Copyright and that Rolling Stone Cover

[mabfan]

Meanwhile, over on Facebook, I posted the following:

I have a slightly more prosaic question about the Rolling Stone cover.

From what I understand, the photograph of the bomber running on the cover of Rolling Stone is a selfie, meaning that the bomber took the photo himself, of himself. According to US copyright law, the photographer generally owns the copyright to any photograph he or she takes (unless a previous arrangement is made). Doesn't that mean that the bomber owns the copyright on this photo? If so, what legal right does Rolling Stone have to publish the photo on their cover?

Is it some sort of fair use? Are they simply violating the bomber's copyright? Are they (and I would hate to think this is the case) paying the bomber a standard licensing fee for the photo?

Does anyone know?

(Please keep comments on this topic only.)

It's led to a lot of interesting discussion. Here's a link for anyone interested in reading the thread:

Facebook Thread: Copyright and that Rolling Stone Cover

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I'd wondered the same thing.

I presume they paid Facebook for the rights.

[ron_newman]

Facebook doesn't own the picture. When I post my own photos to Facebook, I still own their copyrights, not Facebook.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

You own the copyright.

But what rights have you granted to Facebook?

"You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use you picture as well! This means that not only can Twitter, Twitpic and Facebook make money from the photograph or video (otherwise, a copyright violation), but these sites are making commercial gain by licensing these images, which contains the likeness of the person in the photo or video (otherwise, a violation of their “rights of publicity”). [emphasis added]

People rarely understand how rapacious those social media sites can be.

So, I presumed that Rolling Stone licensed the photo from Facebook.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Or... From Facebook.com

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

BTW - I was distantly following the davis-square stuff, and I'm glad things turned out well for you.

[ron_newman]

Thanks!

[delkytlar.livejournal.com]

I'd guess it was licensed from Facebook under their EULA. However, there is a fair use exemption for news and commentary. Not having read the Rolling Stone issue (and not being likely to read them again), I don't know if such might apply, but it's a loophole they could use to defend the use.

Also, since the photo was previously published on Facebook, and it's unlikely that the subject registered it with the Copyright Office, he may not have standing to bring an infringement claim (registration is required if you want to bring claims). He's probably got other things occupying his time right now.