A County Courthouse siphoned one of my online images

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

--
Ellis Vener
A working photographer since 1984.
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

Ellis Vener said:

Ellis Vener said:

...

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that the issue here is not one of legality, but one of enforcement.

Federal law trumps state law. Copyright is a federal issue, and therefore a state is not exempt from the law. However, the state can exclude itself from enforcement.

Therefore, as a practical matter, you can't go after the state for copyright infringement.

However, I don't think the state's immunity from suit extends to others. Thus a DMCA notice to the web hosting company may be effective. While you might not be able to go after the state for violating the copyright, you may be able to go after the hosting company if they don't honor the DMCA notice. Such a notice might get the web site taken down. At that point it may be easier for the website to remove the image.

if an outside firm was used to build the site, they might be a target. You could demand a licensing fee from the outside design firm.

It's possible, but a long shot, that you could go after a state employee who built the web site. Government employees generally have personal immunity for things they do as an authorized part of their job. However, you could make the case that copyright infringement was not a normal part of the employee's duties, and therefore the immunity does not apply.

.

But now we have gone into theoreticals that are likely are not applicable to the OP's situation. It likely is not worth his effort to try to hold the state responsible if they don't care.

In my opinion, his best bet is to contact the website owner and ask for a mutually acceptable remedy (perhaps a photo credit, or for them to cease use of the image). If direct negotiations are not successful, he may wish to go with a DCMA takedown notice to the web hosting company. If that doesn't work, it might not be worth it to take it any further.

The lesson here is that on a practical level, it is very hard for a small photographer to enforce his copyrights. In order to enforce copyright you literally have to make a Federal Case of the issue. That's rarely, easy nor inexpensive.

Ellis Vener said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Ds

Click to expand...

It does not matter where the web designer for Victoria county grabbed it from if he can prove that he made the image.

Click to expand...

cool i might go and record a cover of a beetles classic and put my name to it because thats exactly what photographers think they can do.

Ds

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Ds

Click to expand...

It does not matter where the web designer for Victoria county grabbed it from if he can prove that he made the image.

Click to expand...

cool i might go and record a cover of a beetles classic and put my name to it because thats exactly what photographers think they can do.

Ds

Click to expand...

Better still i might visit the local art galley and shoot a few paintings and sell prints with my signature in the corner

Ds

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds







--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Dspider said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Ds

Click to expand...

It does not matter where the web designer for Victoria county grabbed it from if he can prove that he made the image.

Click to expand...

cool i might go and record a cover of a beetles classic and put my name to it because thats exactly what photographers think they can do.

Ds

Click to expand...

Better still i might visit the local art galley and shoot a few paintings and sell prints with my signature in the corner

Ds

Click to expand...

You laugh but that is essentially what Richard Prince does.

At any rate, all you seem interested in is being argumentative. I am sorry you feel life is so frustrating.

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Ds

Click to expand...

It does not matter where the web designer for Victoria county grabbed it from if he can prove that he made the image.

Click to expand...

cool i might go and record a cover of a beetles classic and put my name to it because thats exactly what photographers think they can do.

Ds

Click to expand...

In the US, the courts have ruled that a copyright on a building does not extend to photographs of the building.

With that out of the way, let's look at your example of doing a cover of a Beatles song.

Generally a cover use the words and music of the original song. The words and tune are not changed, and the creative work is presented in the same medium as the original.

In the OP's case, the analogous situation would be to build a new building that was a copy of the original building.

.

What the OP has done, is to create a new image, where the building plays an important role. In terms of a Beatles song, an apt analogy might be to create a painting inspired by a song. Perhaps a painting that depicts Father McKenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from Eleanore Rigby's grave. Such a painting may be inspired by the song, may incorporate ideas from the song, but may not be a copyright violation.

.

But it's unfair to you not to have you better explain your position. Please help us understand your position with respect to the following questions?

Is there any type of photography that you believe involves independent creativity? If so, can you give an example?

If an artist creates a painting of a church, is that simply a copy (to the best of the artist's ability) of the building, and is no more creative than a photograph of the building?

Is a building itself a creative work of the architect? After all, the doors, windows, bricks, siding, light fixtures, etc., likely were designed by other people. Is the architect simply appropriating the work of others? Is it fair for an architect to take credit for the design of a building when he designed none of the visible components?

Are all photographs of a building equal? Are there no decisions on the part of the photographer that affect the way the image looks? If there are, then doesn't the photographer's creativity play a role in the image?

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.



In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Ellis Vener said:

Dspider said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Ds

Click to expand...

It does not matter where the web designer for Victoria county grabbed it from if he can prove that he made the image.

Click to expand...

cool i might go and record a cover of a beetles classic and put my name to it because thats exactly what photographers think they can do.

Ds

Click to expand...

Better still i might visit the local art galley and shoot a few paintings and sell prints with my signature in the corner

Ds

Click to expand...

You laugh but that is essentially what Richard Prince does.
At any rate, all you seem interested in is being argumentative. I am sorry you feel life is so frustrating.

Click to expand...

No arguments, just my thoughts on "natural law" I put up a thread a few months ago for everyone to post an image they actually created including the subject . the thread got no response ;-)

Ds

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

Click to expand...

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Ds

Michael Fryd said:

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.

In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Click to expand...

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Dspider said:

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Click to expand...

Are you an employee or do you just not take any pictures unless someone pays you to "press the shutter button" first?

No family pictures, no personal pictures - because you only press the shutter button if someone pays you first?

Who owns the pictures that you do take?

Do you own your own camera or do they need to supply you with one - one which they would want you to use?

What about lenses, lights, computers, software, etc - do they also have to provide you with all of that or pay you for the use of those things as well?

Do you ask your clients or does your clients ask you to sign a Work Made For Hire agreement?

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

Click to expand...

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Ds

Click to expand...

But that’s not the OP’s situation.

.

I am curious, do you sell copyright to the client, or merely give them an unlimited license to use the images? Do you ever give a client an exclusive license? If so, then as copyright holder, you would be the only one who could enforce copyright.



If you transfer the copyright, do you obtain permission from your client to use any of the images to market yourself?

Member said:

Member said:

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.

In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ampimagedotcom said:

Dspider said:

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Click to expand...

Are you an employee or do you just not take any pictures unless someone pays you to "press the shutter button" first?

No family pictures, no personal pictures - because you only press the shutter button if someone pays you first?

Who owns the pictures that you do take?

Do you own your own camera or do they need to supply you with one - one which they would want you to use?

What about lenses, lights, computers, software, etc - do they also have to provide you with all of that or pay you for the use of those things as well?

Do you ask your clients or does your clients ask you to sign a Work Made For Hire agreement?

Click to expand...

I own a beautiful modern studio and its not a shed or factory ,its more like a doctors surgery specifically designed and built by myself, just one of the benefits of being a qualified builder/tradie

DS

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

Click to expand...

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Ds

Click to expand...

But that’s not the OP’s situation.

.

I am curious, do you sell copyright to the client,

Click to expand...

they pay me ,the images are there's period, i build homes for people, its there home not mine. same with photos, what is it with photographers do they actually think they own someone's home because they built it ;-)

Michael Fryd said:

or merely give them an unlimited license to use the images? Do you ever give a client an exclusive license? If so, then as copyright holder, you would be the only one who could enforce copyright.

If you transfer the copyright, do you obtain permission from your client to use any of the images to market yourself?

Click to expand...

i get permission from the client to use the images for any marketing of sharing be it social media or clothing company use.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.

In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

Click to expand...

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Ds

Click to expand...

But that’s not the OP’s situation.

.

I am curious, do you sell copyright to the client,

Click to expand...

they pay me ,the images are there's period, i build homes for people, its there home not mine. same with photos, what is it with photographers do they actually think they own someone's home because they built it ;-)

Member said:

or merely give them an unlimited license to use the images? Do you ever give a client an exclusive license? If so, then as copyright holder, you would be the only one who could enforce copyright.

If you transfer the copyright, do you obtain permission from your client to use any of the images to market yourself?

Click to expand...

i get permission from the client to use the images for any marketing of sharing be it social media or clothing company use.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.

In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Click to expand...

I am intrigued....

The photography you do you assign the copyright to your clients and negotiate a license for yourself to use images for legally agreed specific purposes, yes?

If so, what do you think about such copyright infringements as per the OP situation. In other words (though not exactly analogous to the OP) where, for example, one of the client copyright owned images has been found to be used in a way the client does not like and finds the infringement happened as a direct result of your permitted usage....what do you think your/the client should do about it?

Box Brownie said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

Click to expand...

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Ds

Click to expand...

But that’s not the OP’s situation.

.

I am curious, do you sell copyright to the client,

Click to expand...

they pay me ,the images are there's period, i build homes for people, its there home not mine. same with photos, what is it with photographers do they actually think they own someone's home because they built it ;-)

Box Brownie said:

or merely give them an unlimited license to use the images? Do you ever give a client an exclusive license? If so, then as copyright holder, you would be the only one who could enforce copyright.

If you transfer the copyright, do you obtain permission from your client to use any of the images to market yourself?

Click to expand...

i get permission from the client to use the images for any marketing of sharing be it social media or clothing company use.

Box Brownie said:

Box Brownie said:

Box Brownie said:

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.

In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am intrigued....

The photography you do you assign the copyright to your clients and negotiate a license for yourself to use images for legally agreed specific purposes, yes?

If so, what do you think about such copyright infringements as per the OP situation. In other words (though not exactly analogous to the OP) where, for example, one of the client copyright owned images has been found to be used in a way the client does not like and finds the infringement happened as a direct result of your permitted usage....what do you think your/the client should do about it?

Click to expand...

your over thinking reality. concentrate on actually producing a quality product for a reasonable price is more productive.

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But that’s not the OP’s situation.

.

I am curious, do you sell copyright to the client,

Click to expand...

they pay me ,the images are there's period, i build homes for people, its there home not mine. same with photos, what is it with photographers do they actually think they own someone's home because they built it ;-)

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable business model, but not the only one.

Some builders choose to lease the building to the client. It is not uncommon for a commercial client to pay to have a building built to their specifications, and then to rent the building. The building still belongs to the builder, yet the client has a right to use it for a certain period of time.

For instance national brands like Apple, The Gap, Nike, Pottery Barn, Williams Sonoma have arrangements like this for stores.

But again, the issue here is not how you structure your business. There are multiple reasonable business models.

In the OP's situation, it seems he was not paid by anyone for the use of his image. It's as if he built a building as an example of the sort of work he can do, and someone moved in without permission and is now using the building.

Member said:

Member said:

or merely give them an unlimited license to use the images? Do you ever give a client an exclusive license? If so, then as copyright holder, you would be the only one who could enforce copyright.

If you transfer the copyright, do you obtain permission from your client to use any of the images to market yourself?

Click to expand...

i get permission from the client to use the images for any marketing of sharing be it social media or clothing company use.

Click to expand...

But the question is how do you structure the transaction? Do you transfer the copyright to the client (under US law a copyright transfer must be in writing), or do you give them an exclusive license?

The difference is that under US law, only the copyright holder can go after a copyright infringer. Unless you transfer the copyright, you are the only one who can go after a copyright infringer.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dspider said:

ampimagedotcom said:

Dspider said:

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client...

Click to expand...

Who owns the pictures that you do take?

Do you own your own camera or do they need to supply you with one - one which they would want you to use?

What about lenses, lights, computers, software, etc - do they also have to provide you with all of that or pay you for the use of those things as well?

Do you ask your clients or does your clients ask you to sign a Work Made For Hire agreement?

Click to expand...

I own a beautiful modern studio and its not a shed or factory ,its more like a doctors surgery specifically designed and built by myself...

Click to expand...

A few weeks ago when JoJo33 told us about this school that was wanting him/her to take pictures of preschoolers with their "special guest", because they wanted to "gift" a digital image to each, you simply said: "I charge $10AUD per 5x7in print when i do that sort of work. ”

Note: no mention of you getting "paid to take images" as well.

Question: would the school still get the 'digital image' that they wanted, if the parent didn’t want to pay $10AUD for a 5x7in print of their child?

Member said:

i build homes for people, its there home not mine. same with photos, what is it with photographers do they actually think they own someone's home because they built it

Click to expand...

For the same reason architects own the designs of the buildings they create, authors own the rights to their writings, songwriters the rights to their music.

And owning them they can choose to license their work or sell it outright. That is their right. They, like photographers, create something that did not exist before. They put the mental and physical work into creating it. Do you object to them being able to profit from their labor?

What your line of thinking seems to not take into account is that a photograph is a different thing from the thing, place, creature, or person depicted.

As a builder (and by that do you mean you are a contractor or a property developer?) tell me: how do you handle it when a client chooses not to pay you? If you are a contractor working from an architect’s drawings, does mere possession of a copy of the blueprints give you permission to make more buildings of the exact same design?

Dspider said:

Box Brownie said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

Michael Fryd said:

Dspider said:

Ellis Vener said:

It's not that simple or simplistic Dspider. Although it's a civil matter, the County's appropriation of his work is taking without asking or permission - otherwise known as theft.
Or do you believe that the idea of private property is nonsense?

Click to expand...

You nor the photographer know where they got the image.

Click to expand...

That's not the main issue.

Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image is not allowed, no matter where you got the image from.

Where the website got the image from might become an issue if the website needs to pay the copyright owner. In that case, the website can go after the source of the image, if the source misrepresented the photo as being available for use.

If the website got it off of social media, the website might be surprised to find out that images on social media are usually not public domain.

.

But this is a common misconception. Many people are under the impression that everything on the web is public domain. They usually get educated when they get caught using a copyrighted image without permission.

There are firms who specialize in tracking down unauthorized use and extracting licensing fees. These firms tend to have very good lawyers. They tend to win, as the law is usually on their side.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that the unauthorized user is the State of Texas which has recently adopted into the practice of screwing the little guy when it comes to taking without asking. Which is why I recommended looking up “Jim Olive vs. The University of Houston.”

Click to expand...

so i should go and sue an American university for using 1 of my extreme macros in one of there course papers ? your not serious i get more exposure just by linking the page for my own advertising

Ds

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues here.

First, education use is more likely to fall under the "fair use" rules. However, in the OP's case, the image was not being used for educational purposes.

Secondly, the issue is not whether or not compensation was fair. The issue is that the copyright holder has the right to refuse to license the image.

Suppose, without your permission I used a photo of you to promote a political candidate that you strongly opposed. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, as you got free exposure from the advertisement? What if I paid you a standard rate for the image. Would that make it OK for me to suggest to the world that you supported that candidate?

Click to expand...

I get paid to take images before i even press the shutter button, my circumstances are different, I dont wait for someone to approach me to buy my images or hope someone steels one to make a claim i provide a service to the client, same as my building work. and honest days pay for an honest days work.

Ds

Click to expand...

But that’s not the OP’s situation.

.

I am curious, do you sell copyright to the client,

Click to expand...

they pay me ,the images are there's period, i build homes for people, its there home not mine. same with photos, what is it with photographers do they actually think they own someone's home because they built it ;-)

Member said:

or merely give them an unlimited license to use the images? Do you ever give a client an exclusive license? If so, then as copyright holder, you would be the only one who could enforce copyright.

If you transfer the copyright, do you obtain permission from your client to use any of the images to market yourself?

Click to expand...

i get permission from the client to use the images for any marketing of sharing be it social media or clothing company use.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

.

But in any case, in what way does the uncredited use of the image help the OP? The image isn't credited. Any photographer can link to it and claim it's their image. The OP gets no benefit. In fact it can hurt the OP as sets a precedent that his work is not worth paying for.

In what way is it helpful to show that people who don't pay for photos use your images?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am intrigued....

The photography you do you assign the copyright to your clients and negotiate a license for yourself to use images for legally agreed specific purposes, yes?

If so, what do you think about such copyright infringements as per the OP situation. In other words (though not exactly analogous to the OP) where, for example, one of the client copyright owned images has been found to be used in a way the client does not like and finds the infringement happened as a direct result of your permitted usage....what do you think your/the client should do about it?

Click to expand...

your over thinking reality. concentrate on actually producing a quality product for a reasonable price is more productive.

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Click to expand...

What may work for you in your main trade and use the same principle in your photography sales does not mean it is the only business model, especially when it comes copyright and copyright infringement.

I wish you well in what you do but to put your case as the only approach does not recognise that as in all things, including business, "one size does not necessarily fit all'. To suggest otherwise is potentially short sighted?/