b3ta does not own copyright
copyright subsists in the original item produced by the contributor (subject to their having used sufficient skill and effort in producing it- a magenta cock on an image probably won't cut it with a Judge I suspect), IRRESPECTIVE of wether the producer has the permission of the copyright holder whose work (if any) they have plagiarised.
And as such the b3tan themself should be credited with copyright as B3ta does not take an assignment of copyright (legal or equitable) when pictures are posted (food for thoiught there Robbo) as b3ta simply provides a method of artists showcasing their work.
Just because you have no ownership of the copyright it wouldn't stop b3ta being cited as a co-defendant IN a copyright infringement action against a b3tan given you allow the method for potentially copyright-infringing material to be shown to the public.
One of these days I will write a guide about the facts for b3tans, (as far as they can be determined, nothing's ever clear in law, which is a good thing or I wouldn't have a job).
Suffice to say, the Daily Mail has no right to take the images without the PERMISSION of the artist, and should not be crediting B3ta for others work. They do that because big fat corporations are cunts (yes you knew that) who like to think they can stamp on the little people because they most likely have an in-house IP lawyer or it's taken them 30 seconds of their advisors time to tell them that on the balance or risk if an internet-nerd complains they'll just tell you they're much bigger than you, so you'll believe what they say, and won't take it any further.
(, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 18:55, Share, Reply)