Realizing the article is about the UK, it smells fishy...
Us Copyright law has the "personal use" exemption, which is entirely separate from commercial and non-commercial use. Taking a photo of ANYTHING and using it for ANY PERSONAL PURPOSE, such as sharing it among family and friends is perfectly legal, as long as no commercial or non-commercial entity profits from the situation.
Posting said photo to an online service where it is exhibited publicly has not, as far as I know, been tested in US courts yet. I'm sure the lobbying powers of Facebook and Google will prevent that case of ever taking place.
That article smells of ignorant sensationalist journalism to me.
As soon as ads are shown on the page, it's typically considered commercial, at least in Germany (but probably throughout the EU).
Also, Facebook, Google et al usually have ToS that allow commercial re-use. So sharing your personal photos is possible - so posting images with any kind of copyrighted scenery to such services (likely includes Twitter and Instagram, too) becomes a legal minefield for the user, because they may be liable if the platform operator ever chooses to use such an image.
So does that mean that you're not allowed to use the images in places where other people would make money?
Most copyright laws assume there are just 2 players: Aki who owns the property and the copyright, and Ben who takes & monetizes the photo and then pays royalties.
In my scenario there is a 3rd: Aki owns the property and copyright still, and Ben still takes the photo and posts it. But then Caro monetizes the page that the photo is on.
Does Ben owe royalties to Aki? Does Caro? Do both? Neither?
Most copyright laws assume there are just 2 players: Aki who owns the property and the copyright, and Ben who takes & monetizes the photo and then pays royalties.
Usually it's the reproducer who has to pay, so Caro would have to pay both Ben and Aki, for the photo and property licenses respectively.
But Caro isn't reproducing the image, merely hosting it, as part of a larger image-sharing site. The site has ads, which is how the image is monetized. Ben uploaded it without getting permission from anyone.
So Caro is getting money because Ben is using a copywritten photo for private use.
But Caro isn't reproducing the image, merely hosting it
A private backup service would be mere hosting. If Caro sends the image to third-parties, it's reproduction. Now, in the US, the DMCA law grants Caro a safe harbour, which is to say, a pardon for the infringement if Caro takes it down rapidly after being notified. But it's still an infringement.
Ben is also infringing, of course, assuming he knew the image was to be shared by Caro.
Well, I guess you could say that Ben is requesting Caro send the image to third parties - Ben's friends Darius, Esmre, and Fae - by linking them to the page on Caro's site that holds Aki's copywritten photo.
Also we'll assume that Ben waived rights to the photo on upload (as is common) and that he's one of those "No copyright intended" fools that also seem relatively common.
Not entirely irrelevant since this same scheme was attempted with the Chicago bean sculpture. My question is that if a mirrored piece of public art reflects an image that you own the copyright to can you hold the owner of the artwork in violation for an unauthorized "reproduction"? If not then why does light traveling the other way get special treatment?
Us Copyright law has the "personal use" exemption, which is entirely separate from commercial and non-commercial use. Taking a photo of ANYTHING and using it for ANY PERSONAL PURPOSE, such as sharing it among family and friends is perfectly legal, as long as no commercial or non-commercial entity profits from the situation.
Posting said photo to an online service where it is exhibited publicly has not, as far as I know, been tested in US courts yet. I'm sure the lobbying powers of Facebook and Google will prevent that case of ever taking place.
That article smells of ignorant sensationalist journalism to me.