Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Paul,
True enough, but I strongly suspect that few if any photographers are likely to complain if you give an example of their work, and describe it favourably in a way that will further promote their work, or a work in which their photography appeared.
Even so, it always makes sense to ask, if you can get hold of them or their heirs and assigns. This can however be difficult with (for example) books from the 1930s and earlier. It rarely makes much sense to ask the publisher, even if they are still around, as some will claim copyright as a matter of principle, whether they own it or not.
Of course you know all this, but others may welcome the information. I am frankly astonished by FujiLove's thesis that intellectual property is worth nothing to the creator, but can be used by anyone else (including Google, etc.) to make money.
Cheers,
R.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Sounds like the Chinese approach to intellectual property.
kuuan
loves old lenses
nevertheless I'd consider common sense:
If someone likes a photo of mine, even if copyrighted, downloads it, prints it out and hangs it on the wall of his private home..maybe I won't know about it, but it would be fair if he asked me first, I'd readily give permission and feel happy about it.
If he puts in on an internet site he should ask me first, put credits, my name and where he got the image from.
If someone puts it on a commercial place, if internet site or physical shop, he not only should ask me first but also offer money.
Paul T.
Veteran
Absolutely. Of course it's all a question of degree. Copyright is always evolving - one intriguing area is how the guggenheim assert image rights over the bilbao building, and you can encounter problems even posting your own photos of the museum!
I guess intellectual property is often seen as worthless by those who haven't created any.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Resnick claimed it was a photograph of not just any old M3, but his M3. So regardless of how you feel about the applicability of copyright law to text and images on the web, he was lying. Should free use of text and images of others include appropriating them and claiming them as your own?
By the way, Adorama has now taken the article down, undoubtedly because of the hundreds of negative comments that were posted.
Paul T.
Veteran
What you cite as a 'good' example shows you have no understanding of copyright. Funny things, laws. They're actually defined, written down, and you can't make them up.
Fair use applies to (your own) photos of mass market artefacts like book and album covers. They haven't caused loss of income to the publisher, for one thing. Rockwell's use there is entirely legitimate. And of course, Amazon don't scan book covers - the publishers supply them.
I've actually, one time, had a photographer demand payment for reproduction of an album cover which featured his photo in a magazine. The case failed. (If you crop it, then it's less likely to be fair use - Jamie Reid has successfully claimed for use of crops of his Sex Pistols artworks).
David Hughes
David Hughes
When something is shared it is handed over, that's not the same as letting people look at your photos, or read your words, on the internet or on a wall, page etc.
In the past I have sweated blood for weeks to create things and finding others copying and selling them for US$35 a time isn't funny. After a lot of aggro I got it stopped but never got the money. And that's one of the reasons I don't waste too much time on today's photos...
Regards, David
In the past I have sweated blood for weeks to create things and finding others copying and selling them for US$35 a time isn't funny. After a lot of aggro I got it stopped but never got the money. And that's one of the reasons I don't waste too much time on today's photos...
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
Exactly. "Letting people look at" and even "charging people to look at" are rather different from "giving away". They are different kinds of "share". The same is true legally, however much FujiLove may indulge in fantasies.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, it does, actually, until you win a precedent-setting lawsuit or persuade people to change the statutes.
Cheers,
R.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
from same adorama author, saw this pop on a FB group
Bob Michaels
nobody special
While I believe the web is for sharing, such must be done with the creators permission and in the same context as the creator intended. I am generous with those who ask permission to reuse my work without charge in a manner that I find meritorious.
I have a photo used in a web documentary about the Daytona Beach Boardwalk. That same photo which just happened to be of a white teenage girl and two black teenage boys was used in a sexually explicit website that was racially offensive. Is that the "sharing and collaboration" Fujilove is talking about just because someone found it on my website?
css9450
Veteran
LOL You mean like when we click on the "quote" button? LOL
This thread just gets weirder and weirder.
And that is the problem with sharing... someone will always utilize it in a way that does not gel with how you see your photo or the world. Your's is an extreme example. I can only imagine how that felt.
Paul T.
Veteran
You've described your view of the world, which we've heard before - but it's inconsistent with how the world works.
Rockwell put a watermark on his pic to show at the very least he wanted credit. Someone stole the photo - and ended up paying him. End of.
You're defending an offender who pleaded guilty.
And similarly, a one-off scan of an image of a mag for your own use wold be fine. And if someone were photocopying for other use, that would be fine too - as in, it's administered and paid for, and authors (and photogs for all I know) get a few hundred dollars a year for exactly that use.
Likewise, quoting someone, as I have you, is fair use for the purpose of criticism and review - as in pointing out a statement is demonstrably ridiculous.
Paul T.
Veteran
Your other statements are so illogical it's hard to detect the ones that are purposefully ludicrous. Going on a photographers' forum and claiming it's ok to steal others' photos is just as silly as arguing for copyright of forum quotes.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And don't steal, or deny common decency, simply because you have no problem with either.
Cheers,
R.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
US Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech insures I have the right to photograph anyone in public. As a matter of courtesy, I always obtain implicit permission by their non-action to photograph any person. I also have the legal right to publish such for non commercial purposes.
US Copyright law insures that no one can download and reuse my work.
It appears that the actual law and what you wish the law was are different.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Weren`t you doing the same thing in another thread re Facebook data sharing ?
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
There are actually at least these two old, yet still interesting, threads covering the question in question:
Copyright infringement on RFF
An Open Letter to Photography Thieves
Of course, Paul T. and Roger Hicks did contribute also then
willie_901
Veteran
So what?
Adorama paid fair compensation for unauthorized commercial usage of that image. Commercial usage is usually compensated based on pixel dimensions. Pixel dimensions determine the display size for electronic and print usage. The other factor is viewership (impact). In this case, Adorama has a moderate viewership.
It is possible the copyright for water marked photo was not registered. Compensation for unauthorized usage of an unregistered photo is much lower than one where the copyright is registered. Damages for usage of an unregistered copyright are limited to actual damages (loss of income to the holder) and all profits gained by the infringer (hard to calculate).
If the copyright was registered, then Adorama could have been liable for a much higher payment. But that would require a trial. There's no guarantee the court would have awarded the maximum copyright infringement amount of $150K. It's possible the court would have awarded the original $1,000 offer.
The possible penalties for infringement of a registered US copyright are:
o actual damages and profit loss
o $200 to $150K for each instance
o all attorneys fees and court costs
o an injunction to halt usage
o impound any illegal materials
o impose a jail sentence.
An Adorama employee made a mistake. Adorama admitted to the mistake and fairly compensated the copyright owner. It's embarrassing, but Adorama made things right.
I realize Ken Rockwell would not bite the hand that feeds him. That is only common sense and how any rational person would behave.