Right Click, Copy and Paste

Images often times express more than words.  I, for one, very much enjoy including images with my blog posts to compliment the topic of the post.  I certainly do not take my digital camera out and take my own pictures but do a Google image search to find that perfect picture that embodies my post, I right click on the image and place it in my post.   I admittedly have a nonchalant attitude towards intellectual property on the Internet.  Perhaps that is because I came of age during the Napster revolution or I am accustomed to copying images and text from other websites and including it in my work.  Digital technology has revolutionized how society views IP rights online.

The California Assembly is taking steps to protect photographers and public figures whose images are used without consent online.  AB 632, introduced by Assembly Member Davis, would require a social networking site to prevent an image of a person that is posted on the site from being copied or reproduced by another person without the permission of the user who posted the image.  In a further measure to protect unauthorized reproduction of a person’s image; social networking websites would be required to create a mechanism for users to flag images for removal of images of that user that are posted without their authorization.

This bill may allow Californians to sleep a little better at night knowing that their Facebook profile images cannot be arbitrarily copied and used on a porn site.

Although, like so many well meaning pieces of legislation, the enforcement of something like this may be next to impossible.  Further, does this type of legislation even make sense?  I post my images online “at my own risk”, I would much prefer that someone not steal and misrepresent my image; however, if such an event occured I may have a cause of action under libel (depending on the state’s laws). Perhaps states should focus on strengthening their defamation laws in order to provide protection to citizens against digital gaffes.

Beyond misrepresentation of someone else’s image, the bill also addresses taking images that another person created.  I admire creative and beautiful photography and know that it takes talent and equipment to produce certain images.  Is it fair for me to cut and paste the image onto my site without compensating the photographer?  On the flip side if a photographer posts their work online, is it considered a published work and part of the community’s domain?  What about First Amendment free speech rights; should a celebrity be able to sue a website because an unattractive, unauthorized picture of the celebrity is posted?  Better yet what if the situation involved a politiciann?

Finally, I understand that state legislatures pass bills concerning Internet use to protect their citizens; however, isn’t this a federal issue?  How can a state police websites like Facebook?  Especially when social networking site users can only use the service if they agree to terms of service and opt into the service?  California is requiring Facebook and other social networking sites to develop specific technology to meet the requirements of one state.  I argue that Internet laws should be the exclusive domain of federal policy making under the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause.  Internet users and businesses require uniform federal laws that govern how we use websites and exchange information over the Internet.

Currently AB 632 passed the Assembly Floor and Senate Committee and will presumably be brought to the Senate Floor for a full vote.  What are your thoughts on policing the Internet?  Does this type of law protect or suffocate creativity?