PRIVACY -fabulous play at The Public Theater about privacy online  Reply

If you have a smart phone, use apps and share content online, seeing the play PRIVACY at privacyThe Public Theater is a must.  The talented cast engages audience members in exploring the hard to grasp topic of privacy (or lack there of) online.

Who are we online? How much information do we give away about ourselves when we connect online?  Who can see us online?  

Is our location tracked each time we use a transportation app or log into a wifi network?  Is our first social media post still visible?  What privacy terms are we agreeing to each time we use an app or social media website?

The play PRIVACY is entertaining, informative, interactive and at times a bit spooky.  I give it two enthusiastic thumbs up.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

See also: Previous blog posts on website privacy policies at  https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/website-privacy-policy; blog post on imitating others online at http://wp.me/p10nNq-Cg; The Public Theater’s website for information about the play and ticket sales at www.publictheater.org/en/Public-Theater-Season/Privacy/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Interesting facts in lawsuit filed against Richard Prince for Instagram based works Reply

The fine art photographer Donald Graham filed a complaint against the artist Richard Prince earlier this year for infringement of Mr. Graham’s exclusive rights in the acclaimed photographic work of art titled “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint” a copyrighted photograph.pic

An interesting twist to this lawsuit and claimed infringement is that the infringing use was part of a controversial show of Prince’s work at the Gagosian Gallery consisting of enlarged screenshots of people’s Instagram photos used without warning or permission – reportedly selling for $90,000 a piece.

After reading the complaint filed by Mr. Graham against Prince, here are a few interesting points that may factor into the next stage of this lawsuit or settlement:

  • Graham is a famous photographer whose work may have been known to Richard Prince before he included it in his show “New Portraits” (ironically titled) at the Gagosian Gallery.
  • Graham did not post his photo at issue to Instagram. (This is significant because by posting the photo to Instagram a user agrees to Instagram’s Terms of Use.)
  • Graham has never licensed the copyrighted photo at issue or made it commercially available for any purpose other than for sale to fine art collectors.
  • Prince and Mr. Graham’s wife exchanged tweets regarding the unauthorized use of the photo at issue. The Twitter exchange in a nutshell: Mr. Graham’s wife stated in a tweet that Prince appropriated Mr. Graham’s photograph & Prince tweeted a reply, “you can have your photo back. I don’t want. You can have all the credit in the world.”

Take a look at the images included in the “New Portraits” show (a small sampling above and a link below).  The photo at issue is clearly not your average profile picture or social media post. To me it stands out from the other images and seems possible that Prince might have known this image was Mr. Graham’s.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: The complaint Graham v. Prince. Artist Donald Graham’s website featuring the photo at issue: http://donaldgraham.com/PORTRAITS/5/caption/; a virtual tour of Prince’s exhibit New Portraits at http://www.richardprince.com/exhibitions/new-portraits_1/#/detail/10/; earlier posts on this controversial exhibition featuring Instagram photos http://wp.me/p10nNq-I0 and http://wp.me/p10nNq-En; more information on Instagram’s Terms of Use at http://wp.me/p10nNq-En; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

User Generated Content (love & hate) Reply

Star wars

Seeing and using the Star Wars Crawl Creator (available for free at http://www.starwars.com) is an interesting example of a shift in the approach to user generated content.  Here the content owner is giving fans an easy tool for creating a Star Wars Crawl… according to the Terms on the starwars.com website and via a sharable link to starwars.com.  This seems like a win, win, win — giving fans access to a use the famous crawl in a way that links back to the content owners website and subject to the content owners rules.

For the music and the full crawl: http://www.starwars.com/games-apps/star-wars-crawl-creator?cid=56f1b130e4b06eec3bba29e9 (AND to create your own: http://www.starwars.com/games-apps/star-wars-crawl-creator)

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: earlier posts on website Terms Of Use at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/website-terms-of-use/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

 

Positive PR Spin (The Silver Lining To Controversial Use of Instagram Photo) Reply

A Positive PR Spin appears to be the outcome of choice for at least one of the folks who appeared in Richard Prince’s controversial display at the Frieze Art Fair in NYC earlier this summer. (The controversial artwork consisted of enlarged screenshots of people’s Instagram photos used without warning or permission – reportedly selling for $90,000 a piece. Blogged about here at http://wp.me/p10nNq-I0).

Lo and behold, the Instagram photo of Ms. Deere (pictured to the right) that Richard Prince put up for Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 8.38.40 AMsale at the Frieze Art Fair was a photo that Ms. Deere posted to Instagram to promote a friend who makes beautiful, hand-crafted dolls (notice the doll in the photo to her right). The silver lining to Richard Prince’s use of Ms. Deere’s Instagram photo is that the photo was seen by even more folks… garnering more attention and notoriety… which Ms. Deere has been able to spin and re-share on social media for additional promotion of her doll maker friend.

Below is a photo and text shared by Ms. Deere recently on Instagram to refocus folks attention to the promotion of her doll maker friend. (As of today, Ms. Deere has 348K followers on Instagram).  Fingers crossed that Ms. Deere and her doll maker friend each make at least an additional $90,000.

Screen Shot 2015-08-07 at 9.54.47 AM

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: earlier posts on this controversial exhibition featuring Instagram photos http://wp.me/p10nNq-I0 and http://wp.me/p10nNq-En; more information on Instagram’s Terms of Use at http://wp.me/p10nNq-En; Observer article: “Hey Doll, the Instafame of Pidgin at http://observer.com/2015/05/meet-the-doll-maker-and-instagram-star-hacked-by-richard-prince/; Washington Post article: “A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000″ at http://wpo.st/XXOJ0; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Avalanche of photos uploaded in a 24-hour period Reply

Image shared in Facebook

Image shared on Facebook

Seeing the printouts of photos uploaded to Flicker over a 24-hour period is a sobering visual of the amount of content uploaded and shared in one day (on just one of many online photo-sharing websites).  Mountains of photographs… from floor to ceiling… as part of an installation by Erik Kessels titled, “24hours in Photos.”

http://www.kesselskramer.com/exhibitions/24-hrs-of-photos and http://www.images.ch/2014/en/festival-en/program/artists/erik-kessels-3.  The photographs included in this second link are particularly amazing, because, the instillation appears to be in a church and echoes a “devotion” to online photo-sharing which may be an almost, automatic reflex for many folks.  Personally, I find the sheer volume of content that folks share online staggering (often without even considering the rights that may be given away by merely using and posting the photos to an online photo-sharing website or social media site).

Before sharing photos online, it’s always a good idea to read the Terms of Use of the website so that you are aware of how your photos may be used by other folks after you post them.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: Other blog posts on Terms of Use for websites and social media at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/website-terms-of-use/.

Selling Someone Else’s Instagram Photo for $90,000 Reply

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 8.38.40 AMDiscussing the broad usage rights given away by posting original content to social media is discussed frequently on this blog and elsewhere.  Reading that the controversial artist Richard Prince recently sold enlarged screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos without warning or permission for $90,000 a piece at the Frieze Art Fair in New York is a case in point.

Be mindful of the Terms of Use on Instagram and other social media sites that you use and where you post your original photos, artwork and other content.

Mining social media content might be the new wild frontier.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also:  more information on Instagram’s Terms of Use at http://wp.me/p10nNq-En; Washington Post article: “A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000” at http://wpo.st/XXOJ0; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Does Richard Prince’s New Exhibition Feature Instagram Photos? Reply

Each piece in Richard Prince’s new exhibition at the Gagosian Gallery on Madison Avenue in NYC appears to be a screenshot of someone else’s Instagram post that Prince has commented on and then printed onto canvas …and is selling through the Gallery.  This novel exhibition is fascinating; because, it is an example of mining content posted to a social media website under broad licensing and terms of use.

Social media websites generally allow users to post content, including photographs, under the website’s terms of use that grant a broad license to the posted content. Users generally retain ownership to posted content under the terms of social media websites. However, monitoring who uses the content and whether or not permission is needed when other folks use content posted to social media can get murky and varies depending upon the website’s Terms of Use.

For example, the Terms of Use posted to Instagram includes the following language:

“you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service.”

“Any information or content that you voluntarily disclose for posting to the Service, such as User Content, becomes available to the public, as controlled by any applicable privacy settings that you set. To change your privacy settings on the Service, please change your profile setting. Once you have shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others.”

Instagram and other social media websites do give users ways to report violations including copyright infringements and can (and often do) disable or delete accounts of users who repeatedly violate other users and the website’s Terms of Use. Back to Richard Prince, I read that his Instagram account has been turned on and off more than once. Evidently, this has become a flattering statement regarding the artist’s edginess. Since, Prince is a celebrity artist; Instagram may earn virtual cache by having him as a user. As far as the folks whose Instagram photos appear to be featured in Prince’s exhibit (New Portraits, at the Gagosian) I recognized a few celebrity faces and haven’t read about any objections or lawsuits.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: for more information about Richard Prince and his exhibition titled New Portraits at the Gagosian Gallery through October 25th, see: http://www.gagosian.com/artists/richard-prince, http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/richard-prince–september-19-2014 and http://www.richardprince.com/bio/; for more information about the exhibit see: http://www.supertouchart.com/2014/09/23/first-look-richard-prince-new-portraits-at-gagosian-madison-ave/, http://hyperallergic.com/152762/richard-prince-inc/, http://www.vulture.com/2014/03/how-richard-prince-got-kicked-off-instagram.html; See also Instagram’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy (note that the terms are subject to change): http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/# and http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/#@iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

 

Reporting Copyright Infringement Claims to Facebook Reply

If someone infringes your copyright by posting your copyrighted photograph to Facebook without your copyrightpermission, it is possible to request that Facebook remove the photograph. The Terms of Use on Facebook’s website lists the steps, protocol and ways to make a claim of copyright infringement and request the infringing use of your photograph be removed. (Note, most social media sites have similar protocol for this outlined in their Terms which are usually posted via a link at the bottom of the webpage).

Here is some useful information from Facebook’s Terms of Use regarding the steps, protocol and ways to report copyright infringement and make the request to have a photograph (or other copyrighted material) removed if it is infringing (ie posted without permission and is infringing your copyright).

What should I include when submitting a report to Facebook alleging infringement of my copyright?

The fastest and easiest way to submit a claim of copyright infringement to us is to use our online form. It may be required by law that you include the following information:

  • Your complete contact information (full name, mailing address and phone number). Note that we regularly provide your contact information, including your name and email address, the name of your organization or client who owns the right in question, and/or the contents of your report to the person who posted the content you are reporting. You may wish to provide a professional or business email address for contact by users.
  • A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed.
  • A description of the content on our site that you claim infringes your copyright.
  • Information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate the material on our site. The easiest way to do this is by providing web addresses (URLs) leading directly to the allegedly infringing content.
  • A declaration that
    1. You have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted content described above, in the manner you have complained of, is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,
    2. The information in your notice is accurate, and
    3. You declare, under penalty of perjury, that you are the owner or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive copyright that is allegedly infringed.
  • Your electronic signature or physical signature.

How do I report a claim of copyright infringement?

Submitting a claim of copyright infringement is a serious matter with legal consequences. Before you report a claim of copyright infringement to us, you may wish to reach out to the individual posting the content. You may be able to resolve the issue simply by bringing it to their attention without contacting Facebook at all.

If you are unsure whether the content you are reporting is infringing your legal rights, you may wish to seek legal guidance. Keep in mind that submitting intentionally misleading reports of infringement may be punishable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States or similar laws in other countries.

If you believe your copyright is being infringed, the fastest and easiest way to report that to us is to use our online form. Alternatively, you can choose to use traditional (and slower) methods, such as mail, to contact our designated agent. In that case, you will need to ensure you include all elements of a complete copyright claim in your report.

Note: You do not need a Facebook account to submit a report.

However, if you or someone else has posted the photograph to Facebook with permission, and other folks are re-posting and using the photograph on Facebook this is a different situation and may not be an infringement of the copyrighted photograph.  (More on this topic is available in an earlier post at http://wp.me/p10nNq-ni  and in Facebook’s Terms of Use).

This post was inspired by a question that I was asked on a recent visit to the LA Photographic Club – thank you for inviting me to join y’all and welcoming me as your guest.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: More posts on the topic of copyright in photographs; Reporting Copyright Infringements on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/help/231463960277847 and https://www.facebook.com/help/400287850027717/; Section 5 of Facebook’s Terms of Use lists terms relating to “Protecting other People’s Rights” at https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Using my photo? Did I inadvertently give rights away by posting it online? Reply

It’s so easy and fun to share photographs online that folks often give away rights to their photographs without even realizing it.  HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?  The terms, conditions and licenses that the photographer agrees to when posting a photograph to various social media and photo-sharing websites often grant other folks broad rights to use posted photographs.  Keep in mind that every social media and photo-sharing website has different terms, conditions and licenses that are agreed to automatically simply by USING the website and POSTING photographs and other content.  These terms, conditions and licenses are modified and updated frequently.

teen's flicker photo

Photo: Justin Ho-Wee Wong

Here is an interesting and fairly haunting example:  A photograph of a teenager was taken by her youth counselor and posted to his to Flickr account under a broad Creative Commons license that allowed others to use his work in any way, including for commercial purposes, if they credited the photographer. (See the inserted photo).  A slightly edited version of the photograph ended up in an advertising campaign for Virgin Mobil Australia. A lawsuit followed.

THE TAKE AWAY: Read the terms, conditions and licenses that you are agreeing to when using and posting photographs and other content to social media and photo-sharing websites.  Most popular social media and photo-sharing websites, including FACEBOOKPINTEREST and TWITTER have fairly broad terms, conditions and licenses that change frequently.  Websites post their terms, usually at the bottom of the webpage. These same terms that often give other folks broad rights to use posted content,  also contain the steps to follow if your photographs or other content are being used without your permission on the site and you want to request that it be taken down.

This post was inspired by my friend Mel and a host of social media comments about a photograph that ended up on a series of KEEP CALM shirts.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: Articles about the Virgin Mobil example above from the Sydney Morning Herald and The New York Times; photo of a Virgin Mobil Ad; Flickr’s Creative Commons licenses at https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/; other blog posts on photo copyright at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/copyright-photos; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Imitating Others On Social Media Reply

photo(2)Social media sites generally frown upon users who imitate others and list impersonation as a no-no within their Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.  By using, joining or registering with a social media site, folks “agree to” and “accept” the terms and policies of the social media site.  Note, that the terms and policies of a social media site (that you should, although, may have never read) apply merely by the simple act of using the site, joining or registering.

Imbedded within these terms and policies are several common elements that relate to impersonation and the treatment of imitators.  Often, these are listed as things that a user is permitted to do and not do.  “Shall not” language is commonly used in these lists (perhaps modeled off the Ten Commandments).  Here are a few examples:

THOU SHALT NOT (as per terms and policies of various social media sites):

  • provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission [excerpt from Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities]
  • create any account for anyone other than yourself without such person’s permission [excerpt from Foursquare’s Terms Of Use]
  • use a User Name that is the name of another person with the intent to impersonate that person [excerpt from Foursquare’s Terms Of Use]
  • post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law [excerpt from Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities]
  • upload, download, post, submit or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any Content on or through the Service, including without limitation any User Submission, that:
    • infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity or other right of any other person or entity or violates any law or contractual duty;
    • you know is false, misleading, untruthful or inaccurate;
    • impersonates any person or entity, including any employee or representative of Foursquare  [excerpt from Foursquare’s Terms Of Use]

These are short, illustrative excerpts from the Terms and Policies currently posted on the Facebook and Foursquare sites.  The Terms and Policies also include information on how to report imitators.  Generally, a valid imitation claim will result in the imitator being removed from the site and possibly forfeiting other privileges and use of the site as well.  While Terms and Policies are subject to change, discouraging imitation will likely remain standard protocol.  Social media sites have a vested interest in discouraging imitators on their sites, because, this keeps their sites user friendly for original celebrity users.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

The Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for various social media sites can generally be found with a Google Search or are available on the social media site, often at the bottom on the login page. 

See also: a related post on What to do if someone is using your stuff on social media sites; The Terms of Use and How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement posted on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms and https://www.facebook.com/help/www/39922488347420; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.