After five years of blogging, I received my first "takedown" notice from Google yesterday advising me that they had received a complaint and that under the Digital Millennium Copyright ACt, they were obliged to remove the offending post unless I could prove right of access to an image I had used.
I make an effort not to allow this minor hobby to get myself into any real trouble. Yes, I can vent some spleen if I want to but those are personal opinions as I am always conscious that I might need to justify an opinion or perhaps face an individual and that helps moderate behaviour every now and then. I get the occasional one-eyed comment from readers but by-and-large, it's only ever as good as I give, which is fine.
So, to the offending image and use of copyright. I checked the post in question and it was from January. I had used two images. One of the F A Cup and another an advertisement for Fullers beer. Typically I find these on the internet and whilst I am aware that the law of copyright protects other people's pictures, on the basis that I am not seeking to do any wilful damage or looking to profit from what I am doing, it's usually very small risk. In many cases it's simply a little more publicity and we know that's no harm.
So, who complained, the FA or Fullers?
I make an effort not to allow this minor hobby to get myself into any real trouble. Yes, I can vent some spleen if I want to but those are personal opinions as I am always conscious that I might need to justify an opinion or perhaps face an individual and that helps moderate behaviour every now and then. I get the occasional one-eyed comment from readers but by-and-large, it's only ever as good as I give, which is fine.
So, to the offending image and use of copyright. I checked the post in question and it was from January. I had used two images. One of the F A Cup and another an advertisement for Fullers beer. Typically I find these on the internet and whilst I am aware that the law of copyright protects other people's pictures, on the basis that I am not seeking to do any wilful damage or looking to profit from what I am doing, it's usually very small risk. In many cases it's simply a little more publicity and we know that's no harm.
So, who complained, the FA or Fullers?
Wow. In my early days of blogging Charlton notified me that use of their photographs was illegal, so for years I nearly always used my own photos, but then as blogs and forums prolifigated it has become I thought impossible to police and if an image is publicly available and as you say, one is not looking to profit or damage then I thought fair game plus I always try to credit the photographer if I use someone's photo that is not easily grabbable on Google Images.
ReplyDeleteLike you however I am cognisant of defamation and the thin line between speculation and lying.
I would imagine that it is the FA that have complained, like they do with copyright of fixtures. Fullers meanwhile might just be happy with the free advert.
CA
I would have thought that the replication of those images was actually benificial to the owners.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Dave, welcome to the site-running world of pathetic complaints.
ReplyDeleteWait till you start receiving threatening lawyers letters, then you really know you've made it !
CA - I know it was the Old Farts!
ReplyDeleteAFKA - Hopefully I will leave the threatening letters to you experts!
ReplyDeleteYou've got me worried now Dave. A couple of months ago I posted a photo of Prince Charles.....guess I can expect to hear from the F.A. anytime now then..........
ReplyDelete