Photos from Varlamov. Honest business or misunderstood law
Under the latest flash mobs, a small scandal around Varlamov was quickly lost, which from the point of view of copyright is rather curious and revealing.
To dive into context, you need to look at two links:
')
www.business-gazeta.ru/article/315148 - This is probably the main text from which the story began.
www.facebook.com/groups/pressuha/permalink/1108364145904244 - Discussion of the situation in the FB.
For those who are too lazy to follow the links, but in vain, briefly the essence of the story:
Open to those who did not follow the links
The point is that Varlamov "put on the conveyor claims to those publications where his photographs are located" (this is a quote). According to the publication, some of the photographs were “found on the Internet” with already cropped copyrights and did not know what they were taking, and some were used by them not as an illustration, but as a bona fide quote, because the materials themselves were about Varlamov. Further there is a complaint that for non-commercial projects Varlamov always seemed to say that the main thing is not to forget to put his authorship, and that he does not earn money on the photo, but now he changed his mind in hindsight. And in general there is an article about him, that is, the authorship is indicated in mega-large.
The following is the story of how Varlamov is suing the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, where he almost lost once, but found a way to return the case and is now being considered again.
There is a lot of text there, in the end everything slides to the arrivals, which spoils the feeling.
The following is the story of how Varlamov is suing the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, where he almost lost once, but found a way to return the case and is now being considered again.
There is a lot of text there, in the end everything slides to the arrivals, which spoils the feeling.
So. How are things with the rights.
We began by writing to Varlamov asking for permission to use this photo that you see in the headline. The answer was received after 6 hours:
Greetings
Just an article about Ilya and others?
If it is not offensive, you can use the photo with a link to the source.
TO
Since the article is definitely not offensive, as you can see, there were no problems with obtaining permission to publish. Why this uncomplicated movement was not able to be done by the editors of the publication, which, in theory, should have eaten a pack of dogs using other people's materials - it is not clear. The story of "we found a photo on the Internet" in theory tells us that someone would have to learn some materiel, but only indirectly.
Let's return to the subject matter.
Is it possible to take just a photo, if it is the essence of the news, and in theory, as it were, it can be quoted. This, by the way, is the position taken by VGTRK.
Let's look at the story in terms of copyright.
Although the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company was pushed through the judge for the first time, but as practice has shown, it is not very difficult to return this case through the Court of Intellectual Property Rights, because it is news-news, but the photo is also a product of intellectual work, and the news character does not cancel its protection.
From this story, you can squeeze two points essentially:
1) assessment of the level of creativity
2) stupid formula of the law on minimum compensation for one violation in 10 thousand rubles.
1. The law protects only creative results.
But what creativity is in the law is not defined - whether there is creativity in the photo of a cat or not - is determined by the court. And with the court everything is bad, because further, about the level of creativity in the law there is a wonderful formula - 1. The objects of copyright are works of science, literature and art, regardless of the merits and purpose of the work, as well as the way it is expressed.
On this basis, any daub can be considered a protected object.
As a result, the courts are not guided by the formula “Creativity is a prayer for immortality”, do not evaluate the result from the point of view of an art critic or at least a critical viewer, but evaluate fotochki on the purely formal basis of a “hurrying idiot” - he did something and all right - is subject to protection .
AND!
One would agree with all this, if it were not for item 2 - the minimum amount of compensation that cannot be reduced!
If it were possible to evaluate a photo of 1 ruble, then the claims of copyright infringement would be several times less, because the courts usually in such cases tend to give minimal compensation. But at the same time, in a situation where the author of a real artwork is really seriously hurt, the author would have suffered, because his works would be used to him in the tail and in the mane by all.
It turns out that the law is not so bad?
In any case, from our bell tower of copyrightrs, this whole story speaks mostly not about “bad Varlamov,” but about how hard it is for people to think that yes, you should ask permission of any photos from the author. And if the photo seems to be ownerless - google it before using it, and if the author is not found, refuse to use it, as one would not like.
In addition, the investigative experiment showed that obtaining permission to use specifically these photographs is a completely simple matter.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/305318/
All Articles