Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Websites  (Read 7613 times)
Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« on: January 06, 2003, 02:41:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

This is a very interesting issue. Get a good statistics program where you can search if somebody is using one of your images or linking to one of your images. Because in that case he is originating more Bandwidth on your site for which YOU will have to pay and not he.

It happened to be that I found one of my images used in a presentation of a University. They reduced the size and changed the name of the Photography.

They never asked me about the permission to use the image.

If Universities are teaching this to their students by showing them how to Infringe Copyrights, Well then Good Night!

Where is the ETHIC of such an Institution?  

At the moment I am trying to find out how I can proceed against them because of Copyright Infringement.

On the other side I have made good experiences with other people and even sold up to now about 30 images and only via Internet. People found something interesting and asked me how they could buy or use the image and so we made the business.
Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2003, 10:28:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Sergio,

I had a suscription at Digimarc (electronically embedded Watermark) and the webspyder but trying to track my images this spyder did not even find the images on my own page  :p

so I decided to cancel it. Too much cost for no result.

As you say it is a question of Ethics and Mutual respect.
Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
b.e.wilson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2003, 02:43:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not a lawyer or copyright expert, but I do remember the University of Iowa had some legal problems not to long ago, because they were reproducing articles from books and magazines for their classes.  It turned out that they had to pay the copyright holders a fee for there use even though it was for educational needs.
The way it was explained to me by our college library people, if the professor uses a copyrighted thing for his lecture, then it falls under fair use. But if the professor gives it to the student for their use, it does not. Nor does the use of copyrighted material for non-educational purposes (adornment, background images, etc) in an educational setting fall under fair use.

The application of this principle to websites was interpreted by the college to be: if you put it on your own website you must be the copyright owner or have written permission from the copyright owner, because the website is not for your own use, it is for the use of those visiting. The library went as far as to set up a special website to which only students had access, that was used to distribute materials needed for the various classes. They then hired a guy to do nothing but obtain permission (easy to obtain, evidently, if you just ask) for all the stuff the professors gave them for that website.

I don't know exactly what the law demands for fair use to be properly invoked, and perhaps my college is taking the conservative approach, but it seems clear to me that any website using one of our photos without our permission is doing so in violation of the fair use clause, with the possible exception of critique and learning from what we've done, if it is part of the class curriculum.
Logged

thelsloot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2003, 11:22:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I am thinking of starting an internet site which reports on shooting locations, and which shows my work, and possibly work of others, in connection to these reports.

If photographs are put on a site purely for this reason, is this classed as "Educational" under the term 'free use'. And are there any other legal matters I should be aware of.

For instance, if someone who provides a photograph for which the necessary permits or permission has not been granted, would the site owner be liable in any way, or would it be the copyright holder.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2003, 09:06:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The question of "fair use" is a sticky one. For example, if I review a book and reproduce the cover art, that's fair use.

But, if someone took a photograph from my site to illustrate, for example, a travel article about Yellowstone, that would not be, and I would object.

Like I said, very difficult to nail down. If in doubt, check with a lawyer, or better yet check with the person or organzation who's copyrighted work you'd like to use.

Michael
Logged
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2003, 03:42:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I happen to be reading about rights because I have also been abused in this way in the past. And I found out anybody CAN use an image for educational purposes without needing permission from the author. This seems to be an international law. Just look up the law and take the time to study it (it will take a while, but it is really worth it).
A site where you can find more information on similar subjects is www.editorialphoto.com
Sergio
Logged

sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2003, 08:38:10 AM »
ReplyReply

RS, you are right about that. However when I mentioned educational purposes I was referring to material you give your students. Not for sale and not for distribution. And it is also right it is not necessary to mention copyrights, they are already implicit in the photograph. Anyway,aside the law, it is just a matter of basic respect and ethics to ask for permission.
I think there is a way to track images thru the internet by embedding information in it. I´ll check that out as I´m not sure about this.

Sergio
Logged

thelsloot
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2003, 08:20:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your replies so far.  I did mean that we would perhaps use other peoples photos - but only with their permission (should have mentioned that).

Re: 'making profits' - if the site starts to make money for us in some way, from selling some of our photos, for example, how does that work if the people whose photos we use on the site haven't gained the necessary permits/permission to take these photos?

Also if we have taken photos in the past, in our 'amateur days', obviously therefore without permits - how does this work?  For example, some parks and places in USA say you need permits for commercial photography. Huh
Logged
rbarzill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2003, 06:08:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Generally landscapes are not copyrighted, but some buildings can be.

Landscapes are never copyrightable and you have confused yourself with copyright on buildings.

Some architectural works are copyrightable, but if you take a picture of the building than you have not infringed the architect's copyright and have created your own copyright with your new picture.  See section 120 of the Copyright Act of 1976.  The confusion might come from the fact that switching media (steel and concrete to film) does not keep you from infringing except in the case of architectural works.  


Quote
If photographs are put on a site purely for this reason, is this classed as "Educational" under the term 'free use'

You are not an educational institution or organization.  You are also not a not-for-profit-business or charitable organization.  These both create problems for "educational" and "fair use".  There are only a few specially permitted uses under the statutes and they are for the blind, the deaf, libraries, churches, charity organizations, VFW, the Elks, and use for parody.  Even these people have many restrictions such as music only, event size, notification, etc.  

Some points the court's consider (and you should too) when determining fair use are:
1.  Purpose and character of use. (i.e. Altruistic; socially desirable).  Remember that money doesn’t create a presumption of unfairness.
2.  Nature of the copyrighted work.  ( It is more likely to be fair if it’s a science hypothesis--which is considered ok to copy more of--than if it’s sculpture or photography)
3.  Amount and Substantiality of the part taken.  This is the only factor that is not determinative.
4.  Impact on potential market for the original work (This is the major weapon of the plaintiff and the biggest factor).

You should also know that there is no concept of fair use akin to “fair comment” in defamation law.



If you are worried about not having the model releases than the problem is with the person's right to privacy and not the copyright.  If you are worried about having the property release, then do not worry unless it is private property and you are selling it or using it for advertising.  Even public parks owned by private individuals cannot really restrict your use.  Private owners that allow public to roam and even areas that are just plainly visible from the street  really have no right to recovery.  They can threaten and they can sue, but it would be a very tough battle for them to recover on a copyright basis.
Logged
Dan Sroka
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2003, 11:19:03 AM »
ReplyReply

A good reference site is the Copyright office's own site. Lots of information, easy to read (relatively speaking). http://www.copyright.gov/
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2003, 09:25:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Anybody can put up a sign, that doesn't mean that the words on the sign have any legal standing. I could put up a sign on my front door stating that anyone reading it owes me $100. But that doesn't mean that I will ever be able to collect a cent. In general, one can photograph anything or anyone visible from a vantage point freely accessible to the public, such as a public street or sidewalk.

A few months ago, some punks were vandalizing some stuff across the parking lot from the building where I worked. I took some pictures of them in action, and one of them had the gall to go find a police officer and try to have me arrested for spying on him. When I explained the situation, the officer's response was that if someone is in a public place that they can be photographed by anyone for any purpose (other than stalking) so if you don't want to be photographed committing vandalism, then don't vandalize in public. I would think the same principle would extend to buildings and other landscape elements, of course, anyone with enough money can sue you for whatever they want, regardless of the legal merits of the suit.
Logged

Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2003, 06:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bruce,

That is really interesting now that you mentioned University of Iowa.

I had the same problem but with the University of Idaho.

I wrote to them and they said they would investigate why this happened and now suddenly they installed a password protected entry to that particular page.

Interesting, isn't it?

and even more interesting, because Universities are teaching their students that copyright infringement is nothing. Where is the ethics of such Institutions?

By the way here you can see a Hardcopy of the screen with my image. My photo is the one with the fishing boat under the mayan ruins.

Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
neil
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8923



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2003, 08:54:07 AM »
ReplyReply

You're generally not liable for anything until you start to make a profit from it.  Newspapers are generally not liable for model releases nor editorial opinions.  Generally landscapes are not copyrighted, but some buildings can be.  So unless you can think of something more specific your fears are not really grounded.  People will use your images if you put them up, you need to be comfortable with that.

I'll take this oportunity to shamelessly promote myself with a little story from this site.  If you hire someone to design your site when you start and get you started publishing in the proper manner, your site will be more likely to succeed and it will cost you much less in the long run than learning by all your mistakes. Take a look at my portfolio before you start the site.
Logged

Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2003, 05:16:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Sergio,

As I said in my posting: This person took one Photograph off my site, changed the size as well as the name and nowhere is a notice to whom is the author.

It could have been so easy to write a short mail saying: I am in the University of so and so and I would like to have permission to use the following image for this and that purpose. Right? To write this did not take me more than 10 seconds.

I think this is too easy like that. I take an image, print a brochure and distribute it to my customers for " education " purposes, Right? So no infringement. Very easy.

A brochure for selling something is also a way to educate somebody, Right? He reads my brochure and he gets some education. Why does he read it, because he wants to know something about my product and so after finishing reading, he learned something and got educated. Just that simple. So nobody would infringe a Copyright and all Photographers are lying dead on the street because they starved from hunger.

Why then bother in hiring a Photographer if there is so much Photography in the WWW and nowadays with so many fabulous digital image processing software, which at the long end is cheaper than buying Photography.

OK I also made it very easy now, but as you will know, every dispute is made up on interpretation and the one who has the best interpreter will win.  

I have read some of the articles in the mentioned link and it is great because you do not even have to have an announcement that the images have copyright because it is implicit that they have one because you posted them in your site. Sure if you took some others Photographers Photography and post it in your site than you will get in trouble.
Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2003, 09:49:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a lawyer or copyright expert, but I do remember the University of Iowa had some legal problems not to long ago, because they were reproducing articles from books and magazines for their classes.  It turned out that they had to pay the copyright holders a fee for there use even though it was for educational needs.
Logged

Joffre
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2003, 03:11:07 PM »
ReplyReply

On copyrighting of landscapes: There have been contradicting assertions about the copyrightability of landscapes made in this thread. Now, I don't know whether they are or not, but I do know of one landscape in California that has a prominent sign in a nearby highway pull-off that clearly states a certain cypress perched atop a tall rock in the Pacific Ocean, about 100 yds. distant, is copyrighted by so-and-so. Photos are supposedly permitted for personal use only, but no commercial use of images involving said cypress is permitted. This spot is just south of the Pebbles Beach golf course in Pacific Grove, California (where else, right?).
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad