Images found on the Internet are fair use???

I can see how photography has been devalued and pictures are pretty much worthless and the original isn't "stolen" but merely copied and used and I wonder how this affects other things which are created by one and copied by another.

For example I write songs, poems and stories all the time so suppose someone hears me singing a song I've written and goes on to record it and make a fortune. I still have my song but someone else has a copy and is using it how they see fit so I suppose there's no crime there? Also art, I draw and paint, what if I create a painting and someone copies it?

I guess that there's a legal route to take in the instances of songs (people sue each other all the time over this) and paintings and I'm struggling to see how photography differs as it's something that is created by one and copied without consent for use by another. It may not be a theft of anything physical but it is surely the theft of a creative idea, as in taking something created by another, that wasn't yours, and using it for your own ends.
 
Last edited:
I can see how photography has been devalued and pictures are pretty much worthless and the original isn't "stolen" but merely copied and used and I wonder how this affects other things which are created by one and copied by another.
Ok well this is sort of getting into semantics but...

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property and property whether physical or incorporeal therefore not necessarily having physical substance. so whilst it might not been considered that a photo cannot be stolen, intellectual property can, where intellectual property and photo are loosely interchangeable on the grounds that a photo is intellectual property.
 
Ok well this is sort of getting into semantics but...

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property and property whether physical or incorporeal therefore not necessarily having physical substance. so whilst it might not been considered that a photo cannot be stolen, intellectual property can, where intellectual property and photo are loosely interchangeable on the grounds that a photo is intellectual property.

It's difficult isn't it?

I was drawing and painting before I took my first photograph and I'd consider myself to be an artist with an interest in photography and I struggle to see the difference between what I see as art I create with a camera and art I create with a pencil or a brush. Whatever I create may be valueless to anyone else as may be some thing I was given as a present by someone I love but to me these things may be worth a great deal and there's always the remote potential that they may actually be of value or use to someone else and therefore arguably of some real measurable value as if they hadn't purloined mine or someone elses they'd presumable have to have paid for the creation of something else...

I can see that legally a keepsake or a photograph may have little if any value and the law can only compensate for actual value but a thing being monetarily worthless shouldn't be a reason for anyone else to be able to remove or copy it without consent to save themselves the bother and expense of creating it themselves. Seems common sense to me.

I know I'm wrong, when did common sense enter into anything.
 
It's difficult isn't it?

I was drawing and painting before I took my first photograph and I'd consider myself to be an artist with an interest in photography and I struggle to see the difference between what I see as art I create with a camera and art I create with a pencil or a brush. Whatever I create may be valueless to anyone else as may be some thing I was given as a present by someone I love but to me these things may be worth a great deal and there's always the remote potential that they may actually be of value or use to someone else and therefore arguably of some real measurable value as if they hadn't purloined mine or someone elses they'd presumable have to have paid for the creation of something else...

I can see that legally a keepsake or a photograph may have little if any value and the law can only compensate for actual value but a thing being monetarily worthless shouldn't be a reason for anyone else to be able to remove or copy it without consent to save themselves the bother and expense of creating it themselves. Seems common sense to me.

I know I'm wrong, when did common sense enter into anything.
Indeed. The line taken by many is. I used it on my website / social media etc to enhance my brand, influence, whatever. But if I was asked to pay for it I wouldn't have used it.

always seems a WTF statement when heard. But you know with the thinking behind that statement its like trying to reason with a 4 year old - futile.
 
There is no exception written in the statement. so It "could" apply to photographs.


Seriously? You really want to smartarse me on copyright law?

Next time you want to quote statue law, I suggest that you read the original source and not something that you have glibly cut and paste after a search on google.



Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 30, Paragraph 2:

"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."

The Association of Photographers worked their backsides off to have that exception included in the draft legislation.

They didn't do it for the ignorant to deny its existence.
 
I find this really interesting in a couple of ways. A friend of mine found that someone had posted one of his photos on Pinterest without his permission, and he had zero luck in getting them to take it down. It seems that this judge would side with Pinterest.

The other thing is the point about cropping. I've bought photos from photographers twice, once of me performing with a band and also my wedding photos. If I recall correctly, both times I was given permission to use the images how I please, as long as they were not edited in anyway. Assuming I posted one Facebook or Twitter - this judgement would seem to allow anyone to just lift the photo and crop how they please. What's to stop other edits?


George
 
Just three scenarios to muse over;

You take a picture of the Mona Lisa and post it on the internet.

You print a picture posted on the internet and photograph that picture with your own camera then publish the picture.

You 'right click' on a picture posted on the internet and hit copy.

What are the differences between the scenarios?
 
Given that no licence has been granted and the use doesn't fall under 'fair deailing':


1) Image taken on private property and therefore governed by the terms of access (ie trespass)

2) Adaptation infringement

3) Straightforward infringement
 
You print a picture posted on the internet and photograph that picture with your own camera then publish the picture.

How is this different to digitally scanning and posting. If you asked what is different to finding a picture in a magazine scanning it and publishing it the answer would be clear cut, you're still making a digital copy and hence "copyright"
 
Just three scenarios to muse over;

You take a picture of the Mona Lisa and post it on the internet.

You print a picture posted on the internet and photograph that picture with your own camera then publish the picture.

You 'right click' on a picture posted on the internet and hit copy.

What are the differences between the scenarios?
None, they are all an infringement...
Was that your point?
 
How is this different to digitally scanning and posting. If you asked what is different to finding a picture in a magazine scanning it and publishing it the answer would be clear cut, you're still making a digital copy and hence "copyright"


I'm not saying it is different - they were just three examples of copying an image.

When does ownership of a photograph happen?

Say, for example I am at a friends wedding and the pro tog has set up a picture then I stand on his shoulder and take the picture as well - have I copied everything and that image is his?
 
I'm not saying it is different - they were just three examples of copying an image.

When does ownership of a photograph happen?

Say, for example I am at a friends wedding and the pro tog has set up a picture then I stand on his shoulder and take the picture as well - have I copied everything and that image is his?


Here you go, all you need to know about copyright, with the exception of case law of course. And staute updates. But the basic principles are there.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

Happy reading..
 
Here you go, all you need to know about copyright, with the exception of case law of course. And staute updates. But the basic principles are there.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

Happy reading..

Copyright is a UK law that is dated; 1988 does not cover 'digital' photography that consists of 'ones and zeros' - changing these evr so slightly could easily get round this just like it can with patent legislation IMO.
 
Copyright is a UK law that is dated; 1988 does not cover 'digital' photography that consists of 'ones and zeros' - changing these evr so slightly could easily get round this just like it can with patent legislation IMO.


I hate to disabuse you but yes, it does.The basic principles remain exactly the same as analogue photography.
 
I hate to disabuse you but yes, it does.The basic principles remain exactly the same as analogue photography.

I think you are wrong - digital photography and analogue photography are completely different. can you show me any case law which states they are the same?

If you place an expensive watch on full view in an unlocked car then I think you are naive to expect it not to be stolen; yes, it is wrong that it is but still naive. Likewise placing an image on the world wide web and expect someone not to use it is also naive IMO. Don't expect UK Law to help you!
 
Copyright is a UK law that is dated; 1988 does not cover 'digital' photography that consists of 'ones and zeros' .
As defined in the Act:
" “photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced..."
 
. Likewise placing an image on the world wide web and expect someone not to use it is also naive IMO. Don't expect UK Law to help you!
I believe that thousands of cases of copyright breach makes that statement look beyond preposterous.

Whatever you might think, copyright still exists in the digital age and is protecting works now and in media that don’t yet exist. It’s neither beyond the law to judge nor to offer guidance. It’s quite straightforward, and you should consider whether you are misleading people before posting utter twaddle.
 
I think you are wrong - digital photography and analogue photography are completely different. can you show me any case law which states they are the same?

If you place an expensive watch on full view in an unlocked car then I think you are naive to expect it not to be stolen; yes, it is wrong that it is but still naive. Likewise placing an image on the world wide web and expect someone not to use it is also naive IMO. Don't expect UK Law to help you!


I could so easily rip apart every single line of that statement because you are just displaying your complete ignorance of copyright law and how the legal system (IPEC) works with regard to it.

Stick to coppering and leave media law to those who know what they are talking about.
 
As defined in the Act:
" “photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced..."

Section 4 (2) b for clarity.
 
I could so easily rip apart every single line of that statement because you are just displaying your complete ignorance of copyright law and how the legal system (IPEC) works with regard to it.

Stick to coppering and leave media law to those who know what they are talking about.

There is one certain thing about 'coppering' as you call it - they say it gives you a degree from the university of life - something that alot of professional photographers lack!

As I said - if you are willing to post pictures on the internet expect them to be copied IMO.
 
I've known an awful lot of policemen. Some were utterly brilliant, others were thicker than a whale meat sandwich. Same as all walks of life.

As for images on the internet - if someone wants to nick one of mine, I'd be delighted. Extra income is always welcome.
 
I believe that thousands of cases of copyright breach makes that statement look beyond preposterous.

Whatever you might think, copyright still exists in the digital age and is protecting works now and in media that don’t yet exist. It’s neither beyond the law to judge nor to offer guidance. It’s quite straightforward, and you should consider whether you are misleading people before posting utter twaddle.

From the very first post link:

'Court Rules Images That Are Found and Used From the Internet Are 'Fair Use'

This would suggest that it is you that is quoting absolute 'twaddle' Phil as the latest court ruling in the States has declared the above. As usual your abusive posts are incorrect! (Or do we just ignore what has been said in a Court of Law by a Judge?)
 
.......................

As I said - if you are willing to post pictures on the internet expect them to be copied IMO.

Sadly this is the case but it does not make it right or something that should become acceptable......................there have been examples of plagarism in music that have seen successful prosecution ~ just maybe that is a close similarity i.e. if you publish music expect to get it sampled and made use of!

There surely is a big difference to something happening to a copyrighted artistic product but when the perpetrator is found that no legal action is available or taken ~ now that is a sad old world :(
 
known an awful lot of policemen. Some were utterly brilliant, others were thicker than a whale meat sandwich. Same as all walks of life.
I've
As for images on the internet - if someone wants to nick one of mine, I'd be delighted. Extra income is always welcome.

Then I suggest you may be in the same position as the person who left the expensive watch in an unlocked car - you probably won't ever see it again and be 'out of pocket'.
 
Sadly this is the case but it does not make it right or something that should become acceptable......................there have been examples of plagarism in music that have seen successful prosecution ~ just maybe that is a close similarity i.e. if you publish music expect to get it sampled and made use of!

There surely is a big difference to something happening to a copyrighted artistic product but when the perpetrator is found that no legal action is available or taken ~ now that is a sad old world :(

Completely agree - it isn't right but an unfortunate indication of the times we live in.

I think @Bollygum hit the nail on the head - for him the internet has generated work and income that he wouldn't have previous got so it becomes a matter of weighing the 'pros' against the 'cons'. The internet is great for advertising but as a result there will be some 'theft' of images.
 
(Or do we just ignore what has been said in a Court of Law by a Judge?)

Yes, we do exactly that.

a) Because it is a finding in a completely different legal jurisdiction
b) Because that court is notoriously erronious in their findings on copyright and usually over-ruled on appeal
c) The US is one of the few copyright systems in the world that espouses 'Fair Use'. Everywhere alse uses 'Fair Dealing' which is far more restrictive.

Any other way that you'd like to male yourself look like an idiot?
 
Again, showing your total ignorance.

It is you that is being ignorant - the most recent Court ruling is what law is decided on - case law becomes law.
Unless you live in the dark ages most people realise that the internet is worldwide so UK law has very little relevance.

I suggest that you have very seldom worked with legislative law and therefore have no real understanding of the implications of rulings that have been made on internet matters worldwide.
 
Last edited:
From the very first post link:

'Court Rules Images That Are Found and Used From the Internet Are 'Fair Use'

This would suggest that it is you that is quoting absolute 'twaddle' Phil as the latest court ruling in the States has declared the above. As usual your abusive posts are incorrect! (Or do we just ignore what has been said in a Court of Law by a Judge?)
Firstly, there is a lot of dissent w/ that ruling and I highly suspect it would be overturned if pursued farther, or it will be an "outlier" in case law. Secondly, the ruling noted several mitigating circumstances that caused the judge to rule that this particular use was fair use... not that all uses of an image taken from the internet are fair use. Thirdly, it's a US ruling in regards to US law... it doesn't change squat in regards to UK/EU/other's laws. And finally, in the US the copyright protections for signatories of the Berne convention are those of the originating country... I.e. UK copyright law would be applied if it were a US infringement of a UK origin image (probably as ruled by a UK court). I believe this is a basic tenant of the Berne convention and applies across the board... the internet doesn't change anything.
 
Or do we just ignore what has been said in a Court of Law by a Judge?



mmmmmmmmmmm...................... and who is the idiot?
It is not a court of English law so it is entirely irrelevant to anything in England.
 
Firstly, there is a lot of dissent w/ that ruling and I highly suspect it would be overturned if pursued farther, or it will be an "outlier" in case law. Secondly, the ruling noted several mitigating circumstances that caused the judge to rule that this particular use was fair use... not that all uses of an image taken from the internet are fair use. Thirdly, it's a US ruling in regards to US law... it doesn't change squat in regards to UK/EU/other's laws. And finally, in the US the copyright protections for signatories of the Berne convention are those of the originating country... I.e. UK copyright law would be applied if it were a US infringement of a UK origin image (probably as ruled by a UK court). I believe this is a basic tenant of the Berne convention and applies across the board... the internet doesn't change anything.

Hi Steven,

I understand that there is a lot of dissent but it is the most current Court ruling on the matter and until it is tested then this is what will be used as a 'yard stick'. (Worldwide)

In criminal law the internet has changed UK laws in many ways - eg pornographic images posted. The UK has had to modify numerous laws to cover the internet.
 
It is not a court of English law so it is entirely irrelevant to anything in England.

Not strictly true John - see my previous post.

My argument is pretty much what you are saying - don't rely on UK law to protect you from theft of images placed on the internet.
 
Last edited:
In criminal law the internet has changed UK laws in many ways - eg pornographic images posted. The UK has had to modify numerous laws to cover the internet.
You're contradicting yourself now.

When the UK modifies a law, the modified law applies to those cases which fall into the UK's jurisdiction. But when the UK hasn't modified a law, it's the unmodified law which applies - unless and until it is modified.

So the UK *might* (*) modify its law to fall into line with this somewhat innovative ruling from the US. But unless and until that happens, it's irrelevant.

(*) but probably won't
 
It is you that is being ignorant - the most recent Court ruling is what law is decided on - case law becomes law.
Unless you live in the dark ages most people realise that the internet is worldwide so UK law has very little relevance.

I suggest that you have very seldom worked with legislative law and therefore have no real understanding of the implications of rulings that have been made on internet matters worldwide.


I'm trying to decide if you are willfully ignorant or just on a wind up. At the moment I'm voting firmly for the former.

If you want a live(ish) example of the difference between US and UK copyright law then look no further than David Slater's photographer of the macaque. Whilst in the US it was ruled that he
didn't hold the copyright, in the UK he did (and still does).

Likewise Richard Prince could never get away with his abuse of the US Fair Use laws in the EU, because they simply don't exist.
 
True until either Parliament or an English judge says otherwise.

Hi John,

in respect to internet matters UK judges will take into account what has been ruled elsewhere; although it may not alter their final decision it will be considered in their Judgement.

Likewise it really doesn't help the UK photographer 'protect' their images for use elsewhere in the world which is a shame but a sign of the times.
 
You're contradicting yourself now.

When the UK modifies a law, the modified law applies to those cases which fall into the UK's jurisdiction. But when the UK hasn't modified a law, it's the unmodified law which applies - unless and until it is modified.

So the UK *might* (*) modify its law to fall into line with this somewhat innovative ruling from the US. But unless and until that happens, it's irrelevant.

(*) but probably won't

Stewart,

all UK law is modified almost daily by case law - which then becomes the law.
 
Back
Top