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 Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 08 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 16:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Photo "taken" and altered...

 
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 601
Joined Dec 2010
     
Oct 09, 2014 09:08 |  #16

Hi,
I know that Instagram requires a square picture, so it seems you've inadvertently cropped out my watermark. I'm happy that you shared my photo, but I like to keep my name on my work. Can I send you a new one that's already in a square format, with my logo intact?

Thanks,
nathancarter


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
seanlockephotography
Member
67 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Oct 09, 2014 10:08 |  #17

I wouldn't worry about it. It will not make a difference in anything, and next week it will be gone, just a few of a billion pixels cataloged and forgotten.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Oct 09, 2014 11:09 |  #18

nathancarter wrote in post #17203309 (external link)
Hi,
I know that Instagram requires a square picture, so it seems you've inadvertently cropped out my watermark. I'm happy that you shared my photo, but I like to keep my name on my work. Can I send you a new one that's already in a square format, with my logo intact?

Thanks,
nathancarter


This.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Oct 09, 2014 11:24 |  #19

Luxx wrote in post #17203258 (external link)
Finally,

A photographer, a laywer and a mma fighter walk into a bar. A beautiful model is there and the photographer takes a stunning photo without asking permission. The photographer shows the model the amazing photo. The lawyer offers to sue the photographer. The Model smiles at the photographer, smiles at the lawyer and then smiles at the mma fighter. Whose a*** does the mma fighter kick?

To the OP, at best this is a chance to educate the lawyer on some IP law that he has forgotten. I like the idea of offering a 1x1 image with your mark still on it. How he reacts to that would tell you a lot about his intention and where to go next.

To the Quote... While I am sure this is meant to be funny. The answer would be simple. The photographer has done nothing illegal, the lawyer has no case, and the MMA fighter would be guilty of assault no matter what.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swmeans
Member
Avatar
54 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Lacey, WA
     
Oct 09, 2014 18:44 |  #20

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17202711 (external link)
According to Carolyn E Wright's page (external link), it's not necessary to register the © under Section 1202.

You do not have to register in advance, however you do still have to register it if you want to be able to recover statutory damages. You have 90 days from initial publication, not when the photo was taken, to register. So the OP has 90 days from the day he put them on Facebook to submit his registration. If you miss that 90 day window and the breach occurs before you register then you are only able to collect actual damages which are much lower and harder to prove.


S Means
Means Photography (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luxx
Senior Member
478 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Jan 2013
Location: St Louis
     
Oct 09, 2014 20:41 |  #21

gee whiz. you try to hijack a thread and someone takes the high road…[Sulks in a corner]




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Oct 09, 2014 23:54 |  #22

swmeans wrote in post #17204181 (external link)
You do not have to register in advance, however you do still have to register it if you want to be able to recover statutory damages. You have 90 days from initial publication, not when the photo was taken, to register. So the OP has 90 days from the day he put them on Facebook to submit his registration. If you miss that 90 day window and the breach occurs before you register then you are only able to collect actual damages which are much lower and harder to prove.

The point Ms. Wright makes is that the penalty judgement for "wilful infringement" which is almost certainly proven by the removal of a watermark does not require registration. So if someone removes your watermark you can collect an additional $2,500-25,000 regardless of registration.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
968 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 308
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Oct 10, 2014 04:43 |  #23

Its not worth suing over 15 instagram likes. By the time you wake up tomorrow, its buried so deep in everyone's feed that no one cares anymore


Canon 1DX | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Road ­ Dog
Goldmember
1,313 posts
Gallery: 166 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1101
Joined Jul 2014
Location: St. Augustine, Florida
     
Oct 11, 2014 09:38 |  #24

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17202624 (external link)
He's an attorney, not a hit man.

I had coffee come out my nose on that one...


Just shut up and smile...
My Current Line-Up

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swmeans
Member
Avatar
54 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Lacey, WA
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:28 |  #25

MattPharmD wrote in post #17204581 (external link)
The point Ms. Wright makes is that the penalty judgement for "wilful infringement" which is almost certainly proven by the removal of a watermark does not require registration. So if someone removes your watermark you can collect an additional $2,500-25,000 regardless of registration.

Yes that is true, however you will still have to register before taking it to court as the case will not be heard until the copyright is registered. Also, by not registering you are losing out on the statutory damages that you could have collected. Theses can be as high as ANOTHER $25,000 per image.

Just for reference,here is another page from Ms. Wright's blog (external link).


S Means
Means Photography (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Black ­ Mesa ­ Images
Senior Member
339 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2010
     
Oct 11, 2014 13:12 as a reply to  @ swmeans's post |  #26

Here is something to think about.

Not long ago, I shared a pic of mine on someone's personal Facebook page. That personal used it as their personal profile pic and my watermark got cropped out. At that point, I did not have much an issue with it, even though it really screwed up the pic.

A week ago, a company took the same cropped image and used it on their company page promoting the company and product. I contacted the company requesting that they use the full version of the image. Even though the damage had already been done, I tried to be nice about it due to the fact that the company has a working relationship with people that I work with on a semi-regular basis. Even though I was still talking to the company about my request, they drug their feet about honoring my request. I ended up just having the image removed from their page. Lesson learned and possible future working relationship ruined.

Here's the deal, each photographer is different in regards to protecting their work. Some care, some don't care. Some are fanatical, some are somewhat fanatical and some would rather work things out in a nice way. It all comes down to the photographer and how they feel their work. Listen to everyone's advice and use what you can and store the good points for future use, if need be.


Instagram (external link)
Black Mesa Images on Facebook (external link)
Black Mesa Images Blog and Photography (external link)
Twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,394 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1686
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Oct 11, 2014 22:52 |  #27

Black Mesa Images wrote in post #17207167 (external link)
Lesson learned and possible future working relationship ruined.

An alternative view would be that you were saved from entering into a bad relationship. The company infringed your copyright. Then when notified of their wrong-doing they didn't apologise and take action, but instead dug their heels in. Would you really want a working relationship with such a company?


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
Black ­ Mesa ­ Images
Senior Member
339 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2010
     
Oct 11, 2014 23:05 |  #28

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17207997 (external link)
An alternative view would be that you were saved from entering into a bad relationship. The company infringed your copyright. Then when notified of their wrong-doing they didn't apologise and take action, but instead dug their heels in. Would you really want a working relationship with such a company?

Oh, when it comes right down to it allowed me to see some holes on my end. One, yeah I found out what the mindset is so I can steer clear of that particular company in the future. Two, even though it wasn't my first takedown notice, it allowed me tighten things up on my end and I developed a more formal program for future infringements.


Instagram (external link)
Black Mesa Images on Facebook (external link)
Black Mesa Images Blog and Photography (external link)
Twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the ­ flying ­ moose
Goldmember
1,639 posts
Likes: 76
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 12, 2014 03:14 |  #29

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17207997 (external link)
An alternative view would be that you were saved from entering into a bad relationship. The company infringed your copyright. Then when notified of their wrong-doing they didn't apologise and take action, but instead dug their heels in. Would you really want a working relationship with such a company?

That's the way I would see it too.




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

4,148 views & 0 likes for this thread
Photo "taken" and altered...
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
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 sdc123
708 guests, 376 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.