[SteveM]

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.

Great....so how does Mike Cash's photos show a sky scraper?

[stevebrot]

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

I said pretty much immortal...

Steve

(Love those waffle words...)

[SteveM]

If I create a painting....show it in a gallery...then someone from japan or wherever walks into the gallery...takes a picture of it and shows it.....without my permission..I can sue....regardless of country of origin. Might not get cash from them but I sure can screw up their plans for ever travelling.
This really pisses me off....

[jct us101]

Skyscrapercity is notorious for stealing photos.

[jct us101]

But Mike, they have every right to show your photo the way they did (I hadn't looked before my previous post). They linked to your Flickr page (That is entirely inside the Flickr guidelines for them to show the photos like that) and they gave you credit for showing the photo. They didn't do anything wrong, and you were a bit out of line for telling them what you did. Flickr uses Creative Commons for it's photos, you probably should look more into that before accusing people of stealing your photos, because unless they're hosting them on their website themselves, then they're not stealing anything from you and they're even giving you credit for the photos.

[deadwolfbones]

Just out of curiosity, Mike, do you sell your photos? What exactly bothers you about the photo being "quoted" or even "stolen" there? The people there were clearly admiring the photo, which is a large part of the reason I think people take photos and post them online (not necessarily why you do it). Personally I'd be flattered.

[stevebrot]

...Flickr uses Creative Commons for it's photos...

Huh?

I have reserved all rights for my Flickr photos. The Creative Commons classifications are an option only. My only gripe with the Flickr copyright policy is that they strip the digital copyright notice that I write into the exif. I wish they would just leave the exif alone.

Back to the skyscraper guys...I like the jargon they use. They are not copying photos, they are "quoting" them.

As the owner of a copyright, I should have some control over the context and usage of a "quote". I am sure that Mike Cash would be particularly upset if his photo was captioned with something inappropriate and then attributed to him. Then again, I guess that would constitute damage.

Steve

(I actually granted rights for one of my shots...no money, just attribution...)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-24-2009 at 11:13 PM.

[lithos]

Can you shiftily replace that image, keeping the URL intact...with goatse or tubgirl (more appropriate for the subject...)

(NB: If you don't know what those are, do not google them. Consider yourself both warned and lucky.)

[stevebrot]

Can you shiftily replace that image, keeping the URL intact...with goatse or tubgirl (more appropriate for the subject...)

(NB: If you don't know what those are, do not google them. Consider yourself both warned and lucky.)

The problem with that approach is that the attribution for goatse or tubgirl would then be Mike Cash! Even worse is the possibility that he had linked through to that photo from here as well!

He might be able to remove/hide the photo and then repost with a different file name. I doubt if these guys keep close enough tabs on their stolen goods to even notice if one of them goes blank.

Steve

[jct us101]

Flickr gives you the ability to make it so people can't repost your photos, Mike Cash did not do this, so his photos are licensed to be viewed by anyone as long as they give him credit for it, which they did, so they aren't doing anything wrong by doing that. People do it even here all the time with photos.

[SteveM]

Flickr gives you the ability to make it so people can't repost your photos, Mike Cash did not do this, so his photos are licensed to be viewed by anyone as long as they give him credit for it, which they did, so they aren't doing anything wrong by doing that. People do it even here all the time with photos.

You can't repost someones work....unless they have been dead for an extended period of time. Again...you can't walk into a gallery..take a pic and post it to show that persons piece of work....same with pictures.........flickr statements....buttons....checkboxes....or whatever. If people here do it that doesn't change what is law....

[jct us101]

Yes you can according to Flickr's licensing like I said earlier. When you post photos of Flickr you're allowing them to be shared AS LONG as the people link back to the photo page. He can easily change it by not allowing people to copy his photo links, therefore changing the permissions he's giving for people to do with his photos.

[Mike Cash]

But Mike, they have every right to show your photo the way they did (I hadn't looked before my previous post). They linked to your Flickr page (That is entirely inside the Flickr guidelines for them to show the photos like that) and they gave you credit for showing the photo. They didn't do anything wrong, and you were a bit out of line for telling them what you did. Flickr uses Creative Commons for it's photos, you probably should look more into that before accusing people of stealing your photos, because unless they're hosting them on their website themselves, then they're not stealing anything from you and they're even giving you credit for the photos.

I don't wish to sound harsh, but please educate yourself a little bit regarding this sort of thing.

Flickr TOS does not equal copyright law. Just because they comply with the Flickr TOS does not mean that copyright holders are SOL. Can you show me where on Flickr it says that users agree to surrender copyright? Or where it says that all photos posted there are Creative Commons? I'll save you the trouble.....no, you can't.

You also suffer from the common misconception that so long as the site isn't hosting it they're fine. That is wrong. Regardless of where a file is hosted the image is being published on their site. Linking to the image where the copyright owner has published it is fine. Re-publishing it is a violation of copyright.

You also seem to be under the impression that attribution has anything to do with anything. Don't feel bad; lots of folks think that providing attribution is all that is required when re-publishing someone's copyrighted work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said over there.....all I really want is that when people snag one of my photos they at least tell me they're doing it. I don't even expect people to ask permission. I don't see how much more reasonable and laid-back a fellow could possibly be than that.

Yes you can according to Flickr's licensing like I said earlier. When you post photos of Flickr you're allowing them to be shared AS LONG as the people link back to the photo page. He can easily change it by not allowing people to copy his photo links, therefore changing the permissions he's giving for people to do with his photos.

What part of "All Rights Reserved" do you not understand?

[MRRiley]

Mike...

You have to be the best "sneak photographer" I've ever seen... To successfully "sneak" a photo of 4 girls crossing a public street frm the staggering distance of 3 meters and not have them notice you is a masterful accomplishment. Where you wearing harry Potter's Cloak of Invisibility or were you disguised as a mailbox?

What a bunch of putzes (putzs, putzi??? what is the plural of "putz" anyway?) you've uncovered.

Mike

[newarts]

I submit that my writing a link to an openly published image
in this post is *not* the same as copying that image.

Or is it?

Here's the source code for my posting (modified for display):

I submit that my writing a link to an openly published image {img}https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/customavatars/avatar1128_1.gif{/img}
in this post is *not* the same as copying that image.

Now just where did I copy the image shown? In fact, I've made no copy of it so far as you know. Perhaps you have, but not me!

Dave

PS Mike himself said:

...Linking to the image where the copyright owner has published it is fine. ...

Isn't that what was done?