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 17 Feb 2011 (Thursday) 08:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sarah Palin Photo copyright

 
Narwhal
Goldmember
Avatar
1,041 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 41
Joined Mar 2010
Location: From Los Angeles, Living in São Paulo, Brazil
     
Feb 17, 2011 08:54 |  #1

The following post appeared yesterday on Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com …0(Not%20Premium​)_7_30_110 (external link)

Check out the comments to see that the almost everyone has no understanding of copyright law..


JIM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
digirebelva
Goldmember
Avatar
3,987 posts
Gallery: 370 photos
Likes: 1609
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Virginia
     
Feb 17, 2011 09:17 |  #2

Narwhal wrote in post #11860657 (external link)
Check out the comments to see that the almost everyone has no understanding of copyright law..

And that surprises you...:D


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
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 844
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Feb 17, 2011 09:33 as a reply to  @ digirebelva's post |  #3

Only one comment came close to being correct, the one regarding copyright law. "Fair use" only applies when a copyrighted photo is used for non-commercial purposes. Advertising one's restaurant to attract customers who might wish to watch a public event is still a commercial use.

The Salon.com use is fair use, but the "Guy's" use is not. That does not mean that he should have paid up on the demand of the copyright holder--a negotiation was in order.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Feb 17, 2011 10:11 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

this is a shakedown by a shady photographer and his lawyer, pure and simple. restaraunt owner probably thought this photo was in the public domain, and therefore, not a copyright infringement.

but rather than fight this accusation of infringement, because he was obviously frightened by the lawyer's letter, the restaraunt owner simply chose to pay, which may have been the best decision because hiring a lawyer to defend the suit may have cost him just as much as he paid out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MJPhotos24
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,619 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Attica, NY / Parrish, FL
     
Feb 17, 2011 10:55 |  #5

Jimbers wrote in post #11861068 (external link)
this is a shakedown by a shady photographer and his lawyer, pure and simple. restaraunt owner probably thought this photo was in the public domain, and therefore, not a copyright infringement.

but rather than fight this accusation of infringement, because he was obviously frightened by the lawyer's letter, the restaraunt owner simply chose to pay, which may have been the best decision because hiring a lawyer to defend the suit may have cost him just as much as he paid out.

Jimbers - could you learn copyright laws before speaking about them? Second thread you're posting an opinion that means nothing legally and is exact opposite of the actual laws - come on, ignorance is not an excuse. I just can't wait for this excuse to be used in other crimes..."but your honor, I didn't know you weren't allowed to stab someone"..."but your honor, the car had the keys in it and was gassed up, I thought that mean it was mine for the taking"..."but your honor, who knew stealing that flat screen was wrong, not me!"

What's confusing is she was a half term governor during this photo, almost all photos that are done for government officials (official portraits) are done on the government dime - the tax payers are paying for it - and they (politicians) almost always make sure to get all rights making it public domain. However, not doing the homework of checking the status of a photo is not an excuse, we all know the phrase of when you assume.


Freelance Photographer & Co-founder of Four Seam Images
Mike Janes Photography (external link) - Four Seam Images LLC (external link)
FSI is a baseball oriented photo agency and official licensee of MiLB/MLB.
@FourSeamImages (instagram/twitter)
@MikeJanesPhotography (instagram)
@MikeJanesPhotog (twitter)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TopHatMoments
Goldmember
Avatar
1,173 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Feb 17, 2011 11:14 |  #6

IMAGE: http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink063.gif

Canon to PhotoShop, “Beam me up”! LR3 set course for CS5, Warp speed 64!___ ((dpp___/==***^***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Feb 17, 2011 11:45 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

mj, i really wish you would stop accusing me of not knowing the copyright law, and making up analogies that don't apply. i stand by my original comments.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #11861351 (external link)
Jimbers - could you learn copyright laws before speaking about them? Second thread you're posting an opinion that means nothing legally and is exact opposite of the actual laws - come on, ignorance is not an excuse. I just can't wait for this excuse to be used in other crimes..."but your honor, I didn't know you weren't allowed to stab someone"..."but your honor, the car had the keys in it and was gassed up, I thought that mean it was mine for the taking"..."but your honor, who knew stealing that flat screen was wrong, not me!"

What's confusing is she was a half term governor during this photo, almost all photos that are done for government officials (official portraits) are done on the government dime - the tax payers are paying for it - and they (politicians) almost always make sure to get all rights making it public domain. However, not doing the homework of checking the status of a photo is not an excuse, we all know the phrase of when you assume.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snails
"I used the last of it to tip the strippers."
Avatar
1,517 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
     
Feb 17, 2011 12:28 |  #8

Jimbers wrote in post #11861068 (external link)
this is a shakedown by a shady photographer and his lawyer, pure and simple. restaraunt owner probably thought this photo was in the public domain, and therefore, not a copyright infringement.

but rather than fight this accusation of infringement, because he was obviously frightened by the lawyer's letter, the restaraunt owner simply chose to pay, which may have been the best decision because hiring a lawyer to defend the suit may have cost him just as much as he paid out.

You provide no support for your argument that this was a "shakedown". Thus, this becomes just a conspiracy theory. Really you don't mention any legal standing at all. By the way, the term "shakedown" is synonymous with extortion. This is defined as securing money, property or goods through unlawful coercion. I see nothing unlawful (on the part of the copyright owner), and no coercion.

The fact is that a copyright owner felt they should be paid for their copyrighted material. The legal course of action is to file a lawsuit. Ignorance of a copyright does not make the unauthorized use any less real. They pursued legal recourse in a court of law.


"I don't like the direction this thread is going..." (LightRules)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew.Zerick
Senior Member
Avatar
557 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Santa Rosa Beach, FL
     
Feb 17, 2011 12:41 |  #9

Best comment:

We Are Not Amused

Gracious Gov. Sarah Palin ranks with Helen of Troy, Cleopatra, Boadicea, and Queen Victoria among the famous & phenomenal women in world history. There should be some penalty, some financial forfeiture, for using her name or image to facilitate crass commercialism.

He is saying she ranks with Helen of Troy, CLEOPATRA, Boadicea, and QUEEN VICTORIA?
Wow.


But yeah, "guy" should have went to court and he would have understood it a lot more.


My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Feb 17, 2011 12:42 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

okay, fair enough, shakedown is a bit poetic. but the rest of my take on this case is correct. dude was flat out scared. he had every right to believe the photograph was public domain since he lifted from a government site that does not attribute the photo to anybody. the amount of money the photographer sought was basically an unprovoked attack on a struggling small business. that's not what copyright is designed to do. this attack violates the true spirit of copyright laws, which is why i used the word shakedown in my earlier comment.

snails wrote in post #11861845 (external link)
You provide no support for your argument that this was a "shakedown". Thus, this becomes just a conspiracy theory. Really you don't mention any legal standing at all. By the way, the term "shakedown" is synonymous with extortion. This is defined as securing money, property or goods through unlawful coercion. I see nothing unlawful (on the part of the copyright owner), and no coercion.

The fact is that a copyright owner felt they should be paid for their copyrighted material. The legal course of action is to file a lawsuit. Ignorance of a copyright does not make the unauthorized use any less real. They pursued legal recourse in a court of law.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Csae
Goldmember
Avatar
3,350 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Feb 17, 2011 12:57 |  #11

What makes you think this restaurant is a struggling small business?

The fees are probably standard. and a fair amount of it went towards the guy's Lawyer.

"Thinking" the photo is in the public realm, doesn't make what you did any less wrong. Getting sued for mis-using one's property is the logical outcome.

How do you know the restaurant didn't attract 20k$ worth of clients from people "supporting" the sarah palin fiasco the owner did.


He used something that belonged to someone else to advertise and increase his commercial gain.
oh i didn't know.... is not a valid excuse.

The End.

I'm normally a nicer person, and would just send a takedown letter, suing if he doesn't. But in this case the photographer has nothing to gain, and could potentially be paying HIS struggling business bills by the sue, we don't know what their circonstances are, simply that one party did something illegal and the other party chose to pursue it.


Feel free to call me Case.
CasePhoto.ca (external link) - FanPage (external link)
-Montreal based Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
karobinson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Alaska
     
Feb 17, 2011 13:01 |  #12

"He is saying she ranks with Helen of Troy, CLEOPATRA, Boadicea, and QUEEN VICTORIA?
' Ya, there are some people who think just that. But, most of us here in Alaska know her in a more personal manner and those thoughts are not what crosses our minds, pro or con.


Ann Robinson:)
My Gear: bunch of stuff;....some I love ... some I hate ... some I can't live without..loving my 5d3...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kona77
Goldmember
Avatar
1,637 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Southern ME
     
Feb 17, 2011 13:03 |  #13

Jimbers wrote in post #11861927 (external link)
he had every right to believe the photograph was public domain since he lifted from a government site that does not attribute the photo to anybody. the amount of money the photographer sought was basically an unprovoked attack on a struggling small business. that's not what copyright is designed to do. this attack violates the true spirit of copyright laws, which is why i used the word shakedown in my earlier comment.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The photographer's price is his price because his image was stolen and used without permission. This is the REAL SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT.

As a side note, I would learn to use proper punctuation, ie, capitalize the first word of the sentence if one is going to converse intelligently.


Proud father of a 10 year old son with Down Syndrome.
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Feb 17, 2011 13:04 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

most businesses fail within the first five years, hence the struggle. photography could have chosen not to pursue this case, as he was not at all damaged in any way from the brief use of this photo.

Csae wrote in post #11862022 (external link)
What makes you think this restaurant is a struggling small business?

The fees are probably standard. and a fair amount of it went towards the guy's Lawyer.

"Thinking" the photo is in the public realm, doesn't make what you did any less wrong. Getting sued for mis-using one's property is the logical outcome.

How do you know the restaurant didn't attract 20k$ worth of clients from people "supporting" the sarah palin fiasco the owner did.


He used something that belonged to someone else to advertise and increase his commercial gain.
oh i didn't know.... is not a valid excuse.

The End.

I'm normally a nicer person, and would just send a takedown letter, suing if he doesn't. But in this case the photographer has nothing to gain, and could potentially be paying HIS struggling business bills by the sue, we don't know what their circonstances are, simply that one party did something illegal and the other party chose to pursue it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Feb 17, 2011 13:07 |  #15
bannedPermanent ban

in the case of copyright law, there are often mitigating factors at times that may be taken into account. also copyright infringements, legally speaking, are not cases of theft.

kona77 wrote in post #11862055 (external link)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The photographer's price is his price because his image was stolen and used without permission. This is the REAL SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT.

As a side note, I would learn to use proper punctuation, ie, capitalize the first word of the sentence if one is going to converse intelligently.




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

9,336 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sarah Palin Photo copyright
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 kazali
851 guests, 270 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.