minor complaining

[cmr164]

I obviously enjoy seeing other folks' pictures and enjoy posting my own to get feedback. What I don't like is the posting of pictures from news organizations and other folks who are not members. Aside from the legal and copyright issues there are negative effects within the group. If we have a thread about action shots and we get slamdunk commercial examples like that incredible bull shot or storm pictures that are pulled off the web, it kind of defeats the purpose (as I see it) of letting us learn from and aspire to match each other.

So my suggestion is:

1. Forbid the posting of images that are not by the member.

2. Encourage the posting of links that identify the photographer.

Example - http://www.samshaw.com/mmimages/14.html

or - "Here is an interesting B/W colored print of Marilyn done by Sam shaw (http://www.samshaw.com/mmimages/14.html)."


OK, so it's my opinion... but it is also the law and also the right thing to do. :-)

[Noggin]

Nice idea Charles, I assume that what you mean by #1 is posting someone elses image as an attachment in a post?

Noggin

I obviously enjoy seeing other folks' pictures and enjoy posting my own to get feedback. What I don't like is the posting of pictures from news organizations and other folks who are not members. Aside from the legal and copyright issues there are negative effects within the group. If we have a thread about action shots and we get slamdunk commercial examples like that incredible bull shot or storm pictures that are pulled off the web, it kind of defeats the purpose (as I see it) of letting us learn from and aspire to match each other.

So my suggestion is:

1. Forbid the posting of images that are not by the member.

2. Encourage the posting of links that identify the photographer.

Example - http://www.samshaw.com/mmimages/14.html

or - "Here is an interesting B/W colored print of Marilyn done by Sam shaw (http://www.samshaw.com/mmimages/14.html)."


OK, so it's my opinion... but it is also the law and also the right thing to do. :-)

[samwise]

Nice idea Charles, I assume that what you mean by #1 is posting someone elses image as an attachment in a post?

Noggin

Unless asking how to do a similar shot, or using it as an example, I'd assume?

[cmr164]

Nice idea Charles, I assume that what you mean by #1 is posting someone elses image as an attachment in a post?

Noggin Unfortunately an image that is shown here even if it is a link from another site, does not identify the site. I think that attachments are clearly wrong and that embedded images using http://www.dgrin.com./images/editor/insertimage.gif without noting where the image is coming from (http://www.dgrin.com./images/editor/insertimage.gif) and the known copyright info, is not right.

Of course, if we stick to our own images or editorializing changes to each other's images there are no problems.

Charles

[cmr164]

Unless asking how to do a similar shot, or using it as an example, I'd assume? Clearly there is no problem to use each others posted images for discussion within the group. But I know one of the copyright holders for Sam Shaw's works and she will be unhappy to see images here from http://www.samshaw.com/index.htm without clear text identifying copyright and location. Most other copyright owners will feel the same.

[wxwax]

Interesting point and definitely one we should discuss. Thanks for bringing it up.



1/ Legal Issues.
This is a salient point. I checked and your are absolutely correct. Regardless of this site's non-profit nature, posting images that belong to someone else is a violation of their copyright. We can only post their shots with their explicit permission.
As it was explained to me, our nonprofit status might mitigate the damages, but does not absolve us from observing copyright laws. This includes images from public domain sites like the federal government (the tornado shots I posted are from a NOAA site... doesn't matter, someone somewhere owns them.)
By the way, strictly speaking this includes all photographic product shots. So the images of hard drive recorders, cameras etc. are also posted illegally.

2/ Consequences
On a motorcycle site like advrider we might be able to fly under the radar. That's a whole lot less likely on a pure photography site like Dgrin. If we get to be as popular as we'd like, we'll come under the scrutiny of the very people whose images we're using. And I'm sure we'll get cease-and-desist, if not something stronger.

3/ Links Only to Others' Work.
Seems to be the only solution. Don't need to give credit, since clicking to the link takes one to the image in its publicly available setting.



Charles, thanks for bringing this up. I know I've been extremely careless in posting the works of others by using links. I now realize that this is an illegal use of their images. I shall stop doing so, and instead use links.

Bummer. But that's the law. A law that protects me as much as it does others.

[cmr164]

...
Charles, thanks for bringing this up. I know I've been extremely careless in posting the works of others by using links. I now realize that this is an illegal use of their images. I shall stop doing so, and instead use links.

Bummer. But that's the law. A law that protects me as much as it does others.
Yea... I had that TinTin avatar too. Given the lack of clarity on its copyright, I have changed the avatar to one of my own pics.

[DoctorIt]

Hey Waxy - I'm confused now, you're suggesting we shouldn't use the nice image link feature to post images from the web, rather just put a http link? This is a discussion forum, we're not making money here. I thought that was the whole point of being able to "see" a linked image right in the post rather than having to click on the line of text for a link. Like your example with the tornado pics... I personally think you lose the fun of the threads when there are no external pics, except for our "own".

I understand the principle that even those tornado pics are owned by someone else, but I stick to the fact that we're just discussing and not using these for any sort of gain, let alone monetary profit. I realize the internet has grown and changed, but it was (and in many ways, buried within the protocols) still is completely free of some governing. Its here for free speech/posting/interaction. If someone really wants claim to their photos as "property" don't post them freely on the web - just like smugmug where you can easily make your original resolution pics private.

them's my .02

[DoctorIt]

alright, i just went through some threads again... I wasn't sure how it worked. But when you post an image in a thread, rather than attach it, you can right click on it and get the properties of the original url of that image. Isn't that enough?

Seriously guys, I'm stickin to my guns here - keep the internet free of laws as much as possible.

[cmr164]

alright, i just went through some threads again... I wasn't sure how it worked. But when you post an image in a thread, rather than attach it, you can right click on it and get the properties of the original url of that image. Isn't that enough?

Seriously guys, I'm stickin to my guns here - keep the internet free of laws as much as possible.
If you want the internet free of laws as much as possible then don't use egregiously bad behavior :) Having the ownership of an image hidden away behind a click on the image, then click properties, then click back to the originating site and try to find out who the author/owner is.. is not enough to satisfy the moral obligation of crediting folks for their work and is not enough to satisfy the current set of laws. But it is just the kind of behavior that causes new laws to be written.

As an example from a thread here, try to use "http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2124782-M.jpg" to find the ownership info. We need to spell it out and to give proper atribution or we are legally and ethically in the wrong.

[DoctorIt]

If you want the internet free of laws as much as possible then don't use egregiously bad behavior :) Having the ownership of an image hidden away behind a click on the image, then click properties, then click back to the originating site and try to find out who the author/owner is.. is not enough to satisfy the moral obligation of crediting folks for their work and is not enough to satisfy the current set of laws. But it is just the kind of behavior that causes new laws to be written.

As an example from a thread here, try to use "http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2124782-M.jpg" to find the ownership info. We need to spell it out and to give proper atribution or we are legally and ethically in the wrong.Hmmm, haaawwww,....you're implying we are already legally in the wrong. If that was so, I think Baldy would have pulled the plug a LONG time ago.

I could launch into a tyrade about policing the internet and general internet ethics, but I would just like to reiterate again: this is an open non profit discussion forum. I think its sufficient if I post an image and say "hey, check out waxy's or thom hogan's or john shaw's photo... I'd like to make my photo look like his... whatever". Getting all copyright on everyone in an open internet discussion forum can only discourage the kind of off-the-cuff participation I think we all enjoy.

The day I have to proofread all my posts, check the links for accuracy, and provide a bibliography is the day I toss my computer through the window of my nearest legislators office.

I'm just sayin... :wxwax
[credits for the "hmmm, hawwww, just-sayin" face belong to wxwax (http://www.dgrin.com/member.php?userid=5)]

[wxwax]

[credits for the "hmmm, hawwww, just-sayin" face belong to wxwax (http://www.dgrin.com/member.php?userid=5)]

Hey! :wxwax

I completely understand what you're saying. Personally, I agree.

Problem is, it doesn't matter what I think. It's the law. We don't have the right to reproduce someone's original work without their express permission.

Whether we'll get caught or not is another matter. Whether they care or not is another matter. But what's legal and not legal is pretty clear, unfortunately. To cmr's point, as I understand it attribution isn't enough either. We're simply not allowed to nick the shot and display it here.

As for linking, that's mostly for our own benefit and ease of use. While it also makes it practical to snag shots from other sites, that doesn't mean it's legal.

I hate to be such a harda*s about it. But I did a quick check with a lawyer who works with copyright issues every day, and she was very brief and very clear: whatever our status (profit, no-profit, hobby) we are not allowed to display someone else's original work unless they say we can. The laws are designed to protect the creators of those works.

One caveat is if we alter their work enough to make it a new work. Then we might have an argument that it's no longer theirs, but something new that we've created. Sorta like this:

[fish]

Hey! :wxwax

Sorta like this:
Hey! I created that image. Please give me credit. :wink




Seriously, I don't see it as a big issue when including images in posts as examples. If they are on the net, then they should be direct linked from the original site. I don't really give a flip if someone has to click a couple of times to see who's it is or where it came from. Attaching photos are another story, because the origin is lost.

Of course I will abide by any rules that Cueball sets forth, and even try to enforce them, but in this casual setting, if best effort is used to give proper credit, then I don't have a problem with it.

[wxwax]

A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work. See § 106 of the act. The owner also receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or her work. See § 201(d) of the act. Limited exceptions to this exclusivity exist for types of "fair use", such as book reviews. See § 107 of the act. To be covered by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete "medium of expression." See § 102 of the act. Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered.

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html)

Posting is displaying.

[wxwax]

*TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 106.

Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(5)

in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly;

[fish]

Well, ya know...that just takes a bunch of the fun out of it.

http://www.phattbastard.com/site/bilder1/arkiv1/boring.jpg

[wxwax]

:nod Hey, I agree. I'm one of the worst violators here. I was talking to someone in the photo community about it, and maybe a lot of shooters know what goes on and don't care. I worry, mostly on Baldy's behalf, that this place is a juicier target than ADVRider, for a couple of very salient reasons. It's a drag. :cry

[gus]

:nod Hey, I agree. I'm one of the worst violators here. I was talking to someone in the photo community about it, and maybe a lot of shooters know what goes on and don't care. I worry, mostly on Baldy's behalf, that this place is a juicier target than ADVRider, for a couple of very salient reasons. It's a drag. :cry
Man if anyone has a problem here then i'd hate to see how they would react to YM.

[DoctorIt]

A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work. See § 106 of the act. The owner also receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or her work. See § 201(d) of the act. Limited exceptions to this exclusivity exist for types of "fair use", such as book reviews. See § 107 of the act. To be covered by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete "medium of expression." See § 102 of the act. Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered.

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html)

Posting is displaying.Ok, so if posting is displaying, then can I be arrested/fined for printing out a nice photo from photo.net and putting it up on my wall here in the office? I guess I'm just still hesitant to believe that we're breaking the law and not being prosecuted for it. Are you sure these laws apply to internet discussion forums?

I've always had a problem with laws being ridiculous when it comes to this kind of crap (sorry, calm down erik). I just think that 99.9% of us here are just trying to learn and chat and frankly have a little fun. Like I said before, and Fish agreed with, we'd be taking a whole lot of fun out this if we can't post this and have to link that and include this info and blah blah blah. If I wanted that, I'd subscribe to a magazine or journal where everything is edited, checked, and double checked.

Sorry, but prepare to hear more from me today... denial of service attack on advrider... what am I expected to do all day!:D

[cmr164]

Ok, so if posting is displaying, then can I be arrested/fined for printing out a nice photo from photo.net and putting it up on my wall here in the office? I guess I'm just still hesitant to believe that we're breaking the law and not being prosecuted for it. Are you sure these laws apply to internet discussion forums? Yes, yes and yes. That picture that you put up on your wall represents a poster/print that the photographer could have sold. It is theft just like taking a copy of a Micro$oft Office CD and loading it on your system. Would it have been so hard for you to send an email to the photographer asking permission. Probably he would have been pleased and said, "Sure, go ahead, but please label it with my name and website." Maybe he would have said, "Hey man, thanks for the compliment, but you know this is how I make my living, so how about buying an poster for $4.95. I really can not afford to have people just taking my work." Would you then screw him and just still put up the pic anyway?

I've always had a problem with laws being ridiculous when it comes to this kind of crap (sorry, calm down erik). I just think that 99.9% of us here are just trying to learn and chat and frankly have a little fun. Like I said before, and Fish agreed with, we'd be taking a whole lot of fun out this if we can't post this and have to link that and include this info and blah blah blah. If I wanted that, I'd subscribe to a magazine or journal where everything is edited, checked, and double checked. Not even a little of your fun has been taken away. You just have to be a little considerate of the other guy. A couple more clicks and typing in a name or a URL is all it takes to be ethical and legal. Anything less is just plain laziness on our part.

Sorry, but prepare to hear more from me today... denial of service attack on advrider... what am I expected to do all day!:D So who did advrider tick off?

[DoctorIt]

Yes, yes and yes. That picture that you put up on your wall represents a poster/print that the photographer could have sold. It is theft just like taking a copy of a Micro$oft Office CD and loading it on your system. Would it have been so hard for you to send an email to the photographer asking permission. Probably he would have been pleased and said, "Sure, go ahead, but please label it with my name and website." Maybe he would have said, "Hey man, thanks for the compliment, but you know this is how I make my living, so how about buying an poster for $4.95. I really can not afford to have people just taking my work." Would you then screw him and just still put up the pic anyway?

No, no and NO.

I'm obviously not talking about saving an image from a website, blowing it up and going throught process of enhancing the quality, enlarging and printing. Of course, I totally agree that is wrong. But, if a photographer puts large print quality photos up on the web and I can simply browse to it, right click, and print there is NO way he or she deserves to be paid for it. You post it on the web, its public and I don't care what US laws say, that is the way the internet is was and will be. Again, its as simple as smugmug: small and medium sized thumbnails for public, pay for full size.

Send over the FBI cause I have about 10 black and white, crappy quality thumbnail prints from Graham Watson up on my wall.

[wxwax]

Ok, so if posting is displaying, then can I be arrested/fined


:wink I don't think you'll get arrested. :huh But technically I guess that's a violation as well. Yeah, it's a drag. The fact that images are so easily available over the web makes it hard for us to understand why we can't reel them in. I'm like you - I see our activity as harmless, not for financial gain, so who's being hurt? The law, and the owners of the works, see it differently. There's some similarity to downloading music off the internet. It's free and easily available, but we're not paying for the right to use it.

[DoctorIt]

Yeah, it's a drag.You can say that again. It's a REAL drag! This kind of thinking, that everything you do or say needs to be "protected" and "paid for" and "acknowledged" pisses me off on a daily basis. I see similar battles of IP all the time here in the research world. For the most part, its all just red-tape bullsh*t. I think the US in general is much too over-legislated. Yes, there's a few people here and there that are in fact protected by these laws, but for the most part, I think they are a major hindrance and overbearing on what should be simple liberties.

One day, this will all lead to us needing to have EZpass (our toll highway car-transmitters up here in the Northeast) chips implanted in our heads, and everytime we walk down the street, our credit card will be charged if we look at something someone wants to get paid for.

Ugh.

[fish]

That picture that you put up on your wall represents a poster/print that the photographer could have sold. It is theft just like taking a copy of a Micro$oft Office CD and loading it on your system.

Oh boy...this is getting good.


So what if I double-click on a humongous image on the photog's site and display it in all of it's glory on my 22" monitor in my living room and leave it up for people in my house to see? I didn't save it or print it, but sure enough, it's being displayed. Is that illegal? What if only I were looking at it? Is there some sort of RTU issue here, where I can see the image, but if I want to show it to one or more other people, I need to ask permission?

We're walking a very slippery slope here...

[cmr164]

But, if a photographer puts large print quality photos up on the web and I can simply browse to it, right click, and print there is NO way he or she deserves to be paid for it. You post it on the web, its public and I don't care what US laws say,
Hey if the shops don't want you to steal candy bars they shouldn't put them on shelves where you can just pick them up.

Just because you can do something or you can get away with something, doesn't make it right.

[lynnma]

You can say that again. It's a REAL drag! This kind of thinking, that everything you do or say needs to be "protected" and "paid for" and "acknowledged" pisses me off on a daily basis. I see similar battles of IP all the time here in the research world. For the most part, its all just red-tape bullsh*t. I think the US in general is much too over-legislated. Yes, there's a few people here and there that are in fact protected by these laws, but for the most part, I think they are a major hindrance and overbearing on what should be simple liberties.

One day, this will all lead to us needing to have EZpass (our toll highway car-transmitters up here in the Northeast) chips implanted in our heads, and everytime we walk down the street, our credit card will be charged if we look at something someone wants to get paid for.

Ugh.yeah... and now we can't wear masks in public either...it's all getting out of hand... and I'm an alien so I'll probably be deported for saying anything at all..

[wxwax]

yeah... and now we can't wear masks in public either...it's all getting out of hand... and I'm an alien so I'll probably be deported for saying anything at all..

I thought you had a greenish tint.

[wxwax]

Oh boy...this is getting good.


So what if I double-click on a humongous image on the photog's site and display it in all of it's glory on my 22" monitor in my living room and leave it up for people in my house to see? I didn't save it or print it, but sure enough, it's being displayed. Is that illegal? What if only I were looking at it? Is there some sort of RTU issue here, where I can see the image, but if I want to show it to one or more other people, I need to ask permission?

We're walking a very slippery slope here...

I'm sure the answer is no, you're fine because you're looking at the work in its original setting and context. You haven't done anything to it.

But as you point out, there's room for interpretation. And you haven't touched on "Fair Use" which is a another complicated issue.

Just remember, as with all legal issues, ultimately you're trying to guess what the judge (maybe jury) will decide.

[Baldy]

Great points. smugmug has a lot of pro photographers now and I'm always amazed at how sensitive they are to any shade of gray when it comes to copyright law. When it's your living and you've put the kind of work they have into their images, it's understandable.

I think in all cases we should site the source of the image and the owner of the copyright and when in doubt, link to it and not embed it.

I'm a little bit torn when it comes to images like the 1905 color plates, where I provided a compelling teaser by embedding with full credit and a link to the site where you could buy prints. Those images are owned by the Library of Congress with a charter to make them accessible to the public, and I provided a link to some guy who sells prints for a profit.

The fact that they weren't taken by us didn't make them uninteresting in my mind, nor the cover of the Ansel Adams book I linked to that Shay had such an interesting analysis of.

Your thoughts.

[Noggin]

Oh boy...this is getting good.


So what if I double-click on a humongous image on the photog's site and display it in all of it's glory on my 22" monitor in my living room and leave it up for people in my house to see? I didn't save it or print it [snip]

And your web browser doesn't cache images then?

We're probably all right here - it's a big gray area and the only people to benefit in the long run would be the lawyers.

Let's just not give them the chance.

Noggin

[wxwax]

Great points. smugmug has a lot of pro photographers now and I'm always amazed at how sensitive they are to any shade of gray when it comes to copyright law. When it's your living and you've put the kind of work they have into their images, it's understandable.

I think in all cases we should site the source of the image and the owner of the copyright and when in doubt, link to it and not embed it.

I'm a little bit torn when it comes to images like the 1905 color plates, where I provided a compelling teaser by embedding with full credit and a link to the site where you could buy prints. Those images are owned by the Library of Congress with a charter to make them accessible to the public, and I provided a link to some guy who sells prints for a profit.

The fact that they weren't taken by us didn't make them uninteresting in my mind, nor the cover of the Ansel Adams book I linked to that Shay had such an interesting analysis of.

Your thoughts.


If the 1905 color plates are owned by the Library of Congress, then I guess you can post them as much as you like. It's been explained to me that the Federal Government cannot own a copyright.

More importantly, his work is in the public domain because it was created before 1923. (For more on Public Domain (http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm) time lines.)

I double checked today on giving credit when lifting photo. No go. Cuts no ice with the law. We are not allowed to attach or embed the work of someone else, unless they have given us explicit permission. Giving credit is not a palliative.

I say again that while things might go undiscovered at ADVRider, this place is different. It's a photography forum, and far more likely to come to the attention of the shooters whose work we might post. Which raises the risk level to unacceptable heights, I'm afraid. :cry

[ian408]

Seeing this reminded me that I have, in the past, taken pictures for
commercial events. While it was a commercial event the event organizers
don't make money so I don't charge either. Some of the photos make it to
the web where participants can download them.

Someone made a calendar and used some of those pictures. They made
money. While I like the fact my work was included, I dislike the fact that
no courtesy or credit was given the source of the picture.

I'm generally cool with the non-commercial use of my stuff. But now I
include a copyright (more a copyleft) notice in my distributions for things
like the above. PM me if you want to see the text.

Unlike others, I don't make my living as a photographer. If I did, you
can bet I would have had something more to say about the calendar
and I'd be a better photographer :):


Ian

[wxwax]

I've know for ages that it was illegal for a bar to charge admission for someone to watch an NFL game. In addition, the bars have to buy the NFL Ticket package to get the rights to show the games on TV.

I know that.

So what on earth were these Las Vegas dufuses thinking when the lined-up big events with a per head charge, for people to watch the Superbowl? And then they act surprised when the NFL tells them it's a copyright violation.

Dummies.



Vegas Casinos Cancel Super Bowl Parties
By CHRISTINA ALMEIDA

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Casinos are canceling Super Bowl parties and handing out refunds to thousands of people after the NFL threatened legal action against some of the biggest hotels in Las Vegas.

Several hotels received letters this week informing them that their parties were ``unauthorized use of NFL intellectual property.'' NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the league recently became aware of these large-scale parties planned in Las Vegas and other locations around the country.

``When we become aware of a potential violation, we take action,'' McCarthy said. ``It's not a city issue, its a copyright issue.''

More. (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?oldflok=FF-APO-2020&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040131%2F1246787489.htm&sc=2020&floc=NW_5-L6)