Can I be sued for “stealing” something that’s in the public domain?

[RalIy]

Hi,

I found some interesting data. I took a screenshot and included it in a blog. I credited the source where I found it.

The person who apparently originally came up from the data has emailed me threatening to sue me for using it without their permission or alternatively said I can pay them £1,000.

This has freaked me out slightly. Did I break the law here? I figured if it was in the public domain and I credited it, then that was all that was needed??

You did something wrong. Rights holder is being a bit of a dick asking for £1000 but they're probably sick to death of tracking down their stuff and trying to get it taken down.
No one is covering themselves in glory here. Take the image down and look on Wikipedia about creative commons licenses before you get sued by anyone. Someone's blog/website is not "in the public domain".

Has this site you've taken it from got a clearly visible copyright notification?

That's irrelevant, the assumption should be that it's copyrighted unless specificied otherwise.

Equally a copyright notification doesn't automatically mean something is actually under copyright. For instance a newspaper can claim copyright over their archive that dates back centuries, but whether any specific article is under copyright depends when the author died. If the author died over 70 years ago, it's no longer copyrighted, regardless of what the web site claims.

Thank you! This is a really informative and helpful post and I appreciate your sharing your knowledge.

It's a surprisingly common belief.

I've had photos taken from my social media and used commercially without my permission. Some I've resolved myself by contacting the business directly, some I've pursued through a specialist agency that does that sort of thing for you. It can be £80-£350 per photo depending on the use (there are tables of standard prices for non-authorised use published by the NUJ).

OP, did you think that public domain just mean available to be seen by the public? Because that would make everything; books, movies, art, everything available to be used by anyone in anyway. And you must know that that isnt true.

If the raw data is from government statistics then the raw data is public domain, but any graphics or tables created by someone to demonstrate that data and what it means is not public domain. That belongs to them.

You need to generate your own graphics.

It's the screenshot rather than the data that is the issue. If they took data and created a graphic it is their work and you need permission to use their analysis. The raw data you can use to make your own graphic/analyse if it's in the public domain and is properly referenced. Quoting sources is a minefield so I would check up all the rules so you don't make the same mistake.

This happened in our church magazine, which was put online. A really small place.
Someone used a picture from the internet in the magazine and had this persuit.
It seems to be a very well practised activity, even with website just full of images that may be used by someone.
They quickly agreed a settlement of a smaller payment

£1000 though...?

If you have a website or anything online you can quite easily track whenever anyone takes a screenshot or downloads it (unless you use the snip tool), I suspect some people host popular images or whatever and then wait for people to infringe the copyright- it's a money spinner after all.

If you regularly share photos and images to social media you can use services like Pixsy to look for image matches automatically. And if you want them to, they'll manage the fee recovery too.

A local magazine got into quite a bit of bother when it was found to be filling the pages with photos taken "from the public domain" without permission - mostly from Flickr,

Mumsnet - no.

You - possibly, but the courts may decide that this image does not have enough creativity to qualify for copyright protection.

Check if you have Legal cover on your home insurance and contact them, they can give you Legal advice and fees if you need to go to court.

Thanks for that so if I read you correctly uploading images to Mumsnet is publishing them and due diligence should be done by the poster as they could theoretically be pursued by the copyright holder. Surely though Mumsnet who profits from the advertising on the posts and royally so has a duty through software / moderation or some other process to intervene in some way even if it is just an alert box informing the user as to the potential legal jeopardy. Also would Mumsnet have to give up user details if so pursued ?

@Luredbyapomegranate I agree with others that your understanding of copyright law is wrong. Searching the internet for one hour is not remotely enough to class as "all reasonable endeavours". If it is genuinely not possible to identify the copyright owner it is possible to license such works under the orphan works licensing scheme, but you must complete a diligent search for the owner before using that. Again, one hour searching the internet is not remotely enough.

As you say you work for a media organisation where timescales will often be tight, I suspect that your employer is, like many other media organisations, taking a somewhat cavalier approach to copyright. This is reflected in the fact that you put aside £250 for a claim if you cannot identify the copyright owner. That doesn't mean that £250 is sufficient to cover a claim. It means that your employer calculates that, for every 100 photos they use without identifying the copyright owner and gaining their permission, they will have to pay £25,000. It probably reflects the fact that, in most cases, the copyright holder will not make a claim.

Mumsnet (as host) would have a duty to react promptly to a copyright claim or DMCA takedown notice, i.e. remove the offending item. It's very unlikely an individual member of the site would be pursued for posting a copyright image in a thread. It would be different if MN were using the image within the site template or as part of an advert for the site.

In reality it's very impractical to seek compensation from individuals. It's only really businesses and organisations that are worth the hassle. This is where it gets difficult to understand the OP's position - is this a personal blog or one attached to a business? What is the nature of the item that she copied and shared? - we know it's not pure data, but we don't know what work the creator put into interpreting and presenting that data. We don't know whether that work was accurately represented, or whether it was misinterpreted or misrepresented.

If this data had previously been quoted in a news article and reproduced elsewhere without any indication that it was copyright material and without the author being credited then you should be fine. Can the person who is trying to blackmail you (because that's what they are doing) prove that this is their own original material? When you found it, did it carry their name and a way of contacting them to ask to use it? Did you acknowledge the source? Did you claim they were your own statistics? More serious if you did.

I worked in publishing for many years. If someone was found to have lifted poems or a long paragraph without seeking permission (which was usually granted) they'd be asked to remove it, which you've done. Threats of court or compensation would only come a lot further down the line. It would be a civil case, it would cost them thousands to bring it and I don't imagine they'd win unless you took a lot of clearly copyrighted material and failed to acknowledge it.

I'm interested in this because this happens all the time on here or on Twitter. Has anyone on here ever been threatened with being sued?

The company I work for has just been through this with someone literally stealing from us (selling our pdfs on Ebay). She paid £150 and took them down. £1000 is insane.

You mention it was in a report, then tweeted by the author, then used specifically in a news article as well as in other reports. It might be the person has no problem with it being used in a news article, if it is being used to sell the report or enhance their reputation as an expert. They may have sent it to the publication specifically.

Re insurance mentioned above, depending on how businesslike your blog is, you might want to invest in professional indemnity insurance.

UK law, as in many other countries, recognises that a website such as Mumsnet that contains user-generated content cannot reasonably be expected to police everything that is posted for possible copyright infringement. However, a copyright holder can send a notice to Mumsnet claiming copyright in something that a user has posted and providing evidence to support that claim. On receiving such a notice, Mumsnet should remove the offending material or disable access to it. If they do not do so, they will be liable for copyright infringement as well as the person who posted it.

The regulations do not appear to require Mumsnet to give your details to the copyright holder. However, if they could make out a case, they would almost certainly be able to get a court order requiring Mumsnet to disclose any information they hold that would allow you to be identified.

I was taught (2 decades ago at film school) that there's no recourse under copyright law unless the infringement has generated profit.

I.e. the copyright holder can sue for a fair share of the proceeds of the use of their work, but if there are no proceeds then there's no basis to claim.

Can anyone legal advise if I have that right? If so then unless the OP generated significant revenue from the blog then £1000 is very steep!

which Jurisdiction were you at film school in?
there are a whole range of claims that can be made if you use someone’s IP without consent in your production. Assessing damages on the basis of commercial value of the IP doesn’t necessarily depend on whether you’ve made money out of it - it’s more based on what the open market value for that use would be if a proper licence had been negotiated- so you use it in a feature film but the film is a terrible flop and loses money doesn’t mean the use of the clip is with less. Even if your project is non commercial, there’s a value to the third party IP and then a whole raft of claims that relate to the use itself and how the original IP is treated (ie does the new use demean / change the meaning of the original work etc etc). If it is a clip in a film then obviously there are multiple rights holders of different types of right who would all have a claim - original scriptwriters / performers / ow er of the clip / etc. Unions are particularly helpful for writers / performers on this score and will pursue infringers on behalf of members.
In short - you were taught a very fly by the seat of your pants approach for a student film that doesn’t go beyond internal marking!

I would message them back to say you've contacted you solicitor and are waiting on there advice and just see if it makes them back off a little first.

*their

Not true, as far as I'm aware. But it's impractical to make a claim against someone without the funds to pay. Copyright breach is copyright breach.

£1,000 seems steep in the abstract, but the devil is in the detail (that we don't know).

NUJ rates are a useful starting point for what's a fair rate. When I've made claims I've always emphasised that it's for "unauthorised use". And I always go for an amount that're realistic, rather than pie in the sky. Not that it happens very much, I guess I've only put in claims four or five times for unauthorised use in the last ten years.
www.londonfreelance.org/rates/index.php