UER Store order your copy of Access All Areas today! Activity 675 online Server Time: 2024-05-14 15:49:32 Visit Infiltration Access All Areas AvBrand

1 2 3   UER Forum > Archived UE Photography > copyright issues? (Viewed 1421 times) Tarkus  Location: Pennsyltucky Gender: Male  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 20 on 3/18/2006 5:05 PM >   Posted by Arch-Image My best advice if you have some really sweet shot your proud of, show it to your friends you trust via email or in person but NEVER post it to the net! How is someone going to profit from my 400x600 pixel image on the net? Subvert the dominant paradigm. lexiphoto  Location: Denver, Colorado Gender: Female UE Den Mother  |  |  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 21 on 3/18/2006 5:27 PM >   Posted by Tarkus How is someone going to profit from my 400x600 pixel image on the net? well... I don't know if profit is the right term. But it's still theft. I had a situation where I had art work ripped off by people who expressed they wanted to purchased by scanning a print of a web image and resizing it for their needs. An no, It's not a matter of I should/shouldn't put my work online... It was a matter that I should give my grandparents cds with my images on them to show their friends any more... Most people don't understand copyright law, and it goes way beyond a profit but artistic integrity and reputation. Meaning, if they made a bad print or altered the way the image was meant to look, and especially if it is degrading the image quality, then my reputation as a good photographer is at risk. That kind of thing. Nothing Satisfies Like Beef! this_guy  Location: Chicago suburbs Gender: Male  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 22 on 3/18/2006 9:06 PM >   Posted by lexiphoto well... I don't know if profit is the right term. But it's still theft. I had a situation where I had art work ripped off by people who expressed they wanted to purchased by scanning a print of a web image and resizing it for their needs. What? Theft implies some property being taken, which doesn't seem to be the case. Copyright infringement implies unauthorized redistribution, and the way I read your description of what happend, that wasn't the case either. Someone buying a print from you, scanning it, and making additional prints for their own purposes (as opposed to buying more prints from you) is called "fair use". Most people don't understand copyright law, and it goes way beyond a profit but artistic integrity and reputation. Meaning, if they made a bad print or altered the way the image was meant to look, and especially if it is degrading the image quality, then my reputation as a good photographer is at risk. That kind of thing. I hadn't really thought of that much, but it seems like a valid concern, although keep in mind the people redistributing your work also probably have reputations in their respective fields to worry about. I suppose you could license your work in a manner that requires distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized derivatives, reproductions, performances, etc. Personally, I'm an engineer not a photographer. I only have a few pictures on my site worth worrying about, so I license all of my content under Creative Commons attribution. "Every sound shall end in silence, but the silence never dies." - from Samuel Miller Hagemen, found written on the wall of an abandoned building lexiphoto  Location: Denver, Colorado Gender: Female UE Den Mother  |  |  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 23 on 3/18/2006 9:36 PM >   Posted by this_guy What? Theft implies some property being taken, which doesn't seem to be the case. Copyright infringement implies unauthorized redistribution, and the way I read your description of what happend, that wasn't the case either. Someone buying a print from you, scanning it, and making additional prints for their own purposes (as opposed to buying more prints from you) is called "fair use". I hadn't really thought of that much, but it seems like a valid concern, although keep in mind the people redistributing your work also probably have reputations in their respective fields to worry about. I suppose you could license your work in a manner that requires distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized derivatives, reproductions, performances, etc. Personally, I'm an engineer not a photographer. I only have a few pictures on my site worth worrying about, so I license all of my content under Creative Commons attribution. Except they didn't buy it. They had implied they would like to purchase and didn't. Nothing Satisfies Like Beef! this_guy  Location: Chicago suburbs Gender: Male  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 24 on 3/18/2006 9:52 PM >   Posted by lexiphoto Except they didn't buy it. They had implied they would like to purchase and didn't. It's still fair use unless they redistributed it, included it in a gallery and charged admission, or something similar. Why should the law distinguish between displaying your image on a computer monitor and printing and framing it? Just because you thought you could make some money? "Every sound shall end in silence, but the silence never dies." - from Samuel Miller Hagemen, found written on the wall of an abandoned building LizBellum  Gender: Female Be really excellent at everything!  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 25 on 3/18/2006 10:55 PM >   Posted by this_guy It's still fair use unless they redistributed it I don't believe that's exactly correct. We deal with fair use quite a bit at work, and while you can't expect the general public to give a damn, Lexi made a good point. There are a lot of ways you can interpret the language of the fair use provision, but the people she is referring to are not using her material for instructional or educational purposes, which is what the law was designed for. Even if they were, the right to fair use of her images eventually expires after two years. Do they care? Probably not. Most people probably don't and its unrealistic to expect them to, but its understandable she's upset. On one hand, it is kind of silly when you make your images or creative work easy to disseminate or reproduce by digitize it and expect no one to take advantage of that fact, but on the other, when it does happen, it's certainly not completely sanctioned by the law. Just my .02 flickrgrrrrl :: boyfuckingracer lexiphoto  Location: Denver, Colorado Gender: Female UE Den Mother  |  |  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 26 on 3/18/2006 11:40 PM >   Posted by this_guy It's still fair use unless they redistributed it, included it in a gallery and charged admission, or something similar. Why should the law distinguish between displaying your image on a computer monitor and printing and framing it? Just because you thought you could make some money? Who are you to say I "thought" I could make money. This is my profession. This IS how I make my living. Off print sales, shoots, etc. It is not "fair use". It's IS theft. Bless my grandparents heart. But these people who did this weren't even supposed to view it on a computer monitor. It was then and is now private property. I've taken the appropriate classes and time to learn copyright law, taken the classes and the advice from lawyers who say it is theft. I have no issues with the people who did this because the average joe doesn't know the extent of copyright law and what you can and cannot do. And because they were so open about what they did I believe they had no idea what the did was wrong. I have every right to actually go and have the law return the item back to me, if I truly thought it was a sneaky action that is worth pursuing. Please go pick up a copy of the ASMP 's Professional Business Practices in Photography, Contracts for Photographers, The Photographers Market, etc... if you would like to debate this issue any further. Nothing Satisfies Like Beef! blackhawk  This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information. Location: Mission Control UER newbie  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 27 on 3/19/2006 12:17 AM >   Posted by this_guy It's still fair use unless they redistributed it, included it in a gallery and charged admission, or something similar. Why should the law distinguish between displaying your image on a computer monitor and printing and framing it? Just because you thought you could make some money? Lexiphoto made several valid points and was kind enough to add them to this thread, some that I hadn't thought of. Stop beatin' the babe up. If you print and frame someone else's pic that goes far beyond viewing it on the CPU. If you don't have the artist's permission to use in this manner and it's copyright protected, it seems to me it was stolen. Do you work for free? Life, goods, and services are not free. -just because you can do something do not mean you should- Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. this_guy  Location: Chicago suburbs Gender: Male  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 28 on 3/19/2006 4:34 AM >   Posted by lexiphoto Who are you to say I "thought" I could make money. This is my profession. This IS how I make my living. Off print sales, shoots, etc. You lost a potential sale, right? I'm not debating that you're making money. If photography is your profession, great. The arts in general could benefit from more variety. My comment was strictly regarding the case you mentioned. It is not "fair use". It's IS theft. Bless my grandparents heart. But these people who did this weren't even supposed to view it on a computer monitor. It was then and is now private property. I've taken the appropriate classes and time to learn copyright law, taken the classes and the advice from lawyers who say it is theft. If they were viewing high-res digital copies without your permission, I'd agree that it's not fair use, but it's not theft either. You didn't lose your image; you lost only the money you expected to make from the sale. Given your clarification of the circumstances, I'm no longer even arguing that your potential customer was justified, only that I think your use of the word "theft" is inappropriate. Posted by blackhawk Stop beatin' the babe up. If you print and frame someone else's pic that goes far beyond viewing it on the CPU. If you don't have the artist's permission to use in this manner and it's copyright protected, it seems to me it was stolen. Do you work for free? Life, goods, and services are not free. What if someone frames an LCD monitor and devotes a small form factor computer to showing pictures from a UE website, cycling every 30sec or so? What if someone visits a UE site every day and stares at every picture for 5min? The law, in the interest of objectivity, is concerned with enforcible absolutes. If some kind of personal use is allowed, all should be. The entertainment industry is changing this by trying to extend copyrights indefinitely and lobbying for legislation like the DMCA the prevents heinous crimes like me watching a legally purchased DVD in Linux. End users still retain some rights, and they're not limited to educational purposes. See, for example, timeshifting legally upheld in the Betamax case. As for working for free, yes I do. I contribute to numerous open source projects, give my UE pictures away for free (some are good quality), and I've recently helped a former professor review and edit a physics book (after graduation so it wasn't for suck up points, and he didn't have pull with any companies to help me get a job). "Every sound shall end in silence, but the silence never dies." - from Samuel Miller Hagemen, found written on the wall of an abandoned building blackhawk  This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information. Location: Mission Control UER newbie  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 29 on 3/19/2006 4:57 AM >   Posted by this_guy What if someone frames an LCD monitor and devotes a small form factor computer to showing pictures from a UE website, cycling every 30sec or so? What if someone visits a UE site every day and stares at every picture for 5min? The law, in the interest of objectivity, is concerned with enforcible absolutes. If some kind of personal use is allowed, all should be. The entertainment industry is changing this by trying to extend copyrights indefinitely and lobbying for legislation like the DMCA the prevents heinous crimes like me watching a legally purchased DVD in Linux. End users still retain some rights, and they're not limited to educational purposes. See, for example, timeshifting legally upheld in the Betamax case. As for working for free, yes I do. I contribute to numerous open source projects, give my UE pictures away for free (some are good quality), and I've recently helped a former professor review and edit a physics book (after graduation so it wasn't for suck up points, and he didn't have pull with any companies to help me get a job). If a person doesn't want to share their time for free that's their prerogative. This thread is about how protect your pics, not why it's ok to steal them. If you steal then your a thief. I don't work for free. As for you, if you were immortal then perhaps your time would free. Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. nd31   |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 30 on 3/19/2006 5:58 AM >   Posted by blackhawk If you steal then your a thief. It's not an issue of stealing. If someone, for example, displays a copyrighted image on their website for commercial use (without usage rights), I'd argue against labelling it theft. When an image is uploaded to the internet, it's within the public domain. A JPEG is not property in the sense of tangible ownership. Therefore, I do not believe the person has "stolen", but, instead, has violated copyright laws. I suppose it's all semantics. Anyways, aside from a photographer being weary of somebody taking their photos from the internet and claiming them as their own, there's no need to be overly concerned with your images. Even a photographer shouldn't needlessly worry about losing profits. No-one can sell prints from a copied 72dpi file from the internet. And, if you still are cautious about posting images, then don't. this_guy  Location: Chicago suburbs Gender: Male  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 31 on 3/19/2006 6:02 AM >   Posted by blackhawk If a person doesn't want to share their time for free that's their prerogative. I agree. This thread is about how protect your pics, not why it's ok to steal them. If you steal then your a thief. If someone were to come to my house, copy the contents of my hard drive and the hard drives of my backup machine, then wipe them with random data 30 times, throw my backup DVD in the microwave for about six seconds, and also stop by MSOE's NOC and expunge their drives and tapes of my data, then it might qualify as theft because they'd have my work and I wouldn't. Otherwise I really wish people would call it copyright infringement, unauthorized use, or even piracy. Theft implies something more severe that simply is not taking place. ndillon31 is right. I'm arguing semantics, but I think it's important not to equate copyright infringement with theft. I don't work for free. As for you, if you were immortal then perhaps your time would free. I have many interests but can't devote enough time to pursue them all professionally. Open source hobbyists have collectively created technologies rivaling those of billion dollar international corporations. The scientific community also thrives on freely shared information. I therefore contribute my work freely for the common good rather than appealing to the government to help me make money. As I said before, I agree that it should be your choice not to work for free, but if you want to make money I think you should provide a unique service rather than trying to charge for something that could be free. People with careers in open source software offer support, consultation, or in many cases work for companies like RedHat that make money by supporting free products. In the scientific world, people teach or get contracted for things like consulting or product development. If you want to protect your work, don't distribute it. It's that simple. (NOTE: The issue with lexiphoto was evidently a misunderstanding; the following comment isn't directed at her). If you're giving away free samples on your website to attract customers, don't complain when some of them use the samples as a substitute for your prints. Adjust the quality of your free samples in a manner that maximizes the positive effects (generating interest in your work) while minimizing the negative effects (losing sales to people satisfied with the samples). "Every sound shall end in silence, but the silence never dies." - from Samuel Miller Hagemen, found written on the wall of an abandoned building blackhawk  This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information. Location: Mission Control UER newbie  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 32 on 3/19/2006 6:47 AM >   Posted by this_guy I'm arguing semantics, but I think it's important not to equate copyright infringement with theft. Adjust the quality of your free samples in a manner that maximizes the positive effects (generating interest in your work) while minimizing the negative effects (losing sales to people satisfied with the samples). I hope you didn't pay to learn what you just said. How can you maximize a high resolution image into a low one? So the thief's copy looks good when they show it off? Yeah right...and MP3s sound as good as WAV files. I have a better idea; hammer the thief instead of cuddling them. I'm out. Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. nd31   |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 33 on 3/19/2006 7:29 AM >   Posted by blackhawk I hope you didn't pay to learn what you just said. How can you maximize a high resolution image into a low one? So the thief's copy looks good when they show it off? Yeah right...and MP3s sound as good as WAV files. I have a better idea; hammer the thief instead of cuddling them. I'm out. Uh, perhaps because you read it wrong. He said to adjust the image to maximize positive effects while minimizing negative ones. Therefore, image quality must be good enough to generate interest in purchasing prints, but should not be, say, 600 dpi 4000X6000 pixel drum-scanned, extremely high resolution files that could be easily stolen and redistributed for profit. That's not to say the sample cannot be usuable, just not for commercial purposes. Hence, any copying would be benign. [last edit 3/19/2006 7:30 AM by nd31 - edited 1 times] this_guy  Location: Chicago suburbs Gender: Male  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 34 on 3/19/2006 7:50 AM >   Posted by blackhawk ...hammer the thief instead of cuddling them. Yeah, and property owners should hammer everyone trying to profit from their abandoned buildings by taking nothing but pictures, right? By your definition, anyone selling prints who doesn't obtain permission to explore, photograph, and profit from said photographs (property owners who think like you will want a cut) is a thief. "Every sound shall end in silence, but the silence never dies." - from Samuel Miller Hagemen, found written on the wall of an abandoned building Arch-Image  Location: DFW Gender: Male "This gene pool could use a little chlorine."  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 35 on 3/19/2006 9:47 AM >   Sheesh, did some of you people eve read what you wrote! First, your "fair Use" argument, DOES NOT hold water in the court system, Copyrighted artwork is not like Music where you can make a tape of your tape to listen to at the gym while working out. someone buying a print from you, scanning it, and making additional prints for their own purposes (as opposed to buying more prints from you) is called "fair use". Did you read your comment? As opposed to buying more prints ... dont buy ... thats theft, no MY opinion, the courts, period. keep in mind the people redistributing your work also probably have reputations in their respective fields to worry about. No, In Many cases they Dont, they just want to put them on their cheesy little personal website, which then gets looked at by your potential clients who think your work sucks and you lose work. Personally, I'm an engineer not a photographer Then maybe you'll understand this, I take your engineering design, run off a few hundred blueprints, "fair use to you, I paid for one copy so I can make as many as I want, then go into production on your design. I work for an A/E firm also, and we STRICTLY enforce this any time we find a set of our plans used by someone who didnt pay for them. Why should the law distinguish between displaying your image on a computer monitor and printing and framing it? Just because you thought you could make some money? BECAUSE I THOUGHT COULD HAVE MADE MONEY ON IT! THATS THEFT! Whether I could have or not, thats not for you to call, I think Ansel Adams was a mediocre photographer and wouldnt buy one of his photos to wipe my tail with, I think Edward Weston was twice the photographer of similar bodies of work. That you think I couldnt make anything off of a shot is doesnt mean squat! What part of that dont you understand! You contradicted yourself in the same sentence. It's not an issue of stealing. If someone, for example, displays a copyrighted image on their website for commercial use (without usage rights), I'd argue against labelling it theft. When an image is uploaded to the internet, it's within the public domain. A JPEG is not property in the sense of tangible ownership. Therefore, I do not believe the person has "stolen", but, instead, has violated copyright laws. ndillon31 is right. I'm arguing semantics, but I think it's important not to equate copyright infringement with theft. The internet has basically been ruled similar to a library, if it's copyrighted and you copy and use the COMPLETE copyrighted property, A book, and image of an artwork or a photo, its copyright infringement which by LAW is classified as THEFT. Get that in your head FIRST, copyright Infringement is classified in court as THEFT, PERIOD! Therefore, image quality must be good enough to generate interest in purchasing prints, but should not be, say, 600 dpi 4000X6000 pixel drum-scanned, extremely high resolution files that could be easily stolen and redistributed for profit. That's not to say the sample cannot be useable, just not for commercial purposes. Hence, any copying would be benign. This and as someone else said about what can be done with a 72 DPI image. Ever heard of a website? IF you dont know, your on one, someone somewhere made all the images you see, pictures, bars, dots, lines, all of it, and they charge for it in alot of cases. Part of my service on any job I do includes low res photos to be used on a companies website...AT 72 DPI. I also sell stock stuff for use on websites , AT 72 DPI, I make at Minimum $50 bucks a shot for this in some cases, a few buck on others. I have made as much as $500 for a shot that was guaranteed to not be sold for any other use! Yeah, and property owners should hammer everyone trying to profit from their abandoned buildings by taking nothing but pictures, right? By your definition, anyone selling prints who doesn't obtain permission to explore, photograph, and profit from said photographs (property owners who think like you will want a cut) is a thief. Actually, if it is a shot of a single private building your correct, and it HAS been prosecuted in the courts, if its a multiple building, streetscapes for instance your clear or a public building. There is MUCH case law surrounding copyright and it's changing quickly, some will help some will be bad for artists. But first and foremost, understand copyright infringement of any kind is considered theft in the courts. "Your kid may be an honor student but YOU'RE still an IDIOT!" nd31   |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 36 on 3/19/2006 5:20 PM >   The internet has basically been ruled similar to a library, if it's copyrighted and you copy and use the COMPLETE copyrighted property, A book, and image of an artwork or a photo, its copyright infringement which by LAW is classified as THEFT. Get that in your head FIRST, copyright Infringement is classified in court as THEFT, PERIOD! I'm simply considering how it could lead to legal ambiguity. I do not once debate whether it's illegal; it is. And please could you find a specific clause labelling copyright infringement/piracy as theft, because my results have come up null. From this website: http://www.copyrig...tle17/92chap5.html The only references I can see are "The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999" and "the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act". Hence, aside from the the names of the documents, I cannot find the words steal or theft anywhere in the document. [last edit 3/19/2006 5:21 PM by nd31 - edited 1 times] Myelin  Location: The End of Canada Gender: Male  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 37 on 3/19/2006 5:23 PM >   I have been a victim of image theft and have to admit I was angry even though the image was not for "sale". It just irritated me to no end that someone took my images and posted them on their own website without so much as crediting the originator. It really changed how I treated the matter of posting my images to publicly viewable websites. Anyway...I agree it is a sad that people don't respect photographic work as intellectual *property* (and it is property!) And we can beat this subject to death and argue legal points until the cows come home, but the reality of rampant image theft won't change. Technology makes it easier than ever. People will still skeef images they see on the web and there's nothing we can do to outright stop that from happening. No more than the RIAA can stop P2P file sharing of recorded music. As such, the only thing folks like Lexiphoto can do is to watermark photos in a conspicuous location and, as already suggested, reduce the quality of website samples so they look good on the computer monitor but are not suitable for printing. Neither solution is ideal but like I said, people are going to steal media and all we can do is make it as difficult as possible. My 0.023 after PST/GST. [last edit 3/19/2006 5:24 PM by Myelin - edited 1 times] blackhawk  This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information. Location: Mission Control UER newbie  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 38 on 3/19/2006 5:58 PM >   How effective is watermarking on Jpegs? I suspect it may just be late night hacking homework for those too chinsy to buy them. Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. Glass  Location: Chicago as one does  |  |  Re: copyright issues? <Reply # 39 on 3/19/2006 6:14 PM >   Posted by blackhawk How effective is watermarking on Jpegs? I suspect it may just be late night hacking homework for those too chinsy to buy them. Depends on the opacity and the location. If you want to put a big, dead-center highlighted, shadowed watermark across your photo I can almost guarantee nobody will steal it. Or enjoy it. UER Forum > Archived UE Photography > copyright issues? (Viewed 1421 times)  1 2 3   All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire. To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site: UER CONTACT View Terms of Service | View Privacy Policy | Server colocation provided by Beanfield This page was generated for you in 171 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741720834 pages have been generated.