Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 21 Aug 2015 (Friday) 07:12
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Stupid is as stupid does

 
digirebelva
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
Aug 21, 2015 07:12 |  #1

https://www.techdirt.c​om ...explicit-permission.shtml (external link)


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
GeoKras1989's Avatar
Joined Jun 2014
Aug 21, 2015 07:28 |  #2
banned

As my old pal BB used to say, "What a maroon!"

This guy squandered an opportunity to capitalize (really, not through the tort system) on his photo. My wife uses my photos in her Christmas cards. Some of the commercial entities she sends to occasionally ask if they can use a photo in the lobby or something. I always consent, at no charge. Please, just credit me if someone asks. Nothing has ever come of it, but it is nice to see my work displayed somewhere besides home.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Aug 21, 2015 07:56 |  #3

I generally apply a creative commons license to my photos which grants rights to use them for educational, scientific, or non-profit use. The license excludes commercial use. That should be pretty simple to understand.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Aug 21, 2015 09:33 |  #4

But think of all the exposure he's getting, with his name on the cover of a ... printed map.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,269 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Aug 21, 2015 09:52 |  #5

Folks don't understand the public domain implication of posting photos and links to them on forums such as this...which is why very little that I post here is from shots not taken explicitly for illustration purposes on this forum. Members beware, and understand this,

"But plaintiff uploaded the photograph to a public photo-sharing website, where he did not assert exclusive rights to his copyrighted image, and he instead opted to license the work and make it available for use by others without compensation."


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Aug 21, 2015 10:33 |  #6

Looks like the court ruled correctly and the photographer wasted tax money and an opportunity for some good publicity...maybe even picking up the map company as a future client. Hopefully something was learned from this...

This stirs up old thoughts within me. I may be an idiot for asking these questions, but...

If we upload an image to Flickr, set copyright as "all rights reserved", and then post a link to it here on POTN....is that image protected from unauthorized use under the US copyright laws? Or, by posting the link to this public forum and having it stored on a public photo-sharing website does that compromise the copyright to the point of it (the copyright) being useless?

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Aug 21, 2015 10:45 |  #7

Intheswamp wrote in post #17677580 (external link)
If we upload an image to Flickr, set copyright as "all rights reserved", and then post a link to it here on POTN....is that image protected from unauthorized use under the US copyright laws? Or, by posting the link to this public forum and having it stored on a public photo-sharing website does that compromise the copyright to the point of it (the copyright) being useless?

Ed


It doesn't invalidate your copyright.

However, it becomes nearly impossible to find infringers, and pursuing them is often quite impractical. If you've registered your images before posting them, pursuing damages MIGHT be marginally easier.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Aug 21, 2015 11:25 |  #8

Thanks for the reply, nathancarter. The registration must come before posting the image online? In other words, images already posted and *then* registered don't have as full of protection as pre-registered images?

I'm just a hobbiest who would love to one day maybe make some income from my photography (actually I need to make some income with it :rolleyes:). Am I shooting myself in the foot by posting images online? Almost seems like I am. -?

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
PineBomb's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Psych Ward, East Wing, USA
Aug 21, 2015 12:17 |  #9

Intheswamp wrote in post #17677654 (external link)
Am I shooting myself in the foot by posting images online? Almost seems like I am. -?

Ed

It cuts both ways. An inaccessible portfolio is self-defeating.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Aug 21, 2015 14:46 |  #10

Intheswamp wrote in post #17677654 (external link)
Thanks for the reply, nathancarter. The registration must come before posting the image online? In other words, images already posted and *then* registered don't have as full of protection as pre-registered images?

I'm just a hobbiest who would love to one day maybe make some income from my photography (actually I need to make some income with it :rolleyes:). Am I shooting myself in the foot by posting images online? Almost seems like I am. -?

Ed

Off the top of my head, I believe the phrasing is "within 90 days of initial publication." So you have a small grace period, but it's not a great idea to wait until after you've been infringed to try to register your stuff.

Personally, I've been pretty lax about it. My stuff ain't worth stealing, except to the people to whom I would freely give it anyway.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Aug 21, 2015 18:06 |  #11

Seems I recall reading the 90-day grace period. Well, I guess I'm in a similar boat as you...I really don't have anything worth stealing/selling...one day maybe, though! ;)

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Dan Marchant's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Aug 21, 2015 18:38 |  #12

Intheswamp wrote in post #17677654 (external link)
Thanks for the reply, nathancarter. The registration must come before posting the image online? In other words, images already posted and *then* registered don't have as full of protection as pre-registered images?

No and yes.
The actual rules are that registration must occur within 90 days of first publication OR prior to infringement.

So...
1. if you register before publication you are protected and can claim statutory damages and costs.
2. if you publish without registration and someone infringes on day 30 after publication, you can still register and get full protection and can claim statutory damages and costs.
3. If you publish and don't register until 180 days later and someone infringes on day 181, you are protected and can claim statutory damages and costs.
4. If you publish and don't register and someone infringes on day 91+ you can still register your images and can sue for infringement but you can't claim statutory damages and costs. This makes it much more difficult and expensive to pursue an infringement case.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Aug 21, 2015 19:11 |  #13

I'm glad I found this thread... I fall into the "stupid" category I guess. I hadn't changed my licence on Flickr, I thought they were automatically uploaded with a copyright attached.

I actually had an incident with a friend of a friend who was going to be a future client... she stole a few of my photos to promote an upcoming show without asking or crediting me, this after she said she wanted to hire me to do photos specifically for her event promotions but obviously before I set up a shoot to do them. I was really irritated, but because she someone I knew I just asked her to credit me in the future... I didn't even realize I had no real legal recourse since she took them from my Flickr page (though they did have a watermark in the corner, which she cropped out, don't know if that even matters).

Either way, I've now changed my licensing :)


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Dan Marchant's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Aug 21, 2015 19:54 |  #14

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17678090 (external link)
I didn't even realize I had no real legal recourse since she took them from my Flickr page (though they did have a watermark in the corner, which she cropped out, don't know if that even matters).

Either way, I've now changed my licensing :)

You didn't have any recourse to sue for copyright infringement as you had granted a license via the Flickr licensing. However, cropping off a watermark (under US law) is a totally separate federal offence - regardless of if the copyright is registered or not. http://www.photoattorn​ey.com ...e-music-to-your-ears.html (external link)


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
Aug 21, 2015 19:58 |  #15

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17678090 (external link)
(though they did have a watermark in the corner, which she cropped out, don't know if that even matters).

Uh yeah, that does...its illegal to do that

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 makes it a criminal offense to remove watermarks meant to protect copyright. "

it is specifically ILLEGAL to remove a watermark from a photo, AND punishable with up to an additional $25,000 fine in statutory damages. Not only is the act of removal prohibited, the courts assume that the very attempt indicates a willful intent to violate somebody's copyright

http://www.examiner.co​m ...es-you-don-t-want-to-make (external link)


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,198 views & 0 likes for this thread
Stupid is as stupid does
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00237 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is artofCraze
852 guests, 454 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017