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

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 05 Jul 2014 (Saturday) 08:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Old but it's good to know, when to give up Copyright

 
Tigerkn
Goldmember
4,067 posts
Likes: 156
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CA
     
Jul 05, 2014 08:36 |  #1

http://www.petapixel.c​om …o-drop-copyright-lawsuit/ (external link)


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Gears (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lilkngster
Senior Member
721 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 05, 2014 09:25 |  #2

https://www.blogger.co​m/profile/000164614979​51056939 (external link)

Such an accomplished career, and most people will only know him for one questionable decision. Looks like he was forced to go offline, presumably from all the negative feedback, and Im sure its pretty safe to assume his portrait biz took a hit.

He probably wouldnt like that his name and this whole thing has been brought back up in the internet 3 years later, but thats the world we live in.

2192


6dII/80d/1dIII|8mm to 400mm|Pro-10/100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,349 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jul 05, 2014 11:04 |  #3

What an opportunistic ahole. And he didn't need to give up his copyright. A normal person would have seen his photo used on TV and thought, "That's sad. I'm happy my images will be a permanent part of her family's memory of her."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
delta0014
Senior Member
Avatar
316 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Oct 2013
Location: GA
     
Jul 05, 2014 11:16 |  #4

He got what he deserved as far as I'm concerned.


5D Mark IV
24-70L f2.8 ii / 85L ii / 135L / Rokinon 14mm f2.8
Yongnuo 600RT x 3
Just a hobby - CC always welcome.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jul 05, 2014 11:23 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

He is an idiot..... He is not a photographer or a photographer with a brain and ethics of an used car salesman. You are dealing with people. Not everything is about money and the law. I can see having a rare picture of someone famous you may become famous yourself or rich. The subject is just a little girl.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gremlin75
Goldmember
Avatar
2,727 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 216
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jul 05, 2014 11:53 |  #6

lilkngster wrote in post #17012727 (external link)
He probably wouldnt like that his name and this whole thing has been brought back up in the internet 3 years later, but thats the world we live in.

2192

And the parents of the girl probably weren't too happy that the douchbag photographer that they had hired in the past was now trying to profit off of their little girls death!

A douchbag is a douchbag is matter how good they are at their craft!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
2,106 posts
Likes: 231
Joined May 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 07, 2014 09:00 |  #7

And I thought politicians were low. This one takes the cake.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,262 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3683
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jul 07, 2014 09:23 |  #8

Opportunistic a-hole. No better than an ambulance chaser. Ugh.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jul 08, 2014 07:28 |  #9

While I feel this is pretty dumb. It is also more than 3 years old. Surely this man regrets his decision, or has been berated enough to compensate for his stupidity.

Surely most photographers would not be this dumb. So, for the sake of discussion, does anyone know where the line is between the extreme of this article and the situation most of us see (someone yanking it off your website for personal/business gain)?


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 08, 2014 09:38 as a reply to  @ MattPharmD's post |  #10

It's more than old, it's stupid. The man is/was a professional photographer. He makes his living selling his photos.

Note that the family had no trouble whatsoever illegally disseminating the photograph, thereby making a "profit" by ripping off the photographer and depriving him of revenue.

Also note that the media had no trouble publishing the photo even though they knew that to do so was illegal! (If they didn't, they're in the wrong business.) Just publish something to which they hold the copyright and see how forgiving they are. And don't lose sight of the fact that all the various media were making money over the death of the child. Lots of money. (They love tragedies! Tragedies sell newspapers and air time!)

The death of the child was an event. A very sad event, but an event nonetheless. Why should the only one to not make a profit from the photo of the child be the man who took the photo and owns the rights thereto?

As for the child-is-dead-so-he-should-not-make-money school of thought, let's put it into perspective. Suppose a child went missing. The child's parents obtain a couple hundred flyers from Kinko's (a copy shop) and post them all over town. Should Kinko's be denied payment for producing the 200 flyers because a missing child is a tragedy? And if so, why? They are in the business of making/printing such things, for whatever purpose. But, on the other had, they are making a profit on a missing child.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
2,106 posts
Likes: 231
Joined May 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 08, 2014 13:24 |  #11

20droger, sorry but some things are in such poor taste that you just don't do it. It was also in very poor taste to suddenly rush to copyright the image in hopes of capitalizing off it monetarily, which apparently didn't mean much to him previous. There is a fine line one should walk when it comes to something like this and he failed at staying on the correct side.

As far as your missing child scenario, I would expect to pay the copy place, but I would not expect to have the person who took the picture of my child come after me for even more money than they were already paid, just because I used his/her picture on a "missing person flyer".

Would you go after someone because they used a photo you took of their grandmother to publish in the obituary?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 08, 2014 15:29 |  #12

mikeinctown wrote in post #17019066 (external link)
Would you go after someone because they used a photo you took of their grandmother to publish in the obituary?

Depends on how rich they are and whether or not they are hyper-protective of their own copyrights. The CEO of Disney I would sue. (The Mouse is very litigious.)




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

1,138 views & 0 likes for this thread
Old but it's good to know, when to give up Copyright
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Abdullah
947 guests, 299 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.