While browsing facebook.com I came across a friend’s page that had a photo of Mariah Carey instead of her own as the profile picture. After analyzing the X17 branded photo, I did notice a striking resemblance to Carey, and proceeded to comment, “Wow, you do look like Mariah Carey!”. I’m sure many of us facebook users are familiar with the popularized “doppelganger celebrity week” during which people change their profile pictures to one of their celebrity look-alike. While this is one of the facebook trends that has caught on like wildfire, it has not caught much copyright infringement backlash. Even though these celebrity photo uploads and displays seem innocent, technically, they are illegal and violate facebook “terms and conditions” that state, “[y]ou will not post content or take any action on facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.” The photo used was from x17online.com, and was an original photo taken by the company (assuming it was a work for hire) giving copyright ownership to X17, and arguably making the use an infringement. Interestingly enough, there was no copyright infringement or take down notification sent to my friend. On another note, the famed Perez Hilton was sued by X17 for unauthorized use of X17 photos on his gossip ridden blog (perezhilton.com) which generates about $9,000 – 16,000 in revenue from ads weekly. In my opinion, no action was taken against my friend, or other doppelgangers because there was simply too many users posting copyrighted photos to their profiles. This seems reminscent of the Code Warrior movement of students that is challenging copyright restrictions. In regards to this topic, a facebook executive was quoted saying, “as always, facebook will respond to requests for removal that it receives from copyright holders. In this case, we have received no such requests.” I think that facebook and photo media outlets chose to ignore the omnipresent copyrighted photos. The contradictory nature of facebook and X17 just go to show that the online copyright lines are thinly drawn.
-
Blog under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
-
About
-
In this course we will focus on a seemingly esoteric legal subject that is now located at the heart of many social, cultural, economic, and political conflicts: copyright law. While initially codified as a state granted monopoly designed to to encourage publishers and established authors to invest in culture, copyright law has now extended into every part of our day to day life and interaction with media. Moreover, the law is obviously and increasingly dangerously out of touch with digital culture. But what is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it "intellectual property"?
In our efforts to better understand these issues, we will read both primary and secondary materials, covering subjects ranging from the birth of copyright to contemporary justifications for copyright reform, analyze relevant and interesting documentary films, and enjoy guest lectures from a range of established speakers.
-
In this course we will focus on a seemingly esoteric legal subject that is now located at the heart of many social, cultural, economic, and political conflicts: copyright law. While initially codified as a state granted monopoly designed to to encourage publishers and established authors to invest in culture, copyright law has now extended into every part of our day to day life and interaction with media. Moreover, the law is obviously and increasingly dangerously out of touch with digital culture. But what is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it "intellectual property"?
Wow even I participated in that Doppleganger week, just for shits and giggles, but I didn’t even think that something so innocent and playful could possibly be infringing. Personally I think that this notion is just dumb, I could see if being infringing if someone was legitimately posing to be a celebrity, taking fan sites to a new level. Something like that I could see being infringing because it claiming to be a person you are not. If Facebook did not receive any complaints from celebrity agents, then that proves it is not a serious matter.
I wouldn’t say thinly drawn so much as I would say X17 probably doesn’t really care if a handful of people are using their images for a couple of weeks… whereas in the case of Perez Hilton, he’s a more well known figure in addition to the fact that his use is more like X17′s use.
From a quick glance at that site, it seems like X17 operates along the lines of a gossip blog (which is what Perez’s site is). In the first factor of fair use alone, I’d say using an image for the doppelganger game (for lack of a better term) is quite different from Perez’s use (Perez is actually a competitor of X17 in some ways).
Under fair use, we have to look at the fourth factor: market harm. I don’t think facebook users who upload these celebrity photos have the intention to make money off of them. One can even argue that the intention to use those photos are to comment on them, almost like a parody.
If it’s up to the point that people can’t use someone else’s picture of a celebrity to have some fun with it, I don’t know what will happen. I guess everyone who owns a copyright should sue on a mass basis. Copyright infringement laws need to be looked at more closely and modified.
Hello, I look at all your blog posts, keep them coming.
Thank you, will do!
In response to a deleted comment about this posting by user Jim Clote:
————————————————————————-
New comment on your post #1010 “”Wow, you do look like Mariah Carey!””
Comment:
Wow, did you write this article yourself or pull it from somewhere else, its great!
————————————————————————-
Yes, I wrote this article myself, and thank you for the compliment : )
Hi, I probably shouldn’t be saying this ‘out loud’ but…
I run an SNS for education called PikiFriends. Junior and senior high school students and teachers can use our safe network for various educative purposes. We’re just starting out and user numbers are low right now, but I’m getting very concerned about copyright issues because many students upload images from other sources, and/or use those images as their own user icons. For example, adding images of their favorite celebrities on their profile page. You know, the thing that happens on Facebook all the time.
Since there seem to be so many grey areas concerning copyright infringement when it comes to SNS use, and since we’re solely for secondary education, it makes me wonder where we stand. What should I do as the founder, wait until someone complains before taking down images (but only secondary schools are allowed to join, we’re highly protected from the public, so there’s almost no chance anyone will know anyway)? I don’t want to proactively go through everything and delete the copyrighted images, and besides, in many cases how do we know if it’s illegally posted or not?
One thing I do know, it’s a great opportunity to teach kids about these issues. As a rule, we should teach students to adhere to the laws, and to learn about creative commons licensing.
I’d appreciate any feedback!
This article helps make perception and makes for incredibly fascinating examining. That is special and enlightening material. Thank you for sharing your experience and views with this spot. I definitely loved taking in all this information.