| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2007 09:55:57 PM · #1 |
I ran across this blog article on Dreamstime about what constitutes a copyright infringement.
I was a bit surprised by the information put forth by Dreamstime's own Director of Content, with no real legal reference. According to her, the De Ja Vu challenge entries (or at least the more successful ones) should all constitute copyright infringement. I included links to DrAchoo's and Ursula's "Summer" images on DPC in addressing the issue because I thought these particular images were virtually identical. Hopefully, no one will mind my linking to the images.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:20:29 PM · #2 |
That article is absolute bullshit; there's absolutely NO legal basis for what she is saying. And thank heavens for that.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:29:10 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That article is absolute bullshit; there's absolutely NO legal basis for what she is saying. And thank heavens for that.
R. |
I'm with Robert on this one... there is no basis in fact in this article, mere supposition and speculation.
Good thing too... otherwise we would all have to ferret out new places that no one had photographed before.... Good luck with that.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 23:29:38. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:42:47 PM · #4 |
This just sounds like a ploy by someone who works for Dreamstime, a stock site, to protect the value of their own photos by scaring people. Nothing more.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:45:32 PM · #5 |
First comment on the blog.
"U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 United States Code Section 102(b)) provides: "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Unless there is other authority of which you are aware, Copyright does not extend to the idea used to create the image. Plain and simple, you can re-create another image, even to the point where they are identical, and you have not violated their copyright (unless you have actually used part or all of their image within yours). If the law were otherwise, then the first person to create a unique image would own the copyright and noone could ever re-create a similar image without violating copyright. This flies in the face of what we see in photography daily."
And there you have it. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:47:37 PM · #6 |
Actually, that was the last most recent comment on the blog and it was from me after a few back and forth remarks with the author on the issue.
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 23:58:50.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 11:49:41 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Hye5:
Actually, that was the last comment on the blog and it was from me after a few back and forth remarks with the author on the issue. |
OK well for me it was first, under the entry you will see your post. And well said! :-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:17:54 AM · #8 |
Okey I give you another thing to brood.
Take a situation that you have taken an image from some magzine, scanned it and print it again. Now lets say you modified its original state by cutting it in pieces. Then took a picture of it and post process it again to your liking.
Now is new picture a copyright infringement??
|
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:19:45 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Okey I give you another thing to brood.
Take a situation that you have taken an image from some magzine, scanned it and print it again. Now lets say you modified its original state by cutting it in pieces. Then took a picture of it and post process it again to your liking.
Now is new picture a copyright infringement?? |
It might or might not be considered a "derivative work" depending on many factors. Can you afford to defend yourself against a lawsuit in Federal Court? |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:22:26 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Okey I give you another thing to brood.
Take a situation that you have taken an image from some magzine, scanned it and print it again. Now lets say you modified its original state by cutting it in pieces. Then took a picture of it and post process it again to your liking.
Now is new picture a copyright infringement?? |
It might or might not be considered a "derivative work" depending on many factors. Can you afford to defend yourself against a lawsuit in Federal Court? |
I think question is not about whether I could defend or not. |
|
|
|
09/27/2007 12:28:12 AM · #11 |
Your question is unanswerable as an abstract hypothetical -- it completely depends on the specific circumstances and image(s) involved, and would have to be adjudicated in court if you were sued. Sometimes what you descibe would be legal, and sometimes not.
Message edited by author 2007-09-27 00:28:35. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 05:34:56 PM EDT.
