Rockwell's image of M3 is 1K$ worth!

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Even if you were following some of the fair use guidelines - for instance, including a photo as part of a critique or analysis - you'd still be in a legally grey area and open to a charge of infringement. (it happens, often, which is why Kershaw couldn't use key Capa photos in his biography, even though it discussed them extensively).

It's an infringement, end of.

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]

I've been building websites, creating images and writing code almost since the www was born. In that time I must have published tens of thousands of images and millions of lines of code. I'm more than happy for anyone to right click an image or the web page and use the media in their own projects. If that's a commercial project and they make money, then good for them. I've studied and used fragments of loads of other people's code over the years, particularly when I was learning different languages.

Share and share alike I say.

Sounds like the Chinese approach to intellectual property.

 

[kuuan]

I simply believe the www is a medium which should fundamentally be used for collaboration and information sharing...

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.]

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.

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]

This is exactly why all content that has been shared on the www should be freely available to use anywhere else on the www.

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.]

Here's another good example:

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/books.htm

Did he get permission to reproduce those book covers? Did he scan them himself or rip the ones off from Amazon (who spent a lot of money scanning and editing them)?

I bet that example looks silly because everyone is so used to seeing thumbnails like this dotted all over the web. But if copyright of images applies in one place, then it applies everywhere.

This is exactly why all content that has been shared on the www should be freely available to use anywhere else on the www.

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]

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

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

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]

. . . that doesn't make my opinion irrelevant. . . .

Well, it does, actually, until you win a precedent-setting lawsuit or persuade people to change the statutes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[taemo]

from same adorama author, saw this pop on a FB group

 

[Bob Michaels]

I simply believe the www is a medium which should fundamentally be used for collaboration and information sharing. You can use the www for commercial applications, but in doing so you have to accept that you are building your application on top of a foundation of sharing and collaboration. Sharing media is part of the www's core, which is why people shouldn't share anything they wouldn't want to be accessed and shared by billions of people.

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]

By the way...shame on all those people above who reproduced my written content without permission. My lawyers will be in touch and I'll be expecting $1000 in the post forthwith.

LOL You mean like when we click on the "quote" button? LOL

This thread just gets weirder and weirder.

 

[jsrockit]

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?

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.]

Is it not a fantasy to post copyrighted images on a platform that was designed from the groud up to enable sharing, and expect them not to be shared?

If I had a photograph published in a magazine, I wouldn’t expect them to use scanning resistant paper for that issue, especially for me, so my precious image wasn’t copied. I wouldn’t try and change a medium that works perfectly for the job it was designed to do simply because I didn’t approve of what could happen to my images. I’d stay away from the medium or ensure I only published images th

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.]

Yeah, you don’t really get sarcasm, do you?

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]

. . . Don’t break the www simply because it doesn’t support archaic copyright laws.

And don't steal, or deny common decency, simply because you have no problem with either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob Michaels]

.................. So regarding that photo: did you pay those three teenagers for their time or image rights, or perhaps take down their details so you could share any money the photograph made? Or did you expect them to give that to you for free?

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]

Whereas you’re using an information system built for sharing content, and complaining about people sharing content!

LOL

Weren`t you doing the same thing in another thread re Facebook data sharing ?

 

[Sumarongi]

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.

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]

That’s not even one percent of what they pay him in affiliate commissions.

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.