Fergasun Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm not so sure that's illegal, but I guess it would depend if the original site held copyright or not, right? I think there is a defense if "innocent infringement"... because how do you know who owns copyright of images you link? You assume the site that is hosting has valid copyright, right? You know that you can't take the image and host it yourself however. But like I said, I'm convinced the flaw in all of this is that this picture doesn't qualify as "art", under the case law. While there is some work and skill used in capturing the picture, the poses, lighting, and thrust behind the picture was not provided by the person who took the photograph. I re-iterate that there is a reason folks haven't been so cavalier regarding copyright claims... because if these types of pictures will be stripped of copyright. Just want to add, IANAL but I'm fascinated by the law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I think that's more a "work for hire" issue. If I'm commissioned to make a painting or write a story, the person who paid me to create it owns it unless we very specifically state otherwise in the contract. So, in the case of a wedding photographer, they are contracted by the couple or their family and they own the work. It's the same as a scientist working for a corporation who invents a machine. The rights to that patent usually belong to the business and not the inventor. On the other hand, if at that wedding Uncle Joe takes a picture... or a random guest that photo's rights might actually belong to the photographer. In most cases, where a company is employeeing a scientist, they have intellectual property clauses written into their contract that spells out what is what and what is whose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm not so sure that's illegal, but I guess it would depend if the original site held copyright or not, right? I think there is a defense if "innocent infringement"... because how do you know who owns copyright of images you link? You assume the site that is hosting has valid copyright, right? You know that you can't take the image and host it yourself however. But like I said, I'm convinced the flaw in all of this is that this picture doesn't qualify as "art", under the case law. While there is some work and skill used in capturing the picture, the poses, lighting, and thrust behind the picture was not provided by the person who took the photograph. I re-iterate that there is a reason folks haven't been so cavalier regarding copyright claims... because if these types of pictures will be stripped of copyright. Just want to add, IANAL but I'm fascinated by the law... What do you have to do to make using an image (linked back to it's original site the way we link to an image here) legal? From what DjTj said, who is a lawyer, it doesn't matter who owns the copy right, or if the copy right has been registred. Things are only in the public domain if so marked so unless there is an indication that is in the public domain it is likely to have an attached copy right. You can't assume things aren't copy righted because they don't appear to be and therefore use them. The thing about the images posted here is that we don't plan to profit. There are uses of copy righted items that are allowed, mostly where the person using the item doesn't plan to profit. If you run a blog where you have advertising so you are profiting and take a copy righted image, they you can be in trouble, especially if the image would drive people to your site. If you are running a blog for the purpose of educating people and not making an effort to profit, then that is different, and while the person holding the copy right could take you to court, they wouldn't likely win based on exceptions built into the copyright law (though it might be cheaper for you to pay them some fee to allow you to use the item retroactively, then to go to court and fight it) because as DjTj said with respect to the Redskins, I can take anybody to court. I might not win, but I can try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 PeterMP, I think the defect however is that the images don't qualify as "art". Kudos to the guy for snapping a picture of a TSA search. But guess what, there was no originality and as I pointed at some point he had no artistic control over the pose, the lighting or any of the factors other than "camera type" and "picture angle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 man it seems very tough these days to pick a creative field in which to prosper. it seems every one screws over somebody. i guess its just the way it works. if youre making a tons of money, youre screwing someone over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I've thought about this case. I'm convinced the picture cannot by law by copyrighted. It goes back to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company vs. Sarony (111 US 53, 1884). The picture must come from the own original conception of the author. A product of the plaintiff's intellectual invention. I'll contend that the picture is not the product of any intellectual work, rather the lighting, poses of the subjects, clothing of the subject. I could be missing the point,but. The way I understand it,(which I admit may not be saying much),is yes it can. Like I said earlier,copyright exists as soon as the shutter button is pressed. Whom it originally belongs to depends on several things. Say if the person taking pic is under contract to take photographs,"on the clock",or just taking it on their own time. Things like that. Everything else like lighting and such,is largely irrelevant. Speaking of which,(and as an aside),many,many photographs the result of just plain good timing. Right place at the right time. One can find examples of iconic or photographic masterpieces that were as much luck as they were anything else. Photographers will tell you that as well. (Not that it doesn't take skill to pull of the shot many times). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I've noticed you and a couple others are using copyright marks on your pictures in the other thread, PCS. Is it something that has become more relevant lately, or has your skill reached the point where others might make use of your work and your trying to prevent that? Obviously the portability and reproducibility of digital images has been as much an issue to the photo industry as it has to movies and music. I assume there must be sneaky ways to identify your work by burying something in the pixel tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Watermarking. I've been advised by several photographers,(and I've read about how this is a good idea as well),to do so if I'm going to post the images on the net. I'm not so certain that they're that good or my skill level is at the point where there's a risk for someone lifting them,but why take chances as I have been advised. You'll see the watermarking being done by several companies that work with professional sports images as an example. While it may not completely prevent someone from lifting the pics,it makes it can make it a royal pain in the butt to try to remove the watermark and maintain a good photo. Also yes,there is a way to actually do this via embedding digital code in to the photograph. Digimarc is a company that does this. Edit. Forgot to mention that many digital cameras also will allow for copyright info to be embedded in the in the original pic as exif information. Some of that info will stay in the pic no matter what I do to it I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This is actually interesting. At one time I was looking to sell some of my photos as stock photos. One thing that the company who would host the photos was adament was that if you used people in your photos, you MUST have a model release form for EVERY picture. So with that said, I seriously doubt that the TSA worker signed a model release. So I would think that no one could use the photo without obtaining a model release. However, there could be something about you are allowed to take photos of Government workers performing their jobs, but then I would think that the photo would be pulic domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 PCS, The requirement for copyright are a) originality, that is it was an independent creation and contains minimal modicum of creativity / is the fruits of intellectual labor. There's some other stuff about copyright author being the one who: "creates, or gives effect to the idea". I don't know what the idea of this photo is. That the TSA agents are searching people? Judge Brandeis made some distinction between "ordinary" pictures and "artistic" pictures in a 1918 case in front of the Supreme Court. There was also a case involving the Zapruder film. The lower court found that the location and lighting and decisions on when and where to point the camera were "creative". There was no appeal on these facts. It seems like there has never been a case to test my legal theory regarding the artistic, modicum of creativity required under the Constitution for a photograph. ---------- Post added March-2nd-2011 at 12:18 PM ---------- sacase, It appears the likeness issue doesn't apply to journalistic photos, that is news-worhty photographs. This doctrine might be something that tips it into the scales of "uncopyrightable fact". Or it could simply mean someone can "reverse engineer" this picture (like going pixel by pixel and creating something new in photoshop) because the picture is telling facts. Were I a man of means and leisure that sounds like something to do just to irk the folks now going around and suing everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This is actually interesting. At one time I was looking to sell some of my photos as stock photos. One thing that the company who would host the photos was adament was that if you used people in your photos, you MUST have a model release form for EVERY picture. So with that said, I seriously doubt that the TSA worker signed a model release. So I would think that no one could use the photo without obtaining a model release. However, there could be something about you are allowed to take photos of Government workers performing their jobs, but then I would think that the photo would be pulic domain. That's Stock being very cautious. For commercial use,a model release is more than likely needed. For editorial use,probably not. It's more than likely a privacy rights thing and that can very from state to state. PCS, The requirement for copyright are a) originality, that is it was an independent creation and contains minimal modicum of creativity / is the fruits of intellectual labor. There's some other stuff about copyright author being the one who: "creates, or gives effect to the idea". I don't know what the idea of this photo is. That the TSA agents are searching people? Judge Brandeis made some distinction between "ordinary" pictures and "artistic" pictures in a 1918 case in front of the Supreme Court. There was also a case involving the Zapruder film. The lower court found that the location and lighting and decisions on when and where to point the camera were "creative". There was no appeal on these facts. It seems like there has never been a case to test my legal theory regarding the artistic, modicum of creativity required under the Constitution for a photograph. Possibly true that it hasn't,but again right now,press the shutter button and it's copyrighted right then and there. At least as of right now and according to the research I've done,(which again,may not be saying much). I believe that originality and independent creation are considered "built in" to the photograph or whatever the medium is. Edit. Forgot to do this. Here are two sites I bookmarked for reference. They do a nice job of explaining things imho. http://betterdigitalphotography.blogspot.com/2010/11/top-10-misconceptions-about-photography.html (#6 is relevant to the present discussion and #9 for Sacase). http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html Sacase will really like that one and section 3 is for the present discussion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That's Stock being very cautious. For commercial use,a model release is more than likely needed. For editorial use,probably not. It's more than likely a privacy rights thing and that can very from state to state. Possibly true that it hasn't,but again right now,press the shutter button and it's copyrighted right then and there. At least as of right now and according to the research I've done,(which again,may not be saying much). I believe that originality and independent creation are considered "built in" to the photograph or whatever the medium is. Edit. Forgot to do this. Here are two sites I bookmarked for reference. They do a nice job of explaining things imho. http://betterdigitalphotography.blogspot.com/2010/11/top-10-misconceptions-about-photography.html (#6 is relevant to the present discussion and #9 for Sacase). http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html Sacase will really like that one and section 3 is for the present discussion). Thanks, it was an interesting read. Makes sense why they require model releases. I will be bookmarking those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeddyKGB Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 For my websites I usually use free non royalty sites like sxc.hu ( they are basically the free version of istock. ). This reminds me of record companies suing 12 year olds for music downloaded off of napster. I can see content being next -- Think of it this way, tons of websites and news agencies out there have/are comprised of aggregators to funnel content from other places about certain subjects. Say you write an article to a big article directory about redskins history and then it gets aggregated to mom and pop redskins blogs without you knowing. In fact there recently was a HUGE algorithm change in Google recently where up to 12% of search results changed overnight. This is because Google is now going after these aggregation sites or "auto-blogs" if you will, by devaluing that said content therein. Places like Ezinearticles.com , ehow.com etc. Heck even Overstock.com just got SLAMMED in the search engines recently - this is more due to their linking procedures more so then duplicate content though. It goes to show that the world is catching up and the web isn't so "free-roaming" anymore. That is unless you use proxies . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Now it's even worse: Apparently Righthaven made **** up. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/eff-righthaven-sham/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Right Haven/Stephens Media got ***** slapped and maybe on the hook for a boat load of money. One of many articles that touches on the predicament RH and Stephens Media are in. "The court concludes that a reasonable trier of fact could only reach one conclusion as to the nature of the disputed article - it is an informational work, which readily lends itself to a productive use by others and, thus, deserves less protection than a creative work of entertainment," he wrote. "Because Righthaven cannot claim the [Las Vegas Review-Journal's] market as its own and is not operating as a traditional newspaper, Righthaven has failed to show that there has been any harm to the value of the copyright." http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/25/36074.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Oh I hope they get bankrupted :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Federal judge rules Las Vegas firm can't sue over copyright infringement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I accidentally found several of my photos re-posted on people's blogs, one even in some foreign country lol ...However, they all listed my name as the photographer and even linked back to my Photo.net portfolio, so I thought "Cool" and let it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I accidentally found several of my photos re-posted on people's blogs, one even in some foreign country lol ...However, they all listed my name as the photographer and even linked back to my Photo.net portfolio, so I thought "Cool" and let it be. I often feel the same. As long as there's attribution I can live with it. I still prefer to be paid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I often feel the same. As long as there's attribution I can live with it. I still prefer to be paid though. If they were using my photos as part of the site design or in some graphic design I'd want some payment as well, but these were either photos posted above a blog entry (usually having something to do with the image in my photo) or in one case it was a blog entry about cool architecture photography found on the web and they used one of my photos taken years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Yeah, sort of the same. Every so often I find radio pieces of mine being posted into blogs or websites or whatever. Sometimes, it's the group I covered for the feature, other times, it's about the point that I made or someone just liked it. In these cases, I don't really feel exploited. For images of my paintings, I sometimes feel more protective. It's a weird combo of "ain't it cool to be liked" versus "Hey! Don't rip me off!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So far,I've dodged that kind of thing ,but I have seen evidence the place I work for has taken a few liberties with some of my pics. One has been re-printed at least once,possibly twice without even a "can we?" I let it go for a couple of reasons. Chief among them is that I just look at it as contributing some to the community. But I do have my eye on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 US Marshals turned loose to collect $63,720.80 from Righthaven Looks like it's time to turn out the lights on Righthaven. The US Marshal for the District of Nevada has just been authorized by a federal court to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 in cash and/or assets from the Las Vegas copyright troll after Righthaven failed to pay a court judgment from August 15.:ciao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Lesson here: When suing people, make sure that they can't countersue you :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 people are using DMCA tohave stuff taken down on US servers I recently was told my my server host to remove all LINKS to a persons photo. these were links and not hot links either just links. They got a dmca complaint and as they told me they did not feel like fighting it DMCA will kill the Internet, the US gvt is already abusing it to take out domains. The Internet was built on links, When i first got on the Internet pages of just links was popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.