Feature Story

Copyrite no longer applies online.

Whole in a hole in a slice of a whole.

The Neeley v NameMedia, Inc., et al, (5:09-cv-05151) civil case was regarding the moral rights of an artist to exclusively control original creations and failed. The fact that these original creations involved naked females and were once displayed on the [sic] "Internet" was hoped not grant license to Google Inc or any other party to republish them before minors or before Muslims as was the result.

Mr Neeley once showed his nude and figurenude art in various online locations in order to obtain feedback regarding the images while developing the concept of figurenude art versus simply nude images. Mr Neeley has sought to halt all online displays of his nude art and has asked that websites displaying the nudes to remove his name or require excluding image harvesting by others.

Most of these websites have complied and still no waiver of moral rights was ever granted to anyone or implied to have been given. The moral rights for unpublished visual art creations have never been addressed properly by a court of law. Confused United States Courts have repeatedly attempted to constrain the "Copyrite Act" to limited periods of commercial exclusivity. The United States has never fully recognized the personal rights that the rest of the modern world has recognized in spite of the Visual Artists Rights Act as passed and never recognized in courts or in schools but invalidated in this litigation.

Google Inc visited libraries in New York and scanned millions of books and now attempts to have class action litigation re-define what United States law means to visual artists and authors. Google Inc argued that portions of the vast content scanned from libraries should be subjected to "fair use" because of public benefiting from the Google Inc library thefts instead called "fair-use" investments to acquire content on which ads are run.

Google Inc will certainly argue the copyrite act does not protect against Google Inc republishing photography and will claim this protects them for scanning and posting photographs in New York. Stay tuned as this case heads to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case will impact everyone who has ever used the Internet and ever shown their photography online if their rights to control their art is violated since GOOG won this case. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren repealed the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 shortly before declaring senior status on January 01, 2013.

VOTE: Do you like this story?

Tell a friend about this story!

Tell a friend about this story!

  1. or

Hi there!

thought you might like this story!


—The JPG team

1 response

  • Katherine Nak

    Katherine Nak   gave props (23 Jul 2011):

    Thank you! We all need to be more aware of the laws and there impact on our photoraphy.

Want to leave a comment? Log in or sign up!