Wtfunny wrote:
If a normal license agreement for a given usage is, say, $750, and someone uses the image/clip without permission, you CAN sue for that amount, or close to it .... A little more, a little less .... etc .... But you can't sue punitive damages, which is where the bigger bucks tend to be.
In other words, you can't really sue, you just like pointless nit-picking.
Now I will show you how it's done, mr. brojos-are-copyright-violators.
http://www.cmsimpact.org/journalism#two (principles in fair use for journalism) says:
TWO: Use of copyrighted material as proof or substantiation in news reporting or analysis
Journalists routinely include copyrighted material, whether from a report, a memo, a video, or a photograph, and whether informally generated in social media or through traditional media channels, as evidence of their claim that something did or did not happen, or to support (or negate) the assertions of a source or other newsworthy person.
PRINCIPLE: Fair use applies when journalists use copyrighted material as documentation, to validate, prove, support, or document a proposition.
LIMITATIONS:
• The journalist should take as much as is reasonably appropriate to enable the news consumer to assess validity of a journalist’s assertions and interpretations.
• The journalist should consider the value of the copyrighted material to the public’s understanding of and confidence in the reporting.
• The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner.
Looks like they can post all the photos and clips they want because they're telling us the news.
nit score BW 1, wtfunny 0.