I've noticed often that websites like BleacherReport and Deadspin, and many others often post cool and interesting youtube videos on to their site. I've also noticed that anytime a cool photo comes of a new uniform design for example, they post that picture to their website and just give credit to the person/organization they found it from. How is that allowed? I was told that if one just uses other peoples pictures/videos, andcredits them, it only alerts those people that these sites are using their pics/ videos illegally. I have often wanted to do this for my own site/Twitter acount, but was always told that the real owners of the photos/videos can sue me even if I give them credit. If anybody understands that, please let me know.
Thanks
Anyone can sue you for any reason, even if they would eventually lose. The difficulty with copyright disputes is that the cost of successfully defending yourself might drive you into bankruptcy. Some copyright holders depend upon this threat to get bloggers and others to remove content they could legally keep up as fair use.
Whether or not your use of the content you are interested in qualifies as fair use is a complicated question. It depends upon what the purpose of your use is and how much your use of the content redirects traffic from the original site, among other things. News websites, such as the ones you mention, often have a lot more resources - such as lawyers on staff - dealing with potential copyright issues behind the scenes. If you have millions of dollars and want to hire a legal team to assist you, you can probably post pictures and videos almost at will. If you are just writing your blog in your free time and don't have a lot of resources, doing this kind of thing can be playing with fire.
These websites either license the photos in question from a rights aggregation agency, such as Getty Images or NPH, or they rely on a fair use defense. News reporting is one of the specifically enumerated fair uses under 17 USC § 107.
First, BleacherReport and Deadspin use licensing clearinghouses for much of their digital content, so that the photographers, videographers, etc are paid properly, and according to industry standards for the use of their content. In addition, BleacherReport and Deadspin are using these images and videos in the context of reporting news related to their specific areas of content, and thus, much of what they use would fall under a Fair Use defense if they were sued for copyright infringement.
Setting aside the fact that your use of the content might violate the terms of service of Youtube or other online services that you would grab the content from, it is entirely reasonable that you would be expected to pay royalties for the use of such content.
If you are interested in becoming a "news" source for things, and wish to compile content, then perhaps you should sit down with an IP attorney to discuss the best way to set up such a site.
Leigh Francis GillIntellectual Property Law AttorneyPortland, OR ·
It seems to me there are two considerations in your question: (1) what is BleacherReport's business model? and (2) can I post images on my own website or twitter account? The first one I think has been answered somewhat adequately: BleacherReport is like a newspaper and requires rights to post the creative works of others. Those rights are derived from licenses, in most cases via a third-party rights holder (AFP, Getty Images, etc.). If they fail to secure adequate rights, they face suit for copyright violation.
The second question has two possible answers (generally). The first answer is, if you engage in adequate rights clearance in all copyrighted images and videos that you post on your website, you can operate a website in the same way as BleacherReport. The second answer is, if you rely on other legal methods you may be able to post images on your website or twitter without negotiating a license from the rights holder. As another commenter noted, you may risk suit if you do so.
Some creative works (I'll call them images) have been designated to the public domain and can be used without any attribution or payment. These are typically images from prior to the 1920s, and other images whose rights have been designated to the public domain. Other images may be limited by license, but can be used within the scope of that license (for example, creative commons share and share alike license). Other images may be licensed, but you may plug to a content portal subject to the terms of use without claiming a license (for example, via a YouTube plug in). Other images may be restricted, but you do not need a license if you claim rights independent of the restriction, most frequently via fair use (§107 of the copyright act).
Fair use is hard to define, includes a seven factor test, and it is generally not a good idea to start a business relying on fair use. However, for personal use, you may be able to reasonably say that your use is transformative, limited, non competitive, non commercial, or any of the other indicators. Fair use represents free speech rights in the US copyright code, so for example using an image for political criticism would generally be recognized as fair use if the use was necessary for the political speech.
Practically speaking, look for images that have a license that allows your proposed use. For example, Flickr has a search for images by creative commons license. Rely on fair use if necessary, but be willing to take down images at the request of a rights holder. (Note that you can't rely on the takedown safe harbor (§512) if you're selecting your own images and putting them up). And, although you can be sued at any time, recognize that there are norms of behavior and most people who operate within those norms do not receive threats of suit.
Congratulations for raising this good question. You have already received wise and thorough advice. Yet my colleagues have not touched on one critical point. Web-sites such as Deadspin and BleacherReport have already devoted enormous resources to laying the proper legal foundation for safe and profitable operation. This means that they employ both in-house counsel and outside counsel to advise them on literally a daily basis about whether the content that they post (photographs, videos, articles, etc.) would violate third party IP rights (copyrights, trademarks, rights of publicity etc). While these web-sites will at times rely on the fair use doctrine, in most circumstances they obtain and pay for licenses to use the materials which they post. These web-sites are profitable, and they pay royalties (usually in very small amounts) to copyright and trademark owners. Their lawyers routinely enter in to license agreements with content providers (such as Getty Images) pursuant to which royalties are paid. If you want to operate a web-site, even if you are a small player, you assume the same risks and obligations of any publisher--and that means that it is critical to retain experienced counsel to guide you.
One further point---be very wary of creative commons license materials. In my experience, many materials that purport to be subject to a creative commons licenses (for example, one that requires attribution) turn out to have been posted by someone who was not the real copyright or trademark owner and who was without authority to offer it as part of a creative commons license. You can't trust materials that you find on Flickr or other such web-sites that purport to be covered by a creative license until you actually identify the real copyright owner and then confirm with the copyright owner that the work is covered by a creative commons license. Reliance on creative commons license materials is quite often a disastrous mistake. Let me put it this way---worthwhile photographs, videos, music and articles are rarely covered by creative common licenses, and much of what you find on the web that purports to be covered by a creative common license turns out to have been fraudulently posted as creative commons material,
