A few weeks ago I was informed that an image I posted was being used by another person, with them claiming copyrights on it. It was an image i posted Here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11188&page=3&pp=15&highlight=saddleworth+moor) , but I removed it from my server not long after. I asked that person to remove the image from their site, and they have done so before I billed them for it's use.
While looking in to this I spotted that some members are using images from here as examples on their own sites. I have one on my site, but I have the written permission of the copyrights holder (not just the member who posted it) to use it.

This is just a reminder that just because an image is posted on a public forum, it doesn't mean it is open to public/commercial use/reproduction. If you do not have the permission of the copyrights holder, they are within their rights to bill you for it's use.

Chris: I just took the opportunity to look at your site. Cute little nurse you have there injecting new life into the pictures!! Wish it was really that easy!!

I just had to comment on the Hague Squad photo. My gosh ..how long did it take you to complete the coloring?? Looks like a very tedious job, and looks very good!!

Just wondering!! Nice work!! Neb

While I "completely" understand what you are saying, here is an issue I have. Let's say I ask to use a photo from someone on here. I get their permission to use it... how do I prove it's really theirs? I would have to say the best thing is if it's a photo that can't be used in any way shape or form by someone else, it's best not to post it. I personally wouldn't have a problem if I put a picture of like a boat on here and people retouched it and used it on their site. It would be great if they put "courtesy of ..." but I wouldn't hate them if they didn't. Now... if I put a before and after of a restored photo on here (which I wouldn't) and someone had it on their site like they had done it, I would be pretty upset about it. Still, I know I did it, my client would know I did it and they'll run into their own trouble when they actually have a job to do and can't give the same results. Like I said, I do understand and this isn't me trying to be rude in any way (I promise) :happy: ... I just think the whole copyright thing is way too touchy, way too involved, a lot of times unnecessary and personally think if a photo is that copyright protected it shouldn't be posted on the web. :wink:

Courtesy and morals should always prevail, but where I live, as of 8-10 years ago, a change of artwork in the capacity of 15% constituted copyright ownership by legislation, don't know how it was/is construed under international law though

I have to agree with what twinkissed says here. If it's copyrighted, don't post it or at least watermark it so it can't be readily used by someone else.

I also heard that there is a big debate right now pertaining to the fact that if you post a picture on the web, it is then considered part of the public domain (I don't really agree with that!). Has anybody heard about this?

The copyrights problem will never go away. I personally don't mind any image I have being used, as long as I say it can be used and I own the copyrights.
An image of any kind on the Internet is covered by copyrights, unless otherwise stated with a disclaimer. An example of this is one that Nebgranny spotted on my site. The image being injected is one I have done for a client. The client was the next of kin of the photographer who took the original image. As he had passed on, I asked her for permission to use the image. The image that I used that was posted on here, is of the group of men. I again had to get confirmation from the copyrights holder that I could use it, and add a copyrights notice to the image. Without these permissions, the copyrights owners can make a claim against me, as I'm making money from the use of their image on the site.

I just hope that those using any image posted here, have got written permission from the photographer and/or copyrights holder, so they can use it on their site. If not, they are leaving themselves open to people making claims against them :surprise: .

You know.... here is one more thing I was wondering about. And yes, I do agree that taking without permission opens a person up to reprocussions and that people should try to be courteous and use morals. I think it should be that way on a lot more things these days. :nod: I just know that the world has gotten out of whack and that while there are copyright laws, I would say 98% of people do not know or fully understand them or think they have a loop hole when they don't. That's why, I only post stuff on here that is in part or that even though I may own the photo... I don't care if people reproduce it.

Anyways, back to the thing I was wondering about. Let's say a client of mine has a group photo. I have their permission to post it on the web or my site but what about all the people in the photo? Do they have any way to sue me because their mug is on my website? I know that my son had an event at his school and we couldn't make a flyer to send out with the school group photos unless we had permission from all the parents of all the children in the photo.

There's just sooooo much to all this copyright, permission to use stuff. I remember when I was little I was told by my great grandmother... "It's best not to write what you don't wish those to see or let yourself be photographed. You never know whose hands it will reach." I think about that all the time. In fact it's why I don't keep a diary. I apologize if this seems to trail a bit off the original post but I think it ties in to the whole picture.

Oh and yes, the little injecting nurse is fantastic. Very creative use on your site.

I also heard that there is a big debate right now pertaining to the fact that if you post a picture on the web, it is then considered part of the public domain (I don't really agree with that!). Has anybody heard about this?

Hmmm, I hadn't heard of that yet. I like part of it and then there is something that would cause problems. First, I like the fact that if everyone knows that if something is on the web it is public domain there will be less money wasted on lawsuits and personal wars. You would post it expecting it to get used and that's that. A simple crop or adjustment to the web posted photos would separate that from the original. But.... then there is still the issue of permission to post it on the web so I don't know how that would even work. Like I said... too many laws, too many exceptions, too many issues. I wish it worked more on what goes around comes around. :bigthmb:

Hey Chris...you did not respond to my question about how long it took to color the one photo. :rainbow: Neb

Copyright law is even more complex than I thought before listening to This Week in Tech issue 27" (http://thisweekintech.com/). The rules since 1976 make it extremely difficult to follow the law in the digital domain. That's the way the major content holders want it. They ask us to trust them to prosecute only the "real criminals". However aside from this big brother issue, putting the majority of society outside the law has a corrosive effect on people's ethics.

It seems the law does not let you waive all rights to your work easily. You cannot put something in the public domain by simply declaring it so. That's the reason for the growing popularity of creative commons (http://creativecommons.org/learnmore) copyrights.

The extension of copyright to accomodate Disney and their Mickey Mouse "property" is another problem. As a culture, the people now own nothing after the impressionists.

Pierre

Sorry Neb, it was a quick colour job I did for family. It took around an hour in total as I only used 4 base colours. Cpl Hague is my Great X2 granfather :D .

On the point raise about a group photo, nobody in the photo holds copyrights to an image of themselves. The copyrights belong to the photographer who took the photo. Therefor the problem would be taken up with the photographer who should have a contract with them before taking the image.

We have something like those rules you mention in our schools. It is not for copyrights, it's to do with them being children and not being able to consent to their image being taken. Plus for their security as children against child abusers taking images.

Thanks Chris I was so unsure about that. As for the children school thing, I'm glad about it but I just didn't know if it went along with the copyright thing. I remember I wanted to post a photo of me once on a parenting board but it was where a few other people were in it with me from an old job. I didn't ever post it because I was afraid that they would sue me for posting their picture somewhere. One of those "you never know" things. So, I'm glad you said that. Kind of makes you wonder where your face could pop up though. :hat:

I still can't get my head around all the ins n outs of copyrights law, as there are so many rules that apply to different media etc. In theory an Image only becomes copyrights free on the 70th year after the death of the photographer. All clients I have, have to sign a disclaimer. This states that they hold the copyrights, or they have the permission of the copyrights holder for me to work on their image. Many people claim copyrights on an image they have worked on, but the way I have been reading it they do not. Because a restored image was created using a photo with copyrights, the restored image retains the copyrights of the original. This is because the restored and original image when taken are one and the same :surprise:
It's very confusing and a VERY messy law :confused: :confused: :confused:

:lmao: I know! It's almost as bad as figuring out whether the chicken or the egg came first. The sad thing is, the reason for all these copyrights and laws etc. all stemmed from something negative. And you're right it depends on the type of media, etc. I mean in music people sue because someone else's song "sounds like" theirs. Next people who go see the Eiffel Tower will want to sue other people who took pictures of the Eiffel Tower because it resembles theirs and might be confused with their work blah blah blah. Plus, you know it's not that I mind people using my photos for other things etc. It only becomes disheartening when the intention comes from greed. I think that's what bothers me the most and it's probably only going to get worse.

Chris.

While I understand your annoyance at someone passing your work off as their own (Flattering as it may be).

If I’ve got this right you are talking about your entry into the August Advert Competition. When T Paul posted this picture the reference was to
‘Photo from MorgueFile by bcalhoon’ (It was a Porche car)

The picture is no longer available at MorgueFile. So I can’t find out if the original had copyright.

If it Was copyright by bcalhoon then how can you call it your own?

The work/Idea/background etc may be your work but surely that does not give you copyright to the picture?

If I grab a Royalty Free picture from the Internet and change it somehow can I then call it 100% my copyright? Or is it still a royalty free Photo?

When I used to photograph weddings We used to Stamp all our work as Copyright. But I don’t do this with a restoration as I think the copyright still belongs to the original photographer and I have just repaired it.

Ken

The image I refer to was the one I used in the background of the contest. It was and still is an image in it's own right. The the post Here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11188&page=3&pp=15&highlight=saddleworth+moor) gave a link to my original photo, and the retouched version that I later used in the contest. The Image was being used as a free wallpaper on the site it was found on, but had a claim that it was copyrighted by another person.
I had no objections to it's use really, but did object to the false claims.
As it turns out I have got work from what happened, as the webmaster of the site liked the image retouch. But I started this thread to warn others that this type of thing can turn out VERY nasty, if someone decides to act on a copyrights infringement :bigthmb: .

ah, the copyright debate. tis not an easy one. and chris, your statement of The copyrights belong to the photographer who took the photo. isnt necessarily true these days, or at least not when you move over into video images or when you're going to make commercial gain off your images. take the recent trend in television, for instance. more and more you see folk's faces smudged/blocked out that have not given their consent to 'be on television' in some innocuous bit done for humor, let's say. even shows back in the day of the original Candid Camera had to get consent of those they played their tricks on before they could air that piece. and it's gotten even more so these days.

and then there's the other side of the coin. you can freely take a picture of a celebrity and use it for gain because of some clause stating something like 'because you're a public figure you're fair game'. so, it gets weirder and weirder.

and i'm sorry, but just because a picture is posted on the internet does NOT make it public domain. that's just silly nonsense. that would be like saying that Vogue magazine does not own the copyrights to the pictures they put in their magazines. i mean, come on. a picture HAS to be displayed to have any value to anyone. it's the same with music. it has to be played to have any value, but just because it is played doesnt mean it's now public domain. and if you think i'm wrong on this, just ask the RIAA lawyers ;)

the problem actually arises because a few folks abuse the copyrights. we all have violated copyrights at one time or another. the first time you cut a picture out of LIFE magazine for a school project, you were actually violating a copyright. sure, you didnt make any monetary gain and LIFE magazine wasnt about to break down the school doors and haul you to court, but nonetheless, technically, you violated a copyright.

generally speaking, i cant say this is right or legal, but for my own personal purposes, if i'm not re-selling or profiting or keeping someone else from profiting by using, i dont worry too much about it. and that includes piracy and that's why i included the clause about 'keeping someone else from profiting'. pirates may not be re-selling something, but they are certainly cutting into the profits of those that are; maybe not to the extent that the lawyers would have us believe, but nonetheless, if you got it 'for free' then someone just lost some revenue.

i've listened to this debate for years and certainly part of the problem is that the laws have changed, at least here in the U.S. Copyrights have been extended several times now. i forget the current time limit but it actually extends past a person's death now. i can sort of see this and sort of not. to me, the better cut-off date would have been 'till you die, it's yours and then it's public domain'. but, that's just me.

and this has also created a problem for those artists that work almost exclusively on other folk's work. when the copyrights were a much shorter term, a LOT of stuff came into the public domain fairly rapidly. now, there is a shortage. so, those folks who do things like musical arrangements based on someone contemporary dont have that much to work on without a legal contract. well, that's ok, but they sort of got the short end of things when the copyright terms got extended. and it's not a small group that was involved in this sort of thing.

i have thousands of pictures i've collected off the net. i use almost none of them publicly unless i know exactly where they came from and who is and isnt going to be pissed off if i use it. and i always remove anything if anyone asks me to. yes, i'll hack a part of a picture to get a texture or an arm or something of this nature to use in another picture, but it's always of a nature where nobody is going to raise an eyebrow over it and never one where i'm taking money out of someone else's pockets. and just because i'm sort of lazy and sloppy about this, i dont use many of these because i tend to not log where the picture came from, so it's hard to even give credit to where it came from, so i dont use them... much.

most folks arent going to complain if you use something they've posted on the net. it doesnt mean it's legal to do so, but generally if you use a little common sense, give credit where credit is due or point someone to the website where you got it so they can get a little advertising done, then it's usually not a big issue. that however, is NOT what the laws state, so dont try to use the 'Craig' defense in a court of law. you'll lose :)

it's sometimes an annoyance to have to dig up where you got a particular image, find the person's email, write and send the email, wait for a response and get the permission to use/post the picture (and they may say no), but i'll guarantee it's an even bigger annoyance to have to hire a lawyer, take time off from work to go to court and pay a hefty fine.

the basic rule of thumb here is, if you didnt make it, get permission and get it in writing.

and pierre, i'd be interested in hearing more of this: It seems the law does not let you waive all rights to your work easily. You cannot put something in the public domain by simply declaring it so. you're saying that if i have a photo, it's mine and i took it originaly and i post it on the net and declare that it's public domain now, that it actually isnt? that just seems whacko.

to me, the simplicity of the law shld be, if you made it, you own it for as long as you live. period. but leave it to the lawyers to hack this up and make it as complex as possible.

i also have mixed feelings on the law about if you alter it more than 15% it's then yours. as a photo hacker, i love it. as a copyright owner, i'm not so sure. i'd rather see it as something like, 'if it's recognizable of the original work, then it's still copyrighted by the original owner'.

but you can see how convoluted all this gets. if people can sue you because you took a photo of them and used it somewhere, somehow, then how long before it becomes if you take a picture of their dog they can sue you if you dont have permission, or if you took a picture of their car, or property. thus, when you went to Yellowstone National Park and took some beautiful scenic shots, you'd have to get a release from a park ranger before you could show your friends. and heaven forbid, literally, if you took a picture of the stars. why, god himself would have you court ;)

Craig

Chris.

I understand. You are talking about your Image of Saddleworth Moor.

But can anyone answer my question about using a royalty free Photo and manipulating it. Can I then claim copyright?


Photoshop. I hope you reconsider your decision about the competitions. I enjoy seeing everyone’s work.


Ken

This article - The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright (http://www.geocities.com/ambrosio_sa/myths.html) - makes for interesting reading on the subject.

Just to be safe......
© 2000 David L. Amkraut - All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce this document provided the document is reproduced in its entirety, including the information about the author and his contact information, and this copyright notice. Quotations for review, reportage, etc. are permitted as long as there is proper attribution and full contact information as follows:

"From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright,
by Los Angeles Attorney David L. Amkraut

Rô

Nice link Ro :bigthmb:

Thanks for the link Ro, but now... see... it says on there up to $150,000 per photo. That's sad. You know why? Because some people die on an operating table in Florida and the families can't even sue for that much and yet someone who sues because someone liked their picture so much they wanted to use it gets a huge load of money. It all falls around greed and as much as I try not to infringe upon this complex sad copyright law I get angered so much at these things. Why? Because I know deep down that copyright laws are only there so people can make an absurd amount of money off of basically nothing. Today the world is way too sue happy. People will eventually get what they deserve by either doing it to themselves or fate. I don't see why on things like this someone would have to make such a large profit. I mean why stop at $150,000? If that's the case... I mean maybe that photo would have brought in millions and now it won't so why not sue for that amount? Just absolutely absurd. I know this debate will go on and on until the day they find away to stick cameras in your eyeballs and forehead and see everything you do and zap you with electricity on the spot for disobeying the law. Uh oh, half the words I just typed were used by someone else somewheres else in the world.... I might be sued :mad: :devil:

And that concludes my vent for the day.. return tomorrow for another episode of "Twinkissed goes off on a tizzy" LOL :dizzy:

"Twinkissed goes off on a tizzy"Sorry, that phrase is (c) byRo 1957. You now owe me $1 billion, but I'll do a quick settle for a million bucks :tongue:

Rô

i'm sorry, Ro, but since you dont own anything you post here, you are in fact in violation of wrongfully suing and owe doug nelson a rough million ;)

Craig

and pierre, i'd be interested in hearing more of this: you're saying that if i have a photo, it's mine and i took it originaly and i post it on the net and declare that it's public domain now, that it actually isnt? that just seems whacko. The way Larry Lessig explains it, waiving your rights is a gift. The law says a gift must be tangibly delivered. This is difficult to achieve in a digital context.
I don't claim this makes sense to me, but it is the opinion of someone who teaches law at Stanford and who created the creative commons license to get around that kind of problem.

Pierre

Sorry, that phrase is (c) byRo 1957. You now owe me $1 billion, but I'll do a quick settle for a million bucks :tongue:

Rô

:lmao: Wait a second, I thought I owned the rights because it contained "my" name and now I believe you owe me a million for simply reading it.

Thanks I needed a great laugh :)

thanks pierre. sounds like another of those 'let's complicate this way beyond common sense so we can confuse and reap the profits' things.

and TK, :)

Craig

I think maybe this question belongs in your discussion. Anyway, it's something I've wondered about. Some of my paintings on PBase have over a hundred direct links to them. What are these about?

If you mean people are hot linking to the images, this isn't really a copyrights problem as such. People are displaying your work via it's original source. It's something you can stop by using an htaccess file within your image folders. If you want more info on this just let me know :nod:
Here is a quick idea of what to do:
http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet/2004/06/htaccess-prevent-hotlinking

very handy Chris... thanks for sharing the link.

Chris, it looks sorta complicated. If I do that, can I still link to it from the forums where I post my digital art?

And I've never really understood what they were doing with those hot links. For example, one painting that has like 107 direct links to it is one I did of my granddaughter on her trampoline. I can't think what possible use that could be to anybody besides me and our family.

You may find the following link helpful in answering some of these issues:

http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copyNet.htm (http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copyNet.htm)