Legal Issues - - Copyrights on images posted here

chrishoggy · #1 10-26-2005, 04:06 AM

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 , 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.

nebgranny · #2 10-26-2005, 08:52 AM

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

twinkissed · #3 10-26-2005, 08:55 AM

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)

... 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.

Cassidy · #4 10-26-2005, 09:32 AM

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

fpellerin · #5 10-26-2005, 09:40 AM

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?

chrishoggy · #6 10-26-2005, 09:40 AM

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

.

twinkissed · #7 10-26-2005, 10:01 AM

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.

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.

twinkissed · #8 10-26-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpellerin

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.

nebgranny · #9 10-26-2005, 10:47 AM

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

Neb

Panpan · #10 10-26-2005, 10:48 AM

Copyright law is even more complex than I thought before listening to This Week in Tech issue 27". 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 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

chrishoggy · #11 10-26-2005, 11:36 AM

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

.

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.

twinkissed · #12 10-26-2005, 11:50 AM

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.

chrishoggy · #13 10-26-2005, 12:05 PM

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

It's very confusing and a VERY messy law

twinkissed · #14 10-26-2005, 12:15 PM

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.

Cameraken · #15 10-26-2005, 12:24 PM

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