IP on photographs, flickr, image rights questions

abelard

I have a few questions regarding work published on flickr as well as image rights. I've had a look through the 2000 Act on copyrights but I'm not really any the wiser;

Firstly, the most obvious question - what effect does posting an image I have taken on Flickr have on my ability to enforce IP and copyright?

What if I have given permission to someone else (call them A) to post it on their flickr with the statement that it is my work and may not be reproduced without my permission, and another person (say hs gone to A's flickr and taken my image and used it without my permission?

What if the principle subject of the photo is, in fact, B? The photo was taken in public, and is, in fact, of B making a public address? What level of image rights does B possess?

What sort of gain does B have to make from using the image? Is there a litmus test of sorts? Does it have to be purely financial?

Sorry it's all a bit theoretical and there's many questions, but if anyone can shed any light on it it would be much appreciated

Pines

abelard wrote: »

Firstly, the most obvious question - what effect does posting an image I have taken on Flickr have on my ability to enforce IP and copyright?

None, presuming that the terms and conditions of use of Flickr don't include a licence for others to use your images. I haven't had a chance to look.

abelard wrote: »

What if I have given permission to someone else (call them A) to post it on their flickr with the statement that it is my work and may not be reproduced without my permission, and another person (say hs gone to A's flickr and taken my image and used it without my permission?

B has infringed copyright by reproducing the photo. The site hosting the image has infringed what's called the "making available" right, by making it available to others to download. They may have done so innocently, but ought to take it down once informed that there is a copyright infringement.

Note that there are a number of legitimate defences for copying - use in educational establishments, fair dealings for the purposes of research and private study, etc., but these are of limited scope and don't allow someone to lift a photo for another website, even if it is a photo of themselves.

B has also infringed the photographer's "moral rights", in particular what is called the "paternity right": the right to be identified as the author of the work, to use the copyright terminology. Simply speaking, an artist has the right to be identified as the creator of a copyright work unless he/she has waived that right in writing.

abelard wrote: »

What if the principle subject of the photo is, in fact, B? The photo was taken in public, and is, in fact, of B making a public address? What level of image rights does B possess?

Under Irish law? None, unless you do something silly like alter the image to show B holding a box of washing powder so that it looks like an endorsement. A photo of someone in public can normally be freely used. The Irish Times does not have to get Bertie's permission to show him leaving a tribunal (or a Westlife concert); nor does Bertie have any right to use the Irish Times' photo, simply because he's in it.

abelard wrote: »

What sort of gain does B have to make from using the image? Is there a litmus test of sorts? Does it have to be purely financial?

None. The copying of the photo and the use of it without attribution to you would be an infringement even if there was no financial element. A copyright owner can take an action to get an injunction against the infringement, without having to show a financial loss or damage.

Thirdfox

Flickr often suggests that its users use a Creative Commons (CC) licence, not a copyright licence so things become quite muddy when this is thrown in the mix.

Suffice it to say - always keep your photos on a copyright licence unless you know exactly what a CC licence entails.