Remember to express your IP licences clearly!

Posted on by influence legal.

The recent decision in Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham [2022] HCA 39 overturned a significant copyright ruling and has potential for significant flow-on effects for photographers and other content creators.

Background

House for sale
Real estate photographers will need to adjust how they do business after this decision.

Hardingham, an independent real estate photographer, took photos of properties for real estate agents under oral contracts. The agents uploaded the photos to realestate.com.au (REA). REA then provided the photos to RP Data, a service that allows real estate agencies to use photos for property marketing campaigns.

When agents uploaded the photos to REA, they accepted clickwrap terms which gave REA “an irrevocble and perpetual licence to use the content … for any purpose related to our business”. RP Data argued that this licence meant it was able to use the photos once permitted to do so by REA. Hardingham contended that the licence had to be subject to a limitation so that it ended once the property was sold or leased.

At first instance Thawley J found that the sub-licence from REA to RP Data should be permitted because it was inferred from the parties’ conduct and should be implied to give business efficacy to the arrangements. It was not subject to any time limit.

On appeal to the Federal Court, the Full Court found that they were not satisfied that the terms should be implied or inferred, and that any implied licence did not extend beyond the property marketing campaign.

High Court

In December, the High Court overturned the Federal Court’s decision. The question, in this case, was what a reasonable person would consider, based on the parties’ words and conduct.

The Court found that there was nothing in the oral contracts, between Hardingham and the original real estate agencies, to suggest that the photos could not be used after the campaign. They all knew that the photos uploaded to REA and RP Data remained there after the completion of the campaign and on a history tab for the property. That had been the case for a number of years.

So, the real estate agencies were capable of licensing the photos to REA on its standard terms, and REA was capable of licensing them to RP Data. Accordingly, RP Data did not infringe Hardingham’s copyright.

Action

This case has important implications for photographers and other content creators, and is an important reminder to put clear, written agreements in place when licensing copyright and other IP. You can exclude implied terms and make sure that the parties’ expectations match. If you would like assistance with documenting your copyright agreements, contact us.

Author: Ashna Govil, paralegal.

Who controls the copyright in your online posts, really?

Posted on by influence legal.

In a recent article we looked at how important it is for artists and content creators to ensure they have a written, signed contract for any licence agreement. A recent New York case highlights the strict licensing terms on social media platforms and the trade-off between exposure for your content, against control of your works.

Sinclair v Mashable – what happened?

Stephanie Sinclair is a renowned photographer whose portfolio includes works featured in The New York Times, Time Magazine and National Geographic. Like many creators, Sinclair uses Instagram as a platform to share her works.

influence legal apps
Do you understand what you’re agreeing to when you upload content?

Sinclair uploaded one of her photographs (an image of a mother and child in Guatemala) to her Instagram account. She was then contacted by digital media and news website, Mashable, offering $50 in exchange for a licence to use the photograph for a story on female photographers. Sinclair declined the offer.

Undeterred by the refusal, Mashable went ahead and used it anyway, taking advantage of Instagram’s API to embed her post of the photo in their website. Mashable didn’t make a copy of the photo – just linked back to the photo on Instagram – but the overall effect was the same. When Mashable refused to remove the embedded post, Sinclair commenced proceedings for copyright infringement.

A not-so picture perfect judgment

On face value, it might seem fairly straightforward that by using Sinclair’s copyright work without her permission, Mashable had infringed her copyright.

However, in this case, the devil was in the details – specifically, in Instagram’s Terms of Service (TOS).

Judge Kimba Woods found that by creating an Instagram account, Sinclair had agreed to Instagram’s TOS. These TOS included a term granting Instagram a “non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide licence to the Content.”

The judge determined that when Sinclair posted the photo to her public Instagram profile, she had “granted Instagram the right to sublicence the photograph, and Instagram validly exercised that right by granting Mashable a sublicense to embed and display the Photograph on their website.”

Even though Sinclair had refused to license the photo directly, Mashable could still validly obtain a sub-license from Instagram to embed the photo.

Private v public

Sinclair argued that Instagram’s TOS were unfair. Users must decide between either:

  • choosing to have a private profile and losing out on the advantages of sharing their works on the biggest photo sharing platform in the world, or
  • choosing to have a public profile in exchange for surrendering rights in their uploaded content to Instagram.

In her judgment, Judge Woods acknowledged the difficulty of this position, but determined that Instagram’s TOS were binding:

“Instagram’s dominance of photograph- and video-sharing social media, coupled with the expansive transfer of rights that Instagram demands from its users, means that [Sinclair]’s dilemma is a real one… But by posting the photograph to her public Instagram account, Plaintiff made her choice. This court cannot release her from the agreement she made.”

What does this mean for you?

As an artist or content creator, it is likely that you will rely on social media as a major platform for sharing your work. And while it is incredibly important to share your work with the public, there is another very important thing to consider; and it’s also one of the most ignored – the fine print.

The terms and conditions for online platforms, including Instagram, often contain broad terms applying to any content you upload – including the right to sub-license to third-party websites.

Sinclair’s case serves as a great reminder that when signing up to any online sharing platform, it is always worth taking the time to understand the terms you are agreeing to. You may not be able to negotiate the terms, but you can choose which works you share and make sure you retain practical control over valuable content.

Author: Blake Motbey, Associate

Licensing your copyright? Get it in writing!

Posted on by influence legal.

As an artist or content creator, licensing your artworks and content can be one of your most important and rewarding streams of income. As well as getting your work out there, ensuring that you are paid appropriately and your works are protected arejust as important.

Make sure your licence contracts are in writing.

Unfortunately, many artists and creators often make unwritten or informal arrangements when licensing their copyrighted works to others.  Whether this is based on the assumption that it’s unnecessary to enter into a contract, that it’s safer to work under an informal agreement, or simply trusting that the licensee will do the right thing, operating without expressly written terms can pose significant risks for artists and creators .

The recent case of Hardingham v RP Data Pty Ltd demonstrates just how easily issues can arise from informal or unwritten copyright licencing arrangements – especially if your works are being uploaded to third party websites.

Hardingham v RP Data – what was the issue?

Mr Hardingham is a professional photographer who provided photographs and floorplans to real estate agencies to be used in marketing campaigns for the agencies’ listed properties, including for listings on realestate.com.au, which had standard terms for agents. These terms include a broad licence of uploaded content.

However, these photographs and floorplans were then reproduced and uploaded by a third-party company, RP Data, under a separate sub-licensing agreement with realestate.com.au.

Mr Hardingham commenced court proceedings claiming that RP Data had infringed his copyright in his images and floorplans.

Well if Hardingham didn’t license the works to RP Data, they shouldn’t be able to use his works, right?

Unfortunately for Mr Hardingham, this was not the case.

While it may have been his initial intentions that the licence granted to the agencies was for house marketing purposes only, and that no sub-licence could be granted, the court took a different view.

As there was no formal written contract between Hardingham or his company and the agencies, the court relied on evidence surrounding the context and the commercial arrangements between each of the parties. The court said that these factors meant that realestate.com.au had a licence, and was able to grant a sub-licence to RP Data. This right was either:

  • inferred from the conduct of the parties’, or
  • implied into the agreements in order to give business efficacy to the agreements.

The lack of any formal or written licensing agreement between Mr Hardingham and the agencies was a crucial factor that allowed for the legal sub-licence of the works.

Get on the same page – literally!

Without a formal licensing agreement, you are putting yourself at the risk of your works or content being used or reproduced without your permission. As a result, you can incur significant financial loss by missing out on important licensing fees you would otherwise have negotiated for.

So, if you are an artist, creative or content creator and are planning to license your copyright works to others, you should always make sure you have the crucial terms of your licence arrangement set out in a written, signed contract.

If you’d like to put together a standard licence for your works, contact us.

Author: Blake Motbey, Associate