Copyright

[robertdfeinman]

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it legal to embed an image from another site into your page the issue arises as to how to keep some recognition of the source of the image.

I've been thinking that the page with the image was the unit of presentation on my web site, but I realize this is no longer true. The page is skipped and the image is grabbed directly.

For example here's the way I present an image on my web site:

http://robertdfeinman.com/arizona_new_mexico/arizona_horz/pages/grand_canyon_promentory.html

So, I've now taken a new approach and added a "picture frame" to each image. In addition to providing some improved presentation that I can control, it allows me to insert the name of my site into each image as well. I could, of course, put something onto the image directly, but I prefer to leave the image pristine.

Here's how my revamped images look when seen out of context.

I suggest others think of doing something similar. If you want to create a "picture frame" I have a tip on one way to do this in tips section of my web site.

 

[user237428934]

Sorry, the frame looks really awful. Believe me.
If you have a problem with that, why don't you make a flash gallery?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I believe that Vincent van Gogh used to sign his paintings, not the frames.

 

[robertdfeinman]

I do sign the images, but a) you have to figure out my semi-legible signature and b) it doesn't tell you where to go to see more.

 

[dmr]

I sometimes "sign" my images, both prints and electronic copies, with stylized initials in the lower right corner, but that is very easily photoshopped out if anybody really cares to.

 

[colyn]

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it legal to embed an image from another site into your page the issue arises as to how to keep some recognition of the source of the image.

When did the Supreme Court make this ruling and where can I go to read this??

 

[napoleonesq]

Name?

Name?

I am a lawyer and I didn't even know about this case lol

Anyone know the name of the case? Would like to read it.

Tony

 

[Chuck Albertson]

Sorry, I didn't get that memo. When did the Supreme Court rule that you can boost someone else's image and post it on your Web page?

 

[Gumby]

Me neither.

 

[colyn]

I am a lawyer and I didn't even know about this case lol

Anyone know the name of the case? Would like to read it.

Tony

I suspect they are referring to the Orphan Works Bill which by the way is still in the House and has not been acted on.

 

[robertdfeinman]

I can't find the exact ruling, but for anyone who wants to wade through case law this site seems to have a lot of material.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n1/meyer111_text.html

 

[Bob Michaels]

Legalities aside, there is one simple rule:

If you are that worried about someone using your images in some way, don't post them on the web.

If someone wants an image bad enough, they will extract it no matter what you do.

With no reference to the OP or anyone else here on RFF, I do think that 99.9% of those worrying about people using their images don't have images worth using.