“The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment.”
Now that FBI seal and warning are available for use by any copyright holder–including photographers–who wants to use it to deter would-be infringers. Until earlier this week, it was legal only for members of five entertainment and software industry members to use the seal and warning. Those included big movie studios and video game producers.
In making the seal and warning available for use by all copyright holders, the FBI has eliminated fees and administrative requirements. Users can download the seal and post the warning free-of-charge, provided they follow the FBI rules for its use. One rule is that the seal and warning language must appear together. The seal also must be downloaded from this FBI Web page. The seal may not be animated, although it may be rendered in outline, grayscale, or black and white. And the seal and warning must not be used to imply the FBI’s endorsement of any photos, videos or other communications. (Complete rules and guidelines are available on the FBI’s Web site.)
It’s worth noting that just because a copyright holder posts the FBI’s anti-piracy notice doesn’t mean he or she can expect the FBI to investigate suspected infringements. Criminal infringement is defined in copyright law as primarily–though not exclusively–those infringements whereby someone undercuts the market for a movie or music recording by distributing bootleg copies before the official release.
For photographers, then, the benefit of the new FBI rule is that it offers an official law enforcement tool for warning people against infringement. And it does so by instilling an element of fear about dire consequences, like a sign on a chain link fence that says “Warning–premises protected by attack dogs,” even if there don’t happen to be any attack dogs actually present.
But that raises some question: Is the FBI warning overkill for photographers? Is the deterrent effect worth the risk of scaring off customers with a message that signals a certain level of unfriendliness? Or has copyright infringement become such a problem that more dire warnings are in order?
A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the infamous monkey selfie case, on the grounds that “the Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement claims under the statute.” The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is located in San Francisco, handed down the ruling... More ›
Sinclair Broadcast Group has pulled its funding for the National Press Photographers Association’s (NPPA) legal advocacy program after the trade group’s board of directors criticized Sinclair earlier this week. NPPA, a trade association that advocates for the legal rights of visual journalists, was one of several journalism and press freedom groups that criticized media giant Sinclair... More ›
Massachusetts College of Art and Design is conducting a Title IX investigation of former photography professor Nicholas Nixon, following “recent allegations of inappropriate conduct,” according to a letter the school’s president sent to faculty, students, staff and alumni on March 22. The letter gave no details. Nixon, a celebrated photographer and 40-year veteran of teaching... More ›