[GoremanX]

I'm starting a new thread for this since it's off-topic in its original thread.

(In this post, I'm addressing all professional photographers with this mentality, not just the originator of the following quotes)

For starters, your definition of stealing is completely off. It is, in every way, stealing for someone to right click, screen grab, or by any other means obtain the image file the belongs to a photographer/creator. It doesn't matter one bit what you intend to do with it. The image, file, and every possible expression of it belong to it's creator.

Apparently there's this widespread belief among professional photographers that self-publishing on the Internet gives them greater rights as to the protection of their works (compared to publishing in a magazine, for example). There's this fear that the greater populace of the Internet is solely out to "steal" their work by copying pictures from their web site and using them in some nefarious ways.

Well I have news for you; just because you self-published on the Internet does not mean my legal rights as a viewer of your images have been stripped away. The "Fair Use" doctrine of the Copyright Act still applies, no matter which method you use to publish or how much you've paid to do it. Once you PUBLISH a work, the FAIR USE doctrine of the Copyright Act applies. It's as simple as that.

Straight from Wikipedia:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

Further, I can take any images and do whatever I want with them in the privacy of my own home. I can deface them and ruin them, post them on my wall, and feed them to my dog. I can put them on a shine and worship them. None of this is stealing, it's my legal right (at least in the country where I live). I've had this right for decades. (in this case, this is not "Fair Use" but "Personal Use")

This is no different than cutting pictures out of a magazine and using them in a scrapbook. I can even take those cut-out images, scan them, post them on my web site, and comment on them. That's just one of the many ways that the Fair Use doctrine of the Copyright Act protects me.

Your magazine theory holds not water whatsoever, because a) you paid for the magazine, and b) the magazine paid it's contributors.

That's a complete misinterpretation of the law. I'm no lawyer, but even I know enough that this theory makes no sense. The Fair Use doctrine of the Copyright Act applies to all PUBLISHED works, regardless of how it was published. Sure, Copyright was created to protect the authors and creators of works. But once you publish something, the Fair Use doctrine applies and there's nothing that can be done about it (except un-publish it, but then any copy acquired before you un-published is still fair game).

How you could think that you should be able to have access to someone's photos and that it is rude of them to try and stop you from taking them boggles my mind.

I'm not breaking into a secret server and stealing full resolution versions of pictures that are for sale. I'm browsing a public web site where someone chose to publish low-resolution versions of images. If you want to get real technical about it, those pictures on the site are all sitting on my hard disk right now because my browser cached them the moment they were loaded. So I'm not even reaching into a server, I'm just taking things that are sitting on my hard drive anyways. You provided the access on purpose. That doesn't mean nothing can be done if those pictures get used illegally, the Copyright holder has rights too.

You think photographers everywhere should just not care if their images are takeable because we should just assume that the people taking them are only doing it for legitimate reason, which there are none? You intentions don't matter one bit, even if there is a legitimate reason for you to take an image file from someone's website.

Please read that Fair Use doctrine carefully if you really think there are no legitimate reasons for re-using copyrighted published works. For example, it's perfectly legal for me to do the following:



Here I'm using someone's image for the purposes of commentary and (positive) criticism, both rights legally afforded me by the Fair Use doctrine. I added attribution to be even more fair, although I'm not legally required to do so.

That's no better than the people who steal photoshop and justify by saying it's a professional program and they aren't making any money, so why should they pay for it? Why don't I just go to the Ford dealership and steal and F-350, and say, well I'm not a construction worker, and I'm not goingto make any money off it, so why should I pay for it?

Photoshop is a licensed product. It is not a published work. Adobe sells you a license to use Photoshop, and that license has heavy restrictions, including restrictions on copying and re-distribution. Stealing Photoshop is theft and is against the law.

As for stealing a truck, that's just ridiculous. The truck is not a published work, it's a physical product that is outright sold. It has no copyright, it has no license, it's an object.

And lastly, what make you think you have any rights on my website or anyone elses?

If you don't want those low-resolution pictures used by anyone else, then don't publish them. That's just the way it is. By publishing them, you're making a conscious decision to allow others to use those pictures in a legal manner. I can write a whole novel on why this is a good thing for everyone, but this thread is already long enough.

You talk like disabling of right-click dl'ing is some infringement of your rights as an internet user.

Nope, it's not an infringement of any kind. It's just insulting. It's a slap in the face of Fair Use. It's exactly the same kind of draconian DRM measures that the RIAA has been forcing on us for years, and it's just as useless.

When people had print portfolios do you suppose that they kept multiple copies of each photo in it so there if people liked one they could just take it?

People could take them anyways. They could scan it, make a colour photocopy, take a picture of it, or all kinds of other things. This digital age of ours has made it easier to copy stuff, but it hasn't made it any less legal. And before anyone starts arguing about the lower quality of a scan, I maintain that low-resolution images already have a much lower quality than a scanned photo would.

But not everyone knows the ways around right-click disabling, so it stops some.

You know who it stops? It stops the non-technically-minded people who intend to use those pictures in a perfectly legal way. It does NOT stop those people who intend to use the pictures illegally. So in that sense, you're hindering the good people and not stopping the bad ones. But that's a philosophical debate that could go on for pages and pages.

I was debating whether to put this in this forum or in General Talk, but I decided on here because it seems a lot of professional photographers are completely ignorant of Copyright law and need to go learn about it properly for themselves. If you're going to use Copyright to protect your professional works, it's vital that you understand it. And it's vital that you understand what happens to your works once you publish them. Knowing these things is probably one of the most important parts of being a PROFESSIONAL photographer (as opposed to a really good photographer who doesn't sell pictures for a living).

I'd also recommend learning about the different ways Copyright law is applied in your country of residence. I've been using US Copyright law here as an example because the Canadian Copyright Act is pretty much identical, but it may be completely different in your country.

Now here are a few things that ARE illegal without the Copyright holder's consent:

- claiming someone else's work is your own
- using someone else's picture on your web site just to make it look nicer
- using someone else's picture on a greeting card that you distribute to friends and family
- using someone else's picture in an advertisement (this one is murky, there are different interpretations, but I feel that it's wrong)

and that's just a small sampling.

---

Last edited by GoremanX; 02-06-2010 at 05:40 PM.

I'm not sure if we have any lawyers on the forum who might be able to weigh in on this.
It would be nice if there were something we could make as a sticky, for reference purposes.

This site has some discussion from a legal standpoint on the subject of Copyright Infringement. - Photo Attorney

Your post is a bit long winded and does appear to be intended as a personal attack BTW.
Perhaps removing the User Name from all the quotes you have included would help soften it.

[JohnBee]

I'm not sure if I read right, but you can't scan and post images from a magazine on your own website(and do whatever you want with them) without explicit permission. Not even if your site is for fun, or the images are used to reference something.

The same goes for text too.

Also, is it me or does your post carry through with an air of contempt?
I can't seem to read it without getting the feeling that your rubbing something in someone elses face start to finish.

If anything, I think people would like to share their images without feeling like(the person you described in your post) is lurking in the shadows waiting for deface or use their images for terrible things. And though I'm sure it's a mere fantasy, I think that'most people would like to think that the world is not filled with angry disrespectful people.

[Ben_Edict]

I'm not sure if I read right, but you can't scan and post images from a magazine on your own website(and do whatever you want with them) without explicit permission. Not even if your site is for fun, or the images are used to reference something.

The same goes for text too.

Also, is it me or does your post carry through with an air of contempt?
I can't seem to read it without getting the feeling that your rubbing something in someone elses face start to finish.

If anything, I think people would like to share their images without feeling like(the person you described in your post) is lurking in the shadows waiting for deface or use their images for terrible things. And though I'm sure it's a mere fantasy, I think that'most people would like to think that the world is not filled with angry disrespectful people.

You are very right. FAIR USE, is meant to allow quotations for news media and scientific/scholarly purposes, nothing else. Quotes (words or pictures) are very restricted, concerning the length and the context.

It is not allowed to simply take whatever one wants onto ones own website and write a rude comment. I do not think, that any court would accept this under the fair use doctrine.

Also, in the days of the internet, this would be even more dangerous to do, as the national laws in other countries may be even stricter and more limiting the non-permissioned use - and you could get images from all over the world easily.

Ben

[GoremanX]

I'm not sure if I read right, but you can't scan and post images from a magazine on your own website(and do whatever you want with them) without explicit permission. Not even if your site is for fun, or the images are used to reference something.

Sorry, it's probably because the post is so long and gets a little tedious to read. But essentially, I'm entirely agreeing with you. It's wrong to do what you just explained. But I can scan an image from a magazine, post it on my site, and comment on it. That's legal.

The point is there are many legitimate reasons for copying Copyrighted pictures, texts and videos (among other things), whereas the person I'm quoting seems to believe there can be no legitimate reasons. He unilaterally calls it "theft".

Also, is it me or does your post carry through with an air of contempt?
I can't seem to read it without getting the feeling that your rubbing something in someone elses face start to finish.

It might, that could come from the fact that the person I'm quoting is essentially calling me a thief. That's the problem with starting a new thread using a post from another thread, the attitude of the response doesn't carry over very well.

If anything, I think people would like to share their images without feeling like(the person you described in your post) is lurking in the shadows waiting for deface or use their images for terrible things. And though I'm sure it's a mere fantasy, I think that'most people would like to think that the world is not filled with angry disrespectful people.

That's where things get touchy... do you assume everyone is a criminal and restrict ALL their rights by trying to "prevent theft"? Or do you allow everyone to retain their rights and let the law take care of the ones that abuse those rights? Personally, I vote for the second.

[GoremanX]

You are very right. FAIR USE, is meant to allow quotations for news media and scientific/scholarly purposes, nothing else. Quotes (words or pictures) are very restricted, concerning the length and the context.

It is not allowed to simply take whatever one wants onto ones own website and write a rude comment. I do not think, that any court would accept this under the fair use doctrine.

That's your interpretation of it, but is not necessarily the legal interpretation. For example, who is a reporter? Bloggers are now considered reporters according to the law. Any idiot can start up his own blog. Any posting on the Internet can be considered a blog.

Weird Al Yankovic can take another singer's work, turn it into a big joke, and publish it. He is neither a reporter, a scientist or a teacher, he does this commercially. The fact that he asks the original copyright holders for permission is only a courtesy, he does not have to do so according to the law. Many other artists do the same thing every day without permission, and it's perfectly legal. Satire is one of the rights attributed under Fair Use.

(edit: satire is not actually a right attributed under fair use, but the courts have deemed that satire is a form of commentary, and therefore allows the re-use of the copyrighted material)

Also, in the days of the internet, this would be even more dangerous to do, as the national laws in other countries may be even stricter and more limiting the non-permissioned use - and you could get images from all over the world easily.

Technically that doesn't matter. It's where you use the copyrighted material that matters, not where it originated. But I specifically mentioned that it's important to look into your own country's Copyright laws.

It might, that could come from the fact that the person I'm quoting is essentially calling me a thief. That's the problem with starting a new thread using a post from another thread, the attitude of the response doesn't carry over very well.

That makes it sound even more like this thread is somewhat of a vendetta. Perhaps you could have dealt with that aspect via PM.

Don't get me wrong, this is a worthy discussion but if the person concerned was to report
this thread, a) you might get a warning or infraction and b) the thread might be closed or deleted, effectively ending the discussion. That would be a loss to the forum.

I guess it depends on what is more important to you in this case, having the discussion or defending yourself.

[GoremanX]

Your post is a bit long winded and does appear to be intended as a personal attack BTW.
Perhaps removing the User Name from all the quotes you have included would help soften it.

Also, is it me or does your post carry through with an air of contempt?
I can't seem to read it without getting the feeling that your rubbing something in someone elses face start to finish.

You're both right, so I've gone through and performed some strategic edits to try and soften the "attack" tone a bit. I'll gladly accept other suggestions if it still comes off as too harsh, but a certain level of harshness is intended here. These are my own rights I'm discussing, and it annoys me to no end that professional photographers can sit there and tell me these rights don't exist.

You're both right, so I've gone through and performed some strategic edits to try and soften the "attack" tone a bit. I'll gladly accept other suggestions if it still comes off as too harsh, but a certain level of harshness is intended here. These are my own rights I'm discussing, and it annoys me to no end that professional photographers can sit there and tell me these rights don't exist.

Like I said, the personal issue might be better of handled via PM because whatever way you look at it, it does cloud the actual discussion. It's already been seriously diluted by the three of us.

I can delete theses few posts to try and get it back on track or you can start a new one and I'll delete this. Or we can leave it as is and see what happens.

BTW even the use of the word 'ridiculous' in the title makes it sound personal ( I can edit that if you want).

I'll be here for a few more minutes if you want to respond then I'll be out for a couple of hours.

[Alex00]

Agreeing with GoremanX that if you do not have the high resolution original photo there is not much you can commercially do with a low resolution photo.

Taking a low resolution photo from the web or magazine for personal use is no problem. As a web developer i know that if you want to post a photo on a website and the photo doesn't belong to you, you must give credit to the owner of the photo by either linking to his site if he has one or having his full name under the photo. That makes it legal. If you do not want to give credit to the owner of the photo, you must contact the owner and ask permission to use his photo. The owner can either agree to it or may ask for a small fee. Look at istockphoto for example. You pay $2 and you download high resolution images. So these things are cheap and nothing to fuss about.

Watermarking, copyrights or disabling right clicks to prevent users from saving your photos never works. You can always crop or use photoshop to remove watermark, you can print screen or view source to work around disabled right click, and you can easily change the meta info of the image and change embedded copyright.

In conclusion, do not worry how your images are being used, Just open up a little, make it known to users, if they want to use your photos to give you credit for it by either mentioning your name or linking to your website. In the long run this will do you more good then bad.

[Wheatfield]

There's legal use, illegal use and then there's just using some common sense.

A friend of mine photographs horse shows. One of the problems he runs into quite frequently is that someone will lift a small resolution file from his website and get a print made.
He has seen the evidence of this at shows, where he's seen prints, complete with his watermark on people's stalls.
It doesn't seem to matter to the end user that the quality isn't as good as if they had accessed a full resolution file.
They want a picture of their horse, and they don't want to pay for it, so they right click/ steal it.
This is not fair use.
They are taking something that is legitimately for sale without the owner's permission.

What right click disabling does is make it a bit more difficult for people to lift someone's picture. If the person isn't technically inclined, it may make it impossible for them to lift it.
It may make it impossible for them to lift it and make a hard copy of it when they really should be paying the author for it.

The bottom line though is, if you don't want something lifted from you, don't post it to the internet at all. If it's there and someone wants it badly enough, they will figure out how to get it.

Copyright laws are interesting in the way they differ from country to country.
For example, in the USA, the creator of a photograph is the first owner of copyright in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
In Canada, the first owner of copyright is the person who commissioned the work in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
And, interestingly, it doesn't matter if there was a trade of value or not.
In Canada if I ask you to take my picture and you do this and don't make me sign a usage license, I own the picture.
Period.

It kind of throws photographers into a swivet when they learn that the wedding photos they've taken really do belong to the client because they either don't have a copyright clause in their contract or else don't have a contract at all, but there you go.
The law in Canada is very clear on that.

I think a lot of photographers have gotten sensitive to the point of being neurotic regarding copyright infringement.

As an aside to this, if you really want an eye opener, take one of your camera files, resize it to web sized and get an 8x10 made at your local Minilab.
You might be shocked by how good these machines can interpolate a smallish file into something that is halfways decent.

[atupdate]

Agreeing with GoremanX that if you do not have the high resolution original photo there is not much you can commercially do with a low resolution photo.

Here is a link for a forum thread about a 640 pixel image that was stolen and used for an advertising campain. Today's computer programs can upsize very nicely.

DrAchoo I sent you a PM - DPChallenge Forums

If you don't want an image used by someone else - don't post it on the internet.

Tim

[GoremanX]

Copyright laws are interesting in the way they differ from country to country.
For example, in the USA, the creator of a photograph is the first owner of copyright in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
In Canada, the first owner of copyright is the person who commissioned the work in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
And, interestingly, it doesn't matter if there was a trade of value or not.
In Canada if I ask you to take my picture and you do this and don't make me sign a usage license, I own the picture.
Period.

That's fascinating. I had no idea there was that distinction in Canadian Copyright law. Just goes to show, I don't follow my own advice. But then I'm no professional photographer either. If I ever did decide to do this professionally, I'd definitely take the time to learn my own country's Copyright laws... especially if they're that different from the US.

I think a lot of photographers have gotten sensitive to the point of being neurotic regarding copyright infringement.

What really got me on a high horse about this recently was a post in the "Site Suggestions" section from someone who wanted right-click prevention implemented for this forum!! Obviously the idea was turned down, but where does it end? What if these paranoid photographers actually win and somehow all our rights get stripped away in favour of their protectionism?

As an aside to this, if you really want an eye opener, take one of your camera files, resize it to web sized and get an 8x10 made at your local Minilab.
You might be shocked by how good these machines can interpolate a smallish file into something that is halfways decent.

There's all kinds of ways to do illegal things. But as your very first statement pointed out, common sense needs to come into it at some point.

[Alex00]

No matter how protective you are, people will always find ways to misuse photos that doesn't belong to them. If Microsoft and adobe software is being pirated all over the world and they have no control about it, how can small photographer have control over his photos. The only thing you can do is ask people to give you credit for using your photos. it's better then using your photos and not giving you credit at all. There will be very few cases where you ill find people misusing your photos commercially, in this case you can just ask them to remove it.

[Alex00]

Here is a link for a forum thread about a 640 pixel image that was stolen and used for an advertising campain. Today's computer programs can upsize very nicely.

DrAchoo I sent you a PM - DPChallenge Forums

If you don't want an image used by someone else - don't post it on the internet.

Tim

If a person posted your photo in an advertisement without your knowledge, this is enough proof to take a person to court and win assuming that his is in the same country and city, or make the person pay for the photo. If the person is in other parts of the world, you have no control over this and you just have to live with it and move on.