Reading mode: Light Dark

Copyright question

Go to last post
Focus Photoeditor User wrote:
..... snip........
Focus Photoeditor User said:
afaik registering the image as copyrighted does not add anything to the matter.
Click to expand...
Take a look at the U.S. Copyright Office web page and/or do some research in other areas. You might be surprised. In fact registering the image does a GREAT deal to protect your rights as a copyright holder.

In a nutshell, if you make a painting, drawing, photo, etc. then you normally own the copyright and you are the only one one who can copy and publish it.

If you don't register the copyright, then you can go after the infringing party for actual damages and the burden of proof is on you.

If; however, you register the copyright, the law provides for significant punitive damages, the very strong possibility that you will be awarded attorney's fees, and the burden of proof is shifted to the infringing party.

Bottom line: If you don't register the copyright, it's normally not worth suing (and most infringing parties realize that) If you DO register the copyright the law is strongly on your side and often you don't have to sue. Just sending a copy of the law along with the registration document has been sufficient for me to collect substantial out of court settlements on more than one occasion.

Bob
--

 
I don't think they'll let you register a painting on a wall in the street. IF they do, well that's really fascism and corporatism I am sorry, this is not the US of the constitution I know very well. Those founding fathers would be ashamed of it.
 
Bob Walters said:
If you don't register the copyright, then you can go after the infringing party for actual damages and the burden of proof is on you.

If; however, you register the copyright, the law provides for significant punitive damages, the very strong possibility that you will be awarded attorney's fees, and the burden of proof is shifted to the infringing party.
Click to expand...
register or not register, the court is the only one who can establish whether the copyright is infringed or not. It doesn't really matter who has the burden of proof, the truth is the truth, or there is infringement or there is not.
 
Focus Photoeditor User said:
I don't think they'll let you register a painting on a wall in the street.
Click to expand...
They certainly will. Read all about it on the Copyright Office website.
Focus Photoeditor User said:
IF they do, well that's really fascism and corporatism I am sorry, this is not the US of the constitution I know very well. Those founding fathers would be ashamed of it.
Click to expand...
While you're at it, read up a little bit about Fascism. It would be much more like Fascism if the government did NOT allow an artist to retain the rights to his work.

This reminds me of a young female bartender who had a prominent and rather large "NO FASCISM" tattoo; actually it was the word FASCISM with the international red circle and slash symbol, but you get the idea.

When I asked her what she thought Fascism was, she said Fascists were like her father. Further conversation revealed that her Dad was just the opposite of a Fascist, but she liked to toss that term around, I suppose because it a way for her to express her dislike of her father. It strikes me as silly to have that made into a tattoo though, especially if she doesn't know what Fascism is.

Bottom Line, The Copyright Office is not a Fascist organization. LOL

Bob
p.s. They're not a corporation either.
--

 
...to create a "work for hire" situation that transfers copyright in the case of a contracted freelancer.

If it's not explicitly written and signed as such, it's not "work for hire" and the artist owns the copyright. That's the US law.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
well you see if something is on the walls in a public place, you're forcing everyone going by to have to deal with that picture. The last thing you should do is to ask people money when they take pictures of the street with your stuff inside. This is a fascist way to understand copyrights.

The copyright is not about attacking other people's own right to take pictures on the street.This is what I call fascism, you can call it as you want.
 
Focus Photoeditor User said:
well you see if something is on the walls in a public place, you're forcing everyone going by to have to deal with that picture. The last thing you should do is to ask people money when they take pictures of the street with your stuff inside. This is a fascist way to understand copyrights.

The copyright is not about attacking other people's own right to take pictures on the street.This is what I call fascism, you can call it as you want.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty weak whenever someone reverts to Humpty Dumpty logic in an internet debate.

'There's glory for you!' Humpty Dumpty said.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Focus Photoeditor User said:
Focus Photoeditor User said:
RDKirk wrote:

it can be photographed, but distribution of those photographs without permission > would be a copyright violation.
Click to expand...
I disagree, this would apply only if you're trying to achieve copies of the copyrighted work and this should be proven in a court case. IF you're just taking pictures of a street where the copyrighted work is exposed you're clearly not trying to infringe the "COPY-RIGHT"
Click to expand...
You quoted what I wrote but seem not to have read it at all.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Focus Photoeditor User said:
well you see if something is on the walls in a public place, you're forcing everyone going by to have to deal with that picture. The last thing you should do is to ask people money when they take pictures of the street with your stuff inside. This is a fascist way to understand copyrights.

The copyright is not about attacking other people's own right to take pictures on the street.This is what I call fascism, you can call it as you want.
Click to expand...
I won't call it Fascism, I promise.

Typically, a high percentage of local property taxes is used for funding the public educational system.

I think many people reading this thread would agree that those of us who own property, are not getting a very good return on our investment.

Or perhaps it's the medical profession to blame; either too many or not enough prescription drugs are being dispensed.

It's hard to know for sure.

........ Sigh............

--

 
Thank goodness!!!!!
RDKirk said:
...to create a "work for hire" situation that transfers copyright in the case of a contracted freelancer.

If it's not explicitly written and signed as such, it's not "work for hire" and the artist owns the copyright. That's the US law.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Click to expand...
--
Ray
RJNedimyer
 
everyone has freedom of speaking and choosing the best words he thinks to be adequate to describe his concepts.
If you don't like the word "fascist" I can't do anything about that, seriously.

But you should know you're living in a world where fascim, corporatism and "slavery" is increasing. Big government, big corporations etc.. no more space for individual rights. This of course in my opinion.

Feel free to say the opposite and prove that to me, and let Alice in wonderland be just a tale not an argument for a silly point.
RDKirk said:
Focus Photoeditor User said:
well you see if something is on the walls in a public place, you're forcing everyone going by to have to deal with that picture. The last thing you should do is to ask people money when they take pictures of the street with your stuff inside. This is a fascist way to understand copyrights.

The copyright is not about attacking other people's own right to take pictures on the street.This is what I call fascism, you can call it as you want.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty weak whenever someone reverts to Humpty Dumpty logic in an internet debate.

'There's glory for you!' Humpty Dumpty said.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Click to expand...
 
Bob Walters said:
Focus Photoeditor User said:
well you see if something is on the walls in a public place, you're forcing everyone going by to have to deal with that picture. The last thing you should do is to ask people money when they take pictures of the street with your stuff inside. This is a fascist way to understand copyrights.

The copyright is not about attacking other people's own right to take pictures on the street.This is what I call fascism, you can call it as you want.
Click to expand...
I won't call it Fascism, I promise.

Typically, a high percentage of local property taxes is used for funding the public educational system.

I think many people reading this thread would agree that those of us who own property, are not getting a very good return on our investment.

Or perhaps it's the medical profession to blame; either too many or not enough prescription drugs are being dispensed.

It's hard to know for sure.

........ Sigh............

--

Click to expand...
 
I meant "if you take pictures which do not aim to be a perfect replica of the artwork", you can later sell it. They need to prove that you wanted to infringe the copyright, rather than just taking pictures of the town. Now you understand it? You seem to have a tendency to be very picky on some words but not at all on others.
RDKirk said:
Focus Photoeditor User said:
RDKirk said:
RDKirk wrote:

it can be photographed, but distribution of those photographs without permission > would be a copyright violation.
Click to expand...
I disagree, this would apply only if you're trying to achieve copies of the copyrighted work and this should be proven in a court case. IF you're just taking pictures of a street where the copyrighted work is exposed you're clearly not trying to infringe the "COPY-RIGHT"
Click to expand...
You quoted what I wrote but seem not to have read it at all.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Click to expand...
 
RDKirk said:
RDKirk said:
RDKirk said:
RDKirk wrote:

it can be photographed, but distribution of those photographs without permission > would be a copyright violation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
andI want to add, if everything which is in the street can be registered and copyrighted, do you expect people taking photos to go to every single "street artist" (there could be millions of them involved in a single shot) to get permission to sell his picture??

Your statement looks insane. However I would not surprised to know that the copyright office is an insane institution from an insane government..
 
It has a real meaning, explained by the fascists themselves--folks like Benito Mussolini, who fully defined what the social theory of fascism is.

But it doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

When people make up their own meanings for words, communication fails.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
...and you admit you didn't say what you meant.

So you don't really have a reason to be surprised that someone didn't know what you meant. That's the problem with Humpty Dumpty logic...you can't expect people to know what you mean when you invent your own meanings for words.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
not a copyright comment but what a beautiful photo!! Where was it taken?
--
seek wisdom and understanding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top