Fair Use???

[Alan Goldhammer]

One of the libertarian economist blogs that I read is 'Marginal Revolution,' run by George Mason Professor Tyler Cowan.  Today he has a POST with only an image from Western Ireland.  An astute reader (See the first comment by reader 'clockwork_prior') noted that this image is copyrighted by the photographer and that no acknowledgement nor permission for use is indicated.  IMO, it's in really bad taste not even to acknowledge the photographer much less use copyrighted material (see the permissions statement on the photographer's website).  Professor Cowen is an academic and I know there are some loopholes in terms of personal use copying for academic use.  However, it strikes me that this is in clear copyright violation.  Is my reading of this correct?

[JoeKitchen]

Personally I always find it bad taste to not credit the photographer. 

Now, insofar if this use falls under the academic exception would really depend on whether or not the website is generating income.  The academic exception was really created so teachers and professors could present copyrighted materials to students in a class setting without the fear of being sued.  It was not created however for academics to be allowed to use that material to promote themselves and earn additional income. 

So, if this is truly a blog that is providing information to his students for a specific class that he is teaching without generating income directly, then it would be an okay use.  However, if he is generating income directly from his blog, or plans to in the future, it is a violation. 

Google came under assault for something similar a fews year back.  In the beginning of the 2000s, Google scanned every book in a few University Libraries (I forget which ones) and decided to post it online, violating the copyright of all the authors, photographers, graphic designers, illustrator, etc.  Google tried to use the academic use exception to defend itself, but since Google would be generating income (from ad sales) from this site, it was not a successful defense. 

In any event, you could notify the photographer and he could issue a request to have the site page taken down.  It usually takes about a day for the request to go through.  If he is a foreign photographer, suing for damages is probably not possible. 

[RSL]

It's hopeless, Alan. It's been completely out of control for a long time now. How many times have you seen Gene Smith's picture of Dr. Ceriani smoking after losing a patient plastered on the wall of a shop, or for sale as a small print, or copied in paint? I see it all the time, and I've never seen any attribution. The same thing's true of Doisneau's "Le Baiser de l’Hotel de Ville." Check out your local mall. Chances are you can buy copies of that photograph for peanuts and without attribution. With the advent of the web, effective copyright has flown. If you're worried about your own pictures, just hide 'em. Don't show 'em.

[Schewe]

Clear copyright violation and “fair use” doesn’t apply... it’s a blog used for self promotion and the advertising of their boos. Report it...

[Martin Kristiansen]

If he was so fast to “borrow” an image you have wonder if he is just as relaxed about “borrowing” ideas in his research?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

One of the libertarian economist blogs ..l

That would explain it. He took the liberty to do whatever he wants 

He could hardly use the academic fair use defense. There was no discussion of academic relevance about the content of the picture or the picture itself. It was used purely as an illustration, to drive traffic to his web site.