How is posting a photo you found on line of someone or something interesting on KSR or here any different than posting one on a Facebook page?

How is posting a photo you found on line of someone or something interesting on KSR or here any different than posting one on a Facebook page?

 

I have no real idea, but I'll take a shot at it. People posting random stuff on facebook are most likely not making ad revenue or money from subscriptions.

 

As for the pics, maybe it can be looked at in a similar manner to posting an article from something like ESPN Insider. Is it wrong to just post the info in the article for others to read? Someone else wrote it and it's behind a pay wall.

 

Now imagine another forum or sports blog was posting BGP pictures taken for a high school football game, would that fly?

 

Just some random thoughts, hope they made sense.

According to Jones the situation is resolved:

 

In January, Andrew Shurtleff filed a lawsuit against KSR dealing with the use of his photographs that appeared on the Kentucky Sports Radio website. After discussions between the two parties, the matter has been resolved and the two parties have come to an agreement on the dispute. Mr. Shurtleff has agreed to dismiss the suit, and KSR hopes to use Mr. Shurtleff’s services in the future.

 

KSR Statement | Kentucky Sports Radio

Wonder how much he paid him...

Wonder how much he paid him...

 

With what he's making right now it could have been any amount.

They are on 30 stations now, I'd guess he's getting into some real money. Especially since he owns his show unlike most shows like this.

They are on 30 stations now' date=' I'd guess he's getting into some real money. Especially since he owns his show unlike most shows like this.[/quote']

 

That's why he was sued, the guy needed a donation. It was maybe two or three days of pay for Matt.

I bet he makes a lot of his website too. He averages like 100 thousand hits a day, I bet he gets nice advertising money

That's why he was sued, the guy needed a donation. It was maybe two or three days of pay for Matt.

 

No, he was sued because Jones misappropriated the photographer's work as his own. Jones stole.

How do the copyright laws work regarding social media sites like Twitter and Instagram, etc?

 

If I take a picture and post it on Twitter, doesn't that make it fair game? Same with Instagram?

 

A quick google turned up this regarding Twitter images:

 

The terms go on to state that you also grant “each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in media Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your media from the Service provided that any sub-license by Twitpic to use, reproduce or distribute the Content prior to such termination may be perpetual and irrevocable.”

 

Entire article here regarding Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram...

 

 

I've not read through all of the replies here yet, but I think that the issue is much more complex than most might initially think, and that there are a variety of factors that could influence the legality of the situation.

 

I know that a few years ago, there was a huge uproar where users went viral with backlash against Instagram because Instagram had some language in their EULA (End-User License Agreement) or something similar more or less stating that they owned the rights to any material you posted through them.

 

At the same time, Facebook settled a class action suit around 2011 or so that was related to user content and the transparency of privacy settings.

 

Personally, I think it's hard to "have your cake and eat it too" and that at a certain point, most have probably given the rights to their work to an exception under 'fair use' (link). Generally, 'fair use' protects someone other than the original author who republishes a work for: 1. criticism, 2. comment, 3. news reporting, or 4. teaching, scholarship, and research.

 

'Fair Use' is a 4-pronged analysis:

 

1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

 

2. The nature of the copyrighted work;

 

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

 

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work;

 

 

Here is where 'fair use' gets tricky:

"The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

 

Above, I am probably not infringing on the copyright of the United States government because of issues with it being a public entity and the associated entanglement with the Freedom of Information Act, but let's not get into that.

 

In the way that I am using their work, I am probably good with prong #1 because the adverse commercial impact of my pasting their work on BluegrassPreps is minimal. It is likely that they don't get paid for hits, but have used them for nonprofit, educational purposes instead.

 

Without doing more research and/or speaking too far out of my depth, the above ties directly into prong #2 and #4 as well.

 

I would argue that, I am in compliance with fair use under prong #3 because I am only using a small portion of their large, voluminous work on copyright law. If I were attempting to take the contents of a larger work insofar as I'm just taking a paragraph of major points and reposting them, as opposed to copying a whole chapter of code, compressing it into a text file, and making it available for download.

 

 

Again, that's an oversimplified example and shouldn't be taken as legal advice. It's just an illustration to show one portion of a larger body of law.

 

I wanted to use the above as somewhat of a cut and dried example to show how publishers of sites like Drudge Report, Deadspin, or even Tosh.0 can take someone's content and still make a valid argument that they are in compliance with copyright law because of fair use exceptions.

People can say what they want about Jones and whatever your personal opinion of him makes no difference to me, but I don't think they let just anyone into Duke Law, and I'd venture a guess that he knows what he's doing.

 

That said, I really don't know very much about the specifics of this case, but would think that if it was something horribly egregious, then this would probably be a much bigger issue than it is.

People can say what they want about Jones and whatever your personal opinion of him makes no difference to me, but I don't think they let just anyone into Duke Law, and I'd venture a guess that he knows what he's doing.

 

That said, I really don't know very much about the specifics of this case, but would think that if it was something horribly egregious, then this would probably be a much bigger issue than it is.

 

Wait wait wait wait, hold the phones, Jones went to Duke Law? and has a KY sports show? How did this happen? How did Kentuckians let this happen?

Wait wait wait wait, hold the phones, Jones went to Duke Law? and has a KY sports show? How did this happen? How did Kentuckians let this happen?

How often do you come out of your cave?

How often do you come out of your cave?

 

I dont follow Matt Jones, know little about him or his show, sorry.

I dont follow Matt Jones, know little about him or his show, sorry.

 

FWIW he HATES DUKE!!! Well he says he does!