Copyright infringment and "Fair use" of digital images...

[Seymore]

Loooooooooong post!

Ok, let me start by stating that I'm not a happy camper right now. I've been working with another person (Fergie (http://fergie.smugmug.com/)) who is actually a member of a Chorus in this organization. He sings and I shoot. We're currently using his site because it's setup on a PRO account with watermarking and image protection.

Well, I deal with the shooting, sales, printing, answering questions, ect... I had a brief comm (4 or 5 tosses) of email with someone wanting to get a free image for use in a program. I stated (as is our policy) that digital images are for sale... and if they wanted to purchase prints I'd be happy to give a price break on a digital image. Well, come to find out that this isn't even a member of the quartet the image was requested for. So I suggest this person contact the quartet and see if they wanted to buy the digital image for this use. I also mentioned that I didn't put a limit on its use with the exception that it was not to be used for personal prints. BTW, I resize digital images to 1200px on the long side. You can see an "Ordering Information" page HERE (http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2830309).

Well, I didn't hear anything else for a few days, so figured the quartet wasn't interested in making a purchase. Then I get an email FWD'd from Fergie showing an image of the quartet who was the focus of the previous inquiry. Here's the FYI I got:
I do not believe they purchased any rights to use any of our photos. I will refer to CHRIS, the photographer.

They can purchase it for $20, if they have not paid.

Chris, did they in fact purchase it??

Thx Fergie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dick
To: Fergie

Here's what I got from Aaron.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron
To: Dick

Dick,

Please see the attached photo for use in the show program.

Thanks!

Aaron

My response:
I show no payment for any use of this digital image and it was never given for free. If the Quartet would like to make this purchase for unlimited use in ANY flier, program or WEB use, the cost is only $20. Currently, any use of this image violates the copyright of the photographer and illegal. Also, this image is stolen. (Picture 1.png) This is not the format I create any of my images in.

Let me know if this purchase needs to happen by the quartet,

I then got this reply from Aaron:
My apologies - I didn't mean to violate copyright your copyright on the photo. However, you are most incorrect that the image is stolen. You seem to be confusing theft and copyright infringement - a common mistake.

The image is in PNG format because that is the format in which my computer takes screenshots. The Smugmug website is quite user- unfriendly when it comes to saving a preview image for fair use purposes.

Thank you for bringing this error to my attention. Dick, please erase all copies of the image in question. We will not be using it in the program. Chris, I highly recommend reviewing the difference between copyright infringement and theft before accusing anyone else of such crimes. Also, I would advise choosing a different, more user-friendly website than Smugmug for distributing your photos.

The thread continues:
Aaron, apology accepted. Be aware that all images I create are not put on the web for "fair use". They are placed so the captured singers can view and order. And you didn't even ask me if you could use an image I created. This I consider copyright infringement which amounts to theft. Also, if you're up on copyright law, you knew that what you were doing was wrong.

As far as the Smugmug site, it is setup EXACTLY how I want it setup and is meant to be "user-unfriendly" so copyright infringement/theft does not occur. You went out of your way to avoid the R-click warning: "These photos are copyrighted by their respective owners. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited.". I consider this theft. I'm seriously offended that you think I wouldn't take this seriously. Consider this your one warning Aaron.

Aaron, you will not use, sell or share any other photos you may have downloaded illegally without my recourse or permission. You will delete them immediately. You will also instruct anyone you may have shared any of my copyrighted images with, that they are to delete those images immediately. Understand?

If you are ever interested in using any images created by Chris Moore (MooreFoto) please contact me directly about pricing and use.

Aarons final response:
Thanks again for your help in correcting this error. Please be advised however that "wanting" or "considering" something to be theft does not make it so. Being a photographer and dealing with copyright issues, you should be aware of the profound differences between the two issues. Please check out the following link for more information about the difference between copyright infringement and theft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States

As a photographer, another subject you should be familiar with is the concept of "fair use." Contrary to your last email to me, you have no choice whether or not to accept the doctrine of fair use. Fair use is part of the deal that comes along with claiming copyright on a creative work - it is not optional. It may surprise you to learn that someone who views your photos online must download and store a local copy due to the nature of the Internet and how computers work. It may also surprise you to learn that this is not illegal. For more information on fair use, I highly recommend reviewing the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I would expect that those individuals who rely on copyright for their livelihood would be the most likely to be familiar with the law. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case. One of your photos was submitted for inclusion in a show program entirely by accident. Fortunately, the error was brought to my attention before any inadvertent copyright infringement could occur and has since been corrected. I don't appreciate being accused of theft because it suits your fancy to call it that. I'm offended that you think I wouldn't take this seriously.

Do not make unfounded accusations about me ever again. You will send out an email to everyone involved in this discussion and retract your previous accusations against me. Consider this your one warning. Understand?

Here is one more article with which you should familiarize yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

In the future, if I'm ever interested in using any images created by you (MooreFoto), I will most certainly contact you directly regarding pricing and use.


SO, it is obvious to me that Aaron is aware of what he did, and with intention of using this image without asking for it. My reading of this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use):
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
Granted they are a non-profit... but the image snagged was to be used for promotional advertising and personal gain and "Fair use" has no bearing.

So, to summarize:
- The person who snagged this image was aware that the image was FS.
- The person who snagged this image was aware that the image was copyrighted.
- There was no intention to pay for it even though it was offered FS.
- It appears to me that this person is trying to use "fair use" to his advantage even though appearance is that it does not apply to him.



I felt that a firm hand on this was my way address to this problem. Please feel free to give me your thoughts and/or guidance and ask any questions you may have about this incident. I have no intention of escalating this any further but I don't want this precedence to go unaddressed. Feel free to email me (moorefoto AT gmail D0T com) if you need private communication.



Guess I'll have to start using watermarks after all. :humungus

[Seymore]

OH... and KUDOs to Smugmug for it's protection :thumb, which I'll have to use now. As you can read above, the pilfer'r had to grab a screen shot to get the image.

[dancorder]

His main point seems to be that copyright infringement is not legally theft, it is copyright infringement. I am not a lawyer but everything I've seen on the matter agrees on this point. That said, he is clearly using semantics as a smoke screen to try and direct attention away from what he did wrong. Which, by the looks of it, he knew was wrong in the first place.

I reckon that if you'd accused him of copyright infringement in the first place his emails would have been a lot shorter.

Exactly what 'fair use' is I'll leave to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

I don't sell any photos so take this with a bucket of salt, but if I did I would always use watermarks. It is simply too easy for people to copy your photos once you put them on line.

[bsvirginian]

:scratch Hopefully someone (maybe smugmug) might jump in and clarify this situation. bsvirginian

[Andy]

:scratch Hopefully someone (maybe smugmug) might jump in and clarify this situation. bsvirginian
Clarify which part of what? :ear

[Seymore]

@ Dan... Thanks for your input. I know what you're saying about "semantics", but in my book it's theft.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

WordNet
noun
the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

American Heritage Dictionary
(thěft) Pronunciation Key
n.
The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

And no matter what you want to call it, mayby this 20-sumthin' male needs to be contacted by a lawyer so he know that what he has done is punisable by law. However I don't think I want to spend the time or the money to fight this, at this point.


Clarify which part of what? :ear
"Fair use". They person who (in my book) stole the image is claiming "fair use" and I'm wondering if you have any feedback for me about what I outlined above Andy. I would appreciate your input in this matter.

And am I correct it stating that the image was deliberately "stolen"? ...because it was never printed, copyright infringment didn't take effect. Right?

[claudermilk]

So as I understand it he made a screen capture to circumvent the protections set up on the site, then intended to use the image in a show program. Sounds to me like you are in the right. I have no idea how a show program can possibly be "fair use." My understanding of fair use is news or editorial, which doesn't sound like a use of a show program to me. I think he's just throwing up any smokescreen he can since he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and knows it. However, IANAL.

BTW, I love the demand of an apology email. :rolleyes My first thought was "take a long walk on a short pier buddy"

[StevenV]

The only distinction I see - and I too am a photographer not a lawyer but have read quite a bit on the topic - is that "theft" is a violation of criminal law where "copyright infringement" is a violation of civil law. Both are illegal, as any lawyer should be able to tell him.

A friend of mine in the Federal Copyright office has told me that "Fair Use" is only a defense once you're in court... not something that can keep you out of court. He compares it to a "temporary insanity" plea in a criminal trial... something that the judge needs to evaluate and either allow or not. Be that completely accurate or not, I'm not sure if this person even read all of the Wikipedia entry about Fair Use, and I'm fairly certain he hasn't read the Copyright law section on the subject.

If his "see the attached photo" included your image, then "it's how the internet works" or not... he copied the image. Once from Smugmug to his system (with more work than a browser normally uses to display it and put it in its cache) and secondly from his system to the email message. Unless you gave permission to make that copy, he has already violated your copyright.

[Seymore]

@ Chris... Using in a program is for personal gain and I see this just as yourself, this has no direct bearing towards "fair use".



@ Steven... Thanks for the clarification between criminal and civil. I had not made that distinction. Thanks again for sharing this. This is one reason I made this post. It really helps to have more than one brain on problems like this.

Sorry, I had to snicker on your friends comment of "Fair Use" is only a defense once you're in court... not something that can keep you out of court.". Well stated. I may have to use that in my final response Arron. I'll post it here and keep this thread up to date.





So, thanks again for the responses and conformation of where I was wrong... but more importantly, the education on how to address this down the road.



Excessively grateful!!!

[Seymore]

Fergie chimed up one more time. He and I spoke and I expect this to be the final email from him on this matter.
Here's my take on this:

I was contacted by Aaron wanting to get a dig image of the quartet, and when I told him $40(we later decided $40 was too much, that $20 was more in line) he said he would get it off line..I told Aaron that it was not the right thing to do.(I don't recall my exact wording)

Bottom line is this:

Aaron (or someone he knows) did copy the image KNOWING it was not the right thing to do. Saying someone is STEALING, or COPYRIGHT INFRINGING or WHATEVER, it semantics. It's ALL WRONG!

He can try and justify it, but there's no doubt in my mind he knew it was not the correct thing to do...or that if someone else copied it,....he can try and say he didn't realize it was ours, but that's lying as well.

COPYING, SCREEN PRINTING, or otherwise USING the image with out purchasing the RIGHTS to use it is both illegal and just plain wrong. It's equivalent to copying music that is copyrighted.

As far as CHRIS being someone without people skills: He has done NOTHING to warrant that statement. His Posted policies and prices etc are clear and NOT misleading. His images are HIS property, and as long as people follow the RULES, there should be no problems with him or his products and services.

I plan to see all of you at rehearsals, and I honestly will say NOTHING about this matter to anyone. I also plan on treating you with friendship, understanding we all have times of weakness, stubbornness and whatever ....(me included)

Again, if you or anyone wants to purchase images or photos, feel free to order and pay for your product. NO HARD FEELINGS.


Let's put this matter to rest...and SING!!!!!



And I just received one more RANT from Arron, addressed to Fergie and also sent to me:
Fergie,

I have to say - I am disappointed in you. You're a great guy, a good friend, and a wonderful barbershop brother. In this matter, however, it seems that you've completely missed the point.

Bottom line is this: I took a screenshot of a webpage, part of which contained a small portion of the original creative work in question. I did this to exercise my fair use rights under US copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107). I added the screenshot to a folder on my computer. As this folder contains literally hundreds of other images, it is no surprise that I accidentally attached the wrong one in my email to Dick. Errors happen - I'm only human. I'm very grateful to Dick and Chris for bringing the mistake to my attention before the image was published. Fortunately, we caught the mistake in time.

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that trying to differentiate between copyright infringement and theft is just "semantics." We differentiate between them because they are completely and utterly different things! For example: I bet you've exceeded the speed limit in your vehicle recently. Perhaps we should just call this violation "rape." After all, speeding and rape are both wrong - why should we split hairs? Aren't we just dealing with semantics here?

I'm not trying to justify anything, Fergie. As I said before, I sent the image in error and I'm grateful that my mistake was caught before the image could be published. I don't appreciate being accused of random crimes just because a small-time photographer suddenly feels threatened due to a simple misunderstanding.

You are mistaken when you say that "USING the image with out purchasing the RIGHTS to use it is both illegal and just plain wrong." You should read up on the doctrine of fair use. It contains several provisions for using copyrighted works without the permission of the author, including (but not necessarily limited to) purposes such as education, criticism, reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The photos Chris has taken are NOT his "property." He simply holds the copyright on them until such time the law provides that they return to the public domain. Am I splitting hairs? Absolutely not.

Please don't misunderstand me - I have absolutely no problem paying for the creative works I use. I pay for music, artwork, and photography on a regular basis, in fact. I do have a problem, however, with doing business with a man who is so quick to brand me a thief and a liar. If I jumped to conclusions so easily in my job, I would no doubt be fired for making such wild accusations against my clients.

As I stated in my previous email to Chris, I expect nothing less than a public apology for his reckless and irresponsible accusations against me. Perhaps if Chris wishes to sell more photographs, he shouldn't be so eager to libel his potential customers.

We'll see each other on Wendesday, Fergie, and I see no need to say anything about this matter. It is my hope, however, that you will do a little research, a little soul-searching, and ask yourself why you and Chris were so eager to drag my name through the mud over a simple mistake - one that was corrected before it could do any harm.

Regards,

Aaron


Personally I see Arron as a sad example of the human race. Trying to justify his wrong so to stay outta trouble.

Feel free to give any more input, if you want, re: this latest SEC (Secure Email Communication)

[StevenV]

Photographs can't "return to the public domain" as they were never there in the first place. The photographer (unless a work-for-hire contract is in place) owns both the image and the copyright.

What part of "education, criticism, reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" does he think his use or potential use contituted?

There are documents that talk about Violation of Copyright only occuring if a work was copied for public use or for sale. I don't know how the law views that, but his having it on his own computer could be likened to purchasing a CD then "ripping" it to iTunes... an act that technically is a violation of section 106 but is something that, since it's (usually) for our own personal use is (usually) allowed.

All that said, you probably need to evaluate what damage is being done or could continue to be done to the musical ensamble, and if it's worthwhile to continue to try to educate/drive the point home. from what I understand, unless you've registered your images prior to the infraction with the copyright office most lawyers won't even touch a case (even if it's a pretty clear violation) anyway, and even then you'd likely not get much compensation. Is being right, and perhaps even taking it to court for $50 or even $150, worth the Chorus being disrupted and perhaps even breaking up with hard feelings all around? only you can answer that. :dunno In any case, it's probably long past the time to get the discussion out of email and sit down to talk over a cold drink. email's the worst form of communication when trying to resolve a dispute.

/me bowing out of this thread for good now...

[slapshot]

Photographs can't "return to the public domain" as they were never there in the first place. The photographer (unless a work-for-hire contract is in place) owns both the image and the copyright. .

copyrights do expire and the work does go into the public domain eventually

I believe if created before 1978 it is life of the author +70 years, after 1978, it expires after 120 years from creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter...either way, you won't have to worry about it in your lifetime :wink

this guy Aaron is a real a-hole...seems clear his intent was to infringe on the copyright...I would have an attorney send him a nice letter

[RogersDA]

Copyright infringement can be considered criminal theft in certain circumstances. Perhaps a quick read of the The No Electronic Theft "NET" Act signed into law by Clinton and codified as 18 U.S.C. 2319 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html) which provides for criminal penalties.

Your friend's statement that images are not property is ridiculous - that's why we distinguish between real property and intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks).

On another note the "defenses" raised by your friend are the same raised by every other accused infringer. It was fair use!!! Bah - almost always fails in situations like this.

[Seymore]

/me bowing out of this thread for good now...
Understood Steven. And thanks for all your input. I'll mark your words.


copyrights do expire and the work does go into the public domain eventually

I believe if created before 1978 it is life of the author +70 years, after 1978, it expires after 120 years from creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter...either way, you won't have to worry about it in your lifetime :wink

this guy Aaron is a real a-hole...seems clear his intent was to infringe on the copyright...I would have an attorney send him a nice letter
I think you may have seen/meant this link? http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html
Well, needless to say we'll both be dead by that point and this 20-something has much to learn about dealing with people who are obviously smarter than himself. Also, see my next post. My very last reply to any email he may send. But I will post anything else I may get from him. The "attorney letter" is a good idea, if I had his snail mail addy...


Copyright infringement can be considered criminal theft in certain circumstances. Perhaps a quick read of the The No Electronic Theft "NET" Act signed into law by Clinton and codified as 18 U.S.C. 2319 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html) which provides for criminal penalties.

Your friend's statement that images are not property is ridiculous - that's why we distinguish between real property and intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks).

On another note the "defenses" raised by your friend are the same raised by every other accused infringer. It was fair use!!! Bah - almost always fails in situations like this.
Thanks David... Read below. I did use some "artistic license" in my words... but isn't that part of being a photo-g? Hey, the cops lie to get confessions and other information they need, right? Well...

[Seymore]

"Aaron... this is my final email to the effect of this issue. And if I hear anything else from you about this... well, thanks for the information I can use.

After consulting my Copyright Attorney I've come to discover the following, which I will educate you with:
- Copyrights expire. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html But we will both be dead and it really will not matter then.

- Copyright infringement can be considered criminal theft in certain circumstances. Perhaps a quick read of The No Electronic Theft "NET" Act signed into law by Clinton and codified as 18 U.S.C. 2319 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html) which provides for criminal penalties. Also see THIS LINK (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html). So, by calling you a thief I was right on the mark. I wonder how many other Copyright Infringement issues could be found on your machine by my lawyer?

- What part of "fair use" (education, criticism, reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research) do you think constitutes how you were going to use it? I think none.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

- Your statement that "The photos Chris has taken are NOT his "property" is ridiculous - that's why we distinguish between real property and intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks). And this is why I post the information I do. It should be very obvious to anyone that they are my property and my copyright.
So, in my view it was not a mistake on your part, it was a deliberate attempt to violate copyrights. You proved/stated this below. You intended to take this image, which was not yours to take, and use it in promotional literature even after having it offered to you at a fair price. Your criminal activity has been discovered and can be used against you. I would suggest you not just read what you think applies to you, but absorb everything in any document you read if you have no intention of finding a lawyer to defend your actions.

EOT...
Chris Moore
MooreFoto"


Thanks again to all who contributed in this thread. I'm sorry that no one with actual experience in matters like this chimed in. Oh well...

[bham]

IMHO

My main suggestion to you would be to go through your site and fergies and watermark everything. The additional cost to get a pro account is worth the image protection hands down. Then he wouldn't have been able to attempt to use the photo in the first place. Sometimes temptation gets the best of people.

He didn't like being called a thief in front of his peers which is understandable. He did admit and apologize for violating the copyright of the photo and explained that he did a screenshot. If after that response you would have said, "Oh I wasn't aware that is what you did or that was possible. From now on I will ensure that we watermark all photos with our copyright so any screenshots are unusable to viewers for any possible copyright violations but allow for fair use (to view but if printed or displayed in any fashion, their ownership and copyright is evident to everyone that sees them)". That right there might have possibly ended the discussion. Hindsight is always 20/20 and at that point he seemed a little reasonable in his response. I myself would have been significantly angered by this, as I was when I saw one of my images stolen and printed. But you live and learn. Anyway at this point I don't think he is going to back down from his demand and I am not sure you should give way, but to put the issue to bed you may need to speak in person. If you could come to the agreement that maybe calling him a theif was a bit harsh, then maybe he would admit (he actually said "I didn't men to violate your copyrights") that he shouldn't have done the screenshot and can understand that you see a violation of your copyright as you losing potential sales, thus a loss of income, and to you that was taking money out of your pocket and thus a theft.

At this point if you want to diffuse the situation, I think his anger comes from the term "thief", if you might back off that a little he may calm down and come around some. For two sides to come to a compromise one side needs to take the first step. I am assuming he has no value in settling the dispute and you have potential future business with him and other Chorus members. I agree that you are right but how much business is it worth to say "I was right" to him and the other chorus members? If they don't realize you were right, then I doubt even having him admit to everybody he was wrong probably wouldn't change their minds.

[bham]

Also hey from a former resident of Lacey, WA. I get to visit every 3 or 4 years but haven't been back since 2000. I hope to get out to Washington within the next year. I shot a ton of images in 2000 all film and haven't had a chance to scan much of the film.

[Seymore]

Also hey from a former resident of Lacey, WA. I get to visit every 3 or 4 years but haven't been back since 2000. I hope to get out to Washington within the next year. I shot a ton of images in 2000 all film and haven't had a chance to scan much of the film.
Hmmmmmmmm... Sent you a PM about this.


And thanks for your input. I know people don't like being called a thief... I rarely pull punches but I try to be somewhat PC and in this case, if I see a spotted horse, I call it a spotted horse. And that's all there is to it.

I also think "PC-ness" is drastically over-rated. What are we trying to teach people now with this? That they will get a slap on the hand if they cross the line? And where is that line drawn? Seem to be many grey areas when is comes to "being PC". Sad AFAIC. Draw the danm line and let people know where it is. If they want to cross it, they know there will be consequences.

The watermarks (WM) have been initiated and will remain. My site is not yet a PRO acct... but I now see the importance of this and will be upgrading as soon as I start migrating the images to MooreFoto. Should be August or so...


Oh, and please take a look at the Div II (http://fergie.smugmug.com/Evergreen%20District%202007%20Division%20II%20-%20Woodinville,%20WA) / Div IV (http://fergie.smugmug.com/Evergreen%20District%202007%20Division%20IV%20-%20Canby,%20OR) images and let me know if you have any thoughts/suggestions for me to the effect of the WM's. Think 70% fade is prominent enough? I tried 65% but thought it was almost to prominent. I want them to be able to see the images and faces without to much distraction.

[bham]

Hmmmmmmmm... Sent you a PM about this.


And thanks for your input. I know people don't like being called a thief... I rarely pull punches but I try to be somewhat PC and in this case, if I see a spotted horse, I call it a spotted horse. And that's all there is to it.

I also think "PC-ness" is drastically over-rated. What are we trying to teach people now with this? That they will get a slap on the hand if they cross the line? And where is that line drawn? Seem to be many grey areas when is comes to "being PC". Sad AFAIC. Draw the danm line and let people know where it is. If they want to cross it, they know there will be consequences.

The watermarks (WM) have been initiated and will remain. My site is not yet a PRO acct... but I now see the importance of this and will be upgrading as soon as I start migrating the images to MooreFoto. Should be August or so...


Oh, and please take a look at the Div II (http://fergie.smugmug.com/Evergreen%20District%202007%20Division%20II%20-%20Woodinville,%20WA) / Div IV (http://fergie.smugmug.com/Evergreen%20District%202007%20Division%20IV%20-%20Canby,%20OR) images and let me know if you have any thoughts/suggestions for me to the effect of the WM's. Think 70% fade is prominent enough? I tried 65% but thought it was almost to prominent. I want them to be able to see the images and faces without to much distraction.

I do a basic text @year website but then rotate the text 45degrees and tile it and fade about 50%. I end up with mulitple lines of text diagonally across the image. Mainly so people don't screenshot then crop in on part of the image. For example
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/156911244-S.jpg

but if you did it like I do you would get this
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/156913717-S-1.jpg

Please excuse the fact that I copied an image to use as an example. I will be glad to delete them.

I wasn't suggesting that you go PC, just if holding your ground was costing you business that maybe trying to resolve the argument. But if that is not a major concern then stick to your guns.

[Angelo]

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/156913717-S-1.jpg



For a copyright imprimatur to be valid it must contain: the word copyright or the encircled c symbol, the year of creation and the person (or legal entity) owning the copyright.

In the example above, is MooreFoto a legal entity such as a corporation or LLC? If not it can not "hold" copyright and should be replaced with the name of the photographer.

[bham]

Angelo, more of my point was about having a watermark like the second one makes it pretty obvious who the photo is and someone can't potential use a screenshot for anything unlike how they are currently watermarked, someone could do some cropping and have something they could use on a website, etc.

[Seymore]

I do a basic text @year website but then rotate the text 45degrees and tile it and fade about 50%. I end up with mulitple lines of text diagonally across the image. Mainly so people don't screenshot then crop in on part of the image. For example
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/156911244-S.jpg

but if you did it like I do you would get this
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/156913717-S-1.jpg

Please excuse the fact that I copied an image to use as an example. I will be glad to delete them.

I wasn't suggesting that you go PC, just if holding your ground was costing you business that maybe trying to resolve the argument. But if that is not a major concern then stick to your guns.
No worries about copying that image. You using this image, as an example, I would call a good example of "fair use". Also, I would like to know your process in rendering the CR as you did. Please share. Did you put this on before UL'ing the image or is this a SM ability you used?

Also, as you can see, I get the white back ground on mine. Even if I save as a PNG. (using PSP9... not a CS man.) So, any thoughts for me to this effect?

And your point about tiling @ a 45 degree angle is well noted. I see the tiling aspect in setting up the CR on SM. But please talk to me more about your process...

[still learning here]

For a copyright imprimatur to be valid it must contain: the word copyright or the encircled c symbol, the year of creation and the person (or legal entity) owning the copyright.

In the example above, is MooreFoto a legal entity such as a corporation or LLC? If not it can not "hold" copyright and should be replaced with the name of the photographer.
Understood about the year being added. As a Sole-Proprietor registered with the State and paying taxes I think you're incorrect about who can hold a CR. Please point me to a link that proves your point as I'm unable to find any specific information to this regard. My understanding is that even Grandma has a CR every time she pushes the shutter button.

[Angelo]

Angelo, more of my point was about having a watermark like the second one makes it pretty obvious who the photo is and someone can't potential use a screenshot for anything unlike how they are currently watermarked, someone could do some cropping and have something they could use on a website, etc.

Yep, I agree. :thumb

But it's important people do it correctly as well.

[Angelo]

As a Sole-Proprietor registered with the State and paying taxes I think you're incorrect about who can hold a CR. Please point me to a link that proves your point as I'm unable to find any specific information to this regard. My understanding is that even Grandma has a CR every time she pushes the shutter button.

You're confusing two points. You, as does grandma, hold copyright to any image you create. I never said otherwise.

YOU own copyright. YOU! I can't point to anything more than all the information already covered in copyright discussions. Read the info on the capyright pages; you'll see reference is always made to the artist who created the original piece of art.

In your case Seymore is THE artist. MooreFoto is not a person (or legal entity) so can not be an artist.

Individuals are legal entities. Corporations are legal entities.

DBA's, Partnerships, et al are not considered legal entities with rights to own and hold property, real or intellectual. Try buying a building under the name MooreFoto (DBA), see how far you get.

MooreFoto, "Inc." could buy a building and could hold copyright.

so back to my original point... if you're not incorporated, you are doing yourself a disservice by marking copyright as you have, leaving yourself vulnerable.

I'm trying to offer you advice, not start an argument.

[Seefutlung]

Interesting thread. My call, not that anybody cares ... is that Aaron is a weasel with no backbone or huevos to admit he did something wrong. But then again I'm only seeing this matter from one side ...

Not only did Aaron take/use an image not belonging, which was clearly for sale ... but he insulted you by requesting you find a photo hosting site which would make it easier for him to take/use images which belong to others without consent or payment.

Slimeball.

Then he hides, like a cockroach, behind "fair use" and tries to dilute the situation by saying has has hundreds of images ... (all probably acquired under the "Fair Use" clause.)

As to calling him a thief ... I once call an attorney an a*****e in court. We rode down the elevator together and he threatened to sue me ala slander ... I told him go ahead, I would love to see you defend in court that you are not an a*****e. The threat ended there.


Gary

PS- It's a shame that people without honor are allowed to associate with and just make life miserable for those that act with honor.
G

[bham]

No worries about copying that image. You using this image, as an example, I would call a good example of "fair use". Also, I would like to know your process in rendering the CR as you did. Please share. Did you put this on before UL'ing the image or is this a SM ability you used?

Also, as you can see, I get the white back ground on mine. Even if I save as a PNG. (using PSP9... not a CS man.) So, any thoughts for me to this effect?

And your point about tiling @ a 45 degree angle is well noted. I see the tiling aspect in setting up the CR on SM. But please talk to me more about your process...

In photoshop, new file, created layer clear, then changed background layer to regular layer and made it black. Did the type in white, then Edit, transform rotate. Did -45 degrees. Saved as a psd (so if you want to come back and edit the text without having to start from scratch) , then delete the black layer and saved as a .png and interlace none.

Upload and then create watermark tile, whatever % fade.

One important note. I usually create multiple copies of it with the image size from 100 x 100 pixels to 300 x 300 pixels. The smaller ones repeat more once tiled. I upload and test a few. I can email you the ones I created if you like. PM me your email address.

[bham]

But it's important people do it correctly as well.

I agree and I probably need to change my watermrks as well.

[bham]

For people like him (the thief) you could always do something like this

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/157114831-L-1.jpg

[Seymore]

I'm trying to offer you advice, not start an argument.
Thanks for bearing with me on this and explaining, in detail. I now understand what you're saying. I'll correct this to reflect my name as the copyright holder. No argument was ever intended. Just trying to get more information so I can combat this down the road... should it occur again. Thanks Angelo!


Gary

PS- It's a shame that people without honor are allowed to associate with and just make life miserable for those that act with honor.
Thanks Gary. I feel the same way you do and have no intention of letting this occur again. But I guess this "weasel" was a learning lesson I needed. Can you say "right place, right time"? Oh well, I can't let it drag me down... but I also can't let it get away without being addressed. I was just trying to be firm and not yield my position.


For people like him (the thief) you could always do something like this
Actually, I went one step further. http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723709. Just a "LET IT BE KNOWN" statement. And if he chooses to push after this... like with a lawyer, he'll leave me no choice but to push back. I have all his emails that have been addressed to me, and words mean things.

PM Sent man...




Oh, and his final LAME email is coming right up. :cry

[Seymore]

Looks to me like he is living in his own little world.

"Chris,

Thanks again for the email. Did you actually consult with a copyright lawyer about this topic? From the look of things, it seems you are mistaken on so many different levels that I would seriously doubt you've done anything of the sort. For instance, no competent copyright lawyer would conflate "property" with copyrights, trademarks, and patents in the way you have in your emails to me. But that would mean I'd be calling you a liar -- something I choose not to do. You may lower yourself to that level, but I will abstain from that sort of dishonest behavior.

I could take the time to comb through your email, pointing out every inaccurate, misleading, or flat out wrong statement you try to pass as fact, but I won't. I don't want to waste my time and, quite frankly, I don't think you'd listen to reason even if I did. All I can do is encourage you to educate yourself properly before you start throwing around words like "thief" and "liar." I remind you that just as copyright infringement is a serious crime, so is libel. For that matter, harassment and intimidation are also taken very seriously by the courts -- somehow I doubt your offer to have your lawyer examine my computer was made in good faith.

If you're not willing to apologize for your baseless and reckless accusations, then it seems we have no further business. I will take the high road, be the bigger man, and end our correspondence. Any further communication from you, be it email or otherwise, will be considered harassment and will be forwarded on to *my* lawyer as evidence.

Best of luck to you, Mr. Moore, in all your future endeavors.

Regards,

Aaron"


No, I did not respond to this... nor will I. He never answered any of the questions I asked in my last email. SAD!

And the threat in the final full paragraph makes me want to at least see what a lawyer would want to address this dweeeb and put him in his place. Sortta steams me! And this whole email makes you wonder if he's really in his right mind.

[Halliday]

Anyone that quotes a wiki for legal issues is a nut. Don't deal with him.

[StevenV]

copyrights do expire and the work does go into the public domain eventually
Understood. When I said they can't return to the public domain since they weren't there to begin with, it was with emphesis on the word "return."

I can "go to" Hawaii, but I can't can't "return" there since I've not yet been to the islands.

The photos have likewise never been in the public domain, so they can't "return" to it... though at some point in the future their copyright may expire or they may otherwise enter the public domain.

Semantics, I know.

[Seymore]

Anyone that quotes a wiki for legal issues is a nut. Don't deal with him.
Yep... had me wondering also. And knowing that Wiki's can be modded by "people", some who are NOT lawyers, makes you question their validity when it comes to legal issues.

[docwalker]

Yep... had me wondering also. And knowing that Wiki's can be modded by "people", some who are NOT lawyers, makes you question their validity when it comes to legal issues.

Amen.... I was thinking the exact same thing while reading the thread. If he depends on wiki for his legal advice :dunno.

[mercphoto]

Amen.... I was thinking the exact same thing while reading the thread. If he depends on wiki for his legal advice :dunno.
This thread reminds me to water-mark some new galleries of mine. A lesson I learned two racing seasons ago and have apparantly forgotten. It amazes me how little people will pay for someone else's work and time. $40 too much to pay for a photo to use in a program? $20 was too much still? This thread was a depressing read....

[Seymore]

Sorry you saw it as depressing Bill. I try to look at it as more of a learning experience... or a reminder for those who have gotten lax and have images that earn them a living. There are low-lifes out there who think that everything/everyone is there for them. And this is truly SAD!

[Seymore]

For those still watching this thread... Please let me know if you think this version of watermark is acceptable protection.
http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723715
http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723718


Thanks,

[mercphoto]

For those still watching this thread... Please let me know if you think this version of watermark is acceptable protection.
Most likely, yes.

[Angelo]

For those still watching this thread... Please let me know if you think this version of watermark is acceptable protection.
http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723715
http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723718


Thanks,

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html
Form of Notice

The form of the copyright notice used for “visually perceptible” copies—that is, those that can be seen or read, either directly (such as books) or with the aid of a machine (such as films)—is different from the form used for phonorecords of sound recordings (such as compact disks or cassettes).
Visually Perceptible Copies

The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain three elements. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies. The elements are:

The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology.

The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles; and
The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.*
Example: © 2004 Jane Doe
*The United States is a member of the Universal Copyright Convention (the UCC), which came into force on September 16, 1955. To guarantee protection for a copyrighted work in all UCC member countries, the notice must consist of the symbol © (the word “Copyright” or the abbreviation are not acceptable), the year of first publication, and the name of the copyright proprietor. Example: © 2004 John Doe. For information about international copyright relationships, request Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States.
The “C in a circle” notice is used only on “visually perceptible” copies. Certain kinds of works, for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works, may be fixed not in “copies” but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are “phonorecords” and not “copies,” the “C in a circle” notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

[Seymore]

Thanks Bill...
Thanks for the link Angelo...

[bham]

For those still watching this thread... Please let me know if you think this version of watermark is acceptable protection.
http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723715
http://fergie.smugmug.com/gallery/2723718


Thanks,

Yep, they came out good.

Finally got them to work I see.

[Seymore]

Yep, they came out good.

Finally got them to work I see.
Thanks... Yep, those are actually my creation. And I see how things work now. Sorta laborius to get all of those albums labeled. But it's a done deal now. :wink

[k2butter]

Anyone that quotes a wiki for legal issues is a nut. Don't deal with him.

This was the very first thing I thought when I saw the first link he posted! I actually laughed that he gave a link to wiki :rofl

[dogwood]

My contribution to this thread (which is quite interesting-- the thread, not my contribution :D)

I'll point out that the warnings before DVD movies now use some variation on the word "theft"-- as in "you wouldn't steal a car... etc, etc... so don't steal this movie by illegally copying it."

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. The music and film industry calls it theft to make illegal copies. And I'm guessing they have much, much, much better lawyers than me!

[Seymore]

Thanks for your input K2B... It does make one wonder what our 20-something kids are learning (life lessons) and their interpretation of reality. BTW, I like your daily self port gallery. Keep it going...



I didn't know that Pete. Thanks. If you do come across the actual wording you remember, please share it. In very fine print, on my Season One DVD set of 24, it reads "Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine".

Hmmmmmmm... maybe I should call the FBI about this issue? :scratch
I wonder if he'd listen to them? :huh

[dogwood]

I didn't know that Pete. Thanks. If you do come across the actual wording you remember, please share it. In very fine print, on my Season One DVD set of 24, it reads "Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine".

Hmmmmmmm... maybe I should call the FBI about this issue? :scratch
I wonder if he'd listen to them? :huh

What I'm talking about are the new commercials that run on new releases when you first pop them in (and you can't skip over them). I know there's the FBI warning too-- but now most movies have actual commercials that call illegal copying of the movies "theft" and compare it to stealing a car.

[k2butter]

[quote=Seymore]Thanks for your input K2B... It does make one wonder what our 20-something kids are learning (life lessons) and their interpretation of reality. BTW, I like your daily self port gallery. Keep it going.../quote]

Oy! Don't get me started about learning life lessons, just today, we have been discussing taking back some of the folks we deal with back kindergarten to teach them all over again! :huh

Oh, and Thank you. :)

I have really enjoyed reading this post, I have learned a lot... some I may take with a grain of salt, but still an interesting topic for a novice like me....

[Seymore]

What I'm talking about are the new commercials that run on new releases when you first pop them in (and you can't skip over them). I know there's the FBI warning too-- but now most movies have actual commercials that call illegal copying of the movies "theft" and compare it to stealing a car.
Ahhhhhhh... OK. I'll have to pay more attention the next DVD I watch.


Oy! Don't get me started about learning life lessons, just today, we have been discussing taking back some of the folks we deal with back kindergarten to teach them all over again! :huh
My wife has a saying that the "brain fairy" usually shows up about the age of 2 in dogs...
...and 30 in humans! :wink :D :thumb

[claudermilk]

My wife has a saying that the "brain fairy" usually shows up about the age of 2 in dogs...
...and 30 in humans! :wink :D :thumb

:lol4:lol4:lol4

That's great! I'm going to have to remember that one. Unfortunately, it seems many people by 30 have developed just enough instinct to hide from that fairy.

[Seymore]

:lol4:lol4:lol4

That's great! I'm going to have to remember that one. Unfortunately, it seems many people by 30 have developed just enough instinct to hide from that fairy.
Glad you got a chuckle on that... :D

I think that the brain fairy picks its victims very carefully. And this is why some people shouldn't reproduce. :deal
Ahhhhh... But then we wouldn't have these fine examples of who to avoid, would we? :wink

[JohnnyJr]

Because it appears to me there are hours worth of effort devoted here to this pointless issue.

Is $20 worth this much effort? For an image that's probably 4"x6" at screen res? Better to just ask for a by line and be done with it. Generosity will earn you far more in the long run. No, I didn't read all 50 responses, I lost interest after 3 due to the sheer banality of trying to own something that exists in cyberspace. The actual harm here is nil & the only folks agonizing over copyright on such a small scale are the wannabe waneabe pros shooting little league games. People, wake up and realize you've got better things to worry about. Go kiss your spouse and tell your kids you love them, go blow some bubbles, or, better yet, make some new work that you love.

As the wise man one said: pick your battles.

Just my $.02.

[Seymore]

I do understand what you're saying here Johnny.

IMPO it has nothing to do with "What is 20 minutes of you life worth?" but more towards the ethics of the matter, the principles involved and the precedence this example sets for all who have to deal with me now and in the future. I, personally, will not tolerate it.


ADDITION: I kiss my DW and kids multiple times a day. For these wonders I am truly grateful.

[Angelo]

Because it appears to me there are hours worth of effort devoted here to this pointless issue.

Is $20 worth this much effort? For an image that's probably 4"x6" at screen res? Better to just ask for a by line and be done with it. Generosity will earn you far more in the long run. No, I didn't read all 50 responses, I lost interest after 3 due to the sheer banality of trying to own something that exists in cyberspace. The actual harm here is nil & the only folks agonizing over copyright on such a small scale are the wannabe waneabe pros shooting little league games. People, wake up and realize you've got better things to worry about. Go kiss your spouse and tell your kids you love them, go blow some bubbles, or, better yet, make some new work that you love.

As the wise man one said: pick your battles.

Just my $.02.




Johnny, You're probably right. Hey I checked out your site. Really beautiful shots and I like the way you designed the presentation also.

BTW - I've taken a copy of your shot of Manarola, Italy. It will be perfect for a campaign I'm working on for Starbucks. Thanks.

[RogersDA]

BTW - I've taken a copy of your shot of Manarola, Italy. It will be perfect for a campaign I'm working on for Starbucks. Thanks.

Hey that's great, Angelo. Can you email me a copy so that I can include Italy with our school's international day postcard sets we are printing and selling?:wink:D

[Angelo]

Hey that's great, Angelo. Can you email me a copy so that I can include Italy with our school's international day postcard sets we are printing and selling?:wink:D

Sure! See anything else you might need? I'm thinking of going back for seconds myself.

[RogersDA]

Sure! See anything else you might need? I'm thinking of going back for seconds myself.
:lol4

[JohnnyJr]

Hiya Seymore,
Actually, I really do understand what you mean about the principle of the matter. I just think there a point to which people become obsessed with this issue. Having your stuff out there on the web & in the world for people to see means giving up some control. I think to a certain extent we just need to accept that & worry about the things that really matter, like working on our craft.

[JohnnyJr]

Hey RogersDA & Angelo!
Glad you like! I just realized I had 'Protected: Yes' set in my customization, but I've set to 'Protected: No' so you can download the larges now. Ok, so now that you've got them, take a look at this link about printing and resolution:

http://www.mmprint.com/highres_photos.cfm

See, the Large you've downloaded will be less than 1.5" x 2" when you try to print it on those coffee cups and postcards. You need 300dpi at final size for that. 200dpi will give you a decent inkjet print, but you're talking about an image that will be 3" x 2". :dunno

This is what I'm talking about. Sure, you can use it on the web, plenty of rez there, but not in print. I couldn't care less about how it gets used on the web because it's cyberspace. The only people making money selling access to screen rez images in cyberspace are porn sites.

My full rez originals are NOT available for download because those could actually be reproduced photographically or in offset litho.

So, if you want the Manarola shot @ 300dpi so you can print it, let me know, I'll make you a great deal! $20 should be enough to compensate me the time I spent sharing this enjoyable conversation about resolution with y'all.
:lust

[Angelo]

Hey RogersDA & Angelo!
Glad you like! I just realized I had 'Protected: Yes' set in my customization, but I've set to 'Protected: No' so you can download the larges now. Ok, so now that you've got them, take a look at this link about printing and resolution:

http://www.mmprint.com/highres_photos.cfm

See, the Large you've downloaded will be less than 1.5" x 2" when you try to print it on those coffee cups and postcards. You need 300dpi at final size for that. 200dpi will give you a decent inkjet print, but you're talking about an image that will be 3" x 2". :dunno

This is what I'm talking about. Sure, you can use it on the web, plenty of rez there, but not in print. I couldn't care less about how it gets used on the web because it's cyberspace. The only people making money selling access to screen rez images in cyberspace are porn sites.

My full rez originals are NOT available for download because those could actually be reproduced photographically or in offset litho.

So, if you want the Manarola shot @ 300dpi so you can print it, let me know, I'll make you a great deal! $20 should be enough to compensate me the time I spent sharing this enjoyable conversation about resolution with y'all.
:lust
John:

All joking aside... of course I took nothing from your site but you can't be so ignorant of the potential of your images to think that low-res shots aren't valuable and entirely usable by companies launching commercial websites every day.

Half of my photo purchases, as a creative director, are for web use. I've paid as much as $3500 for a low-res, small scale image with limited use, so I have no idea how you equate our discussion with porn sites.

While you may think a thread like this is a waste of time, I rather take the position of helping to protect others, particularly newcombers to the business, from repeating mistakes.

Now, what if I were working on a website or an email based ad campaign for, oh let's say Intercontinental Hotels and I came across your site and liked the images and decided they fit the theme of my project and just took them?

Would you feel differently?

You see, this business is not just about selling prints and coffee mugs. It's about creating compelling images that have value, both artistically and commercially.

[JohnnyJr]

Hey Angelo,
Actually, I really do know what you mean, and this forum isn't a waste of time in the slightest. In fact, I had a copyright issue this week with an artist I work with. We agreed on a simple usage statement and it further depened our valuable professional relationship.

It's just hard seeing folks get so worked up over 'infringement issues' when it's something very small scale that is impossible to prosecute unless you're able to afford lenghty litigation. A bit of generosity will often reap much larger rewards and help to develop relationships with clients.

Angelo, If you see something on my site that so outstanding that you need it I say go for it. I assume my images will be used in this way because my site is public. A photo credit would be great if you're inclined to include it. I figure you'll contact me if you need the hi-rez for something that's going to be published.

I just think there needs to be a logical balance, especially when it comes to low-resolution images. Generosity is also something that newcomers to the business need to understand. Your best work will come from referrals, and you get those by being the type of person that people want to work with.

So the conversation here is indeed appreciated!

:thumb

[jdryan3]

John:
Half of my photo purchases, as a creative director, are for web use. I've paid as much as $3500 for a low-res, small scale image with limited use...

Angelo -
hmmm, I doubt these (http://jdryan3.smugmug.com) are worth that much, but i'll take half that :lol3

But I do have more...

[Angelo]

Angelo -
hmmm, I doubt these (http://jdryan3.smugmug.com) are worth that much, but i'll take half that :lol3

But I do have more...


:D :thumb

[Seymore]

Hey Angelo,
Actually, I really do know what you mean, and this forum isn't a waste of time in the slightest. In fact, I had a copyright issue this week with an artist I work with. We agreed on a simple usage statement and it further depened our valuable professional relationship.
Johnny... I understand what you're saying. But my believe is that if you let one small item slide, you're just setting yourself up for a bigger fall... if it were ever to happen. I also have learned much with all the feedback here.

BTW, care to share, at the least, the gist of your usage statement for us new photo-biz upstarts? I would like to see your frame of mind when it comes to writing usage statements. And take this to PM or email if you feel it's needed.



While you may think a thread like this is a waste of time, I rather take the position of helping to protect others, particularly newcombers to the business, from repeating mistakes.

Now, what if I were working on a website or an email based ad campaign for, oh let's say Intercontinental Hotels and I came across your site and liked the images and decided they fit the theme of my project and just took them?

Would you feel differently?

You see, this business is not just about selling prints and coffee mugs. It's about creating compelling images that have value, both artistically and commercially.
Well stated Angelo. I'm looking to learn more about the do and don't as well as how to deal with issues I come across. With this I've come across a niche market and find some of these groups have not had prints or WEB images for 5+ years... if at all.



One other thing I learned with a talk to Fergie the other day is that Aaron was offered the image for a fair value. He then told Fergie that it was to much to pay and he'd get it off the WEB. Some people have no honor.

Please also understand that these are "non-profit" groups and I just want to keep prices reasonable for them. I can tell you that I've sold a fair number of digital images. So I know that I've not over priced them for the market place I'm addressing, I'm getting some reasonable exposure and learning as I go.

[mercphoto]

Johnny... I understand what you're saying. But my believe is that if you let one small item slide, you're just setting yourself up for a bigger fall... if it were ever to happen. I also have learned much with all the feedback here.
I'm no lawyer and there is a lot about this stuff I do not understand but I do know there is a lot of truth in the above statement. I know that sometimes companies will protect their trade-marks very aggressively, even going after Mom and Pop outlets. It sometimes makes the company look like the evil giant going after someone who is profiting maybe a few hundred bucks, at most. In reality what happens is you cannot make it appear as if you protect your trademarks and IP in a hap-hazard or discriminatory manner. Because then a big dog comes to town and starts to infringe on your rights and can get away with it because you have shown a past history of not enforcing your rights. It has happened before.

While I do not like slippery slope arguments as a general rule sometimes the slippery slope is very real. Protect your rights as often as you can and don't be tempted to let something slide just because the infraction is minor.

[Seymore]

:agree



<story>
There was a small site, about 2-3 years ago that was forced to change its name by a Corp giant. The forums name was Sonycams.com. They sold nothing, except personal people selling used gear, and in no way detracted from the Sony name. Actually it was good advertising and everyone talked about the cams from experience and honestly... the good, the bad and the ugly. Well, till Sony lawyers contacted the Admin and told him he couldn't use their name, in any fashion, as a domain name. He tried to explain that he in no way was affiliated with Sony and even had the disclaimer on the home page. At that point the site had been up for about 2-3 years. I guess they can't listen to everyone and grant the license to one and not another. But a sad day when something like that happens.
</story>

But in my case this is a "kid" (and actually upon reflecting on this whole comm with the thief) with child like tendencies, who tried to cover his mistake by pointing to things that didn't apply to him in the real world and never answered direct question. Just a sad example of what some people will do to save $20. I didn't run up there and spend 2 days shooting for gratis.

[JohnnyJr]

Hi Seymore,
The copyright agreement was really simple. It says that I retain copyright and the artist has unlimited use of the images but excludes resale in any form. This gives the artist the freedom of use he's looking for while protecting my copyright, so everyone's happy.

I was paid up-front for the shooting and processing and supplied a disk. The copyright agreement and attribution statement were included on the disk with the images.

Hope that helps.


BTW, care to share, at the least, the gist of your usage statement for us new photo-biz upstarts? I would like to see your frame of mind when it comes to writing usage statements. And take this to PM or email if you feel it's needed.

[JohnnyJr]

FYI: I found this site this morning. You have to view the photographer's copyright statement before entering his site:

http://www.ronseymour.com/

[Seymore]

FYI: I found this site this morning. You have to view the photographer's copyright statement before entering his site:

http://www.ronseymour.com/
Hmmmmmmmm!!! Interesting way to introduce your images. No way to claim you're not aware!

And thanks for your wording on the copyright agreement. Can I ask... do you know if a email agreement is equal to a written, signed paper copy? The reason for this is many of my customers are out of town. Some are even out of state and want use of digital images. Any thoughts?

[Seymore]

I was pointed to this URL for some really good reading re: Copyright Infringment...
http://www.photoattorney.com/

[Angelo]

I was pointed to this URL for some really good reading re: Copyright Infringment...
<b>http://www.photoattorney.com/</b>

you'll find that and other resources here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62387

[Seymore]

:thumb Thanks man!!!

[JohnnyJr]

Hi Seymore,
How about faxing your aggrements and having them signed and faxed/mailed back to you?

It is my understanding from researching the government's website that there's a difference between a copyright statement and a copyright agreement. That website (included in Angelo's thread) is particularly helpful on the details.

The Ron Seymore (http://www.ronseymour.com/) site is an interesting approach but it makes me nervous about even clicking through to the pix! Fortunately his work is pretty amazing. But definitely this approach is an option to consider.

[Seymore]

I don't know Johnny... And not everyone has FAX capabilities either. I'm just wondering if email is legally binding in cases like this. Most of my comm with buyers is via this media. I'll do more research on this and see what is binding.

[JohnnyJr]

There's much on this topic floating around the web but I'd definitely consult a real live contract attorney to be sure.

[Art Scott]

I know I have been on sites that made me check a box after I read all the legal stuff (of course all I really had to do was pull the legal statements down and clik the box at bottm, but I prefer to spend the 20 minutes actually reading them) and that check mark was also my digital signature assuring the site that I was of legal binding age in my state and could legally be held responsible for the signing of the contract.........just one I had remembered from signing for my dsl andI have read others for different sites.......so yes you can do it by email if the wording is correct that a typed and / or box check is considered a digital signature.......so on and so on.....actually I think I would consult a law professor at a local university to get a 3rd or 4th year student to write the proper language for you......could help them with a class and also help you by saving tons of money.

[Seymore]

Yes Johnny... I do think I'll pursue this in one form or fashion.

Good suggestion Art... I have a few colleges in my area. I think I'll start looking in this direction.



Thanks guys...

[littlebreeze]

Great thread, I've learned a lot from reading it, don't know if my stuff is good enough to steal but I watermark it anyway. Appreciate all the info that's floating around in here.

[LuckyBob]

Ugh Seymore, what a nasty situation. It occurred to me that your friend may have been violating that oh-so-lovely DMCA also in that he was circumventing a protection system (right-click protection). I wonder if theory holds any water... any legal experts? :scratch Even if it doesn't, he's stretching the law for his purposes - it could lend you a bit of ammo if he harasses you any more :D

More info: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html

[Seymore]

Ugh Seymore, what a nasty situation. It occurred to me that your friend may have been violating that oh-so-lovely DMCA also in that he was circumventing a protection system (right-click protection). I wonder if theory holds any water... any legal experts? :scratch Even if it doesn't, he's stretching the law for his purposes - it could lend you a bit of ammo if he harasses you any more :D

More info: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
Thanks for the link Bob. DAMN! That's a good legal read!!!

And actually, I've not heard back from him and have not pushed any more. What I have done is publicly let it be known that copyright infringement occurred with the groups (quartet) images. You can see what I'm referring to on THIS PAGE (http://fergie.smugmug.com/Evergreen%20District%202007%20Division%20II%20-%20Woodinville,%20WA/309657). (You'll see which album is out of place... Click on it, there's more info in the album.) I have strong feelings about public humiliation, using it to point to people who lack ethical and moral standards... I have found it serves me well.

[aerialphoto]

Thanks for the fascinating thread Seymore. Lots of good information from a real-world experience.

As I read the various wordy paragraphs from "Aaron" I had a thought: Except for admitting that publishing your image would have been wrong, he never really seems to admit that taking it was wrong in the first place - and then goes as far as to try and compare speeding with rape (what a stretch). I wonder how he would feel if we started comparing his "borrowing" of an image for his own use to downloading copyrighted music for his own use. If he was caught with thousands of .mp3s on his PC I don't think he could get away with crying "fair use" - and I further doubt he'd have much luck suing the hundreds of news outlets who would report that he was stealing music.

[S. Horton]

Anyone that quotes a wiki for legal issues is a nut. Don't deal with him.

+1 for that! And, the abuser always blames the victim.

[Itsme]

From my zillion years in the stock photo licensing biz...everyone who has "borrowed/stole/fair used to death,etc" my images will turn into a major sociopath and turn the WHOLE freaking situation around and blame the photographer for being wrong in some regard.

Watermarks are always a good idea.It's amazing that people steal 4x6 web size images and resell them onto CD's,upload them to stock photo sites and pretend it is their image to sell it or put them on ebay and sell them as 4x6 prints and have a lab print them.

Legalese all over a site and watermarks are my best and only defense at this time.

I have sued infringers and I have won :clap

itsme!

[bham]

I was in Costco yesterday and walked by the photo lab and saw a little display with a folded brochure that said "What you need to know about Copyright Law and Photography". A couple interesting quotes from inside that relate to this thread...

Under Did you Know?

You can be personally liable for copyright infringement even if you did not intend to break the law. Good intentions are not a defense for copyright infringement.

Just because a photograph is on the Internet does not mean it is in the public domain.

Purchasing prints of a photo, CD or DVD from a professional photographer or studio does not transfer the copyright of the photo to you, and the photo cannot be reproduced without a release.

[claudermilk]

Good for them. Now hopefully more people than just you picked up a copy & read it.

[irenelucier]

Watermarks are always a good idea....

Legalese all over a site and watermarks are my best and only defense at this time.

I have sued infringers and I have won :clap

itsme!
A lawyer's view (http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears.html) on the importance of watermarks... as she says at the end, you don't have to have registered your photo in advance to recover under the statute she discusses.

[jdryan3]

A lawyer's view (http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears.html) on the importance of watermarks... as she says at the end, you don't have to have registered your photo in advance to recover under the statute she discusses.

Having read the link, it seems that including copyright and other identifying information in EXIF data would be included if they altered/removed that EXIF info. :deal

[Itsme]

I have been thru the legal process several times. The FIRST thing you will be asked by a lawyer that you would want to handle you or a judge: 'Did you copyright the photos.' ' We need the certificate.'

Most likely if your images are not copyrighted the lawyer will tell you..sorry...why ? Because of the costs...generally $150-500 an hour depending where you will have to use. Oh,and that is plus all little expenses to...Do you know how many xerox copies will fly back and forth ?

There are different methods of someone stealing photos. I would not take this advice of not copyrighting photos and though I know that Carolyn is active giving advice on the photo boards and many things I agree with,there are some I don't. Not because I as a layman know more of course...It's just I've been there in different states and every judge is different but they all have asked the same questions.
A good place to pose this for advice to would be: ASMP,or SAA(stockartistalliance)
because many there have sued for big bucks and won.

You can also maybe search the archives for past cases on PDN(Photo District News)

On a few images of mine that were stolen and sold enmasse--watermarks were not removed since they stole high res images..and since they were old images that had been previosuly published, the court threw those images out of the lawsuit since they were not copyrighted. That really sucked because they were so exclusive and had such an incredible sales record too...

Each theft suit is different and do realize if you sue--it is very costly and you have to sue the infringer in their state which will also most likely entail you going to court in their state and you may or may not collect!

So,all the prevention that you can do BEFORE is well worth it. It may not prevent all theft but usually thieves go where the path of least resistance is..and if they ahve to break down so many virtual doors,they find it's easier to move on.

ItsMe:deal




Having read the link, it seems that including copyright and other identifying information in EXIF data would be included if they altered/removed that EXIF info. :deal