Across the internet, especially on blogs, pictures are re-shared but not credited. It has reached a level where it can be impossible to respect copyright as an image’s origin becomes untraceable and it is impossible to find or credit the correct person. This week Getty announced that they are to allow the embedding of pictures on to external web pages for ‘non-commercial’ use, recognition perhaps that user behavior is forcing a change to business.
The speed and scale with which the internet allows for distribution of content has overwhelmed the conventional way of defining copyright. The battle between artistic recognition and copyright protection, and internet users has been one sided for a while. In response Getty’s terms and conditions section under embedding has changed to read:
You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest). Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, pornographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.
Unless your a commercial enterprise Getty are recognizing that, unlike with illegal MP3 downloading, the profile of a picture-copyright-infringer is for the most part that of the unwitting blogger spicing up their editorial. The new rule change should curtail this infringement and will go someway to earning photographers the recognition they deserve, by offering a legal way to use pictures while providing bloggers with more and better picture options. However Barney Britton over at DPreview pointed out the paradox of this less than perfect situation saying,
as editor of dpreview.com – an advertising-supported website – I can embed the image at the top of this news story free of charge, because I’m not using it to promote a service, product or my business.
To add to the confusion of whether this new change is a positive or negative thing for photogs an error yesterday also allowed users to crop the embedded photo and remove the credit system all together but ishoots who first reported this claim it has now been fixed.
What do you think? Is this change a help or hindrance to the fight on copyright infringement?
