Reading mode: Light Dark

Loving this fellow and his travel street photography on Flickr

Go to last post
Saffron_Blaze said:
tedolf said:
ElviraGrey said:
yeah whatever. The op is quivering with fear now. A clown/lawyer on the internet is threatening him with legal action. Go ahead, contact the photographer. I think I've made my disgust more than clear already.
Click to expand...
As you wish.
Saffron_Blaze said:
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125072070@N08/
Click to expand...
Tedolph, Esq.
Click to expand...
Your original accusations are tedious and bankrupt of substance. The owner of those images has sharing turned on at Flickr. Using that share feature allows people to place those images into many services. When shared to a service, such as instagram, the service often makes a local copy of the image, but provides a link back to the orginal.
Click to expand...
Except that is not what the OP did here.
Saffron_Blaze said:
This meets the standard required by Flickr.
Click to expand...
No one is going to sue flicker.
Saffron_Blaze said:
This is effectively what the OP did.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. He didn't use that process. He posted a copy.
Saffron_Blaze said:
Moreover, your understanding of copyright law is profoundly lacking. Given the international jurisdiction issues in this situation, even if the author did complain, it would be fruitless and futile.
Click to expand...
It depends where he lives, doesn't it. And anyway, under the conflict of laws doctorine U.S. law would probably apply even if he doesn't live in the U.S. Besides, most countries have adhered to the Berne Convention anyway.
Saffron_Blaze said:
By visiting this Web Site, you agree that the laws of the state of Washington, without regard to principles of conflict of laws, will govern these Conditions of Use and any dispute of any sort that might arise. As such US Copyright Law would likely take precedence here and your assertions about damages and the like are contrary to the provisions of the US Copyright and the DMCA. In particular, without registering the works with the US Copyright office the ownwer could only sue for actual damages (there are none)
Click to expand...
What makes you think statutory damages do not apply?

Do you know for a fact that these photo's are not registered?

Did you check with the Copyright Office?

Did you check with the Photographer?
Saffron_Blaze said:
and would have to prove the infringement was wilful (it wasn't).
Click to expand...
Willfulness is not required for statutory damages. Willfulness is an element of an enhanced statutory damage award.

See 17 U.S.C. Secs. 412, 504.
Saffron_Blaze said:
Even if registered the tests for infringement are not passed in this situation.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Access? check.

Substantial similarity? check.

What more is needed?
Saffron_Blaze said:
Frankly, you should be banned from this site for such an accusation and your continued harassment in this matter.
Click to expand...
Why?

Are we not permitted to discuss this issue?

Has any Posting Rule been violated?

Finally, I only made one initial post on this matter. All my subsequent posts have been in response to someone else's posts. Am I not allowed to respond?
Saffron_Blaze said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/
Click to expand...
TEdolph
 
What the OP did was not materially different than using the share feature flickr provides and the copyright holder has permitted sharing. In this scenario there is no possibility the copyright holder could claim infringement given he/she is actively encouraging people to spread copies across the internet. They can't claim it is OK for facebook and instagram to make a local copy, but it is not ok for an individual.

Your behavior is trollish and given it is not even sound legal trollish behavior it should stop.
 
Saffron_Blaze said:
What the OP did was not materially different than using the share feature flickr provides and the copyright holder has permitted sharing. In this scenario there is no possibility the copyright holder could claim infringement given he/she is actively encouraging people to spread copies across the internet.
Click to expand...
Sorry. If that was the case he would not have posted his copyright notice and the language, "all rights reserved".
Saffron_Blaze said:
They can't claim it is OK for facebook and instagram to make a local copy,
Click to expand...
But it is because he has granted them a license to do so-implicitly by linking.

He did not grant the OP a license to do so.

Think about it.

What if the photographer hates DPR? What if the photographer licensed use of his images on a web site competitive to DPR? Would he really want to totally lose control of the use of his images and have them appear on DPR without his permission?

Is that consistent with his use of the Copyright Notice and "All Rights Reserved" on his front page?
Saffron_Blaze said:
but it is not ok for an individual.
Click to expand...
Actually he can.

BTW, it is not facebook or instagram that owns the copyright. It is the photographer.
Saffron_Blaze said:
Your behavior is trollish
Click to expand...
Why?

Let me ask you this:

If you took the posted images, edited them in photo shop and reposted them showing how you improved them would that be a copyright infringement?

If so, why is not the original posting here a copyright infringement?
Saffron_Blaze said:
and given it is not even sound legal trollish behavior it should stop.
Click to expand...
Well, stop posting and I will stop responding.

Saffron_Blaze said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/
Click to expand...
Tedolph
 
tedolf said:
Saffron_Blaze said:
What the OP did was not materially different than using the share feature flickr provides and the copyright holder has permitted sharing. In this scenario there is no possibility the copyright holder could claim infringement given he/she is actively encouraging people to spread copies across the internet.
Click to expand...
Sorry. If that was the case he would not have posted his copyright notice and the language, "all rights reserved".
tedolf said:
They can't claim it is OK for facebook and instagram to make a local copy,
Click to expand...
But it is because he has granted them a license to do so-implicitly by linking.

He did not grant the OP a license to do so.

Think about it.

What if the photographer hates DPR? What if the photographer licensed use of his images on a web site competitive to DPR? Would he really want to totally lose control of the use of his images and have them appear on DPR without his permission?

Is that consistent with his use of the Copyright Notice and "All Rights Reserved" on his front page?
tedolf said:
but it is not ok for an individual.
Click to expand...
Actually he can.

BTW, it is not facebook or instagram that owns the copyright. It is the photographer.
tedolf said:
Your behavior is trollish
Click to expand...
Why?

Let me ask you this:

If you took the posted images, edited them in photo shop and reposted them showing how you improved them would that be a copyright infringement?

If so, why is not the original posting here a copyright infringement?
tedolf said:
and given it is not even sound legal trollish behavior it should stop.
Click to expand...
Well, stop posting and I will stop responding.
Click to expand...
 
Saffron_Blaze said:
tedolf said:
Saffron_Blaze said:
What the OP did was not materially different than using the share feature flickr provides and the copyright holder has permitted sharing. In this scenario there is no possibility the copyright holder could claim infringement given he/she is actively encouraging people to spread copies across the internet.
Click to expand...
Sorry. If that was the case he would not have posted his copyright notice and the language, "all rights reserved".
Saffron_Blaze said:
They can't claim it is OK for facebook and instagram to make a local copy,
Click to expand...
But it is because he has granted them a license to do so-implicitly by linking.

He did not grant the OP a license to do so.

Think about it.

What if the photographer hates DPR? What if the photographer licensed use of his images on a web site competitive to DPR? Would he really want to totally lose control of the use of his images and have them appear on DPR without his permission?

Is that consistent with his use of the Copyright Notice and "All Rights Reserved" on his front page?
Saffron_Blaze said:
but it is not ok for an individual.
Click to expand...
Actually he can.

BTW, it is not facebook or instagram that owns the copyright. It is the photographer.
Saffron_Blaze said:
Your behavior is trollish
Click to expand...
Why?

Let me ask you this:

If you took the posted images, edited them in photo shop and reposted them showing how you improved them would that be a copyright infringement?

If so, why is not the original posting here a copyright infringement?
Saffron_Blaze said:
and given it is not even sound legal trollish behavior it should stop.
Click to expand...
Well, stop posting and I will stop responding.
Saffron_Blaze said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/
Click to expand...
Tedolph
Click to expand...
You don't have to apologise just because you are wrong. You continue to ignore the fact that allowing sharing on Flickr allows the type of use we see here. Flickr provides some elegant and easy ways to do this, but in each case it has the same material effect as the OP.
Click to expand...
Well at least you are abandoning the "its not copyright infringement" argument and are now arguing contract law.

The problem here is that there is no contract between the photographer and the OP.

The OP is not in contractual privity with Flickr, and clearly the photographer has not dedicated his rights to the public.
Saffron_Blaze said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/
Click to expand...
Tedolph
 
Contract law? That is just silly. The author does not enter into a contracts with Instagram, Facebook or any of those other services. It is these other services making the local copies not Flickr. Same as the OP did here.

If anything this is the author providing an explicit "fair use" provision by allowing sharing. The only caveat is that the author's moral rights are respected by the provision of a link to the source page. Again, as exemplified by the OP.

The copyright holder, while not relinquishing any rights, permits the sharing of his images with certain limitations and caveats. The OP respected both.
 
Saffron_Blaze said:
Contract law? That is just silly. The author does not enter into a contracts with Instagram, Facebook or any of those other services.
Click to expand...
You do if you post there. You accept the site's Terms of Service by using the service.
Saffron_Blaze said:
It is these other services making the local copies not Flickr. Same as the OP did here.

If anything this is the author providing an explicit "fair use" provision by allowing sharing.
Click to expand...
Who said the author allowed sharing?

Where did the author say that?

And if he did, it wouldn't be "fair use" (read the statute, I gave you the cite), it would be a license under the copyright.
Saffron_Blaze said:
The only caveat is that the author's moral rights are respected by the provision of a link to the source page. Again, as exemplified by the OP.
Click to expand...
Again, you need to read the statute. Moral Rights in the U.S. are limited to an author's right not to have his work mutilated, and not to have his name associated with something he did not create. Moral Rights in Europe are something different, even though the U.S. statute uses the same name.
Saffron_Blaze said:
The copyright holder, while not relinquishing any rights, permits the sharing of his images with certain limitations and caveats. The OP respected both.
Click to expand...
How?
Saffron_Blaze said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/
Click to expand...
Tedolph, Esq.
 
tedolf said:
Saffron_Blaze said:
Contract law? That is just silly. The author does not enter into a contracts with Instagram, Facebook or any of those other services.
Click to expand...
You do if you post there. You accept the site's Terms of Service by using the service.
tedolf said:
It is these other services making the local copies not Flickr. Same as the OP did here.

If anything this is the author providing an explicit "fair use" provision by allowing sharing.
Click to expand...
Who said the author allowed sharing?

Where did the author say that?

And if he did, it wouldn't be "fair use" (read the statute, I gave you the cite), it would be a license under the copyright.
tedolf said:
The only caveat is that the author's moral rights are respected by the provision of a link to the source page. Again, as exemplified by the OP.
Click to expand...
Again, you need to read the statute. Moral Rights in the U.S. are limited to an author's right not to have his work mutilated, and not to have his name associated with something he did not create. Moral Rights in Europe are something different, even though the U.S. statute uses the same name.
tedolf said:
The copyright holder, while not relinquishing any rights, permits the sharing of his images with certain limitations and caveats. The OP respected both.
Click to expand...
How?
Click to expand...
 
Kristian, I think you won the thread.



I took my departure of it when he challenged me on whether the individual allowed sharing (obviously ignorant of the term's context on Flickr).
 
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