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

Wow. My 2.2c inc. GST on this is that it's morally wrong to use these images without the permission of the copyright holder. Note I say morally wrong.

There are a few problems with Sonic's complaint - he's failed to note copyright ownership on the images. Whilst that doesn't make it right to steal the images, it does make a court less likely to offer any substantial compensation, as it would be deemed that he's failed to protect his own interests adequately.

Rad is also right in that fair use does come into this; although, in literary works, you're limited to only showing a certain % of the work (and no more), and also seeking the approval of the copyright owner.

Rad is also right in pointing out that no model contract was signed with the driver in question, although it could be argued that it was a public event, and therefore photography was perfectly legal. The only potential draw back to this is that the person in the image might have a legal right to claim a % of any profits from the image. This is a really ambiguous and messy area of copyright law I'm afraid.

One other thing - Rad you mentioned that you applied common sense to legislation. In a world where things work as they should, I'd agree with you. However, modern legislation generally tends to throw common sense out of the window. And throws it very far.

In the end, the images were taken without permission. worth1000 removed them, without issue, and that is an admission of guilt (something a court would look at and consider in weighing their decision I suspect). As others have pointed out, these images were admitted to the competition against the rules of worth1000. That pretty much sums it up.

It's sad to see such a lack of respect and moral correctness from some people, using someone elses image isn't acceptable. Not without their permission. I will note that Sonic Yan has marked his forum account with "image editing allowed", so in essence, this is allowing others to take his images and work with them. Take that into account as well please.

Cheers,

Dave

Sounds like a good argument for using watermarks, doesn't it?

Once again I will point out that the images I sell of the racing events I attend are for editorial use. I swear I don't know why I even waste my time messing around with you people.


Once you have a basic comprehension of the US Corpyright codes, get back with me until that time I will ignore any further rediculous comments.


Oh and BTW, I am not surprised Rad that you would take the stance on this whole issue as you have, since you admit that you use other peoples images without permission.

Hehe, I'm still new to this but what does "copyright ownership on the images" mean? Like a sig/watermark? I do put a sig in my pictures, just that these were straight out of the camera (with resizing) and I posted them here because I wanted to see how to improve them in pp. But either way, I'm not really looking for substantial compensation anyway.

But I thought that "image editing" feature was just for forum members to be able to edit my picture and show me how they improved on it?

Yep. You put an image up on the net without any copyright ownership markings on it, you still own copyright of course (providing you can prove ownership), but you're not really helping yourself.

As to the Image Editing feature, I suspect that whilst the forum rules might say "only for usage with editing of image by forum members" etc, the law might look at it differently. Forum rules aren't law.

Dave

holy cow! I am sorry it happened to you. Didn't you put copyright into the photo?

Hehe, nope... I wasn't done editing the pictures and I posted these up just for some feedback.