Originally Posted by kdog Don't tell me what I know or don't know. You have no idea what I know about copyright or licensing because I proffered no opinion on the subject one way or another.

Well, what I know is what you wrote, and what you wrote does not reflect even a rudimentary understanding of copyright law and licensing.

You did make the following two statements.

"The other gentleman was PAID for his work, by a friend no less! He agreed to do a job for a price, did it and got his compensation. It's done. "

and

"The way I see it is that you took the pictures for a friend, got paid for them and gave him the images. In absence of any other agreements, I don't see why they wouldn't use them in any way they see fit. "

If you were educated in copyright law, you would know that even though you have paid a photographer to take a photo, you don't then own the copyright to the photos the photographer took. The photographer still owns the copyright and it is up to him how you can use the photos ( this is the licensing part).

And your statement " In the absence of any other agreements I don't see why they wouldn't use them any way they see fit" is just flat out wrong.
The default of copyright law is that in the absence of any other agreement, the photos can NOT be used without express permission from the photographer.


EVen portrait photographers maintain the copyright on the portraits they take, which is why, when you bring a family portrait taken by a studio such as Olan Mills to Walmart (or wherever ) in order to get copies made, they will not do it unless you can show them that you have permission from the copyright holder, which is the photographer who took the portrait.

Disneyworld does this too, when you use their photopass, you pay to have their park photographers take photos of you at different areas of the park. When you receive your CD of images from Disney, they include a copyright notice that allows you to have copies made of the photos from any photo processing place you want.

Again you stated:
"He agreed to do a job for a certain fee and he did it. The customer bought those images and can do as they see fit."

And again, this is just not true. The customer can hang the prints on their wall, give them out to friends, and enjoy their own personal use of the photos, but they certainly cannot license them to a business to use in an ad, or sell the use of them to newspapers or magazines. Legally, that is.

Originally Posted by kdog What I was getting at is even if there was a copyright violation, I don't understand the mindset that says you have to hammer your friend over the head with the law just because you can.

Of course you don't, but still , if you're in the business at all, it really is to your benefit to know and understand the copyright laws, especially if you are giving advice to other people.

Originally Posted by Blaker Well, what I know is what you wrote, and what you wrote does not reflect even a rudimentary understanding of copyright law and licensing. You did make the following two statements. "The other gentleman was PAID for his work, by a friend no less! He agreed to do a job for a price, did it and got his compensation. It's done. " and "The way I see it is that you took the pictures for a friend, got paid for them and gave him the images. In absence of any other agreements, I don't see why they wouldn't use them in any way they see fit. " If you were educated in copyright law, you would know that even though you have paid a photographer to take a photo, you don't then own the copyright to the photos the photographer took. The photographer still owns the copyright and it is up to him how you can use the photos ( this is the licensing part). And your statement " In the absence of any other agreements I don't see why they wouldn't use them any way they see fit" is just flat out wrong. The default of copyright law is that in the absence of any other agreement, the photos can NOT be used without express permission from the photographer. EVen portrait photographers maintain the copyright on the portraits they take, which is why, when you bring a family portrait taken by a studio such as Olan Mills to Walmart (or wherever ) in order to get copies made, they will not do it unless you can show them that you have permission from the copyright holder, which is the photographer who took the portrait. Disneyworld does this too, when you use their photopass, you pay to have their park photographers take photos of you at different areas of the park. When you receive your CD of images from Disney, they include a copyright notice that allows you to have copies made of the photos from any photo processing place you want. Again you stated: "He agreed to do a job for a certain fee and he did it. The customer bought those images and can do as they see fit." And again, this is just not true. The customer can hang the prints on their wall, give them out to friends, and enjoy their own personal use of the photos, but they certainly cannot license them to a business to use in an ad, or sell the use of them to newspapers or magazines. Legally, that is. Of course you don't, but still , if you're in the business at all, it really is to your benefit to know and understand the copyright laws, especially if you are giving advice to other people.

I don't know whether you're completely clueless or just being argumentative. A lot of smart people have already chimed in on this thread and didn't misinterpret my remarks, so I'm assuming the issue is squarely with you. Therefore, once more I will try to make you understand. I will talk slowly, so please try to follow along this time.

I know FULL WELL who owns the copyright on the photos taken. I am NOT talking about copyright protection. I am talking about MY OWN PHILOSOPHY of dealing with clients and friends and what is morally right and wrong. My opinions only. I would NEVER think of causing trouble for a friend whose wedding I shot. In fact, I would most likely have shot the wedding for free and called it a gift, as I've done in the past. But to start causing trouble because the bride wanted to see her picture in a magazine? Personally, I don't understand that mindset. In my own case, I gave images to use to Cassey to use as she saw fit. She's published in magazines and on ABC News. Good on her! Could I sue her ass, the magazine and who know who else? Sure! Would I? Hell no.

Nor am I the kind of person who files trespassing charges against someone who walks across the corner of my grass. I am a free-thinking individual who doesn't need the government OR YOU to tell me what I can do and not do with my pictures. Should I choose to enforce my copyrights the option is always there. I just don't feel like I have to use it in every case and certainly not in either of the two cases in question.

Bottom line: Just because you have a LEGAL RIGHT to something, that doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Originally Posted by kdog I don't know whether you're completely clueless or just being argumentative.

Seems to me it's a typical maligned forum mentality people have.
It happens across every subject on the net. It's a whole bunch of parroted ideals and pseudo rules and methodology's that those with an education based on what they read rather than experience have.
Without exception, most of theses theroys are totally and utterly impractical in the real world and would loose you far more than you gained and have you seen to be a total Schmuck.

I know FULL WELL who owns the copyright on the photos taken. I am NOT talking about copyright protection. I am talking about MY OWN PHILOSOPHY of dealing with clients and friends and what is morally right and wrong. My opinions only. I would NEVER think of causing trouble for a friend whose wedding I shot. In fact, I would most likely have shot the wedding for free and called it a gift, as I've done in the past. But to start causing trouble because the bride wanted to see her picture in a magazine? Personally, I don't understand that mindset. In my own case, I gave images to use to Cassey to use as she saw fit. She's published in magazines and on ABC News. Good on her! Could I sue her ass, the magazine and who know who else? Sure! Would I? Hell no. Nor am I the kind of person who files trespassing charges against someone who walks across the corner of my grass. I am a free-thinking individual who doesn't need the government OR YOU to tell me what I can do and not do with my pictures. Should I choose to enforce my copyrights the option is always there. I just don't feel like I have to use it in every case and certainly not in either of the two cases in question. Bottom line: Just because you have a LEGAL RIGHT to something, that doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Well said.

All this over the top copyright stuff is starting to grate my nerves with the over the top levels of stupidity people take it to. Half the time people bitch about nothing and the other half they bring the problems on themselves.

If people want to be tight arsed, mean spirited and take the value of what they produce way too seriously, I pitty them,. they are going to be spending way too much time worrying about crap that will be a total hand brake and anchor to their progress in any and every pursuit.

I have done loads of Model shoots like this and done it on a mutually beneficial basis which was what this was. The model got pics in return for her time she could use to gain paid work or other benefit and the shooter got the same.

Everyone won, everyone gained. Should be a lot more of it.

The net is a great learning tool but unfortunately there are a lot of tools who sput garbage and impractical crap. It gets repeated by other armchair experts and those that don't have any practical experience to see it for the rubbish it is start thinking it's fact.

Those of us who do live, work and understand the real world get a chuckle till people start thinking they know what's right when they prove they don't.

The way some people carry on here, they would be insisting their own mothers get releases to get a reprint done of a pic of their own kids they gave their mums for Christmas!

Originally Posted by kdog I don't know whether you're completely clueless or just being argumentative. A lot of smart people have already chimed in on this thread and didn't misinterpret my remarks, so I'm assuming the issue is squarely with you.

Joel,
There are a lot of smart people who aren't informed about copyright law.

Originally Posted by kdog I know FULL WELL who owns the copyright on the photos taken. I am NOT talking about copyright protection.

But you did talk about it - you basically represented - twice in direct statements and also in a long rambling example about buying a car- that a customer owns the copyright by way of paying the photographer for the photos. This is not true, and in fact is a common misconception.
Unless you were deliberately making false statements for the fun of it, those statements led me to believe you didn't understand that aspect of copyright law.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by kdog I am talking about MY OWN PHILOSOPHY of dealing with clients and friends and what is morally right and wrong.

And I don't disagree with that philosophy. I am just correcting your mis-statements, so that others reading them do not also become misinformed about the law.

Originally Posted by kdog I am a free-thinking individual who doesn't need the government OR YOU to tell me what I can do and not do with my pictures.

Haha! Calm down. No one including me has told you what to do with your pictures!

(Although it IS in your best interest to know that should you use a photo of someone for advertising without a model release, they can sue you, and the government can take a big chunk of money from you for doing so- so yeah, the government CAN tell you what you can do with your pictures! But of course, you already knew that and were just being dramatic, right?)

Originally Posted by kdog Bottom line: Just because you have a LEGAL RIGHT to something, that doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

I totally agree, but that does not negate the point that you should be knowledgeable about your legal rights, so that you can make INFORMED decisions !

I wish you well.

Originally Posted by Glort have done loads of Model shoots like this and done it on a mutually beneficial basis which was what this was. The model got pics in return for her time she could use to gain paid work or other benefit and the shooter got the same. Everyone won, everyone gained. Should be a lot more of it.

Yes, this is a win-win situation.

My comments here have nothing to do with Joel's model shoot.
Joel carried this thread over from another thread- I am referring to the erroneous comments he made on the previous thread. Sorry for the confusion.

Take care.

Originally Posted by Blaker I am just correcting your mis-statements

You corrected nothing. Look at the title of this thread. ABC News used my picture without permission. What part of MY PICTURE and WITHOUT PERMISSION do you not understand? You've gone out of your way to misinterpret this entire thread and are simply being argumentative. Go away.

Originally Posted by glort seems to me it's a typical maligned forum mentality people have. It happens across every subject on the net. It's a whole bunch of parroted ideals and pseudo rules and methodology's that those with an education based on what they read rather than experience have. Without exception, most of theses theroys are totally and utterly impractical in the real world and would loose you far more than you gained and have you seen to be a total schmuck. Well said. All this over the top copyright stuff is starting to grate my nerves with the over the top levels of stupidity people take it to. Half the time people bitch about nothing and the other half they bring the problems on themselves. If people want to be tight arsed, mean spirited and take the value of what they produce way too seriously, i pitty them,. They are going to be spending way too much time worrying about crap that will be a total hand brake and anchor to their progress in any and every pursuit. I have done loads of model shoots like this and done it on a mutually beneficial basis which was what this was. The model got pics in return for her time she could use to gain paid work or other benefit and the shooter got the same. Everyone won, everyone gained. Should be a lot more of it. The net is a great learning tool but unfortunately there are a lot of tools who sput garbage and impractical crap. It gets repeated by other armchair experts and those that don't have any practical experience to see it for the rubbish it is start thinking it's fact. Those of us who do live, work and understand the real world get a chuckle till people start thinking they know what's right when they prove they don't. The way some people carry on here, they would be insisting their own mothers get releases to get a reprint done of a pic of their own kids they gave their mums for christmas!

Thank you!!!

Originally Posted by kdog You corrected nothing. Look at the title of this thread. ABC News used my picture without permission. What part of MY PICTURE and WITHOUT PERMISSION do you not understand? You've gone out of your way to misinterpret this entire thread and are simply being argumentative. Go away.

Joel,

I'm going to cut you some slack here, and not take offense at your rudeness, because I assume you are very young, without much experience, and that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to protect an ego that is way too large and fragile to allow you to admit that you posted erroneous statements about copyright.

My posts to you are very clear, and use your own direct quotes, so there is no question
about what I am responding to, despite your transparent attempts to deliberately 'misunderstand'.

I said very early on ( in post #4, go back and read it) that I had no argument with your situation with ABC news, but that it was a very different situation from the OP's situation in the "Innocent Infringer" thread, which you were comparing it to.
(Or did you already 'forget' that you started this thread as a result of comparing your situation to the OP of that thread?)



So take a few weeks, calm down, grow up, and then come back and re-read the thread, and maybe you will take the opportunity to learn a little something about copyright law.

Knowledge is your friend, Joel. Don't ever be afraid of making mistakes, or of learning something new!

Take care~

Originally Posted by Blaker I'm going to cut you some slack here

Gosh, thanks!!

Originally Posted by kdog I know FULL WELL who owns the copyright on the photos taken. I am NOT talking about copyright protection. I am talking about MY OWN PHILOSOPHY of dealing with clients and friends and what is morally right and wrong.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by orljustin I thought that was pretty obvious.

Thanks! I thought it was too, but it's nice to get other confirmation.

Blaker

I'm going to cut you some slack here but know that as I see it you've been borderline abusive and without cause. Joel's post is in no way confusing and yet you've come out swinging in very condescending tones. I'll ask that you kindly refrain from further comment in this thread.

.

Originally Posted by kdog I don't understand this mindset at all. The other gentleman was PAID for his work, by a friend no less! He agreed to do a job for a price, did it and got his compensation. It's done. Frankly I have no idea what the agreement was between that gentleman and his friend to know if any agreement was violated and neither do you because those details weren't given. Did he have something in his agreement that said specifically that electronically delivered images can't be submitted to magazines for publication? And why would he? If you buy a car, and decide to charge somebody for a ride to the airport, does the car manufacturer come after you for a cut? That photographer is making noises like he was harmed in some way -- folks making money of his hard work! I don't see it. He agreed to do a job for a certain fee and he did it. The customer bought those images and can do as they see fit. Anybody that has to follow every picture they ever took to make sure their customers (much less friends) aren't unduly benefiting from them has way too much free time on their hands. Not to mention it's bad karma.

I think Blaker said it best:

Originally Posted by Blaker Your comments above reflect your ignorance of US copyright and licensing laws.

Originally Posted by kdog Don't tell me what I know or don't know. You have no idea what I know about copyright or licensing because I proffered no opinion on the subject one way or another. Furthermore, you have absolutely no idea what level of agreement or contracts there were between the other photographer and their clients. What I was getting at is even if there was a copyright violation, I don't understand the mindset that says you have to hammer your friend over the head with the law just because you can. Now that other gentleman's lawyer suggested he drop the issue. So if you have strong feelings on the matter, I suggest you go do it in his thread. I'm sure he'd love to have you.

Wow, this type of attitude from someone who's a moderator? How unprofessional. And what I don't get is the mindset that everyone should think about their work the same way you do. It's my opinion, you have yours--leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Blaker Well, what I know is what you wrote, and what you wrote does not reflect even a rudimentary understanding of copyright law and licensing.

Well said.

Originally Posted by kdog I am NOT talking about copyright protection. I am talking about MY OWN PHILOSOPHY of dealing with clients and friends and what is morally right and wrong. My opinions only. I would NEVER think of causing trouble for a friend whose wedding I shot. In fact, I would most likely have shot the wedding for free and called it a gift, as I've done in the past. But to start causing trouble because the bride wanted to see her picture in a magazine? Personally, I don't understand that mindset. In my own case, I gave images to use to Cassey to use as she saw fit. She's published in magazines and on ABC News. Good on her! Could I sue her ass, the magazine and who know who else? Sure! Would I? Hell no. Nor am I the kind of person who files trespassing charges against someone who walks across the corner of my grass. I am a free-thinking individual who doesn't need the government OR YOU to tell me what I can do and not do with my pictures. Should I choose to enforce my copyrights the option is always there. I just don't feel like I have to use it in every case and certainly not in either of the two cases in question. Bottom line: Just because you have a LEGAL RIGHT to something, that doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Awesome, this is your opinion. And it differs from mine, therefore my opinion is inferior?

Originally Posted by Glort Seems to me it's a typical maligned forum mentality people have.

Your post personified this. Interesting how you post up your experience is the way things should be versus what the legality is. Yes, there's a difference in the business world because of the reality of enforcement. So everyone should ignore the law and just go off of the hearsay and experience of others like yourself?

Originally Posted by Blaker Joel, There are a lot of smart people who aren't informed about copyright law.

Very true.

Originally Posted by kdog You corrected nothing. Look at the title of this thread. ABC News used my picture without permission. What part of MY PICTURE and WITHOUT PERMISSION do you not understand? You've gone out of your way to misinterpret this entire thread and are simply being argumentative. Go away.

Post reported.

Originally Posted by Blaker I'm going to cut you some slack here, and not take offense at your rudeness...

Rudeness indeed.

Originally Posted by Angelo Blaker I'm going to cut you some slack here but know that as I see it you've been borderline abusive and without cause. Joel's post is in no way confusing and yet you've come out swinging in very condescending tones. I'll ask that you kindly refrain from further comment in this thread. .

I disagree. Joel's tone was attacking from the onset. Unfriendly to the poster, and unprofessional as a moderator.

If this is the tone for the forum, so be it. But it doesn't reflect the type of tone that is expected in the other forums.

Originally Posted by SamirD I think Blaker said it best: Wow, this type of attitude from someone who's a moderator? How unprofessional. And what I don't get is the mindset that everyone should think about their work the same way you do. It's my opinion, you have yours--leave it at that. Well said. Awesome, this is your opinion. And it differs from mine, therefore my opinion is inferior? Your post personified this. Interesting how you post up your experience is the way things should be versus what the legality is. Yes, there's a difference in the business world because of the reality of enforcement. So everyone should ignore the law and just go off of the hearsay and experience of others like yourself? Very true.Post reported. Rudeness indeed. I disagree. Joel's tone was attacking from the onset. Unfriendly to the poster, and unprofessional as a moderator. If this is the tone for the forum, so be it. But it doesn't reflect the type of tone that is expected in the other forums.

Well, excuse me.

You're just mad because I said I didn't understand your mindset.

So you and Blaker think I'm ignorant about copyright protection. Please tell us specifically what I wrote that was incorrect? My post was my opinion about how to treat friends and clients.

Blaker repeatedly called me ignorant on copyright law, even though this thread has NOTHING to do with copyright law. I merely said what MY own philosophy was and discussed mindsets. Now if I called YOU ignorant on a topic that you never broached, judging from the way you just spoke to me above, I'm guessing you'd really blow your stack. Well, guess what? I'm human too.

Now I'm sure you have the law on your side in your particular case where you came after your friends with a big stick. However, I just wouldn't do it. Capeesh?

Gentlemen: I will address this as gently as possible - KNOCK IT OFF!

Samir - you enter an otherwise deflated discussion a week after any other comments were made, interject your opinions into those of two other members, unwarranted I might add, throw gasoline on the fire and then make a complaint? Not cool.

Let it be.

I've read and re-read the posts in this thread and its clear to me, despite the thread's title, Joel was not implicating anyone in matters of copyright infringement and yet that is where the focus of criticism has been.

Let's dial it back and stay on topic.

Originally Posted by Angelo Gentlemen: I will address this as gently as possible - KNOCK IT OFF! Samir - you enter an otherwise deflated discussion a week after any other comments were made, interject your opinions into those of two other members, unwarranted I might add, throw gasoline on the fire and then make a complaint? Not cool. Let it be. I've read and re-read the posts in this thread and its clear to me, despite the thread's title, Joel was not implicating anyone in matters of copyright infringement and yet that is where the focus of criticism has been. Let's dial it back and stay on topic.

Well there you go ruining a great idea I was developing. I was thinking about renting the HP Arena and setting up a cage. We could raise money for a worthy charity.

Sam

Originally Posted by kdog Now if I called YOU ignorant on a topic that you never broached, judging from the way you just spoke to me above, I'm guessing you'd really blow your stack. Well, guess what? I'm human too.

What? I thought you were a dolphin (that was starting to look tasty).


I'd have to re-read this whole thread to take sides but you both made so much sense in your own ways that I probably am confused as to who said what.
Set it up Sam. We're ready to watch:
Until then, can the dolphin that knows how to work that customized p&s camera please post more pics?

Originally Posted by Pure Energy What? I thought you were a dolphin (that was starting to look tasty).

Until then, can the dolphin that knows how to work that customized p&s camera please post more pics?

Thanks! Check out this thread: Cassey Fitness Shoot and feel free to leave a comment!

Originally Posted by kdog Well, excuse me. You're just mad because I said I didn't understand your mindset. So you and Blaker think I'm ignorant about copyright protection. Please tell us specifically what I wrote that was incorrect? My post was my opinion about how to treat friends and clients. Blaker repeatedly called me ignorant on copyright law, even though this thread has NOTHING to do with copyright law. I merely said what MY own philosophy was and discussed mindsets. Now if I called YOU ignorant on a topic that you never broached, judging from the way you just spoke to me above, I'm guessing you'd really blow your stack. Well, guess what? I'm human too. Now I'm sure you have the law on your side in your particular case where you came after your friends with a big stick. However, I just wouldn't do it. Capeesh?

I'm not mad at all. We have different opinions and I can respect that.

I could care less now if you know anything about copyrights or not. As far as your opinion, you are welcome to express it, but with the absence of somehow making it seem your situation is 'right' and referring to my situation as 'wrong'. Posts like that introduce elements of cyberbullying and defamation of character.

I understand that we're all human and have our limits. But when you're in a position of authority, you inherit the responsibility of having to bite your tongue more than the layman. Imagine if the Presidential candidates flew off the handle when they got upset? Would we want a President that would do that, even if their point of view was correct?

I think you misinterpreted the topic of my original thread. It was to illustrate how publications could use the 'innocent infringer' plea to avoid any consequences for illegal use. At no point did I take any action against my friend as you seem to believe. And just as your thread has derailed from the original topic, mine did too. It's the nature of forum discussions. It happens. I assumed that you didn't intend that, so I didn't say anything about it.

To avoid any more derailment of your thread, if there's anymore discussion on this tangent, just PM me and we'll talk about it that way.

Originally Posted by Angelo Gentlemen: I will address this as gently as possible - KNOCK IT OFF! Samir - you enter an otherwise deflated discussion a week after any other comments were made, interject your opinions into those of two other members, unwarranted I might add, throw gasoline on the fire and then make a complaint? Not cool. Let it be. I've read and re-read the posts in this thread and its clear to me, despite the thread's title, Joel was not implicating anyone in matters of copyright infringement and yet that is where the focus of criticism has been. Let's dial it back and stay on topic.

Sorry about the mess Angelo. I just didn't agree with the posts since they introduced me as an example of 'wrong'.

I didn't say anything when my topic was derailed into a moral debate from my original topic, but I guess I should have. I'll report something like that next time.

In my opinion, kdog's aggressive tone in both threads as a moderator sends the wrong message as dgrin being a friendly community. I've never run into any user on here that has been able to use that tone and get positive reinforcement for it like he has. In the world of community management, you have those power-tripping moderators that can damage your community's reputation. In my opinion, kdog has shown his ability to be this type of moderator.

These are the only thoughts I have to your response, and to return this thread to the original topic, please PM me with any replies.

Again, sorry about the mess.

SamirD, let's examine the original exchange that kicked up this shit storm, shall we? Here's what I wrote in your thread.

Originally Posted by kdog I'm sure I will be in the minority here. The way I see it is that you took the pictures for a friend, got paid for them and gave him the images. In absence of any other agreements, I don't see why they wouldn't use them in any way they see fit. Yes, maybe there are some copyright issues with this -- or maybe not. But we're talking about a friend here. Why not just be happy for them and let it go? You can still put the publication on your resume, so you even get something out of it as well. I had something similar to me happen recently. Maybe I'll post about it.

This was your response.

Originally Posted by SamirD Just shows how clueless some photographers are about where the money is. [...]

And I'm the rude and aggressive one? Really? You called me clueless because I politely offered an alternative view. And because I'm a mod, I guess you figure you get a free punch at me. You really ought to take an objective look at how you communicate on the internet before you go around trying to assassinate somebody else's character.