Holy #@$^%@$%^@!!! Someone stole my photos!!!

Thanks again for the support guys, and thanks for the info Lindsey! Hehe, now I feel better already. I guess it is in the guidelines.

There is NO NO NO NO way that it is ok for someone to take your work without consent. I don't believe what i'm hearing, sonic yan, you are feeling sorry??? And radtech1, you think it's ok??? Let me give you a hint......DON't EVER let me catch someone using my work without my permission......OK, I'm done.

You know it doesn't matter if the image was lifted for fun, personal use, or profit. It was stolen and used without your permission. What do you think would happen if someone took a shot of a NASCAR driver from Sports Illustrated and used it in a manipulation contest? While your pondering that I can tell you what would happen, a letter from some high priced lawyers in $1000 suits would arrive at your mailbox telling you in no uncertain terms that the images are to be removed and with the swiftest execution possible.

That guy plain and simple stole your work, profit or not, it is stealing and the more of you who seem to think this is ok and it happens all the time are only encouraging such activities.
I, like Kong, can guarentee you thAT if I catch someone using any of my images they will receive a bill and a cease and desist order. I don't care if your selling it or getting it tattooed on your bum, it belongs to me!!!!! DON'T DO IT.

Yup, it makes sense now. What radtech said just made me think for a bit though. Glad to hear that I am in the right and the photo was taken down quickly. Thank you for your responses, they are really enlightening, especially for a noob like me.

But, now that you mention it, if the Worth1000 contestant wanted to defend his use he could argue that 2 of the 4 legs of the Fair Use doctrine of Copyright law is in his favor, 1 leg is irrelevant, and 1 might go against him.

Four factors must be balanced in each case to determine whether a specific use is fair:

The purposes and character of the use, particularly whether the use is primarily commercial in nature.

The first factor is whether the use in question is to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public. Conversely, if the motive is one of personal profit Fair Use could not be argued. The Worth1000 website, and it's contests have "stimulation of creativity" very nearly as a sole purpose. And as a member of the general public, I can attest that I am enriched by their contests. Further, we have already determined that profit in any way was not the motive. You deem that irrelevant. Copyright law disagrees with you.

In favor of Worth1000 Contestant.

The nature of the copyrighted work being borrowed from.

This usually deals with text works, primarily, whether it is fictional or non-fictional as facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. This is not germane here.

In favor of No One.

The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. This could be argued both ways. On one hand an entire photo was used. On the other hand, just one sample of a group of several shots was used.

In favor of SonicYan - though it could be a draw.

The effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.

The fourth factor measures the effect that the unauthorized use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work, and whether the specific use has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market. In this case, since the Worth1000 Contestant did not try to "flood the market" with his manipulated version he did not effect the potential market. Additionally, his manipulation did not cause actual damage or destruction to the original, the use had no effect whatsoever on the value of SonicYan shot.

In favor of Worth1000 Contestant.

Additionally, "parodies" of a copyrighted work have been protected as fair use. A parody is using a work in order to poke fun or comment on the work itself and the law has been willing to grant fair use protections to parodies. I saw the shot before it was taken down by Worth1000, and I can see how an argument of parody could be made. No one could have taken the shot seriously.

So, Indy, simply saying "All images on this site are copyrighted and the sole property bla, bla, bla..." does not mean that they cannot be used by someone else. Simply wanting something does not make it so. And in the case of Copyright law, wanting absolute control does not mean that the law is with you. All anyone would have to do is have the preponderance of the Fair Use exemption behind them and they can use anyone's (yes, even your) images. And in this case, I believe the law is with the Worth1000 Contestant.

Rad

BTW, Indy - Did you get a model release from Tony Kanaan?

Doesn't photobucket's T&C's say that by using their site and making your pictures public, you're giving them (and any of their members) a license use, copy, modify, print, and display any User Content without limits?

Someone else pointed this out in another thread?

My photos were also taken by the same individual that took Charlesu's set from this site. From what others said this guy posted them on some my space or photo sharing page. Seems he just did it to get some comments/popularity/pr​aise on his profile. Though I felt a bit ripped off it was way more of a complement then anything else.

As these were photo's taken just for fun you might say there was no harm done, no financial gain/loss by any party. Sure but I don't want my photos being used or manipulated by others without my consent as they might be represented/representi​ng/promoting something I don't support. It also kinda sucks when people ask you if it was actually you who took the photos as they have seen them on other websites. Example: I had a few rude private messages sent to me on here as others saw my images on his page and so thought I was the culprit, not another theft victim

In the end it's upto us to choose if it's worth sharin photos and to take steps to stop unwanted use.

The Fair Use Doctrine is so vague in nature, that it is very hard to use it as a quick guideline the way Radtech1 did. His/her reasoning is far too "quick 'n dirty".
However he makes an important point. The fact that a photograph is copyrighted does not automatically mean it can't be used by someone else.

Apart from legal issues there is also "the decent thing to do".
IMHO the Worth1000 contestant should have asked permission.
After all he did know who took the photographs.
Although not obligatory for Fair Use, it would have been nice if he had mentioned the source of his picture on the Worth1000 site.
Last but not least, it is not nice to enter a competition if the only contribution to the result was some fiarly simple photoshopping. Even I could have done it. Just some selecting, resizing and pasting, nothing fancy.
The fact that the result looked very good can only be attributed tot SonicYan for taking such excellent shots.

Rad nice arguement but that dog won't hunt. To begin with it is against the rules of the contest organization to use works of another without permission. Secondly, a good attorney would argue that by using the work and entering it in a contest would be for personal gain, even if it was only recognition.

If the law was so favored towards the thief then why did Worth1000 pull the image so quickly? Maybe not as clear cut and dry as you seem to think it is. They didn't seem to think he was in the clear now did they?

The Fair Use clause is a very vague and seldomly used in successful defense of theft of a copyrighted image.

Would you like to explain to me why I need a release from Tony Kannan?

Ahhhhh yes but, a copyrighted image can make it a costly decision by just simply using it without permission.

I can't see how boiling it down to legalese will make such a wrong thing right. If someone takes someone else's work, manipulates it and passes it off as his, without permission or acknowledgement of the original photographer, then that's just plain wrong. To see a fellow photographer finding nothing wrong with this practice is distressing.

Indy, I assume you are referring to the rules cited above. In reference to the phrases "used illegally","infringes the rights" and "will not infringe the copyright" - IF the use fall under the Fair Use exemption, then it is legal, and does not infringe on anyone's copyright and is therefor NOT running afoul the Worth1000 rules. As far as the phrase "...is not your own work" goes, well, the modification WAS the contestant's own work.

The one thing that the rules DO NOT say is this: "Your source photo must have been taken by you, or, if not, you must have formal permission." And even if it did, I wonder if the Fair Use exemption supersedes the websites "rules".

Even if successful in the argument that personal gain (recognition) equals personal profit, that is still 1/2 of the first leg, and the "stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public" would still be in force.

Two reasons, 1) because someone complained - squeaky wheel, etc, and 2) being a private entity, I don't think that Worth1000 is obligated to keep it posted, even if it's creation, submission, and original posting is protected.

Which was EXACTLY my point when you said "I, like Kong, can guarentee you thAT if I catch someone using any of my images they will receive a bill and a cease and desist order. I don't care if your selling it or getting it tattooed on your bum, it belongs to me!!!!! DON'T DO IT." Ownership is one thing and it protects against many things, but THERE ARE circumstances where someone else can use a photo you took and it is absolutely legal.

I am not a lawyer and am not aware of how seldom it's used or how successful it is. I would be interested in your source of authority on that. All I did was take a straightforward reading of the broad strokes of the law and applied them to this case, using common sense as a guide. I even admitted when the Fair Use clause was weak or irrelevant with regard to this situation. I don't say that it is "cut and dried", but on whole, I believe the Fair Use clause would be in the contestant's favor.

Well, on THIS PAGE, you have his likeness, in a race car, coming in first and the shot is for sale. Put bluntly, you are making money off of his likeness. Though I do not know, I suspect it is without his explicit permission. So he is out there, risking his life, throwing his car around for a few hours - you push a button and collect a check off his hard work. It seems a little disingenuous for you to take such a strong stand on the sanctity of the image when you use the images (likenesses) of other people and their hard work to line your pocket.

Tell me about it, I work in the medical field. On this point we agree. In this litigious society we live in the threat of a lawsuit for any injury - real, perceived, or imagined - has made any decision far more costly that is needed.

Rad

PS - Though I disagree with you, I am grateful that this board exists, that we can have a spirited discussion. I hope that someone who is actually versed in Copyright Law manages to see this and offers some real world experience.

You are absolutely right.
After all, what would be the use of a copyright if every Tom, Dick and Harriet can use an image and can get away with it because of the Fair Use Doctrine?

It is like in the music industry where all that sampling is going on.
Either get permission, a license, or prepare for some big trouble.

Wow, didn't know my thread would cause a debate. I would love to hear an opinion from someone knowledgeable with the law as well.

Rad, you are out of controll, I can't believe you are not just doing this just to start an uproar!! No one can be as bull headed as you about this subject!!
By the way, I also have indy car photos on my website, and they, like Indy Jeff's are images that I shot and ARE NOT FOR SALE!!! See we are paid to shoot these photos and to work within the rules.

Why don't the Moderator just cut this off before it gets uglier. The original question has been answered and now there is just a bunch of jumble!!!

Well if you would have taken the time to look you would find that there are no images on that site for sale. They are for sale for EDITORIAL USE because that is what I am paid to do. Try buying one for your personal use. It won't happen. If you notice the buttons to the left, they are for media uses, not for you to hang on your wall.

I have even a better on of him crashing in turn 3 after assuming the lead late in the race. It ran world wide and while I am sure he was not happy that it was a crash shot of him, I think he may be pleased that his car was in newspapers all over the globe. If I think about it, I will ask him next time I see him.

My source of authority would be 1.) My IP attorney, yes I have one, and Fair Use has been discussed during some of our meetings, and 2.) from knowledge gained over the years dealing with coypright law both for myself and working for ASCAP.

Yes that is true but, the limits are very clear and the burden to prove the fair use is not on the plaintiff but the defendant.