Not sure how to proceed

[mistermr]

There's a picture of a celebrity using my product on a random instagram account that I was made aware of, so I reposted it on my social media. Unfortunately there's a dog in the same photo (third party, not the celebrity's) and of all things, the dog owner has reached out and is allegedly upset that i'm using the photo with their dog in it. If I would have even thought about something as ridiculous as this happening, I'd have cropped the dog out of the pic in the first place. I don't even know where to begin on how to respond to the so-called offended person. My question is, do I take down the picture? Is there anything to actually be worried about if someone's pet animal happens to be in a picture?

 

[Just Blue]

There's a picture of a celebrity using my product on a random instagram account that I was made aware of, so I reposted it on my social media. Unfortunately there's a dog in the same photo (third party, not the celebrity's) and of all things, the dog owner has reached out and is allegedly upset that i'm using the photo with their dog in it. If I would have even thought about something as ridiculous as this happening, I'd have cropped the dog out of the pic in the first place. I don't even know where to begin on how to respond to the so-called offended person. My question is, do I take down the picture? Is there anything to actually be worried about if someone's pet animal happens to be in a picture?

Crop out the dog.

 

[quincy]

There's a picture of a celebrity using my product on a random instagram account that I was made aware of, so I reposted it on my social media. Unfortunately there's a dog in the same photo (third party, not the celebrity's) and of all things, the dog owner has reached out and is allegedly upset that i'm using the photo with their dog in it. If I would have even thought about something as ridiculous as this happening, I'd have cropped the dog out of the pic in the first place. I don't even know where to begin on how to respond to the so-called offended person. My question is, do I take down the picture? Is there anything to actually be worried about if someone's pet animal happens to be in a picture?

What is the name of your state? If not in the US, what is the name of your country?

Did you get permission from the copyright holder to publish his/her photo of the celebrity on your social media page? If not, you have infringed on the copyright holder's rights and you should remove the picture before it is removed for you.

Unless the dog is a famous one that is a company trademark (e.g., the Taco Bell chihuahua), the dog and its owner do not have rights to enforce.

I would worry about the photographer/rights holder, however. The publication of that photo potentially could get you sued.

If the celebrity has been pictured using your product and you wish to capitalize on this, you should contact the celebrity and/or the celebrity's agent to see if the celebrity would like to endorse your product.

You can respond to the dog owner how you wish. For the celebrity picture, you might want a personal review by an IP attorney in your area. The attorney consultation becomes more important if you are sued for infringement over its use.

 

[mistermr]

Crop out the dog.

It's on facebook. There's no way to edit the photo without ditching the entire thing. I should add that every newspaper in town has already published the same picture and it's on several other media accounts all over the internet.

 

[quincy]

It's on facebook. There's no way to edit the photo without ditching the entire thing. I should add that every newspaper in town has already published the same picture and it's on several other media accounts all over the internet.

The newspapers have probably licensed the photo for use. The fact that a picture is widely published does not mean it is legal for you or others to publish.

 

[John USA]

One solution may be to link to the photo instead of uploading it to your FB timeline. I would think there could not be any problem with merely linking vs. copying and publishing.

And yes, that means scrapping the first post if it means too much risk for you.

 

[quincy]

One solution may be to link to the photo instead of uploading it to your FB timeline. I would think there could not be any problem with merely linking vs. copying and publishing.

And yes, that means scrapping the first post if it means too much risk for you.

Linking to the photo should not be a problem unless the site that hosts the photo does not have authorization from the copyright holder to display the photo (which could lead to a contributory infringement claim) or the hosting site only allows for linking to the home page and to link to the photo directly requires a deep link (although this would not be a copyright infringement issue).

 

[John USA]

Linking to the photo should not be a problem unless the site that hosts the photo only allows for linking to the home page and to link to the photo directly requires a deep link.

It would not be a copyright issue then, though.

To tell you the truth, I don't think what the site purports to "allow" actually has any say in it at all if they are openly publishing content.

I remember years ago people were talking about "deep linking" as if it was some kind of violation of law or something.

If a site does not put something behind a password protected barrier or something like that, for which a terms of use would apply, etc., then I'm pretty confident that you can freely link to anything and everything publicly accessible on any website under the Sun, regardless of what any terms of use statement may say. I think that also makes the most sense. But then again, perhaps I'm wrong about that. I would like to see proof that could be wrong according to law, however, because it does not appear to make sense to me. If something is published openly, then it's free and fair game except for actual copyright violation. Homepage or not, publishing something accessible as "you can look but you can't link" does not appear to make any sense to me at all as some kind of binding requirement anywhere.

 

[quincy]

To tell you the truth, I don't think what the site purports to "allow" actually has any say in it at all if they are openly publishing content.

I remember years ago people were talking about "deep linking" as if it was some kind of violation of law or something.

Deep linking IS a violation in some countries (Denmark, for one). Courts in the US determined it was not copyright infringement, however, so those websites that objected to links that bypassed their home pages (the pages that support the advertising and website revenue) have made it so deep links redirect to the home pages.

If a site does not put something behind a password protected barrier or something like that, for which a terms of use would apply, etc., then I'm pretty confident that you can freely link to anything and everything publicly accessible on any website under the Sun, regardless of what any terms of use statement may say. I think that also makes the most sense. But then again, perhaps I'm wrong about that. I would like to see proof that could be wrong according to law, however, because it does not appear to make sense to me. If something is published openly, then it's free and fair game except for actual copyright violation. Homepage or not, publishing something accessible as "you can look but you can't link" does not appear to make any sense to me at all as some kind of binding requirement anywhere.

For a look at linking that led to a contributory copyright infringement suit, see Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F.Supp.2d 1290 (D.Utah, 1999).