Who Owns your Pictures? Social Networking and Unauthorized Copy

2011-01-01

WHOOWNSYOURPICTURES?SOCIALNETWORKINGANDUNAUT
HORIZED
COPY

JASONMOSCOVICI*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

WhendealingwithissuesregardingcopyrightandtheInternet,weareoften
confrontedwithtwodiametricallyopposedgoals:renderingtheworkaccessibleand
acknowledgingthecontributionoftheauthor.
Thesetwogoalsreflecttheverynatureofthelegalframeworkwetreadinthese
dayswiththeadventofsocialnetworking(infact,atthispointitcanberegardedas
oldnews).Itishoweverimportanttokeepinmindthatyourrightsinonesphereof
activitymayverywellvaryinanother,especiallywhentheserightsstemfromyour
activitiesonline.
Mostsocialnetworkingsites,whetherwearediscussingFacebook,Twitter,or
whatevercomesnext(Twitface?),haveestablishedtermsofuseagreementsthat
requireuserstoclickandacceptbroadlydraftedcontractualtermswhichtryto
legally“boxin”theuserexperiencewithregardtothecontenttheyaresharing.In
otherwords,eachservicecomeswiththeirsetofconditionsthatusersmustagreeto
inordertohaveaccesstothenetwork.
Theseuseragreementscansometimesbeatoddswith“realworld”practical
applicationsofexistinguserrights.Forexample,mostsocialnetworkinguser
agreementsboastthattheirusersretainallownershiprightstothecontentthey
generate.However,ifoneweretoreadsomeoftheseagreementsmorecarefully,it
wouldbepossibletorealizethatforthemostpart,auserisinrealityagreeingto
providethesesites(aswellasanyaffiliatesandpartners)withafull,non-exclusive,
royaltyfreelicensetotheircontent,whichincludestherighttosub-licensetoothers.
Therefore,fromapracticalperspective,eventhoughtheuserretainsownershipto
thecontenttheypost,theentityprovidingthesocialnetworkitselfisnonetheless
givenanon-exclusivelicensetofreelyuseanddistributethecontent,thereby
devaluingtheconceptofactualownership.Thiswastheverynatureofarecent

©CIPS,2011.*FromROBIC,LLP,multidisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-markAgents.Published
intheSpring2011(Vol.15,no.1)Newsletterofthefirm.Publication068.131E.

2
Americandispute:AgenceFrancePressev.Morel-F.Supp.2d—-,2011WL
147718(S.D.N.Y.Jan14,2011)(NO.10CIV2730WHP).

Inthiscase,AgenceFrancePresse(AFP)wasseekingadeclarationfromthe
Courtsthatithadnotinfringedanyexistingcopyrightsresidinginpicturestakenby
Mr.Morelofthe2010earthquakeinHaïtithathehimselfuploadedtotheTwitter
socialnetworkingservice.AFPhadobtainedthesephotoswithoutrequesting
permissionfromMr.Morelandsoldthem,throughanintermediary,toCNNandCBS
forbroadcast.AFParguedthatsinceMr.Moreluploadedandsharedthepicturesvia
hisTwitter/Twitpicaccount,hemadethempubliclyavailabletoallTwitterusers,
therebygivingothersanimplicitlicensetoshareorre-publishthem.Inotherwords,
therewasnopotentialforinfringementsinceMr.Morelhadgivengeneralpermission
tousethepicturesthatwerealreadybeingsharedpubliclyassincetheverynature
ofTwitterrequiresthatmaterialbeposted,sharedandre-postedbyothers.

ThiscaseisinterestingfromalicensingperspectiveasaccesstoTwitter’sservice
dependsontheuseracceptingthetermsofagreementasdiscussedabove.These
termsexplicitlygiveTwitteranditsaffiliatesanon-exclusivelicensetouseand
distributeanycopyrightprotectedmaterials.TheCourtsdecidedthatgiventhis
explicitlanguage,thislicensecouldnotextenditselftothedistributionofsaidwork
outsidethe“Twittersphere”.InviewofthisspecificTwitterlicenseagreement,any
“realworld”publicationoruseisstillsubjectto“realworld”copyrightlawsandnot
coveredbythislicenseunderthetermsofuseagreement.Onecannotassumethat
becauseacertainmaterialwaspubliclysharedonline(underaspecificsetof
circumstances),thatthiswouldextendtoan“implicit”licenseallowingthe
distributionanduseofthissamematerialoutsideofthesocialnetworkitwas
distributedin.
WhiletherearenotmanyotherpendingcourtdecisionsinCanadaortheUnited
Statescurrentlystudyingthisquestionofexplicitvs.implicitlicenseagreementswith
respecttosocialnetworkingandthepublicsharingofcopyrightprotectedworks,the
realworldeffectsofthisdualityaresurelytangible.

Onemustbewarywhendealingwiththedistributionofcopyrightprotectedmaterials
obtainedthroughlicense.Forexample,ifanexclusivelicensetoaspecificpicture
hasbeengiventoanewspaperforpublication,andsaidnewspaperthenpostsand
sharesthepictureontheirTwitterpage,thisactwouldgiveanon-exclusivelicense
toTwitteraswellastheiraffiliatesandpartners,todistributeandsub-licensethe
photograph,therebygoingagainstthetermsoftheexclusivelicensealreadyinforce
betweentheinitialparties.
Conversely,ifaphotographerpostsapictureonTwitterandtheBBC,forexample,
thendecidestolinkthispicturetotheirTwitterfeedwithouttheauthor’sconsent,
therewouldbenopotentialforinfringementduetoTwitters’non-exclusivelicense
agreement.However,iftheBBCtookthepictureaspostedonTwitterand,instead

3
oflinkingdirectlytothephotographersTwitterfeed,copiedandpostedthepicture
directlyontotheirwebpage,therewouldbeapotentialforinfringementsincethe
contentwouldhavebeentakenoutofthe“Twitteruniverse”.Fromarightsholder
perspective,thisistreacherousgroundandrightsholdersneedtobeawarethat
specificlicensetermsshouldbeinplaceinnewlydraftedagreementstotakeinto
accountthesenewandconverginglicensingspheres.

WhileCanadiancourtshavenotyetbeenaskedtohearasimilarcase,webelieve
thattheywouldlikelycometoasimilarconclusionwithrespecttotheeconomic
rightsrecognizedbyCanadiancopyrightlegislation.However,onecanonly
speculateastowhattheirassessmentwouldberegardingtheexistenceofmoral
rightsresidinginacopyrightprotectedphotographdistributedviasocialmedia,
theserightsbeingseparatefromeconomicrightsinCanadaandwhichcanbethe
subjectofanentirelynewarticlealtogether.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD

4
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)