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.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.
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.
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.
Lots of other judges have found differently in other cases - this seems to be an unusual outlier judgement that may not be repeated:
https://www.trademarkandcopyrightla...even-if-you-dont-notice-the-copyright-notice/
The civilian Internet long predates the Web. Once upon a time our social media platforms were email lists, Usenet newsgroups, and telnet accessible bulletin boards.
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.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.
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.
"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."
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
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.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???
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?in much the same way, as given infinite time, a monkey with a typewriter might produce a Shakespearean sonnet.
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!
Fungi photography niche?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
You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?Copyright should remain "copyright" and the only release from it being a license - there should be no argument or deliberation.
You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?
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
That part does not apply to photographs.
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 madIt'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.
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
Hence the use of "high level analogy"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.
Hence the use of "high level analogy"
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.
"Well your car was parked in a supermarket car park and there was no indication that it was yours..."
Well I disagree and think you are wrong in this instance.Whatever level analogy, it's wrong and irrelevant. Sorry to be blunt.
You're saying there should be absolutely no concept of "fair use" then?
There is no exception written in the statement. so It "could" apply to photographs.
Copyright should remain "copyright" and the only release from it being a license - there should be no argument or deliberation.
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.Fair/unfair use doesn't negate or override copyright. It can only be rescinded or licensed by the copyright owner.
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.