Nominative Fair Use of Trademarks

I have pursued copyright infringement multiple times. It is an unfortunate requirement in a field where we must display our work on the internet to remain competitive. I get all the usual responses and threats, but I ultimately get my desired outcome. Over the course of time I have grown confident and knowledgeable about copyright infringement with the help of my excellent attorney. Last year I experienced a new defense tactic that I want to share.

I photographed a local cover band performing at a local club purely for my own pleasure. I documented the performance. I had no prior agreement with the band, but I photograph bands a this venue often so I know well that as a policy photography is permitted. Upon arrival at the venue, I spoke to one of the band members informing them I would be photographing their performance and gave them my business card. They seemed happy to get the free publicity. Two days after the performance I received an e-mail from a member of the band asking where they can see the photographs. I sent them a link to the gallery on my professional website, and expressed an interest in working with them professionally. They sent me an e-mail thanking me for the link and stated they would share the link with fellow band members. I never heard from them again.

A week later I was informed by a considerate third-party that all 20 pictures from my gallery were on the band’s website and in the band’s MySpace photo albums. No one had asked for my permission to use my photographs. This was outright copyright infringement. I did my normal diligent collection and documentation of evidence, sent the band a letter demanding removal or payment of a license fee, and threatened to file a copyright infringement case if I didn’t get action within three business days. I was extremely angry. That came through loud and clear in my letter.

Later that day I received a response from the band saying there must have been a mix-up in communication and that my photographs had been removed. That I expected. What came next was not expected. In the same message the band demanded I destroy all my photographs of them. They argued that their name, logos, etc, and all derivative works thereof, were their trademarked intellectual property. Essentially, they considered my photographs to be derivative works of their trademark, that as such they owned them, and therefore I must destroy them at their request. This was entirely wrong. After careful research, I provided the band with the legal basis that invalidates their argument and have had no further correspondance with them.

This is the legal basis that invalidates the argument for trademark violation. First, I am absolutely certain my photographs were not derivative works of their trademark. A photograph of a live performance is a new work of art. Second, there is a “fair use” rule for trademarks like there are for other forms of intellectual property. It is called “nominative fair use” (see “Fair Use – Lawful Use of Another’s Trademark” for more details). Here is an excerpt from the linked page.

Nominative fair use occurs when one party uses another’s trademark to refer specifically to the latter’s product. In this situation, there is no other reasonable way to refer to the plaintiff’s product other than through use of the trademark. Thus, a defendant may lawfully use the plaintiff’s mark accurately to refer to the plaintiff’s product.

There would be no publicity for music artists if displaying photographs of a band’s performance or naming them in an article was a violation of use of their trademark. Even competitors can use one anothers’ trademarks when making a statement about the other’s product. Have you seen the Apple advertisements? They mention Microsoft Windows. Mobile phone carriers mention each other or show each other’s logos in their advertisements. Fast food chains reference one another.

Nominative Fair Use benefits the music industry. It allows the music press to generate publicity for music artists.

Posted in Business, Legal | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Prevent Hotlinks To Your Images

Hotlinking is when another website tries to include an image hosted on your website in their web page via “<IMG></IMG>” tags. This is a form of image theft and copyright infringement where they are using your intellectual property without your permission. I have included code similar to this sample code below in the .htaccess file placed at the root folder of my website. The basic policy that this institutes is that all hotlinking is forbidden unless explicity granted. Here are some guides to help you understand the sample code.

  • The exclaimation point in each statement means “NOT” or “doesn’t match”.
  • The carat (^) sign means “starts with”.
  • The string “http(s)?” matches http or https.
  • The string “(www\.)?” matches websites with or without the “www” prefix.
  • The string “[NC]” means “not case sensitive”.
  • The HTTP_REFERER variable means the webpage on which the hotlink appears.
  • The REQUEST_FILENAME variable means the filename requested (being hotlinked).

In the same code, if your site doesn’t match A or B or …, you get a different image with a nasty message.

#
# Turn on URL rewrite
#
RewriteEngine on
#
# Use my website's root folder as the reference base
#
RewriteBase /
#
# allow hotlinks with no referer provided
# (some browsers strip HTTP_REFERER for privacy)
#
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$ [NC]
#
# always allow my own website to display images
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(www\.)?roweimages.com [NC]
#
# photography message boards
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.pdngallery.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.musicphotographers.net [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.travelphotographers.net [NC]
#
# miscellaneous
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://labs.adobe.com [NC]
#
# always allow "nohotlinks.jpg" to be displayed
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !nohotlinks.jpg$ [NC]
#
# if you get here, you get a nasty image instead
RewriteRule \.(jpg|jpeg|png|gif)$ nohotlinks.jpg [NC,R,L]

If a site tries to hotlink to one of my image files that is not explicitly granted permission, this is what they see instead.

Before I instituted this .htaccess file, I had lots of hotlinks to my concert photographs. After I instituted this, all forbidden hotlinking stopped. This works on Apache web servers. There are ways to do something similar on Microsoft IIS, but I don’t have instructions for doing that. Feel free to copy-n-paste this code and customize it for your site.

You can learn more about .htaccess here: http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess10.shtml

Posted in Business, Legal, Security | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bryan Rowe CD Cover

Baltimore composer and organist Bryan Rowe (no relation to me that we know of yet) released a new CD of live organ music called LIVE!. Portraits I took for him grace the cover and full page inside left and right of the CD jacket. The music is exceptional and the artwork turned out great. Here is the cover from Bryan’s new CD. Congratulations to Bryan on the new CD.

Bryan Rowe LIVE! CD Cover

Posted in Legal, Music, Publicity | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Help Stop Orphan Works Legislation

There are currently two bills before Congress called the “Orphan Works” bills. One is before the House of Representatives and the other is before the Senate. Both bills have moved out of committee and are being prepared for debate before their full body of Congress. The Senate’s version is worse the the House’s version. Both will allow commercial entities to use your photographs and other creations for any purpose they desire, and will strip creative professionals and citizens alike of their ability to recover statutory and punitive damages against unauthorized users. Commercial entities of all kinds support the Orphan Works legislation because it gives them permission to “crowd source” your creations and use them without you knowledge and without you being compensated for the use.

The spirit behind the Orphan Works legislation is that libraries and museums want to be able to display and preserve copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located. This is a good intention to preserve these works for the good of the public. This would be a non-commercial use of the copyrighted works and is a good cause. These can be visual works like photographs, paintings, film, etc. It can also be any other form of copyrighted work such as music and other sound recordings, written text, scripts for plays, music scores, etc, etc, etc. Current copyright law requires permission from the copyright owner to use or display these works. Without the copyright owner’s permission, these works have to be kept private and not publicly displayed.

The problem with the current Orphan Works legislation being considered is it does not limit use of Orphan Works to libraries and museums and other preservation entities. It leaves the doors wide open for use by any entity – including commercial business, advertisers, publishers, etc. It also does not limit the source of work to that produced only by professionals. It permits use of ALL sources of copyrighted work – professional, or otherwise (like Mom and Dad’s vacation pictures, pictures your kids took, etc). The only protection built into the legislation is that the user of the image must show a “due diligence” to find the owner before using the work without their permission. If the copyright owner cannot be found, the work will fall into the category of “Orphaned” – meaning it has no known owner – and the user will be permitted to use the image however they choose with relative impunity.

Here is the danger this legislation poses to every individual – both creative professionals and average citizens. Suppose you post a vacation photograph you took to a website – Shutterfly, MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, Photobucket, etc. Then suppose someone likes it, and copies and reposts it elsewhere (or e-mails it to all their friends). Now a commercial company finds it (or receives that e-mail) and asks them if they own it. The second person says “no, I found it on the internet”. Then the commercial company asks “do you know who took it?” and the second person says “no, I can’t remember where I got it”. So the commercial entity goes to a special copyright registry service that Orphan Works legislation requires be established and registers their intent to use the image. If no one responds, the user is now permitted to use that image however they want without paying the person who took the picture and without risk of facing statutory or punitive damages. The most the copyright owner can do is collect a “license fee” for the use, and the user gets to determine that fee – not the copyright owner.

Let’s say a major international company uses your photograph in a campaign that takes a stance on an issue that is completely in opposition to your values and you find out after the fact. You have relatively little recourse to stop the use and little recourse to collect any money. The user of the image can find some image similar to yours on a cheap stock photo site like iStockPhoto and claim the fair license fee is $1. So you have spent hundreds or thousands pursuing the company and now they only owe you $1. Current copyright law places the responsibility for determine fair fees on the copyright holder. Orphan Works lets the infringer determine the license fee.

Here is another example. Imagine finding personal home video clips that your child posted on YouTube on a television commercial for some product or activist group you do not support or which you find offensive. It will be nearly impossible for you to stop them from continuing to use it if they can demonstrate that they tried unsuccessfully to find the copyright owner. They also will not be required to pay you any statutory or punitive damages as a result of their use of your video footage.

Do you want to allow commercial entities to use your personal photographs, video clips or other creations without your permission and without any recourse to stop them from doing it? Companies like MySpace and Facebook and Google want the Orphan Works legislation to pass because it will give them permission to use your personal photographs for commercial gain or to promote particular causes without your knowledge or authorization.

In addition to moral concerns over use of your work, the creative professional stands to lose tens of thousands in revenue because the commercial user of their work can cry “orphan work”. This could put creative professionals out of work and kill entire industries. The purpose of copyright law is to protect the work of creative professionals. It is supposed to encourage them to continue to create by allowing them to earn an income from their work. Do you have relatives or friends who are creative professionals? Do you want to see their careers stopped by Congress? That is a very real danger of Orphan Works.

Every citizen needs to contact their members of Congress and tell them you oppose the Orphan Works legislation on both the House and the Senate. It will be in your best interest to stop this bill before Congress ends up giving every company in the world permission to use our personal photographs.

It is extremely important to make your voice heard before Congress passes this legislation. We need Congress to NOT pass this legislation. A better solution to Orphan Works is to make appropriate changes in the “Fair Use” rules under existing copyright law to permit museums, libraries and the other historical preservation entities to preserve these works for the public good. There should be NO allowance for commercial use of these works. It is not in the public interest to permit commercial entities to use orphan works. It is only in the interest of the corporations, investors and shareholders.

Please go http://capwiz. com/illustratorspartnership/home/ and send them a letter. Call them. Fax them. Write them via the link provided. Be courteous, but be determined. Present facts like I have written here. Don’t be emotional. Most members of Congress are lawyers. They work on facts, not emotions.

Please forward this information to everyone you know. Congress needs to get thousands of letters from individuals, not just the trade associations.

These are your photographs and other creations. Protect them and protect yourself. Do something about it. Contact your members of Congress and tell them to oppose Orphan Works and instead consider changes to the “Fair Use” rules. That is the proper place to address the needs of libraries, museums and the preservation groups who really are interested in the public good.

If you have questions about this legislation, contact me directly. I will answer all questions as best I can. A great source of information is John Harrington’s blog “Orphan Works 2008 – A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing”. John has written many posts on the Orphan Works legislation and opposes it. You should oppose it too by voicing your position with your Senators and Representative in Congress. They are elected to their position to represent the people in their districts. Make sure they are representing your position.

A lot of people will feel this only affects creative professionals and doesn’t concern the average citizen. This could not be further from the truth. Remember the “crowd sourcing” scenario I provided above. Every work that any individual creates is subject to abuse through the Orphan Works legislation. Commercial entities will encourage Congress to pass this legislation so that they can use yours, mine and every other person’s creations with impunity. Don’t let that happen. Take action now!!!

Posted in Legal | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Bacon Brothers @ Rams Head On Stage

[flagallery gid=1 name="Gallery"]

On Saturday, April 5th, 2008, the Bacon Brothers performed in Annapolis at Rams Head On Stage. The Bacon Brothers is comprised of actor Kevin Bacon and brother Michael, nine years his senior. The brothers, who have released five records, were accompanied by four backup musicians who were introduced as the Bacon Brothers Band. This was my first time to see them perform, to photograph them, and to hear their music. I was able to capture the following photographs within the first three songs as per the usual policy for concert photographers.

The venue lighting was subdued and the band was painted in yellow and red lighting from the first song to the last. The intimate size of the venue, at 250 seats, allowed me to photograph from the perimeter of the room. While the lighting offered tough shooting conditions, the music was very enjoyable and fun and the audience loved the performance.

Posted in Music | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

MusicPhotographers.net

It is with great pleasure that I announce the launch of www.MusicPhotographers.net. MPN is dedicated to professional music photographers. Our mission is to advocate sound business practices, warn against predatory practices, provide helpful and educational resources, and foster a sense of community. Technical, ethical, legal, and business discussions related to concert photography, and all forms of music photography are welcome.

MusicPhotographers.net

Posted in Business, Music | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How To Photograph Water Lilies

Most people are familiar with my work in music photography. I am also an avid nature and wildlife photographer. In September I was interviewed by a UK online publication called Water Gardener Magazine regarding my collection of over 500 water lily photographs. Read the entire interview and see 18 sample water lily photographs from my collection at Water Gardener Magazine.

Posted in Publicity | Leave a comment

Respect Professional Photographers

A recent post on a music photography discussion group started out with the following request:

best live shot you’ve ever taken – post it here. if it’s good maybe ill promote it :)

The author seems to feel that my photograph used on their web site will promote me, and that this perceived promotion should be considered fair compensation for my creative energies.

Here is my response:

I do not consider having my work on your site as promotion of my work. I consider it as adding value to your site. For this I should be paid. My work will enhance your site by providing content that will attract more visitors. Assuming more visitors to your site increases revenue from that site, I deserve a piece of that pie. That is the business of photography.

I see dozens of similar requests like this from people. All are requesting free use of a professional photographer’s hard work. Professional photographers don’t take photographs just because they are passionate about their craft. They also are trying to make a living from it, much like musicians who are trying to make a living from practicing the craft they feel so passionate about. Requesting free use of a professional artist’s work is insulting and disrespectful to the artist, whether they are a photographer or a musician.

If a photographer or musician creates something that you enjoy so much that you want to have a copy for yourself, then respect them enough to pay them honestly for it. Give photographers and musicians the respect they deserve. They work hard at their craft. They pour their hearts into what they do. Reward them for their passion and dedication and they will continue to do it. Steal the fruits of their labor and they will no longer be able to practice their passion.

Posted in Business | Leave a comment

RIP – Hilly Kristal (CBGB Founder/Owner)

This release from the Kristal family came to me from Brendan Rafferty of CBGB’s …

It is with deep sadness and regret that we inform you of the death of Hilly Kristal, who died on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, from complications from Lung Cancer. Kristal, 75, founded the legendary rock club CBGB and ran the club for 33 years. A singer and songwriter himself, Kristal opened the club to showcase “Country Bluegrass and Blues”; instead the club became a breeding ground for Punk rock. Among the many acts that called CBGB home were Blondie, the Talking Heads, Television, Living Color, Patti Smith and the Ramones. The club closed in October 2006, but CBGB continues, with a retail store in New York City and worldwide merchandise sales; in addition, there currently are plans to open new CBGB clubs in several locations.

Kristal is survived by his daughter, Lisa Kristal Burgman, son, Mark Dana Kristal, son-in-law Ger Burgman, grandchildren Jenny and Adam Burgman, CBGB, and the thousands of artists and musicians who played the club.

A private memorial service is planned. A public memorial will be held at a later date. Contributions in Hilly’s honor may be made in his name to the American Cancer Society or to the Hilly Kristal Foundation for Musicians and Artists (168 Second Avenue, PMB 207, New York, NY 10003).

CBGB’s was, of course, the famous New York City club where many punk rock bands made name.

Posted in Music | Leave a comment

Commodity Photography

As music photographers, we often hear a band say “we won’t pay you that much for your photograph because we can get the same thing elsewhere for less”. The tendency for less experienced photographers is to give in and accept a lower license fee for their work. Their rationale is that they are still getting paid, and they are getting their name out there. While getting paid and getting your name out there has some value, there are two very important underlying messages being conveyed here. First, you are telling the band that you agree that your work isn’t worth more. Second, and equally important, the band is telling you that your photographs are not unique. You have not set yourself apart from the rest of the market.

Wikipedia defines “Commodity” as “something for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a given market.” When your photographs of a band are just like all of the other photographs of that band, all of the images of that band are a commodity. In commodities markets, orders always go to the lowest bidder. Commodity photographs are like cars – bands can get them anywhere and can shop around for the lowest price. To set yourself apart, you have to strive to be the Ferrari or Bentley of music photography.

You don’t need to photograph every band out there. What you need are fresh, unique, creative images of the bands you do photograph. Strive for that and bands will recognize it. They will pay you more for your photographs because they cannot get them elsewhere at any price. They can only get them from you.

Search the online image databases and see what else is out there. See what your competition is doing. Use that knowledge to create something new. Then stand your ground and demand a fair price for your photographs. If you have searched online and know what the competition has to offer, you will be able to negotiate with confidence because you will know your images are unique.

Welcome to the world of professional photography!

Posted in Business, Music | Leave a comment