As a general rule in America, if you have a blog/website that allows people to comment or otherwise post something, you can’t be sued for what they post. Makes sense in a way. If someone who owns a copywrited picture contacts you and proves that someone posted a copywrited picture on your site, you are supposed to take it down. Everyone is happy.
Well, the courts have just added a new dimension to this. If you are irresponsible and let anyone post anything without you moderating it, you are still in the clear. If you try to be responsible and moderate posts, the courts decided that you can be sued.
I’m completely in support of copy write law. People ought to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. It would be difficult to enforce a copy write if you had to search every web site everyday to search for copy write violations.
With that said, what is the harm of an innocent post, particularly where the standard is that once you are notified, you take it down? We own a small business and understand the law regarding copy writes. One of the standards of enforcement is that you have to mark your product in some way to inform people that your item is protected by a registered copy write.
If there is no making on a picture being used on your blog, it seems to me that the owner of the picture has no expectation that his picture won’t be used on someone’s blog.
This ruling seems like an attempt to hamper the free exchange of ideas on the web. Read more here.