Google Images & Blogger Slander

[zddoodah]

For purposes of clarification, the images were taken from public videos. He took screenshots, then totally disfigured them, trying to make me look crazy. I don't know if video images are copyrighted.

Audiovisual works are also protected by copyright from the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Without seeing any of the image, taking a still from a video and distorting it to make the subject look crazy might constitute fair use (commentary and criticism). It is, of course, impossible to know for sure without a thorough review of what was done.

 

[Ted761]

Fair use is definitely a defense to infringement but it may or may not be a winning defense in court. This could be a decent defense if a single image or two were taken from a video and commentary about these images was added.

That's right and supports my own research. I don't understand why Google doesn't allow people to file a counter response to a counter notice, but instead force us to spend tons of money in court. I could have argued the point you made, and the fact that there are dozens of severely mutilated and defamatory images.

 

[Ted761]

Audiovisual works are also protected by copyright from the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Without seeing any of the image, taking a still from a video and distorting it to make the subject look crazy might constitute fair use (commentary and criticism). It is, of course, impossible to know for sure without a thorough review of what was done.

That comment appears contradictory, because you said audio visual works are protected by copyright, then said it might constitute fair use. Why isn't this a contradiction? If something is copyrighted, how can it fall under fair use?

 

[LdiJ]

That comment appears contradictory, because you said audio visual works are protected by copyright, then said it might constitute fair use. Why isn't this a contradiction? If something is copyrighted, how can it fall under fair use?

This is a example that really doesn't have anything to do with your situation, but it gives you an idea of "fair use". Books are copywrited. If I buy a Dr Zuess book and cut out all of the pages and put them in frames on my granddaughter's wall, that is fair use. I paid for the book and I am not using it for any purpose other than my own use.

So, it is possible for something to be copywrited but still be used by someone under "fair use", depending on the circumstances. One potential circumstance is apparently "commentary and criticism".

 

[quincy]

That comment appears contradictory, because you said audio visual works are protected by copyright, then said it might constitute fair use. Why isn't this a contradiction? If something is copyrighted, how can it fall under fair use?

What a court looks at when determining fair use are the purpose and character of the use (e.g., was the original work changed to add new expression or meaning?), the nature of the copyrighted work (e.g., was the original work informational or entertaining), the amount and substantiality of the portion used compared to the whole of the original (e.g., one line in a short poem may be too much, one page in a long book might be okay), and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the original work (e.g., publishing the ending of a novel could affect the market value).

A court weighs all of these factors, and more, when a copyrighted work is infringed, the copyright holder objects to the infringement and sues, and the infringer uses fair use as a defense to the infringement.

Again, fair use is NOT permission to use a copyrighted work. Permission needs to be granted by the copyright holder. Fair use is just a defense to infringement - a “yes I infringed but it’s okay because ...” The “because” could be that the copyrighted work was used in connection with criticism or comment on the work, or was used in the course of news reporting, or was used in teaching, or was used as part of a research project or for a scholarship purpose.

As for forcing a copyright holder to defend their rights, it CAN be expensive to pursue an infringer in federal court. Many copyright holders cannot justify the high cost and have had to accept the erosion of their rights.

THAT is why the US Copyright Office has for years mulled over permitting copyright infringement suits in small claims courts. The mulling continues BUT, as I mentioned earlier, the US Copyright Office HAS added the Copyright Claims Board. The CCB streamlines the process and cuts costs for copyright holders. After years of discussions that seemed to go nowhere, this is real progress.

 

[zddoodah]

That comment appears contradictory, because you said audio visual works are protected by copyright, then said it might constitute fair use. Why isn't this a contradiction? If something is copyrighted, how can it fall under fair use?

A copyright is often described as a bundle of rights. If you are the author of a work of authorship, then you have various exclusive rights to use or license others to use your work. For example, Stephen King published a novel in 2022 called Fairy King. That novel is a literary work under 17 U.S.C. section 102(a)(1) and, as such, is protected by copyright law.

However, those rights are not absolute. See 17 U.S.C. sections 107-112 (each of which is titled starting with "Limitations on exclusive rights). Fair use is codified in section 107. It provides that, notwithstanding the copyright owner's exclusive rights, the "use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means . . ., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

If a work of authorship is not protected by copyright (e.g., anything created prior to 1922), there is no need for "fair use." One can use an unprotected work for ANY purpose, in part or in whole. Fair use is only an issue if something is protected by copyright law.

Capisce?

 

[zddoodah]

This is a example that really doesn't have anything to do with your situation, but it gives you an idea of "fair use". Books are copywrited. If I buy a Dr Zuess book and cut out all of the pages and put them in frames on my granddaughter's wall, that is fair use. I paid for the book and I am not using it for any purpose other than my own use.

First of all, the word is "copyright." "Copywrite" means something completely different. Second, your example is NOT a fair use. The reason why it's not a fair use is because what you have described does not violate any of the exclusive rights of copyright. You didn't reproduce the work. You didn't create a derivative work. You didn't distribute copies publicly. You didn't perform or display the work publicly. Fair use is only an issue if the use would otherwise violate one of the exclusive rights of copyright under section 106.

 

[quincy]

... If a work of authorship is not protected by copyright (e.g., anything created prior to 1922), there is no need for "fair use." ...

Every year, new works enter the public domain, meaning these works are no longer protected under copyright law. As of January 1, 2023, copyrighted works that were published before 1927 are now in the public domain and permission is not needed to use these works.

 

[Ted761]

I appreciate all the comments. From what I read online, parody is protected by fair use, but the person in question claims that it's satire. I think there are limitations with fair use. Libelous statements in the mutilated photos and severely altering them in order to make the original copyright holder look crazy is another legal matter.

 

[quincy]

I appreciate all the comments. From what I read online, parody is protected by fair use, but the person in question claims that it's satire. I think there are limitations with fair use. Libelous statements in the mutilated photos and severely altering them in order to make the original copyright holder look crazy is another legal matter.

Parodies and satires are both forms of commentary and can be a fair use of copyrighted material. Again, fair use is ultimately determined at the court level after a copyright holder has sued an unauthorized user.

You will need to see an attorney in your area for a personal review of what was published to determine what legal action (if any) you can pursue and if it’s worth the time and expense of pursuing.

 

[Zigner]

I appreciate all the comments. From what I read online, parody is protected by fair use, but the person in question claims that it's satire. I think there are limitations with fair use. Libelous statements in the mutilated photos and severely altering them in order to make the original copyright holder look crazy is another legal matter.

If you belive that fair use exemptions do not apply, then your recourse is court.

 

[quincy]

Or the Copyright Claims Board, which can be done online.

Although an infringement claim is a possible route to take (should facts support such a claim), other legal avenues (like “false light” or defamation) can be explored with an attorney in California.

 

[zddoodah]

I appreciate all the comments. From what I read online, parody is protected by fair use, but the person in question claims that it's satire. I think there are limitations with fair use. Libelous statements in the mutilated photos and severely altering them in order to make the original copyright holder look crazy is another legal matter.

The more "mutilated" a photo is, the less likely it will be that anyone takes it seriously.

I'm going to point out that I asked several questions in my first response in the thread (post #12). You ignored those questions. If you answer them, I or others may have some additional insight.

 

[quincy]

The more "mutilated" a photo is, the less likely it will be that anyone takes it seriously.

I'm going to point out that I asked several questions in my first response in the thread (post #12). You ignored those questions. If you answer them, I or others may have some additional insight.

Your first point is not necessarily true. It depends on the way the image or images are changed.

That said, answering more questions seems a bit pointless because a personal review of the specific video and still images is necessary - and we cannot do that type of a review on this forum.

Here is a link outlining the steps to take for using the CCB to file an infringement claim:

https://ccb.gov/handbook/Infringement-Claim.pdf

 

[Ted761]

Thanks for all your responses. I have great news. Due to numerous TOS violations, Google totally removed the bloggers account. It appears that this matter is resolved. Everything has been deleted.