Axl Isn't Happy

“is he misusing copyright law to undermine satire and parody? Or is he using it to fight a form of cyber bullying?”

Surely that’s for him to decide?

ChrisL – Member
is he misusing copyright law to undermine satire and parody? Or is he using it to fight a form of cyber bullying?

clodhopper – Member
Surely that’s for him to decide?

Not really. He can believe whichever he wants (if either, for him it may actually be totally about defending his copyright after all) to his heart’s content. But the public’s opinion about his motivations will contribute to the overall feeling about copyright and how it fits into the digital world. For example if it’s seen as a tool allowing the rich and famous to suppress criticism of themselves then respect for it will erode and that’ll have an effect on people who rely on it to try and make a living out of content creation.

Clearly he has misteaken the Angus as it’s Young.

He’ll be wanting an aged cut

“Not really. “

But surely it is? If he is the subject of the material, is he not entitled to have whatever views he chooses to, regarding their use and distribution?

Which is a point in itself. Since when does the subject of a photo retain copyright of the image? Commissioned photography sure, but random photos taken by people are the intellectual property of the photographer.

He’s not very tall either. Are we allowed to say that?

But isn’t the actual issue that the memed images are in violation of copyright anyway, and he’s just trying to use the law to have them removed?

I’m trying to think of an analogy that might be appropriate, and wondered if it’s the same as a stolen bike; the bike itself may have changed hands so many times we’re not even sure who nicked it in the first place, but it still remains a stolen bike. And by allowing the image to be published on this forum, the site owners are comparable to someone allowing someone else to store a bike they know to be stolen, in their house? Which would also be illegal, no?

He’s not very tall either. Are we allowed to say that?

…and his mummy dresses him funny.

but random photos taken by people are the intellectual property of the photographer.

Terms of ticket sale if at concerts – ie no pictures?

Either way he is being an arse – an incredibly large flabby one and I am sure this thread has helped no end in his positive image with the public

Terms of ticket sale if at concerts – ie no pictures?

Good point. That won’t apply to other photos though; paparazzi shots of him on the beach running away from Greenpeace and so forth.

clodhopper – Member
But surely it is? If he is the subject of the material, is he not entitled to have whatever views he chooses to, regarding their use and distribution?

Point of order – he’s the copyright holder, that’s the basis he’s using to make the legal threats he’s been making. I think that stuff like personal image rights is a different chunk of law (but IANAL). Unless anyone’s been trying to make money off the Fat Axl meme then I don’t think that him being the subject of the picture is particularly relevant.

Other than that, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes. As the copyright holder for the Fat Axl images he can control use of the image and he can choose when he wishes to assert those rights. In this case he’s chosen to assert it.

My point though was that the wider effect of him having chosen to do so will be down to the public reaction to it, and I reckon that one effect will be to highlight the use of copyright laws for other ends. If he’s seen as a spoilt celebrity wielding copyright as a blunt stick in order to protect his fragile ego then I reckon that will reduce the general level of respect for copyright laws. If his actions are seen in a more favourable light then copyright’s part in it may be cast in a less negative light.

paparazzi shots of him on the beach running waddling away from Greenpeace

FTFY

Cougar – Moderator
Which is a point in itself. Since when does the subject of a photo retain copyright of the image?

From the Consequence of Sound article:

In a subsequent statement issued to TorrentFreak, a representative for Web Sheriff said Rose’s owns the copyright of the photo, even though he didn’t take it himself. “We can gladly confirm that all official / accredited photographers at [Axl Rose] shows sign-off on ‘Photography Permission’ contracts / ‘Photographic Release’ agreements which A. specify and limit the manner in which the photos can be exploited and B. transfer copyright ownership in such photos to AR’s relevant service company.”

Lovely.

As I suggested above, if a new set of Fat Axl memes that used public domain images of the great man looking a bit tubby, then Axl wouldn’t be able to use this mechanism to try and get them off the Internet.

isn’t the actual issue that the memed images are in violation of copyright anyway

Wouldn’t memed images be covered by:

“Parody, caricature and pastiche

There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.”
— https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

That Blackie Lawless one is amazing, only saw WASP a few years OK when they played Hard Rock Hell in North Wales.

He looked a bit older but was still running about stage and kind of normal sized (for an American).

Seeing Testament when they toured a couple of years ago, gave a completely new spin on “heavy” metal. They weren’t very good either.

when I won a court case against me
you sued yourself? how very STW

Oh dear, I’ve not got my best grammar on today! But no, I’m not that (rude word)-ey, although the complainant was IMHO.

GrahamS – Member
Wouldn’t memed images be covered by:

“Parody, caricature and pastiche

There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.”

Possibly it depends on the “limited amounts” bit. Like you probably couldn’t get away with parodying a novel by copying the entire text and then performing some amusing name substitutions.

I don’t know how that applies to photos though. Some of the Fat Axl memes crop the photos down to just his head, for example, which is a fairly small amount of the original shot. But it would probably count as the most significant part of the picture, too. It might be that there’s plenty of established precedent about this sort of thing, but in most cases nobody’s willing to go to court to prove that point, as it’s expensive and it may just not go the way they expect it to.

“Wouldn’t memed images be covered by:

“Parody, caricature and pastiche”

But would these memes be considered as such? Or simply abusive?

But just to clear one thing up.. we absolutely did not publish the images. To do so would indicate that at some point the actual digital files came into our possession and were stored on our servers. But they weren’t, ever, stored on our servers. We were explicitly asked to remove the files from our servers. We couldn’t do that. It was impossible for us to do that. We never published them. They were hotlinked.

All that was published on here was a text link. That was all that was stored on our servers – a short string of text that formed an instruction to the users browser as to where it could find the file. It’s no more copyright infringement than pointing at something. Copyright infringement requires that something is copied.

It’s a technical point for sure and not necessarily a moral point though.

The question I was hoping would be debated is whether or not you should be allowed to hotlink images to this forum. If you do should you include a credit to the source? What if the hotlinked image was reduced to a hyperlink? is that ok?

I’m much more interested in the ins and outs of hotlinking images per se than some ageing rocker’s waistline.

“But just to clear one thing up.. we absolutely did not publish the images.”

Is this something that is absolutely clearly legally defined?

For example; if someone were to post other illegal images on this forum, would you also not be held legally responsible for publishing them? The images appear visually on the forum, not as a link. Maybe if it was simply a link, then you would not be deemed to have ‘published’ them, but if you enable them to be viewable by the use of whatever internet black magic, then isn’t that then ‘publishing’?

I’m interested in UK law here, not US.

Mark, if you and the moderation team are happy to keep policing hotlinked images as and when problems occur then I’d prefer for them to be retained. This does however put all the effort onto the shoulders of people other than me. 🙂

The support for images in forum posts makes for a more vibrant forum, from pictures of peoples’ new bikes to animated reaction gifs. Some of the largest active threads on the forum probably wouldn’t exist if the best we could do was post links to images rather than the images themselves.

I imagine that if the forum rules required that all hotlinked images were credited then there’d be a lot of people falling foul of the rules. I don’t even credit my own pictures when I post photos on here, though I do generally make the images links back to the flickr pages that I uploaded them to.

Is it down to whether hot links are content?

Hasn’t there been a legal case already where some bloke was done for copyright breach running a site that only had links to illegal software? How did that turn out?

This might only be funny images to fat and past it rock has beens, but what if the hotlink was to the subject of one of the recent super injunctions?

Can’t see why you can’t have hot links but there may be circumstances they have to me moderated.

The question I was hoping would be debated is whether or not you should be allowed to hotlink images to this forum. If you do should you include a credit to the source? What if the hotlinked image was reduced to a hyperlink? is that ok?

My thoughts:

Yes we absolutely should be allowed to hotlink images to this forum BUT (and like Axl it’s a fairly big but) only from sources that either actively encourage hotlinking (image hosts, wikimedia, meme sites etc) or from sites that are very likely to approve as it helps their business (e.g. I see nothing wrong in hotlinking a product image from CRC/wiggle/Amazon etc when I’m posting a link to it in a discussion).

We may be accused of aiding and abetting distribution of the images but we certainly won’t be the publisher of the images. You simply can’t publish something that doesn’t come into your possession. This has been tested in law. Google has been accused of publishing images for which it doesn’t own the rights. They successfully argued that they were just signposting the location of the indexed files. So the argument against them was changed to aiding and abetting distribution of copyright material. But that didn’t stick either..
The case involved some porn site I can’t recall right now but it’s well documented and there’s a record on wikipedia about it. Sorry for no linky references.. I’m rushing out to go on holiday..

Have fun arguing while I’m gone 🙂

Can you hotlink a photo of it? (Happy holidays btw)

“we certainly won’t be the publisher of the images. You simply can’t publish something that doesn’t come into your possession. “

This is a very interesting topic. I’d like to know what the absolute UK legal definition states, regarding this, as it’s a particularly murky area of law. I’m not sure using Google as an example to reinforce your own argument is relevant, as Google isn’t a website, it’s a search engine. As for ‘possession’ of an image; not sure if that’s relevant either. The image still appears in your ‘publication’. You are still facilitating its ‘viewability’.

I’d really like to see some input by actual lawyers/people who actually know about this sort of stuff.

Enjoy your holiday! 😀

Up until lately I hadn’t quite realised just what Mr. Rose looked like these days.

Also, I nearly fell off my chair after googling ‘Fat Axl’. I know, I’m going to straight to hell.

I guess Axl didn’t hear the one about the Streisand Effect.

Is this something that is absolutely clearly legally defined?

Had they been hotlinking to ILLEGAL material (child porn etc), then STW would have certainly been given an ultimatum as the hosting company has a legal obligation to take action. The obvious comparison is that as a domain company, the company I work for obviously neither host nor publish stuff but regularly get law enforcement asking us to do takedowns in criminal matters. We’re just a convenient way to nip the matter in the bud.

However, when it comes to what could arguably be discussed as a civil issue, the overwhelming consensus is that hotlinking causes no real issues. Whether a hosting company decides they want to avoid weeks of tedious threats, legal letters and a potential court case doesn’t change the fact that legally, it’s a fairly clear area. We often tell people to shove it or tell us which local law has been broken when they raise things they don’t like. But we DO end up in court from time to time when someone pushes the issue.

Google has been accused of publishing images for which it doesn’t own the rights. They successfully argued that they were just signposting the location of the indexed files. So the argument against them was changed to aiding and abetting distribution of copyright material. But that didn’t stick either..

I was going to say this; I remember the case, but not the outcome.

Also – isn’t this ostensibly the same argument The Pirate Bay used (and ultimately lost)? That they were hosting .torrent shortcuts, not content?

The question I was hoping would be debated is whether or not you should be allowed to hotlink images to this forum. If you do should you include a credit to the source? What if the hotlinked image was reduced to a hyperlink? is that ok?

Could you take a similar stance to your recent one about not publishing videos unless paid for and send Axl a counter demand for retrospective payment for STW promoting his healthy eating plan

In a subsequent statement issued to TorrentFreak, a representative for Web Sheriff said Rose’s owns the copyright of the photo, even though he didn’t take it himself. “We can gladly confirm that all official / accredited photographers at [Axl Rose] shows sign-off on ‘Photography Permission’ contracts / ‘Photographic Release’ agreements which A. specify and limit the manner in which the photos can be exploited and B. transfer copyright ownership in such photos to AR’s relevant service company.”

How many of these images are from official/accredited photographers? Many, many people take cameras of one sort or another to gigs these days, and it’s not unlikely that someone in the crowd took a photo not unlike one taken by a professional.

I’m not sure using Google as an example to reinforce your own argument is relevant, as Google isn’t a website, it’s a search engine.

Sure about that? Google started as a search engine, but has expanded into a variety of other areas, not least of which is an operating system, plus they host photos as well.

Plus that’s like saying “it’s not a car, it’s a Ford Fiesta”

CountZero – Member
How many of these images are from official/accredited photographers? Many, many people take cameras of one sort or another to gigs these days, and it’s not unlikely that someone in the crowd took a photo not unlike one taken by a professional.

Well the Consequence of Sound article (hotlinked by Mark’s OP) states that the images subject to the copyright action were taken by a single specific photographer:

The photos in question were taken by Boris Minkevich for Winnipeg Free Press in 2010.

Presumably Axl and his legal team have copies of the original photos and reckon it’s clear that the Fat Axl pictures are based on Minkevich’s photos. The ones displayed in the Consequence of Sound article appear to be variants of only two different photos.

Sure about that?

Not even remotely.

There’s a fat grey line with Google searches. Google uses knowledge graph technology (research neo4j if you are interested) which means it does not use traditional methods such as hard coded or branched links to files or in this case images to form a relationship. Therefore, two photos seemingly similar but from very different sources and vey different meta data content can appear in the same knowledge graph based search, despite the fact they probably have no “code based” relationship at all. Its almost but not quite like a computer version of saying “slightly similar to”.

I’m sorry I’ve forgotten which post I was responding to, I’m sure someone will work it out.

Well done to Mark for having a bit of a ‘go’ back.

As for Axl Rose – the headline:

Egotistical Fat Knacker has a Sense of Humour Failure Shocker.

Or The Spaghetti………..and lasagne and cannelloni and tagliatelle Incident. Oh, and do you do tiramisu?

Get a mountain bike, Porky!

Many, many people take cameras of one sort or another to gigs these days

Yeah, bloody **** the lot of em.

The Register’s article on the matter[/url] suggests that it is less clear cut as to whether Axl has the copyright for the original Fat Axl pictures, and also touches upon some of the other issues the story touches upon, albeit not the one about the difference between publishing and linking to an image.

Given the reduction to the latter, the question is how do you plan to stop it (I presume you do have no such plans, and simply looking for moral support)? Sure you could aggressively police it, but there are always ways around any automatic blocking – you’re not supposed to post links on ebay ads…

The answer to the more generic question has kind of been done – hotlinking is the way the internet now works. Maybe there was a debate back in the day when hosting was far more expensive, and many (most?) sites didn’t like you hotlinking, but as already mentioned, most hotlinked images on here now are from sites which if anything positively encourage hotlinking – personally I tend to host my own pics on sites which provide you with a hotlink to cut and paste. Maybe there should be attribution (I have to admit I tend to manually remove that from Photobucket links), but then how do you police that – and should you be required to?

I’m much more interested in the ins and outs of hotlinking images per se than some ageing rocker’s waistline.

You might be – trying to stifle intellectual debate? 😉 I’m slightly disappointed that I think I’m the first to explicitly mention the Streisland Effect (if we assume that his purpose isn’t to protect his income from copyright images).

Trending on Facebook currently.

Axl Rose Sends DMCA Notices to Google Targeting ‘Fat’ Photo

Worth a read.