Copyright - practice what you preach?

I don't bother kicking up a fuss, I know of someone who has used more than one of my photos in websites (backgrounds on banners etc)..

It doesn't bother me all that much as I only publish on the web normally 600-800 pixels on the longest side, if they want to use that so be it, I am not going to stress myself out trying to stop it... If they want a bigger version they would have to contact me (Although only 1 company has ever 'bought' photos off me)..

But to me it is a hobby so making an income off it is not my 1st priority, I understand how people who do make a living off it would feel different.

------------
Joel - K10D/DS/SFX
My Gallery: http://www.eisner.id.au
Pentax Forum: http://www.pentaxforums.net

To BTG308

The US copyright law has been changed multiple times since 1975 and in fact does support the contiueance of copyright for 70 years after the death of the originator - Please read:
"How Long Copyright Protection Endures
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter." http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc
As for clearing up some myths about copyright go here:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Please read myth #3 about the "Public Domain"
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html
http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

Go here for more advice from people who do make a living from photography. http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/index.php

As for residuals - why should an artist be able to control the use of his creation for only a short period of time? Does the impact of the art fade over time? What about if I took an image 20 years ago and someone really likes it - copies it (steals it) and then uses it to make huge amounts of money. Do I not have reason to expect to derive monitary benefit from my original work? 15 years? where did that come from. Yeah I have images that are unpublished that are way older than that - I can't control what use they are put to --- That's is just not right.

If you copy one of my images and put in on your PC as a wallpaper - fine - that is fair use in my mind. But if you sell or give that image to a company for inclusion in a wallpaper for free or for sale site (or something similar), take credit for creating the image - then you have viloated the law - both legal statutes and moral ones.
--
PDL

I wish we could edit posts on this site.

PDL said:

snip
Do I not have reason to expect to
derive monitary benefit from my original work? 15 years? where did
that come from. Yeah I have images that are unpublished that are
way older than that - I can't control what use they are put to ---
That's is just not right.

Click to expand...

If I can't control what use they are put to -- That is just not right.

PDL said:

snip
--
PDL

Click to expand...

--
PDL

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

What non-material "things" would that be, that the creator does not
still have in his possession?

Click to expand...

The exclusive exploitation of his/her own creation.

Click to expand...

Aha. So if you purchase an item that you have been assured is
unique and one-of-a-kind, the neighbour that manages to obtain an
exactly similar item has then, in your opinion, committed theft?

Click to expand...

I really fail to see what this has to do with what I said.

But since you asked: No, it is not theft, it is wrong information by the seller. Which is another issue.

--
'I only trust those photos I have faked myself.' (Me, 2007)
http://www.jensroesner.de/
--=! Condemning proprietary batteries since 1976 !=--

Tonyb7 said:

DagT said:

I show my pictures: http://www.thrane.name
But I´m not very kind, even when when private persons use my
pictures without asking.

Click to expand...

This thread is making my head hurt, but I can't stop reading it for
some reason.

DagT,

Your imagery is fantastic.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Tonyb7 said:

One image on your site is a prime example of something I've
wondered about but never really taken the time to try to find an
answer to. In your "Somethings" gallery, you have an image (your
copyrighted work), of a corporate trademark, and what is also
likely a copyrighted poster.

I don't see any indication that you are trying to make any money
off of that photo, but could something like that still have issues
to contend with in terms of IP?

Click to expand...

Good point! Yes, I could get in trouble if I tried to sell it, especially since it might be interpreted as a not very flattering comment on the adverticing campaign. On the other hand, as it may be regarded as an expression of an opinion, I don't think thay can stop me from showing it. You can't criticize them without mentioning their name or trademark, can you?

Tonyb7 said:

I doubt the corporation in this case would mind as it is free (and
well done) advertising for them, but what if they did have an issue
with it?

Click to expand...

I doubt whether they would be able to do anything in Norway, as long as I don't sell it, but I know other countries may have different rules.

Tonyb7 said:

As one who has captured (mostly accidentally) images of trademarks
and the like, I'm wondering what my rights are in terms of
displaying/distributing such things.

Click to expand...

I sold a number of pictures including trademarks once (the job was to illustrate the use of trademarks), and then we asked for permission. It is the safest thing to do, but of course, picture like the one you mention might not be accepted in that context.

--
DagT

In addition...

I forgot to say something regarding the poster. Once you take a picture of someone elses work, like a statue, another picture (like here) the general rule is that you have a copyright for you image if you have added something "of your own" to it. In this picture I dont thing how the poster looks is essential to the picture, almost any poster having the right colours would do.

Thus, even though the poster has copyright I have the right to show it. By selling it, again, it is another issue, and though I'm not convinced that they are right in this case the copyright organisation would probably send me a letter claiming their share.
--
DagT

PDL said:

The US copyright law has been changed multiple times since 1975 and
in fact does support the contiueance of copyright for 70 years
after the death of the originator

Click to expand...

Yes, this was my point. Prior to the big change in 1976, copyrights had to be registered with the copyright office and ran for 28 years after publication with a possible extension of 14 more years, for a fee. Many argue that creativity floundered after 1978 when the new copyright regime went into effect and I tend to agree. More control does not automatically make for more creativity.

PDL said:

As for residuals - why should an artist be able to control the use
of his creation for only a short period of time?

Click to expand...

Because this is the trade-off given to the artist by the government - the public if you will. In exchange for your creating the work, we give you the exclusive right to make copies for a limited time. It was supposed to be a fair deal, a contract if you will. With copyrights expiring after 70 years after the creator died, many fail to see the incentive to create and instead corporations - distributors and middlemen - profit from the works of the original creators. See how much Stan Lee gets from the Spiderman 3 movie. How much an average band gets from a CD sale. How much the Forrest Gump script writer got. Then you can come back and tell me that today's copyrights protect the artists.

PDL said:

take credit for creating the image - then you have viloated the law -
both legal statutes and moral ones.

Click to expand...

This part, I fully agree with. Attributon is - to me - the most important right that copyright can give.

/ Richie - http://www.p-i-x.net

and come real, its not hard to do either. I think people just need to distinguish between freebie or open source vs material that are copyrighted. Many IP is available online or public, still it does not mean they are free for all to steal or use whatever !!

--

• Franka -

JensR said:

JensR said:

JensR said:

The exclusive exploitation of his/her own creation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JensR said:

JensR said:

Aha. So if you purchase an item that you have been assured is
unique and one-of-a-kind, the neighbour that manages to obtain an
exactly similar item has then, in your opinion, committed theft?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JensR said:

I really fail to see what this has to do with what I said.
But since you asked: No, it is not theft, it is wrong information
by the seller. Which is another issue.

Click to expand...

Disregard the seller. Assume your neighbour created the item himself, but still identical to your item. Has he then not bereaved you of your exclusive use of the item, quite analogous to the exclusive exploitation that you claim was lost in the other case?

/ Richie - http://www.p-i-x.net

BTG308 said:

JensR said:

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

The exclusive exploitation of his/her own creation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

Aha. So if you purchase an item that you have been assured is
unique and one-of-a-kind, the neighbour that manages to obtain an
exactly similar item has then, in your opinion, committed theft?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BTG308 said:

I really fail to see what this has to do with what I said.
But since you asked: No, it is not theft, it is wrong information
by the seller. Which is another issue.

Click to expand...

Disregard the seller. Assume your neighbour created the item
himself, but still identical to your item.

Click to expand...

Then it is not a creation. It is a replica.

Or do you mean that the neighbour randomly created the exact same item without knowing the existence of the other "copy"?

.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

Grant Hutchins said:

How much does a "Rolanda" go for? More or less than a Bolls Boyce?

Click to expand...

If he ain't selling it, it's a moot point. But again, this value lies primarily in the trademark.

Another quote which sums this up quite nicely:

"Suppose I pirate your work, put my name on it, and market it as mine. Or suppose I revise your work without your permission, and market it as yours. Have I done nothing wrong?

On the contrary, I have definitely committed a rights-violation. The rights I have violated, however, are not yours, but those of my customers. By selling one person's work as though it were the work of another., I am defrauding those who purchase the work, as surely as I would be if I sold soy steaks as beef steaks or vice versa. All you need to do is buy a copy (so you can claim to be a customer) and then bring a class-action suit against me. "

• Roderick T. Long

http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

--
/ Richie - http://www.p-i-x.net

dotnik said:

You seem to stretch the word copy the same way you stretch moral.

Click to expand...

Morals actually have very little to do with either copyrights or trademarks. They are economic tools, designed for very specific (and different) purposes and reasons.

dotnik said:

If you changed it then it would not be a copy, would it?

Click to expand...

Of course it is. Just as you were up in arms just now about someone making a painting from a photograph. That is a much more substantial change than the one I propose here but still that was argued to be an infringing copy.

/ Richie - http://www.p-i-x.net

dotnik said:

Then it is not a creation. It is a replica.

Click to expand...

Try using the word "copy".

dotnik said:

Or do you mean that the neighbour randomly created the exact same
item without knowing the existence of the other "copy"?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Whatever gave you that batty idea? But more importantly - what does it matter to Jens, what his neighbours intentions were? The facts are the same - in both cases he expected an exclusive and got a mere copy. I simply ask why it is theft in one case and not the other?

/ Richie - http://www.p-i-x.net

BTG308 said:

Grant Hutchins said:

How much does a "Rolanda" go for? More or less than a Bolls Boyce?

Click to expand...

If he ain't selling it, it's a moot point. But again, this value
lies primarily in the trademark.

Another quote which sums this up quite nicely:

"Suppose I pirate your work, put my name on it, and market it as
mine. Or suppose I revise your work without your permission, and
market it as yours. Have I done nothing wrong?

Click to expand...

It is called fraud where I come from and if you make money on this action then I can claim those money from you. Seems pretty fair to me.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

dotnik said:

It is called fraud where I come from and if you make money on this
action then I can claim those money from you. Seems pretty fair to
me.

Click to expand...

Ah, but my point is that it's the defrauded who bought the Rolando in the belief that it was a Ferrari that has the beef with the fraudster, not Ferrari themselves.

/ Richie - http://www.p-i-x.net

BTG308 said:

dotnik said:

Then it is not a creation. It is a replica.

Click to expand...

Try using the word "copy".

Click to expand...

Sorry - copy it is.

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

Or do you mean that the neighbour randomly created the exact same
item without knowing the existence of the other "copy"?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Whatever gave you that batty idea? But more
importantly - what does it matter to Jens, what his neighbours
intentions were? The facts are the same - in both cases he expected
an exclusive and got a mere copy. I simply ask why it is theft in
one case and not the other?

Click to expand...

I see. Not sure if US law is the same but where I come from I can only claim money from you in case you actually made money on the deal.

IOW You are causing me a potential lower income but I can only claim money from you in case I can actaully prove that you did.

If you stole my car and sold it to smoebody then the police will charge you for theft and I can not claim the money you made by selling the car.

In this sense there is legally a difference between theft and copyright violation. But there is the same moral codecs behind it. In my book you want to act like a parasite.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

Or do you mean that the neighbour randomly created the exact same
item without knowing the existence of the other "copy"?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Whatever gave you that batty idea?

Click to expand...

For the record: Doing the same from scratch without knowing the "original" happens and is unfortunate. It happens with patents all the time. I myself have "invented" stuff and then found out that patents have been filed for that - sometimes only 5 years or so ago.

BTG308 said:

But more
importantly - what does it matter to Jens, what his neighbours
intentions were? The facts are the same - in both cases he expected
an exclusive and got a mere copy. I simply ask why it is theft in
one case and not the other?

Click to expand...

I think I am missing something here

Case I

I sell copies of shots of Mt. Hood at sunset, shot from a public viewing platform. Someone else goes there, takes a shot, which looks exactly like mine. May he sell his version? Yes, I think.

Case II

I sell copies of a fine arts studio shot, which has a high degree of thought and artistic novelty. Someone else sees the pic, likes it and reshoots it. May he sell it? Questionable, I think, as he is not so much reproducing a common thing (Mt. Hood at sunrise) but copying my idea. It is maybe legally okay, but morally flawed.

Otherwise, the previous discussion:
===============================

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

BTG308 said:

What non-material "things" would that be, that the creator does not
still have in his possession?

Click to expand...

The exclusive exploitation of his/her own creation.

Click to expand...

Aha. So if you purchase an item that you have been assured is
unique and one-of-a-kind, the neighbour that manages to obtain an
exactly similar item has then, in your opinion, committed theft?

Click to expand...

I really fail to see what this has to do with what I said.
===============================

I say that using a photographer's image without consent is theft, as it takes the right for exclusive exploitation away from the photographer. You argue about a case of two customers who due to whatever cause have two almost identical products.

I also don't see how you can say the seller does not matter. If he promises me a unique thing and my neighbour has the same - the seller lied. If it is one of the cases I initially described, well, then the photographer/seller has to think about legal measures against my neighbour - I don't see any legal interaction between me (the customer) and my neighbour.

Jens

--
'I only trust those photos I have faked myself.' (Me, 2007)
http://www.jensroesner.de/
--=! Condemning proprietary batteries since 1976 !=--

Yep, that's wierd. Hope it doesn't happen here in the states. That is one good example of the law being very poorly enforced, misused, abused. It doesn't, however, change anything regarding the OP. Pick any law you want, in the EU or the US and you will probably find bizzare cases of the government totally muttling the enforcement or interpretation of the law. That doesn't mean the solution is to do away with laws and it is not an argument for letting anyone and everyone take whatever they find on the internet for their own (it just makes me a little more glad I live in the US).

"Not really, as several of the examples you posted actually DO make my case"

Oh really? Saying a thing doesn't make it so. Several? I only posted 3, you threw out one, please explain how any one of the other 2 examples I gave makes your case.

"if the only thing keeping them from spreading pictures is copyright, we're in much deeper trouble."

It isn't, I didn't say it was. There are other laws dealing with that issue, in addition to and probably the least of which is copyright law. But if the authorities find a way to prosecute such a brute via copyright law, why would you want to do away with it or alter it in a way that protects the perv?

"Just image the paedophile who takes the pictures himself, what good would copyright do then?"

None, and irrelevant. That would be a completely different crime and has nothing to do with the OP or my post. You just took my example to an unrelated tangent.

You might want to visit this link, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#works .

It deals with US law, so you may be arguing about laws in your country I'm not aware of. I personally see no fault with it at first reading. It also has very little to do with most of what you've posted so far but everything to do with the OP. Please pay particular attention to the section entitled, "Moral Rights for Visual Artists" and tell me why you are opposed to those ideas.

"The rights I have violated, however, are not yours, but those of my customers. By selling one person's work as though it were the work of another., I am defrauding those who purchase the work, as surely as I would be if I sold soy steaks as beef steaks or vice versa."

You have also just stolen someone else's work and I hope you would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as that would surely make you a criminal.