Fox said in court documents that were before the courts that its use of the “visually modified, significantly cropped, low-resolution versions” of the photo was for news coverage or commentary purposes and fell under the “fair dealing” provisions of copyright law. Here`s Fox News` decision and the latest lawsuit on the front of the 9/11 photo. The photo, which has been reproduced worldwide, was also posted on Fox News` Bret Bayr and Jeanine Pirro Facebook pages to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It reminds me a bit of Morel. The defendant is a media company established with a producer who had received fair dealing training (but not with respect to this image). Nevertheless, a single image that comes from the wrong place and is used in the social feed causes huge headaches. Maybe it just illustrates the “photos are different” rule in action. This kind of judgment may be the reason why bloggers and websites are well advised to never just look for an image and use it in an article or article. In addition, the judge said it was an important question of fact if Fox News had used the photo to commemorate 9/11 or for commercial purposes to promote Pirro`s show. And as for the final factor — the impact of the use on the potential photo market — the judge points to the fact that NJMG has generated more than $1 million in royalty revenue from the photo, and says that what Fox News has done “poses a very real danger that other media organizations of this type will forgo pay royalties for the work and instead choose: use the combined image for free» The case is important in another sense, due to the declaration of the production assistant. She was pretty clear that it had never occurred to her that she couldn`t do that; In an Instagram and Twitter culture, the implication of this testimony is not so much “everyone does it,” but “that`s how the expression happens now.” Be careful with this. As long as copyright exists, we`ve heard about how changing customs and cultural technologies threaten to make copyright obsolete. This is not the case.
When you combine existing copyrighted material, you are on one leg. It may still be fair use, but it is not a panacea. Maybe if the second circuit takes over, we`ll have more advice, but I wouldn`t rely on it in the short term anyway. Fioranelli says he offered CBS a one-time use of his work for a news program, and that this licensing agreement expired in 2002. A few years later, he adds, “CBS launched an extensive program to sublicense the plaintiff`s works to at least 15 companies and well-known television stations through sublicensees such as Netflix, the Smithsonian Channel, the British Broadcasting Company and many others. According to the plaintiff, publisher of The Record and Herald News, a now iconic photo taken by Thomas Franklin of three firefighters hoisting the American flag on the ruins of the World Trade Center site was posted on the Facebook page of Fox News` Justice with Judge Jeanine TV show, alongside the classic World War II photo of four U.S. Marines. who hoist the American flag on Iwo Jima. The photo was found by a production assistant who googled “9/11” and was used on social media with the hashtag “#neverforget” to commemorate the 12th anniversary of 9/11.
In a February 9 statement, the judge concluded that one of the factors – the nature of the work – favours a fair dealing determination because the work is “factual and has been published.” The judge considers that another factor – the quantity and materiality of the part used – is neutral, as it was not clear “that Fox News` use of less work would have ensured public recognition of the iconic photo.” North Jersey Media Group, which operates two newspapers, sued Fox News for copyright infringement because the photo was taken by a photographer who worked for North Jersey Media. Fox News retaliated and cited fair dealing, triggering a potentially significant legal battle over fair dealing and photography on social media. From there, however, it feels like the District Court asked the question correctly, no matter what you think of Prince. It was a news photo that was clearly protected by copyright and later registered as such. I think the Court`s summary of “transformation” as “me too” is correct and not pejorative.
