Thoughts on this FB page

My friend just sent me this. I am shocked they leave the photographers name on the pictures and did not black them out?!. What are your thoughts on this? (thank goodness I didn't find any of my pics )

https://www.facebook.c​om …tographer/34514​5922267273

No comment on the page itself just a comment on leaving the watermark on the image. If you remove a watermark from a photo and use it for whatever purpose there is the possibility of a rather large fine. That is why the "names" are still on the photographs.

Using photographs you do not have a right to is another subject altogether. A lot of legal issues involved. The site will probably be shut down if enough people complain about their photos being used without permission, but those same people could sue if the photos are altered as you are suggesting.

Looking at the page I need to change my comment on the legality of using the photos. The Facebook page administrator SHARED all the photos I could see. This is fully acceptable by the Facebook rules and completely legal.

My comments above assumed the photos were copied to the page. By using the Facebook share function and making comments on these photos there is no legal issues at all.

Oh I thought that too.

I see they have a website and block out the photographers name.

http://youarenotaphoto​grapher.com

If you look through the page, they aren't actually posting other peoples photos. They are just using the share option.

mamaof2 wrote in post #17468070
Oh I thought that too.

I see they have a website and block out the photographers name.

http://youarenotaphoto​grapher.com

Now that is where they are trying to do a "tightrope" with the law. Check out their terms of service. http://youarenotaphoto​grapher.com/terms-of-service/ They make the user claim they have the rights to the material and make the user claim it is their photographs, basically. Is the site legal? No. Can they get away with it because of that rule that is basically a disclaimer in the TOS? That would be a question for a judge.

Actually the site has no legal worries regarding copyright. The use of the images falls squarely under one of the fair use exemptions, that of Critique. The website is aimed at demonstrating how not to take photographs if you are a professional photographer, and are accepting money for your work. Although the site is harsh it is still legal in what it is doing. As to the matter of obscuring the photographers watermark, that would depend on where the website (as opposed to the shared images on FB) is based. If it is outside of the USA then the DMCA rules (which are I think where the rules on removal of copyright information are enacted in the USA) do not apply. Also I seem to recall that even the US legislation on removal of watermarks requires that there also be an element of claiming the image copyright as belonging to the infringer. In the situation of that particular website, the placing of a mask over the photographers identifying marks, outside of any other claims to ownership, which they clearly do not do, probably falls outside of those regulations. So it would seem the site is clear as far as copyright usage, and probably in the removing of identifying marks.

The above makes no comment on matters of taste or morality of the owners of the website. I have to say that the images that feature are really really bad considering that they are all produced by supposedly "professional" photographers for clients, and were paid for the images. As far as I am aware they do not feature the work of amateurs, I would not agree with such harsh behavior towards those who are not trying to earn a living with these images. The thing is that seeing this level of work showing up regularly of the site I am no longer surprised by the number of folks who also end up stealing other photographers work for their (usually) facebook based pro-photography page. The Photo Stealers blog seems to out around two photographers that are using others work as their own to build a portfolio of work.

Alan

Who knows, that page might be just a group of low talent photographers making fun of each others' work.

youareNOTaphtographer is a website that makes fun of bad photographers that are written by bad photographers

Page is created by a bitter lonely person probably. sad.

Wow, im not sure where to start. Sharing the photos isn't a problem. Bashing them could warrant the owner to complain and get it taken down I guess. But get a life, dont they have anything better to do than to bash these people? Internet bullies. I do agree with some of the photos not being of any quality worth charging for, but isn't that between the person taking them and the person paying for them?

I am curious about the soldier/flag photo though... Although I agree that any use of the flag should abide by the rules of the flag as it is a symbol of our country, what does everyone else think about the flag being used in a photo session with a soldier?

saw this posted today

http://insider.foxnews​.com …inst-veteran-photographer

mamaof2 wrote in post #17471775
saw this posted today

http://insider.foxnews​.com …inst-veteran-photographer

wow...lol...yea it was on the Today Show today too. Suddenly all over my fb feed too!

Holy. Who are they to judge others? They better stop that damn page and take real photographs instead of critising other...

Sad boys. That really shows how frustrated they are with not having success themselves with their photography...

For the FB page in general, it is legal, within his rights of free speech, and totally without class. The "author" is a tool.

The photo... I love it.
I am well aware of what the flag code says. Screw it. This photo, and others like it that have popped up are wonderful expressions behind the real reason people serve. Not for the piece of cloth, but for the ideas the flag represents, and the people the child represents. This is my favorite baby photo ever.