There was a case on this not so long ago. Dealing with a number of issues in this regard. You can find it on wiki.
There was a test that come into play, much like Miller. Part of it dealt with the Google and thumbnail aspect of 'public or fair use'. But part of it addressed the 'value' of a picture after it's been sold.
Perez Hilton got sued because he was belligerent to people he was stealing the thunder from. Like X17. He would get pictures they were going to use on their site, or cover of mag, and release it before they could.
In that case, (think 1st baby pic of some new celeb, or scandal pic people pay millions for) he was stealing their thunder, and costing them money. So the he was in trouble for that kinda shit. Plus, they asked him to either stop doing it, or give them credit. He refused in both cases under 'fair use'.
For most of the images out there, what is the 'value' after a mag has used them? That is where you have to get into the specifics. Some of these paps do not think they are creating a Rembrandt image.
This doesn't even get into the whole 'copyrighting each work product'. Because, as you've seen from the other celeb pap on the board. Most can barely live, much less be copyrighting every image.
It's not to say they fore go ownership. What I am saying is that you have to look at the big picture. We can pass on endless shadow boxing debates listening the the internet esquires of GFY..... many who run tube and have no 2257 docs, download music, get free porn off of torrents, and many other 'questionable' bro types of things... telling us about legalities.
