Are pictures that don&#39;t have model releases protected under the DMCA? Let's say a user of my website posted a picture. I know that as long as my website and the picture satisfies the conditions of the DMCA, I have a safe harbor against copyright claims by the individual who owns the rights to the image. But if it's a picture of a person, and the person never signed a model release form, do they have a claim against me for infringing their Rights of Publicity? Basically what I'm asking is: in the DMCA, are copyright and right-of-publicity issues essentially treated as the same thing?
Copyright vests in the photographer that takes the photograph, or their employer. If the subject of a photograph does not own copyright over the photograph, then they can't bring a claim of copyright infringement against you. The DMCA safe harbors only protect you against copyright infringement claims. Further, personality rights are recognised at state level through statute or common law. On the matter of whether copyright and right of publicity are treated as the same, the seventh circuit has said in Toney v. L'OREAL USA, INC., 406 F. 3d 905 at [911]: ... the bottom line is that Toney's claim under the Illinois right of publicity statute is not preempted by federal copyright law.
No. The Creative Commons license seeks to promote recognition of the original author's work through attribution, but does not provide the same framework for enforcement that the DMCA would. The proper approach in cases such as the deleted Wikipedia article and subsequent reuse would be to provide a courteous notice to Wikipedia of your original publication and ask to be listed as the original author or be provided attribution. In the absence of relief there, then what rights you have would be determined by the Wikipedia Terms of Service. Since, and I am assuming here, that you are not generating billions of dollars on the original publication in royalties, seeking to bring a DMCA type enforcement on a Wikipedia article dispute would be like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. (or more commonly in divorce, two people having hearing and spending thousands of dollars on attorney's fees fighting over a blender -- they are free to do it, but they would have been much better off buying 500 new blenders...) Keeping perspective and providing a courteous letter is probably your most cost efficient first step in situations like this. And in all areas of law, just remember, you catch more flies with honey than you do with salt. (meaning taking the courteous approach usually affords better results than a scalding letter breathing hell-fire and brimstone) In followup to earlier comment: Presuming you would be covered by the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Copyright of 1996 (as a U.S. Citizen you would be), and your copyright is on file with the United States Copyright Offices (same presumption) as prerequisite to suit, then there is nothing that prevents you from invoking the protections under general copyright law and under the DMCA (inlcuding the Takedown provisions). Note: these are not the only prerequisites to taking action, but instead the minimum critera to qualify, and note this does not pass on the wisdom of doing so (there are often significant consequences to improperly invoking previsions of certain acts).
Copyright, No US Copyright does not protect names, images, or &quot;personas&quot;. The US Copyright Office Circular 33 (&quot;Works Not Protected by Copyright&quot;) states, on pages 2-3: Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combinations of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words. Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include: The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names) The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work The name of a business or organization The name of a band or performing group The name of a product or service A domain name or URL The name of a character Catchwords or catchphrases Mottos, slogans, or other short expression An image, including a portrait, is usually protected by copyright (unless it is old enough that the protection has expired). But the copyright most often belongs to the creator of the image, such as the photographer or artist, not by the subject represented. If Bob draws or paints or otherwise creates an image of Alice, from seeing her in person or from multiple publicly available likenesses of her, not clearly based on any one such image, Bob will hold the copyright in that image unless he sells or otherwise transfers the copyright. Alice will not have any copyright in such an image. Right of Publicity, Yes Some but not all US states, and some but not all countries, recognize a &quot;right of publicity&quot;. In Ohio, the &quot;Right of publicity&quot; is protected by Chapter 2741 of the Ohio Revised Code. This right extends to various aspects of a person's &quot;persona&quot;, and may be enforced by a civil suit. These rights do not depend on a person's status as a &quot;public figure&quot; or &quot;celebrity&quot; or not. These rights are separate from any copyrights involved. These rights may be limited by the rights granted by the First Amendment to the US Federal Constitution. Section 2741.01 (Defnitions) provides, in relevant part, that: (A) &quot;Persona&quot; means an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, or distinctive appearance, if any of these aspects have commercial value. (B) &quot;Commercial purpose&quot; means the use of or reference to an aspect of an individual's persona in any of the following manners: (B) (1) On or in connection with a place, product, merchandise, goods, services, or other commercial activities not expressly exempted under this chapter; (B) (2) For advertising or soliciting the purchase of products, merchandise, goods, services, or other commercial activities not expressly exempted under this chapter; (B) (3) For the purpose of promoting travel to a place; (B) (4) For the purpose of fundraising. (C) &quot;Name&quot; means the actual, assumed, or clearly identifiable name of or reference to a living or deceased individual that identifies the individual. (D) &quot;Right of publicity&quot; means the property right in an individual's persona to use the individual's persona for a commercial purpose. Section 2741.02 (Using individual's persona for commercial purpose without authorization.) provides that: (A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not use any aspect of an individual's persona for a commercial purpose: (A) (1) During the individual's lifetime; (A) (2) For a period of sixty years after the date of the individual's death; or (A) (3) For a period of ten years after the date of death of a deceased member of the Ohio national guard or the armed forces of the United States. (B) A person may use an individual's persona for a commercial purpose during the individual's lifetime if the person first obtains the written consent to use the individual's persona from a person specified in section 2741.05 of the Revised Code. If an individual whose persona is at issue has died, a person may use the individual's persona for a commercial purpose if either of the following applies: (B) (1) The person first obtains the written consent to use the individual's persona from a person specified in section 2741.05 of the Revised Code who owns the individual's right of publicity. (B) (2) The name of the individual whose persona is used was the name of a business entity or a trade name at the time of the individual's death. (C) Subject to the terms of any agreement between a person specified in section 2741.05 of the Revised Code and a person to whom that person grants consent to use an individual's right of publicity, a consent obtained before the death of an individual whose persona is at issue remains valid after the individual's death. (D) For purposes of this section: (D) (1) A use of an aspect of an individual's persona in connection with any news, public affairs, sports broadcast, or account does not constitute a use for which consent is required under division (A) of this section. (D) (2) A use of an aspect of an individual's persona in connection with any political campaign and in compliance with Title XXXV of the Revised Code does not constitute a use for which consent is required under division (A) of this section. (E) The owners or employees of any medium used for advertising, including but not limited to, a newspaper, magazine, radio or television network or station, cable television system, billboard, transit ad, and global communications network, by whom any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is published or disseminated are not liable under this section or section 2741.07 of the Revised Code unless it is established that those owners or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the persona as prohibited by this section. Section 2741.03 states that these rights apply only to the use of the persona of a person resident in the state of Ohio, or who was so resident when that person died on or after January 1, 1998. Section 2741.04 states that the rights of publicity can be livened, transferred by contract, or left as an inheritance. Section 2741.05 defines who may grant written consent for use of a persona, including the person whose persona it is, a person who owns more than 50% of the rights, and a person explicitly authorized to grant such consent (such as an agent). Sections 2741.06 and 2741.07 authorize a civil suit for violation of rights of publicity. The plaintiff may receive any or all of: actual damages; statutory damages in an amount between $2,500.00 and $10,000.00; and in an appropriate case punitive or exemplary damages. Awards of legal costs add attorney fees are authorized. Injunctions to halt further violations are authorized. Triple damages are authorized against certain parties. Products, merchandise, and goods made in violation of these rights may be seized, and after a final judgemetn, destroyed orm otherwise disposed of. Section 2741.09 (Exceptions) provides that: (A) This chapter does not apply to any of the following: (A) (1) (a) A literary work, dramatic work, fictional work, historical work, audiovisual work, or musical work regardless of the media in which the work appears or is transmitted, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement not exempt under division (A)(1)(d) of this section; (A) (1) (b) Material that has political or newsworthy value; (A) (1) (c) Original works of fine art; (A) (1) (d) An advertisement or commercial announcement for a use permitted by division (A)(1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section. &lt; (A) (2) The use of an individual's name to truthfully identify the individual as the author of or contributor to a written work or the performer of a recorded performance under circumstances in which the written work or the recorded performance is otherwise lawfully reproduced, exhibited, or broadcast; (A) (3) The use of an aspect of an individual's persona in connection with the broadcast or reporting of an event or topic of general or public interest; (A) (4) The use of the persona of an individual solely in the individual's role as a member of the public if the individual is not named or otherwise singled out as an individual; (A) (5) A use of an individual's persona by an institution of higher education if all of the following apply: (A) (5) (a) The individual is or was a student at, or a member of the faculty or staff of, the institution of higher education. (A) (5) (b) The use of the individual's persona is for educational purposes or for the promotion of the institution of higher education and its educational or institutional objectives. (A) (6) A use of the persona of an individual that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as the use does not convey or reasonably suggest endorsement by the individual whose persona is at issue. (B) This chapter does not affect rights or privileges recognized under the Ohio Constitution or United States Constitution.
No, one cannot safely assume that because some people have done a thing without being sued, that it is OK to do a similar thing and no suit is possible. It is possible that people who upload a video, or a section of it, have permission. It is perhaps more likely that the copyright owner does not choose to sue, for whatever reason. But a different owner of a different video might make a different choice. Uploading a video, or even a section of a video, without permission, will be copyright infringement, unless an exception to copyright such as fair use or fair dealing applies. Such an infringement gives the copyright owner valid grounds to bring a suit. But the owner can choose whether or not to sue. An owner can sue in one case of infringement but not in another, for any reason or none. If the expected damages are small, it many not be worth the time, trouble, and costs to sue. In the US, one must register a copyright before bringing suit for infringement of that copyright, and there is a fee for registration. Some owners feel strongly about the use of their work, and will sue on any pretext. Some may prefer to tacitly support uses that they approve of by not bringing suit. One cannot tell the attitude of a particular owner unless that owner has stated what his or her view is. Short films are just as protected as full-length feature films, and suit can be filed for infringing the copyright on a short film. But the more expensive a film was to make, and the more money the owner expects it to earn, the more likely it is that the owner will choose to sue. Many people infringe by uploading short films or videos, gambling that the copyright owners will never learn of this, or will not trouble to sue. Sometimes such infringers are correct, and sometimes they get sued. I do not understand what the OP means by the part of the question that reads &quot;There should be more detail and complex lines over here&quot; What additional detail is wanted? Who does the OP expect to provide it? What sort of &quot;lines&quot; does this refer to?
Person A has to have created the data to hold copyright; for most kinds of data this has no legal effect because facts are not protected by copyright. A mineable database probably does not have the necessary creative elements for copyright. An algorithm is not protected by copyright (it might be patented). Person C's program is copyrighted. The product created by D is probably copyrighted, depending on what degree of creativity is involved in their transformation. If the transformation is automatic then no, but if creative judgments are applied to the output of the program then maybe. Though the resulting product is another database of facts, and the facts cannot be protected. In terms of "using the model", only C and possibly B have any control. If it is necessary to validate the software using A's data and A has kept the data secret, C might negotiate with A to use the data, in order to complete his program, and that could give A some interest in the program.
What real human teeth look like is a fact, and not subject to copyright. But some particular designer's or artist's image of human teeth would be protected by copyright, unless it is too old -- (prior to 1923 under US law), or unless it lost copyright in some other way. To create a derivative work based on such a copyrighted work would require permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise it is copyright infringement, and the holder could sue. As to the car models, the original designs would be protected by copyright, and a maker of a model should have permission in some form, or again the copyright holder could sue. Of course, a copyright holder is not required to sue, and if the value of the work is too small a suit might not pay. But that is not a matter of legal right, but of the holder's choice and business decision. A copyright holder could always change such a decision at a later time, when perhaps the value had increased. The exact laws on how to file copyright suits, and exceptions that might apply, vary by country. The question does not indicate what county it applies to.) But the basic principals are the same in all countries that adhere to the Berne Copyright Convention, which is all but a very few countries in the world. See this Wikipedia article for more details.
Both Bob and Charles are liable for infringement in the US. The fact that Charles had no idea that Bob was an infringer is not a defense, but it mitigates the statutory damages consequences for him. Either party can negotiate with Alice after the fact for a license, and Alice can grant either party but not the other permission to copy. The terms of the license that Alice gives Bob could either allow CCo reposting, or some more restrictive redistribution right. If the license requires a notice prohibiting further redistribution and Bob omits that notification, Bob will have breached the terms of the license in omitting the notification, so we're back to square 1. If Alice fails to specify a no-redistribution notification condition on Bob's reposting, Alice may have granted an implied license to the world, a matter which has to be determined by the courts.
united-states In US law this is covered by 17 USC 512 (c) which was added to the US copyright law by the Digital Millineum Copyright Act (DMCA) Under that law, the service provide is not liable if The service provider does not actually know that content posted is infringing; and The provider does not have good reason to belive that content is infringing; and The provider promptly removes or makes inaccessible infringing content once the provider knows or has reason to believe that content is infringing; and The provider complies with the DMCA take down procedure; and The provider has and publishes the contact info of a designated agent to receive complaints and takedown notices. (The above is a paraphrase of the actual text of the law, rewritten for clarity.) The above is all true no matter how short or long the videos or music selections may be. The length is not relevant, except as it may affect a claim fgor fair use, where length is only one of the factors to be considered. The above would also apply if the video, as opposed to the music, was a copyright infringement. Note that the individual poster can still be liable for copyright infringement, and the service provider may be required to respond to a subpoena for information identifying posters. Note also that a service provider must warn posters not to post content protected by copyright to which the poster has no rights, and must have some procedure in place to limit or cancel the access of posters who persistently post infringing content.