Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan |
11-19-2007 03:44 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by siberian khatru
If he wears that shirt in public, and the Star takes a photo of it at Arrowhead and publishes it in the paper the next day, is that a copyright infringement?
|
Nope, although if they take his picture, they are supposed to get a release allowing them to use the picture. Or at least, they did when I was doing reporting (pictures of the players is considered fair use due to the fact that "they're performing for a paying audience" - pictures of the fans used to require a release since the paper was using their images to make money for itself. Otherwise they could be sued. Don't know how much that's followed these days, I don't keep up with journalism law since I don't work as a journalist these days.)
Copyright law is if you create it, you own it for life + 70 years (IIRC). Still, I think the initial post might have fallen under the "fair use" clause since it was originally posted for the purposes of review. It's the same way that newspapers, magazines and web sites can post "short excerpts" of novels and pictures of the cover. It, in effect is free advertising.
However, for example, if an author believes a web site has posted more than is necessary for review purposes (like say the first three chapters of their book - or the big reveal at the end of a thriller), they can (and should) approach the site and ask them to redact or remove the work. If they refuse, that's usually where lawyers make their money.
Now, could Kyle have approached the moderators in a better manner than coming out swinging the lawyer stick. Absolutely. It was a pretty clueless move when it could have been handled more amicably.
But, if he does own the copyright, (and unless someone has evidence stating otherwise, why would he open himself up for this if he didn't?), he has the right to ask for the photographs to be removed. And posting his personal information on a BB like this is pretty bush league in my opinion.
|