An Email from National Geographic

Any copyright lawyers out there willing to offer some free advice? I just received the following email from National Geographic (I'm sensing a bad trend developing here with emails like this... first the time travel mutual fund, and now Nat Geo):


One of our readers has informed us that you are featuring one of our
photographs on your website at http://hoaxes.org/weblog/2003/10/ [note: here's a more direct link].
We would ask that you either remove the photo immediately, or forward me
details of how long the image has been posted and how long you intend to
keep it posted so that we can determine an appropriate licensing fee and
send you a formal retroactive rights release and invoice. Please let me
know if you have any questions.



I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Nat Geo, unlike the time travel mutual fund, isn't someone you want to mess with. But on the other hand, I believe (hope) that my use of the image is protected by fair use. First of all, the image had circulated widely via email before I put it on my site. All I did was add some commentary to it in order to inform the public of the image's true source. Second, my use of the image hasn't deprived Nat Geo of any income since the image was too low quality to make print copies from. In fact, my commentary probably provided them with some free advertising.

I could just buckle under and remove the image, but this question of what is and what isn't fair use with regard to images that have escaped into the wilds of email is one that I'd very much like to know the answer to. Does a site such as mine, that tries to provide some information about random images that people find in their inboxes, have to request permission from the copyright owner whenever the owner is identified? Am I going to have to request permission from Touristguy to have his image on my site, or from that guy posing with the big bear? If so, that would potentially kill off large portions of my site.

Miscellaneous

Posted on Tue Aug 31, 2004



Comments

Humm, you have a lo-rez version of it, and now it has the proper credit, and it's in the context of a 'news' story about wether or not it's a fake photo, there's only two conclusions. A: National Geographic are snobby a-holes, or B: It's fair use. I'm not sure about B, but I know that A is correct.
Posted by Drunk Stepdad  on  Mon Sep 13, 2004  at  04:54 AM
I'm glad you contacted the EFF. I hadn't read this string since before you went on vacation, so I missed that. I'm also glad they were willing to talk to you and discuss your situation. When I suggested that, I wasn't sure that they would, but I operated from the adage that the worst they could say was to go away. You'll have to let us know what happens.
Posted by Bill B.  on  Wed Sep 29, 2004  at  10:45 AM
Alex, you received what was to be expected from the readership: common sense, attaboys, and f*** the machine. But you already knew that you didn't know how to proceed and that you needed expert info to make an informed decision. So why ask us anything? It's your life.
Posted by 1776  on  Fri Oct 01, 2004  at  03:58 PM
Ridiculous acting by national geographic...they got free publicity from you,so what
Posted by Evey  on  Sat Oct 02, 2004  at  07:43 AM
Does anyone know if there's an update on this??
Posted by Maegan  on  Wed Oct 13, 2004  at  08:12 AM


you may freely keep this link to a picture of my wrecked car on your site
Posted by Beasjt  on  Fri Jan 14, 2005  at  12:59 PM
Wonder what a-hole of a reader went to the trouble of reporting this to National Geographic.
Posted by J  on  Tue Jun 07, 2005  at  02:43 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.