1. Andy82

    Andy82

    Messages:
    53
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  2. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,720
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Wow!
     
  3. Uneducated_Rick

    Uneducated_Rick

    Messages:
    2,761
    Name:
    Ricky
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Although in this specific case I can see where the judge was coming from it sets too dangerous a precedent to go unchallenged.

    I expect that to be appealed against with some big organisations bank rolling a team of lawyers
     
  4. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,518
    Edit My Images:
    No
    So the judge in that summary seems to have overlooked the fact that the crop removed copyright info and that at least was an illegal act??? In that case does the state judgement also influence federal law?

    There was me thinking that in the USA photographers rights had good solid protection in law, though had to registered to get the fullest level. Here in the UK AFAIK our copyright and rights are there by default,............though in all cases "we" need to discover the infringement to then take action.
     
  5. Jase

    Jase

    Messages:
    816
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That is crazy!!!!

    Hopefully someone finds the judges address on the internet, finds his house on a street and steals everything.. ohh no wait, steels everything they need and nothing more... fair game.
     
  6. ancient_mariner

    ancient_mariner

    Messages:
    8,959
    Name:
    Toni
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Understandable but not ideal.

    TBH I would expect 'fair use' to become increasingly acceptable if the copyright holder can't provide the infringer actually made money from use or that they lost money (though in this case I'd have thought the loss was obvious - he got no royalties from a license). Perhaps there's more to this than meets they eye, and the judge was took this stance because the infringer obeyed the C&D request? Or perhaps it's the hand of the content aggregators at work, where copyright is sometimes willfully ignored by organisations like Google unless legally enforced.
     
  7. AndrewFlannigan

    AndrewFlannigan

    Messages:
    114
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The judge looked at the facts of the case and made a judgement in which he described at length the factual and legal grounds on which his decision is based. That's his job. If either party is disatisfied they may appeal and other judges will look at the grounds given in the appeal. They too will give the reasons for the decision. Once again either party may appeal if they can show sufficient grounds. Finally it may end up in the Supreme Court where a number of judges will again review the matters in dispute and render a decision in writing. That's how the law works and postings suggesting that people who disagree with a judge's decision should "find his house on a street and steal everything" might be considered a little out of order. :whistle:
     
  8. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,687
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have said it for years when people questioned why I don't put much on any website and why I don't have one of my own - if you want to retain control of your work, don't let it be put on any website. If you do, you run the risk of it being stolen. Evereyone seems to think the internet and all this anti-social media is manna from heaven, it isn't. It is the work of the devil. The original thought behind the combined use of many computers and linking them all up, dreamed up by Tim Berners-Lee (a British chap, not an American!) as a force for good, has been hijacked by people who have seen the opportunity to gain control of the population and anything they do. It is very Orwellian.
     
    andy700 likes this.
  9. Stumpy

    Stumpy

    Messages:
    553
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    And here's me thinking it was for the military, to enshure that even if several nodes were knocked out there would still be other ways for the packet (Of information) to get through. At least that's how it was described by the British system "Message Switch (MSX) in the bunker I worked in.
     
    davholla likes this.
  10. john.margetts

    john.margetts

    Messages:
    1,651
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Internet is certainly American not British. What young Tim did was design an easy way to use the Internet which is the World Wide Web. It is very common to confuse the Internet with the World Wide Web.
     
    davholla, sphexx and Phil V like this.
  11. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,518
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I thought it was originally the ARPANET mil system........but Tim Berners-Lee democratised it by developing HTML (or its precursor)..........goes to re-read up about Tim B-L
     
  12. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    713
    Edit My Images:
    No
  13. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,687
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I am sorry to say, I predate even them! My 'network' was the local Round Table/Rotary/Lions/Ladies Circle/Rotaract/Inner Wheel, the squash and rgby club, pubs, the sailing club, the fishing club, the kayak club.....and we kept a book with the alaphabet on tabs at the edge of the pages and wrote down peoples' names, address and telephone number......then someone invented the filofax and the world changed overnight! :D

    I still use this system. I know it may seem odd to the instagram generation, but it still works. Actually meeting someone, face-to-face, by knocking n their door is still a very powerful tool.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
    Graham W likes this.
  14. Bollygum

    Bollygum

    Messages:
    407
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I suppose I take the reverse view. I want my images to be seen and what better way to do that than through the internet? I side effect has been that I regularly get requests for use of the images from magazines like NatGeo and Quantum. They pay a reasonable amount depending on the use. Without the internet, photography would still be just a hobby for me. Instead I get a steady stream of commercial requests, invitations to visit many different countries plus film work with time-lapse. If you hide your talents,.you will retain full control, but at the cost of hiding them from the world. I'm not religious but I remember a parable about talents being hidden under a bushel, presumable to retain control.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018 at 1:58 PM
    sphexx likes this.
  15. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,518
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Could I suggest that your experiences show that context is important. As far as I recall your images are quite, if not highly, niche. Therefore the likelihood of copyright infringement by general publications or the public is likely more limited.

    Your particular photographic skillset is attractive to your possible target market/audience as per your remarks above re paid usage of images and even commissioned work.

    As has been pointed out before, the photography market in many(all?) sectors has changed and "adapt to survive" type replies is a mantra I hear mentioned on ocassion. Hence, those that practice their craft in the more crowded sectors (where infringement of image usage is greater) will be finding the need to adapt in ways not originally considered.

    Where will it all lead......no idea but every day can be a school day :)
     
  16. jamesev

    jamesev

    Messages:
    549
    Name:
    Jamesev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    it is quite scary that with the plethora of photos that get fired out to all sorts of social media that it has almost set the view that the ease at which photos can now taken, uploaded to the interweb, posted to social media channels followed by the next one that there is no perceived value in them and this view subsequently extends to everyone elses photo as a justification for stealing images
     
    Lensflare likes this.
  17. Oliver Pohlmann

    Oliver Pohlmann

    Messages:
    358
    Name:
    Oliver
    Edit My Images:
    No
    "The image was cropped and thus, the company were being kind so as to not use any more of the photo than was absolutely necessary."

    :LOL::LOL:
     
  18. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,518
    Edit My Images:
    No
    When I saw that phrase in the judgement it seemed to be confirming a "wrong" had been done but it was not as bad as it might have been..............a bit like the mugger who only punches you once & takes half your money was kind to you as he did not hurt you as badly as he could have done!!!!!

    It is the wierdest statement I can recall reading of in regard to a copyright infringement, especially bearing in mind this was legal judgement just much "sense" does it make???
     
  19. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,357
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    It is also a case of supply and demand.
    The almost infinite, certainly uncountable, number of digital images taken every day.
    Has devalued individual images, to the point that a vast majority have little or no discernible value.

    Professional image makers need to put considerable "Added value" into their images to make them stand apart.
    This can be in the form of the use of not easily acquired skills.
    Artistic merit
    exclusive access or other contractual limitations.
    Or the the added value of an "exclusive" news event.

    It has become difficult for anyone to distinguish between luck and skill, in the resulting image.
    in much the same way, as given infinite time, a monkey with a typewriter might produce a Shakespearean sonnet.

    The almost "accidental" everyday production of extraordinary images has become commonplace. And vastly outnumber, and often outclass the work of Professional photographers.
    It is no wonder that it is now so difficult to ascribe a value to an image.
     
    HoppyUK likes this.
  20. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,243
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's the USA - what do you expect? They take litigation to "the highest level of special"

    Copyright should remain "copyright" and the only release from it being a license - there should be no argument or deliberation. This is just pure obfuscation!

    What puzzles me about this whole thing is the fact the 'cease and desist' request was observed in the original scenario - to my mind, a tacet admission of wrongdoing.
     
  21. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,034
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The image was posted to flickr w/o watermark. The screen shot in that link does show the copyright notice on the page, but that is easy to change at any time. However, if the image was uploaded with exif/iptc intact the copyright information would also be there.

    What I really disagree with is the statement that the fact the image was previously published "broadens the scope of fair use"... WTH?
    And that the use on a commercial website on a page about "things to do in DC" while there for the festival was purely informational and non-commercial. It was obviously trying to provide additional enticement to make the trip and attend the festival.

    It sounds to me like Brammer tried to represent himself against some good lawyers and in front of a weak judge.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2018 at 2:30 PM
  22. AndrewFlannigan

    AndrewFlannigan

    Messages:
    114
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Firstly: where do you get the infinite number of monkeys? Secondly: who could possibly spend an infinite amount of time on the experiment? Thirdly: how would one know if the experiment had succeeded given you would need an infinite number of checkers to test the output of the infinite number of monkeys? Fourthly: given the belief that the Universe has a finite life and a finite physical span nothing requiring infinity can possibly exist in it so how can we try this? Finally: would the infinite population of monkeys own the copyright of the new sonnet and be able to sue everyone who has used the separate but identical Shakespeare version?

    If someone has proof that this experiment has been run and an accurate copy of a sonnet created I think we should be told! :thinking:
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2018 at 3:28 PM
  23. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,518
    Edit My Images:
    No
    :runaway:everyone :runaway: :LOL: ;)
     
  24. Bollygum

    Bollygum

    Messages:
    407
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Fungi photography niche?
    I do agree that there are a huge number of styles of photography and no one rule fits all. I just know that I wouldn't have sold a thing if I hadn't used the internet and if you use the internet, you have to accept the occasional misuse of your photos. If you want to ensure absolutely no misuse, then don't ever put anything on the internet. But then few will ever see your photos. Take your pick.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018 at 3:31 AM
    sphexx likes this.
  25. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    11,153
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?
     
  26. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,357
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Outside this no....
    Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events
     
  27. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,329
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That part does not apply to photographs.
     
  28. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,357
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    There is no exception written in the statement. so It "could" apply to photographs.
     
  29. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,167
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's a nonsense judgement, but it's also another sign that things are changing, whether we like it or not. Most people don't understand copyright, and when you explain it to them they think it's crazy, My guess is that sooner or later copyright will cease to be an automatic right and that if photographers want to protect copyright, then images will have to be actively registered and clearly marked.

    Either way though, the way things stand, if you want to make money from photographs then you need to get paid for taking them in the first place. Once an image exists and is put on-line, you might as well kiss it goodbye.
     
    omens, Terrywoodenpic and Phil V like this.
  30. jamesev

    jamesev

    Messages:
    549
    Name:
    Jamesev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    And yet if you use the high level analogy of "Well your car was parked in a supermarket car park and there was no indication that it was yours so I thought it was ok to just take it and use it as an Uber. But now you have found me out i will stop using it. However it might be prudent in future to paint your name in obvious lettering on the sides." they look at you like you're mad
     
    chuckles, davholla and john.margetts like this.
  31. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,167
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not the same thing at all. That would be theft, but copyright 'infringement' is not theft (even though photographers often use that term). Only a 'copy' is taken, the original remains untouched, and in the vast majority of cases the photographer doesn't even know about it. When that's combined with the general public perception that photographs have little or no intrinsic value (as per Terry's post #19) and that is factually true in 99.999% of cases, then it's easy to see how courts can reach the kind of judgement this thread is about.

    Edit: we need to acknowledge the fact that things have changed and that legislation drawn up in a different era is not relevant to the way that the vast majority of images are taken and used today. Current copyright laws are so widely ignored and abused that they're useless anyway. Some images do need commercial protection of course and I think we'd all be better off if new legislation was drawn up to recognise and respect this distinction.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2018 at 11:29 AM
    Terrywoodenpic likes this.
  32. jamesev

    jamesev

    Messages:
    549
    Name:
    Jamesev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hence the use of "high level analogy"
     
  33. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,167
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Whatever level analogy, it's wrong and irrelevant. Sorry to be blunt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM
  34. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,357
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    Absolutely. The only sure way of making money from photography, is through being commissioned to take them.
    Archives of photographs have been devalued by supply and demand. There are too many photographs on offer to even be able to go through them all and make a selection. usually it it quicker and easier to take or commission a new one. and at least that will be unique (for a short while)
     
  35. Ed Sutton

    Ed Sutton

    Messages:
    3,931
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Would that be a car with no number plates?
     
  36. jamesev

    jamesev

    Messages:
    549
    Name:
    Jamesev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well I disagree and think you are wrong in this instance.
     
  37. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,243
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Fair/unfair use doesn't negate or override copyright. It can only be rescinded or licensed by the copyright owner.
     
  38. st599

    st599

    Messages:
    1,494
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
    Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
     
  39. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    11,153
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm confused now. Are you now saying that fair use *should* be allowed? Because that's what this case is all about - whether the specific use of the image counted as fair use.
     
  40. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,243
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Without a shadow of doubt @StewartR , I see it this way- Any usage should show some form of acknowledgement of the author (ie, the owner of the Copyright). The copyright CANNOT be ignored and can only be rescinded or relinquished with the express permission of the owner/copyrighter through license or authorisation..... that is, to be used with permission.

    Just 'using' the image in any way does not release from Copyright - to my mind Copyright is sacrosanct. To be otherwise removes and blurs boundaries!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice