Copyrights on images posted here

[chrishoggy]

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 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 .

[Kraellin]

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

[Cameraken]

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?


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


Ken

[byRo]

This article - The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright - 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

[chrishoggy]

Nice link Ro

[twinkissed]

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

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

[byRo]

Originally Posted by twinkissed

"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

Rô

[Kraellin]

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

[Panpan]

Originally Posted by Kraellin

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

[twinkissed]

Originally Posted by byRo

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

Rô

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

[Kraellin]

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

[raniday]

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?

[chrishoggy]

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
Here is a quick idea of what to do:
http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet...ent-hotlinking

[twinkissed]

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

[raniday]

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.