Does this image with a subject containing graffiti in the background infringe on the graffiti artist's...












4















Here's the image in question:



Image in question



Basically, the subject in the foreground is using a product that the company would like to advertise. The graffiti holder has argued that the image infringes on their copyright. My guess would be that this image does not infringe on the copyright, because it is novel and the graffiti is not the subject matter in the photo.



The applicable jurisdiction here would be the state of California.










share|improve this question









New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • In the US, copyright is entirely a matter of federal law, so the jurisdiction here is United States. I have so tagged it.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago
















4















Here's the image in question:



Image in question



Basically, the subject in the foreground is using a product that the company would like to advertise. The graffiti holder has argued that the image infringes on their copyright. My guess would be that this image does not infringe on the copyright, because it is novel and the graffiti is not the subject matter in the photo.



The applicable jurisdiction here would be the state of California.










share|improve this question









New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • In the US, copyright is entirely a matter of federal law, so the jurisdiction here is United States. I have so tagged it.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago














4












4








4








Here's the image in question:



Image in question



Basically, the subject in the foreground is using a product that the company would like to advertise. The graffiti holder has argued that the image infringes on their copyright. My guess would be that this image does not infringe on the copyright, because it is novel and the graffiti is not the subject matter in the photo.



The applicable jurisdiction here would be the state of California.










share|improve this question









New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Here's the image in question:



Image in question



Basically, the subject in the foreground is using a product that the company would like to advertise. The graffiti holder has argued that the image infringes on their copyright. My guess would be that this image does not infringe on the copyright, because it is novel and the graffiti is not the subject matter in the photo.



The applicable jurisdiction here would be the state of California.







united-states copyright






share|improve this question









New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









David Siegel

9,4621339




9,4621339






New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









nikk wongnikk wong

1234




1234




New contributor




nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






nikk wong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • In the US, copyright is entirely a matter of federal law, so the jurisdiction here is United States. I have so tagged it.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago



















  • In the US, copyright is entirely a matter of federal law, so the jurisdiction here is United States. I have so tagged it.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago

















In the US, copyright is entirely a matter of federal law, so the jurisdiction here is United States. I have so tagged it.

– David Siegel
4 hours ago





In the US, copyright is entirely a matter of federal law, so the jurisdiction here is United States. I have so tagged it.

– David Siegel
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office



Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not.




Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office)




Factors



Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo:




  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated.


  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use.


  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use.


  4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it.



Case law




  • In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question.


  • In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant.


  • In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.”


  • In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages.



Conclusion



This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me.






share|improve this answer
























  • That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

    – nikk wong
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

    – David Siegel
    3 hours ago











  • It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

    – nikk wong
    2 hours ago











  • @nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






nikk wong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37238%2fdoes-this-image-with-a-subject-containing-graffiti-in-the-background-infringe-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office



Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not.




Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office)




Factors



Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo:




  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated.


  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use.


  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use.


  4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it.



Case law




  • In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question.


  • In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant.


  • In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.”


  • In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages.



Conclusion



This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me.






share|improve this answer
























  • That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

    – nikk wong
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

    – David Siegel
    3 hours ago











  • It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

    – nikk wong
    2 hours ago











  • @nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago
















3














You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office



Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not.




Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office)




Factors



Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo:




  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated.


  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use.


  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use.


  4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it.



Case law




  • In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question.


  • In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant.


  • In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.”


  • In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages.



Conclusion



This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me.






share|improve this answer
























  • That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

    – nikk wong
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

    – David Siegel
    3 hours ago











  • It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

    – nikk wong
    2 hours ago











  • @nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago














3












3








3







You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office



Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not.




Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office)




Factors



Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo:




  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated.


  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use.


  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use.


  4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it.



Case law




  • In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question.


  • In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant.


  • In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.”


  • In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages.



Conclusion



This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me.






share|improve this answer













You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office



Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not.




Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office)




Factors



Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo:




  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated.


  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use.


  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use.


  4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it.



Case law




  • In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question.


  • In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant.


  • In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.”


  • In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages.



Conclusion



This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









David SiegelDavid Siegel

9,4621339




9,4621339













  • That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

    – nikk wong
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

    – David Siegel
    3 hours ago











  • It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

    – nikk wong
    2 hours ago











  • @nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago



















  • That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

    – nikk wong
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

    – David Siegel
    3 hours ago











  • It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

    – nikk wong
    2 hours ago











  • @nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

    – David Siegel
    2 hours ago

















That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

– nikk wong
3 hours ago





That is a shame, and seems very contradictory, but I guess I understand. Thank you.

– nikk wong
3 hours ago




1




1





@nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

– David Siegel
3 hours ago





@nikk wong The ad company can always attempt to license the background image. The artist's terms might not be unmeetable. Or they can just go ahead, and gamble that the artist will not have the upfront cash to sue, or will lose. In any case fair use is an exception, intended for the public good. It is also complex and uncertain in anything but the most obvious cases. Most countries do not have it at all.

– David Siegel
3 hours ago













It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

– nikk wong
2 hours ago





It's very much a shame because I posted this image on Instagram and the artist claimed copyright infringement and got my entire instagram account (had 10's of thousands of followers) deleted. Had I had known this was not fair use I would never have posted it. I could easily have cropped that background out and added a different one. Now given what you said, I am not sure how I will make a case that I deserve the account back. It is a shame that people can claim copyright on art that's publicly available on a street. One would not expect that.

– nikk wong
2 hours ago













@nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

– David Siegel
2 hours ago





@nikk wong It is surely a shame that you lost your account over this. They should have allowed you to just take down the one image, IMO. And it isn't clear cut that this is NOT fair use, you can use that and good intentions in an appeal, i hope. However one should expect that publicly posted art is protected, IMO. An artist should be able to share art by posting it on the street or on the net without losing control of who makes further copies, IMO. Anyway, such is the law.

– David Siegel
2 hours ago










nikk wong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















nikk wong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













nikk wong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












nikk wong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37238%2fdoes-this-image-with-a-subject-containing-graffiti-in-the-background-infringe-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

GameSpot

日野市

Tu-95轟炸機