# Who Owns internet Content **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 9, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164 "2009-10-09T05:18:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DORFMONT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@DORFMONT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DORFMONT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/1 "2009-10-09T05:18:22Z")
Several years ago I arranged to give a seminar by conference call. I gave verbbal permission to the conference organizer to record the lecture and distribute copies. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/2 "2009-10-09T05:34:18Z")
A 99er forgot the link? For shame! 😛 > **[Who controls the content on an Internet message board?](https://www.straightdope.com/21343996/who-controls-the-content-on-an-internet-message-board)** ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/3 "2009-10-09T13:04:23Z")
Cecil’s comment: > [@](#): > > It’s as if you own a building and a graffiti artist has sprayed a brilliant original sonnet on your wall. You can repaint the wall, or tear down the building, but you can’t include the sonnet in a poetry collection. while, of course, being correct and spot on, as The Master always is, got me thinking about something else. I’ve heard of photographers who take pictures of graffiti (apparently graffiti is now considered an “art form”) and publish the pictures in a book or something. This makes me wonder, the graffiti is the creative work of the one who made it and thus can’t be published, but photographs are of course creative works in their own right, and the property of their own creators. So can somoene take a photograph of a work that someone else owns (like the graffiti) and publish it without consulting the graffiti artist? ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/4 "2009-10-09T14:00:42Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > So can somoene take a photograph of a work that someone else owns (like the graffiti) and publish it without consulting the graffiti artist? Of course someone can. But I presume you’re asking whether it would be legal. The answer depends on jurisdiction. In some places there is a doctrine (known in Germany as Panoramafreiheit, loosely translated “Freedom of Panorama” in English) that makes allowances for depictions of creative works displayed in public spaces. In the U.S., this allowance applies only to works of architecture; sculptures and paintings and the like are not exempted from copyright protections in this way. In other countries, architecture and art are both exempted. So, in Germany, you can walk down to a public square and take a picture of the statue of the city founder and publish the photograph under whatever licensing you care to, without having to compensate the sculptor. In the U.S., you can do that with buildings but not with artworks. So, assuming your hypothetical question is set in the United States, the answer is that that would be illegal. It would be legal in some other jurisdictions. HOWEVER. Your average graffiti artist is unlikely to sue in such a situation, as doing so would be exposing him/her to prosecution for vandalism. So, in theory, no, it’s not legal, but in practice, the chances of getting away with it are high. Powers &8^] Edited to add: Let me clarify that by “illegal”, I don’t mean the police are going to come to your house and arrest you. Violating copyright is purely a civil matter, not criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/5 "2009-10-09T14:20:29Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > Of course someone can. But I presume you’re asking whether it would be legal. The answer depends on jurisdiction. > > In some places there is a doctrine (known in Germany as Panoramafreiheit, loosely translated “Freedom of Panorama” in English) that makes allowances for depictions of creative works displayed in public spaces. In the U.S., this allowance applies only to works of architecture; sculptures and paintings and the like are not exempted from copyright protections in this way. In other countries, architecture and art are both exempted. > **[Freedom of panorama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit)** > > Freedom of panorama (FoP) is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs and video footage and creating other images (such as paintings) of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art works which are permanently located in a public space, without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and the publishing of such images. Panorama freedom statutes or case law limit the right of the copyright owner to take action In ... I had no idea. This is why I love this place. Regarding incidental filming or photography of art in the U.S., there is also the \*de minimis \* doctrine, which acsenray and I discussed in a currently missing staff report. Here is an excerpt: > [@](#): > > the de minimis defense says that the copyrighted work is a tiny portion of a new work, created by the copier. A common example is a poster or photograph shown briefly in a movie. But brevity is important, and this is another defense that does not allow for clear-cut distinctions. > > The defense didn’t work when the television show Roc showed a poster by Faith Ringgold. According to the court, the segments of the program in which the poster was visible to any degree lasted between 1.86 and 4.16 seconds. The aggregate duration of all nine segments was 26.75 seconds. The Court found > Quote: > In some circumstances, a visual work, though selected by production staff for thematic relevance, or at least for its decorative value, might ultimately be filmed at such a distance and so out of focus that a typical program viewer would not discern any decorative effect that the work of art contributes to the set. But that is not this case. The painting component of the poster is recognizable as a painting, and with sufficient observable detail for the “average lay observer,” to discern African-Americans in Ringgold’s colorful, virtually two-dimensional style. The de minimis threshold for actionable copying of protected expression has been crossed. > In other words, if the work is recognizable in the new work, there’s a good chance the defense will fail. > > In a later case, the same court upheld a de minimis infringement defense by the producers of the movie Seven. In that case, the photos had more overall screen time (the total onscreen time was about 36 seconds, and the longest uninterrupted view was about 6 seconds), but they weren’t in focus most of the time. The Court upheld the defense because the photographs “appear[ed] fleetingly and [were] obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable[.]” In this context a lawsuit over the use of a sculpture based on a Frederick Hart work in the movie The Devil’s Advocate (1997) is frequently discussed. The case was settled, so we’ll never know how a court would have ruled. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/6 "2009-10-09T14:28:24Z")
Hmmm… I own 2 books, published about 15 or 20 years ago, specifically of graffiti - one on urban graffiti, mostly NYC and LA; the other of New York subway trains (before Giuliani). Much of this stuff was “art” as much as anything produced today is. Never heard that the guys who compiled these got into any trouble from the artists, and in the introduction they make no mention of having to pay the artists. But again, as you say, anyone who comes forward with a claim will likely end up doing time for vandalism. Plus, even so, there must be some statute of limitations on these kind of claims as well as on vandalism. Also, I wonder if the publishers would get out of the claim with a “Son of Sam Law” defence, that the artists can’t profit from their crimes? It was a given bit of wisdom in the early days of the internet that anyone who does not enforce their rights, loses them. This was more aimed at trademarks than copyright- not sure the same applies. Rolls Royce, for example, will send cease-and-desist letters to anyone who takes their name in vain (“the rolls-royce of plaid jacket makers!”) Owners of various popular culture - star wars, marvel comics, rock bands, TV studios, etc. - also hit fan sites with cease and desist letters. (sure, smack your strongest customers!) The fear is some court precedents (IIRC) that say “use it or lose it”; that if the owners don’t make an effort to defend their rights, they cede them to the public domain. They can’t come back after 5 or 10 years of doing nothing and insist the world scrub it’s content of offending uses. Hence words like kleenex and fridge have gone from being brand names to generic names. Aspirin, IIRC, was a special case in that the german Bayer company was seized as war booty by the US government in WWI and resold, so the name’s rights got lost. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/7 "2009-10-09T14:31:27Z")
Meanwhile, congrats to **Level3Navigator** , not only for having his post ([Can I legally publish posts made by someone on a message board? - Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527083) ) used as the question to open Cecil’s column, but for being illustrated by Slug. (OK, perhaps the person isn’t **Level3Navigator** , but the screen certainly names him. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/8 "2009-10-09T14:36:11Z")
Gfactor: Regarding the de minimis defence - I assume an additional factor is how much discretion the filmmaker or whomeever had in the inclusion of the art? If I film in Times Square, I can’t help but include huge amounts of copyright material of dubious artistic value but definitely copyright. The owners put it on deliberate display. If I decorate a set with a piece of art, or select an interior which includes art, I assume (or the court assumes) I have made a conscious decison on some level to actively include the art for some reason. I.e. it looks good, it adds to the atmosphere, therefore I am in some small measure “exploiting” the art rather than just encountering it. However, I do find it hilarious when these reality shows blur out posters and T-shirts while running around in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/9 "2009-10-09T15:16:38Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > Edited to add: Let me clarify that by “illegal”, I don’t mean the police are going to come to your house and arrest you. Violating copyright is purely a civil matter, not criminal. I wish people would stop perpetutating this falsehood. > [@](#): > > Copyright Law of the United States of America > and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code > Circular 92 > > * * * > > Chapter 5 > Copyright Infringement and Remedies > > § 506. Criminal offenses > (a) Criminal Infringement. — > > (1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed — > > (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; > > (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or > > (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution. > > (2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright. > > (3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means — > > (A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution — > > (i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and > > (ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or > > (B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture — > > (i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and > > (ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility. > > (b) Forfeiture and Destruction. — When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords. > > (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. > > (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. > > (e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500. > > (f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a). ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/10 "2009-10-09T16:37:13Z")
Yes, a more accurate statement would be: violation of a copyright may be a criminal offense, and will also give rise to a civil action by the holder of the right. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/11 "2009-10-09T17:23:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Probably a lot, although few such agreements have been tested in court. **The Straight Dope Message Board has one, which we’ll get back to.** First let’s look at Facebook’s agreement, which created an uproar earlier this year. Cecil Adams in [Who controls the content on an Internet message board?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2900/who-controls-the-content-on-an-internet-message-board) Reread the bold sentence. Shame on you, Cecil!! We already have kids these days who cannot read and write properly. Heck, just read and listen to the young whippersnapper alleged journalists today who cannot properly write a sentence. Now you’ve gone and done the same. Shame! Shame! Shame! We expect better from you. Look, if you’re going to dangle the preposition, at least do what the late Johnny Carson did and wear a long coat so no one will notice, because right now, your naughty bits are showing. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/12 "2009-10-09T17:47:19Z")
There is nothing wrong with leaving a preposition at the end of the sentence, as Winston Churchill famously pointed out. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/13 "2009-10-09T18:13:38Z")
As C. S. Lewis said, “a Frenchified schoolroom superstition”. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/14 "2009-10-09T18:27:26Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > It was a given bit of wisdom in the early days of the internet that anyone who does not enforce their rights, loses them. That _only_ applies to trademarks. Copyrights and patents don’t work that way at all. There is, of course, the practical exception that if the copyright holder is being lax in prosecution because he doesn’t care or fears prosecution if he comes forward, the work is effectively not protected. My point, though, is that a period of laxity does _not_ prevent the rightsholder from coming forwards later. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/15 "2009-10-09T20:25:37Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > That _only_ applies to trademarks. Copyrights and patents don’t work that way at all. > > There is, of course, the practical exception that if the copyright holder is being lax in prosecution because he doesn’t care or fears prosecution if he comes forward, the work is effectively not protected. My point, though, is that a period of laxity does _not_ prevent the rightsholder from coming forwards later. Since IANAL, I am curious what the judge usually thinks of the concept that the rights-owner deliberately allowed such a misuse and later sues. IIRC that was an issue with some software patents, where the though was that the owners were going to let their “idea” become heavily embedded in poular web protocols and then come after everybody when it was too late and too expensive to change. Somewhat similar to what happened to GIF on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/16 "2009-10-09T20:53:48Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Since IANAL, I am curious what the judge usually thinks of the concept that the rights-owner deliberately allowed such a misuse and later sues. IIRC that was an issue with some software patents, where the though was that the owners were going to let their “idea” become heavily embedded in poular web protocols and then come after everybody when it was too late and too expensive to change. > > Somewhat similar to what happened to GIF on the internet. That’s covered by some equitable defenses, primarily laches: [My Bookmarks](http://www.fdml.com/defenses.pdf) But it requires the individual defendant to show that it was prejudiced by the delay in bringing suit. That’s different from the process by which a trademark can become generic or descriptive though the owner’s inaction. [http://openjurist.org/321/f2d/577](http://openjurist.org/321/f2d/577) The latter affects the validity of the owner’s intellectual property rights; the former only affects the plaintiff’s rights against an individual defendant. And I’m still thinking about your question about the de minimis defense. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/17 "2009-10-12T04:49:27Z")
I’m just wondering if Cecil was thinking of me with his Bangkok reference at the end. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Level3Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Level3Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Level3Navigator)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-internet-content/513164/18 "2009-10-21T16:42:35Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Meanwhile, congrats to **Level3Navigator** , not only for having his post ([Can I legally publish posts made by someone on a message board? - Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527083) ) used as the question to open Cecil’s column, but for being illustrated by Slug. (OK, perhaps the person isn’t **Level3Navigator** , but the screen certainly names him. Wow! Yes, that is me that asked the question, and I am so ever humbled to have my question answered by the Master (and the illustration from Slug is the frosting on the cake)! I’m primarily a lurker, only contributing an answer or question once in a blue moon. And here I was just trying to understand the complexities of copyright law. I’ll be interested in the legal outcome when this issue comes to court. Thanks, Uncle Cecil! This made my year!