the rights of the copyright holders for images used in contributor’s submissions? For the publication of the founder’s recently released book, a collection of post cards from the site, were there special steps he was required to take to protect himself incase a copyright holder objected to the use of his/her image in a contributor’s submission?
Didn’t you read the legal notice?
Even the Dope allows the Reader to make free use of any posts made here in any collection they wish to put out. This goes several steps beyond that.
I’m not asking about the permission of the contributor to have his/her submission published. I want to know about the rights of the owner of the original artwork that contributors use to create their submissions.
IANAL, but I don’t see why the operators of PostSecret wouldn’t be subject to the same rules as everyone else, just because someone else is submitting the work to them.
Seems like the same situation as here: If we post something which violates another’s copyright, the Reader could be held liable, which is why they’re so vigilant about copyright concerns.
If the original artwork is under copyright, then the copyright holder is in the driver’s seat. You cannot create derivative works without permission. And no disclaimer on the site can take the rights away from the creator if he has not posted the art.
However, from the examples I see, it appears that the contributors could argue this is parody and thus fair use. For instance, the image of Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins; the parody defense would be quite strong for that.
From the same page as the legal notice:
What does a “homemade postcard” mean? Sounds like weasel words to me, but the site seems to indicate that it means people should use their own copyrighted images or a collage of other works rather than simply putting words on a commercial postcard.
This raises two questions.
First, what is the fair use status of visual collage art? Murky at best. I don’t know of any pertinent case law, and certainly no higher court definitive decisions, though the IP lawyers are free to come in and correct me. Would these postcards be protected as parody? Probably, but again case law is non-existent to limited as best.
Second, what about the people who don’t do what they are supposed to do and use true unaltered commercial postcards? The book compilers could have tried to skip these for inclusion, or can try falling back on the parody defense, or argue the artistic merit of collages.
Their legal notice is a work of art. It seems to place all burdens of infringement on the contributors. I doubt this would stand in a lawsuit, but it might. As I keep saying there is no good law on this issue.