Is it infringement to "quote" other people's photographic works?

These include: quoting others' works properly for commenting and explaining a problem. However, when quoting other people's works, it is necessary to indicate the author and source of the cited works, and at the same time, it is necessary to master the discretion when quoting other people's works, so as not to affect the normal use of the works or reasonably damage the legitimate interests of the copyright owner. Generally speaking, references to literary works must be brief, and references can only be extracted from fragments, not whole paragraphs.

The Trial Regulations on Copyright Protection of Books and Periodicals issued by China's Ministry of Culture 1984 and its implementing rules make more specific provisions: the citation of non-poetic works shall not exceed 2,500 words or110 of the cited works; The quotation of poetry works shall not exceed 40 lines or the whole poem 1/4, except ancient poetry; If one or more people's works are cited, the total amount of citations shall not exceed110 of my total works, except for special comments and ancient poems.

For photographic works, because there is no division and use, it is impossible to intercept a certain part of the picture for normal use, so there is some controversy in determining the appropriate citation of photographic works. Personally, I think it is necessary to analyze whether it is excusable to quote other people's photographic works in the review article from three aspects.

First of all, the citation of photographic works should not be the usual way of using photographic works. As a visual art, photography has a unique artistic expression. Fundamentally speaking, as an illustration in an article, it is obviously not its usual way of use. For example, when introducing a scenic spot, travel writers use some scenic photos as illustrations in order to present an all-round and three-dimensional understanding. Here, in fact, readers mainly understand the scenery of the introduction place through words, and illustrations are only an auxiliary means. Without illustrations, the article also has independent value. In photo criticism articles, photos are also used to better explain the problem, which is not the usual way of use. In this sense, it seems that photographic works can be regarded as the object of reasonable citation. Of course, with the development of the times, the commonly used definition of an art form will keep pace with the times and develop continuously.

Secondly, quoting other people's photographic works must not conflict with their normal use. Unlike written works, photographic works cannot be used alone. Once a photographic work appears in an article, readers can see the picture content at a glance, regardless of the size. However, after the fragments of written works are quoted, readers still need to know the full text through the original works, which will not affect the copyright income of the authors of the cited articles. This kind of reference to written works will not affect normal product sales, so it is allowed. However, the citation of photographic works obviously conflicts with its normal use, which should not be the result that photographers want to see.

Third, it depends on whether this citation harms the legitimate interests of the copyright owner of photography. In the era of reading pictures, illustrations have become people's reasonable expectation for publications, and a large number of photographic works appear as illustrations in articles. If this way of using photos is defined as appropriate quotation, it will greatly harm the legitimate interests of photographers, which is obviously not encouraged by legislators.

In fact, the above three conditions are the three-step test standards for judging fair use in the world, and Article 2 1 of China's Regulations on the Implementation of Copyright Law is also clearly stipulated. Therefore, the author believes that citing other people's photographic works in literary criticism cannot meet the above requirements at the same time and should not constitute fair use.

In addition, in addition to appropriate citations, the legislator also stipulated a reasonable way for individuals to use other people's works, that is, for personal study, research or appreciation. It is not necessary to obtain the authorization of the copyright owner to use other people's published works. Under what circumstances is the use of photographic works for personal use? The simplest example is that scholars use a lot of other people's photos in their personal blogs. Consumers can copy a few purchased photos and hang them in their rooms, which is called personal use. There is no infringement. Generally speaking, the use of other people's works and personal plagiarism by blogs can not bring direct economic benefits to users. The subjective purpose of this kind of use is often out of personal interests and hobbies, which should belong to the category of personal use. However, if bloggers introduce commercial advertisements into their blogs and charge advertisers, it is beyond the meaning of ordinary blogs and can be profitable. This way of using works is an obvious infringement.