Busted: (This Could Get Interesting)

Mike Cash · 07-24-2009, 07:21 PM

Flickr Stats alerted me to a photo of mine getting a hit from some site I'd never heard of called "Skyscraper City". I tracked it down to a forum thread where folks like to snag photos off the internet and show them to each other.

I signed up.

If you're incredibly bored: Here's the link

*arpaagent* · 07-24-2009, 07:45 PM

You should also point at that photographing people in public is in fact not an infringement on their rights. Poor chaps over there, can't even make photos themselves.

Gruoso · 07-24-2009, 07:57 PM

Not the biggest expert myself but as long as the picture of the schoolgirls was not used for commercial purposes you dont need a signed release form so his/her argument doesnt hold any water.

But I also have a left hand and I could also tell you that if you are not hoping to take benefit out of that picture that you have posted on a public site then why all the fuss about copyright. One would think that you wanted to make it public.

*Blue* · 07-24-2009, 08:07 PM

The odd thing is that many of the photos that people are posting are belong to someone.

*X Man* · 07-24-2009, 08:18 PM

Japanese schoolgirls... What was the question?

Regards,
Mike

**J.Scott** · 07-24-2009, 08:25 PM

Dirty rotten thievin' bastards!
You tell 'em Mike!
This type of 'borrowing' happens all too often, I'm glad you caught him/her red handed.

Ole FoxyTails is sure getting his nighty in a bunch.
Nice try with the red herring!

'Me thinks thou doth protest too much.'*

(*Okay, it's a misquote from Hamlet, but Bill's been dead long enough that his works can be used without worry about copyright infringement.)

flippedgazelle · 07-24-2009, 09:21 PM

I'm no expert, but the posting of your photo and included attribution may fall within the parameters of the Fair Use portion of Copyright law.

Oh, duh, I just realized all this is occurring in Japan. I have no idea regarding copyright laws there.

*X Man* · 07-24-2009, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by flippedgazelle

I'm no expert, but the posting of your photo and included attribution may fall within the parameters of the Fair Use Act.

Oh, there's no such thing as a "Fair Use Doctrine". There's only blatant copyright infringement and most supposed victims of it think they're entitled to big $$$$ in damages. Not Mike Cash, but you get my point.

Fair Use as you say, U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use #s 1 and 4 would be those relevant for such a defense. Oops, you may be right.

These arguments drive me nuts... Most people don't realize that damages need to be proven in copyright cases. The fact of the matter is that Copyright and the defense of it is all but exclusively limited to those who can afford to pay to defend it.

Disney, for instance. They end up Copywriting things that began in the Public Domain! And to add insult to injury, sucessfully lobby the Feds into extending these Copyrights to damn near perpetuity. It was never meant to be that way. But, as the old saying goes, money talks and ....

So I agree. There's no damage here. If you don't want your photos to end up somewhere out of your control, don't post them for the whole world to paw over. That is unless your a gazillionaire with a chip on your shoulder.

Regards,
Mike

*k100d* · 07-24-2009, 09:53 PM

screw all this bs, good pic :P

stevebrot · 07-24-2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by X Man

Oh, there's no such thing as a "Fair Use Doctrine". There's only blatant copyright infringement and most supposed victims of it think they're entitled to big $$$$ in damages. Not Mike Cash, but you get my point.

Fair Use as you say, U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use #s 1 and 4 would be those relevant for such a defense. Oops, you may be right.

These arguments drive me nuts... Most people don't realize that damages need to be proven in copyright cases. The fact of the matter is that Copyright and the defense of it is all but exclusively limited to those who can afford to pay to defend it.

Disney, for instance. They end up Copywriting things that began in the Public Domain! And to add insult to injury, sucessfully lobby the Feds into extending these Copyrights to damn near perpetuity. It was never meant to be that way. But, as the old saying goes, money talks and ....

So I agree. There's no damage here. If you don't want your photos to end up somewhere out of your control, don't post them for the whole world to paw over. That is unless your a gazillionaire with a chip on your shoulder.

Regards,
Mike

Mike,
What is it that you are huffing in your avatar pic? I am not a lawyer, but have some experience with intellectual property. In most countries:

Copyright is established by claim and evidence of authorship alone
Government registration may bolster that claim, but is not required
The right is absolute and is not qualified by "damage" being done
Despite the right being absolute, there is also the notion that dilution by "Fair Use" is acceptable and valid within reason
Claims of benevolent trespass do not dilute the right
A copyright claim is pretty much worthless unless defended
A copyright is pretty much immortal as long as it is claimed and defended (case in point being the Happy Birthday song...)

At this point, I will shut my mouth and wait for the real lawyers to add their bit.

Steve

*smc* · 07-24-2009, 10:36 PM

Lawyers or not.....I seem to be having a hard time creating an account on the site...but when I do......"what sort of a miscreant scans sites to post photos created by others....unless someone is too lazy or incompetent to create their own?"

I hope we don't all need to start tagging our pics....

alohadave · 07-24-2009, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by smc

Lawyers or not.....I seem to be having a hard time creating an account on the site...but when I do......"what sort of a miscreant scans sites to post photos created by others....unless someone is too lazy or incompetent to create their own?"

I hope we don't all need to start tagging our pics....

They are fans of skyscrapers. Not everyone can go to every city that has a skyscraper that they want to discuss. They aren't hurting anything unless they are leaching bandwidth.

*Blue* · 07-24-2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by alohadave

They are fans of skyscrapers. Not everyone can go to every city that has a skyscraper that they want to discuss. They aren't hurting anything unless they are leaching bandwidth.

That may be but the picture linked wasn't a SkyScraper. Furthermore, with a site that big, you figure the various members could link photos that they took of skyscrapers from their area and travels.

Gooshin · 07-24-2009, 10:59 PM

i find it humorous that the person that made that post is nick'ed "FML", which nowdays stands for "**** my life", hahaaha

alohadave · 07-24-2009, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by stevebrot

Mike,
A copyright is pretty much immortal as long as it is claimed and defended (case in point being the Happy Birthday song...)

Steve

Wrong. Depending on the date it was created, the term varies, and is not 'immortal'.

For works after 2002, it's 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

With the current copyright laws, Happy Birthday will enter the Public Domain in 2030.

snopes.com: Happy Birthday Copyright