|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2004 03:58:46 AM · #1 |
There is ongoin rage about copyrigh infrigement. This is an unfortunate, but it happens and there is no way stopping it totally. And that, IMHO, applies to everything (no politics in this thread, please).
Ok, so why not promote a software-kind-of copyrights for photographs? De facto (in europe, atleast) all work is protected and nothing can be done with it without a proper permission from it's copyright holder. This applies to everything and there is no need to put any (c) marks or anything). Posting to web, freely available, is interpreted as the copyright holder gives permission to everyone to view the image, nothing more. But nothing says this must be the only 'licencing' policy.
Why not to create a copyright scheme, where there could be different levels of copyrights (which could, for example, be selected when uploading an image). Strictest would be the basic copyright, all right reserved without permission kind of, and then there would be kind of Public Domain licence for distributing, a licence for free editing and a completely free licence, where anyone can do anything with the image.
This would not stop infrigements but would promote the idea that there are copyrights and _some_ (not everyone!) people are willing to contribute their art to public. The aim would be to give a change to the copyright owner to put up an image with a licence which allows the image to be used in a photoshop editing contest kind of competition without the hazzle of being asked permission to use the image for this and that. I myself support a bit stricter policy, where the image can not be used for anything without mentioning the original copyright holder (the original source of an image).
It's up to us what kind of licences to make for our own images. Standard practise in the public domain softawre industry is so called GNU Licence. Basically it says that you are not allowed to edit of modify a software (might not be easy to apply to images) and you can not make profit from this software. If you do an extension to this software (like editing an image?), the end result must be distributed with the same licence as the original. And the original author(s) must mentioned in the copyright statement(s).
Any toughts?
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:35:43 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by lode:
Basically it says that you are not allowed to edit of modify a software (might not be easy to apply to images) and you can not make profit from this software. |
I was under the impression the GNU GPLv2 allowed you to modify the software but you had to make it available? |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:41:46 AM · #3 |
Those copyrites are already in place with the the rest of the media gang - video - music - film and they copyright doesn't work for them.
I think you just accept it and realise that the chances of someone ripping your work off is very slim, and if they do it's not going to be in print or for profit -more like young kids having fun with photoshop.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:55:23 AM · #4 |
Muhc copyright infringement is simply a complete lack of thought on the part of the infringers. An example:
I was working recently on a show at the South Bank Centre in London where the leader of the band had asked a student to put together a visual package to be projected behind them during the show to illustrate the history of the music. It was fairly cool, fairly well done, and certainly effective. Now these guys are basically Jazz musicians, not making heaps of money or anything, just wanting to enthuse people about the music they love; talking to them afterwards about those images, I discovered that they had simply trawled the net and downloaded those images, and had never thought that there might be any form of copyright issues at all. I pointed out that if someone were to ttake songs they had written and play them to a paying audience they'd want to earn at least a small amount of money trough the PRS agreement, wouldn't they? And why should a bunch of photographers be less worthy of consideration? They became pretty quiet after that; but it was just a lack of thought, rather than an invidious intent.
In re the recent image stealing issues: I simply e-mailed the sites in question, and my images have been removed from those offending sites. Usually, that's all it takes.
Ed
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:05:44 AM · #5 |
I don't see much wrong with that really - of the made it into a montage and edited it a lot.
I think intent is more important. The public didn't go to see the picture show they went to see the band I presume?
And as you say it's more of an oversight on their behalf.
In one of my roles some years back, I worked for a publishing company in London - we need images for our websites all the time, and they would not pay for any wanted me to take them from other sites - they would trawl google etc, get some URLs and tell me that's the images they wanted alongside their news story.
I used to record off the radio as a child, breaking copyright as I am sure most kids did.
A lot of people submit shots on DPC of copyrighted buildings, logos etc - but don't have a problem with it.
My Neon challenge entry has a huge Copyright infringement on it and I too didn't even think twice before submitting it - not out of ignorance, but simply because it never occurred to me - so i requested a DQ on my own pic.
What I am trying to say is that it happens a lot without any malice intent.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:54:17 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
What I am trying to say is that it happens a lot without any malice intent. |
That is the point here. If you absolutely feel the need to persue it, be my guest. Just remember what it is you're persuing.
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 05:55:36.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 07:14:29 AM · #7 |
Yeah, true. One aim of this would be to increase people's awareness of copyright issues, the other would be to create a "loosend" copyright which would allow someone to contribute art to public use. If the copyright statement would be clearly visible alog all images it would be hard to argue use of image by accident.
I am personally aimig for that every image i put on the web is a kind of image having copyright statement something like 'free to use for any purpose other than commercial use. Any kind of commercial related use is prohibited without a written permission'. If someone someday starts making money with my images, I want to have such an copyright that moneymaking greedy bastards gets it, but the poor jazz artist is safe ;D.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 07:21:44 AM · #8 |
I think the other aspect is that it's very difficult to enforce unless you can show that you suffered monetary impact from the unauthorized use. If you are simply a hobbyist with no income or notoriety from your shots, you could always pursue litigation but would it really be worth the cost of a lawyerand court fees?
On the other hand if you could show that the image which was lifted has generated (significant) revenue through DPCprints, or through local sales, then it might be worth considering.
I'd much prefer that someone ask me for permission, which I'd pretty much always grant, but if I see my works out there I'd usually feel flattered. If I had a shot that was a real money maker I'd post a smaller thumbnail than 600 or watermark it. You could also post it in a PDF which would annoy viewers, but make the level of effort req'd to pirate too annoying for casual theft.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 07:33:11 AM · #9 |
Pirate software actually helps the software houses, in a lot of ways it helps them sell more.
Adobe Photoshop has gone from a specialist designer's software to a household name in a matter of years - even my bloody nan in Malta has heard of Photoshop.
They talk about photoshop on TV when referring to some picture (oh that must have been photoshopped)
If you see a picture people say Wonder if that is photoshopped.
This gives Photoshop a huge global presence and free international marketing. The brand Photoshop is so well known that it is seen as the number one image editing software by kids, housewives and armature digital photographers because they have 'heard of it'
Likewise with things like 3D software. That is so expensive for individuals - your talking about thousands here yet there are thousands of sites showing thousands of great images by young individuals.
The software houses know that, but this gives them a global presence and a huge portfolio of great work which showcases the software better and freer than any other way.
Music - well millions are downloading songs, but that I don't care for -the bastards charge so much and get paid so much I couldn't give a rats arse - in the UK we pay so much more for CDs than others purely becasue our record companies take a higher percentage than others in USA and Europe.
I don't download, but also stopped buying CD's -just use radio it's free.
However, even this leads to buying albums quite often - here a song by a new band, like it, see the CD, buy it.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 07:55:35 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by lode:
Standard practise in the public domain softawre industry is so called GNU Licence. Basically it says that you are not allowed to edit of modify a software (might not be easy to apply to images) and you can not make profit from this software. |
Some points.
The copyleft (GNU public license) is
1/ not public domain. It is open source. These are very different concepts. If you put something in the public domain you release all rights to it. If you release something as open source, you apply rights in many ways more strict than standard copyright does.
2/ You are allowed to edit open source software as much as you like
3/ You are also allowed to profit from it as much as you can. You can download it and start selling it straight away. (Red Hat et al) You can start editing it and sell it on.
4/ The only requirement is that if you sell it, the people who buy it should be able to get access to any source code changes you made. You don't have to give your changes back to the public. You don't even have to release those changes if you just use it say within your company. But if you sell someone an application using the code, you have to give away all the code associated with it. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:51:25 AM · #11 |
Gordon, yeah, you're absolutely right. I got my concepts messed up in my original post, sorry about the general confusion.
Here's a link to GPL
//www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I think reading it in respect of applying the general idea to digital images opens new possibilities. I am not aware of anything like this for art and for now the common practise is very capitalistic (=very strict) policy for copyrights. I agree with bacchus with this.
( see thread "DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> image thief:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=116607&page=3 )
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 08:52:04.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:07:21 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I don't see much wrong with that really - of the made it into a montage and edited it a lot.
I think intent is more important. The public didn't go to see the picture show they went to see the band I presume?
And as you say it's more of an oversight on their behalf.
In one of my roles some years back, I worked for a publishing company in London - we need images for our websites all the time, and they would not pay for any wanted me to take them from other sites - they would trawl google etc, get some URLs and tell me that's the images they wanted alongside their news story.
I used to record off the radio as a child, breaking copyright as I am sure most kids did.
A lot of people submit shots on DPC of copyrighted buildings, logos etc - but don't have a problem with it.
My Neon challenge entry has a huge Copyright infringement on it and I too didn't even think twice before submitting it - not out of ignorance, but simply because it never occurred to me - so i requested a DQ on my own pic.
What I am trying to say is that it happens a lot without any malice intent. |
I would like to comment on each of your points...
1. If that band was playing muic written by other groups without those groups permission, famous or not, they would be liable for monetary compensation. In the case of the montage, that was put together as an enhancement to their show as such, they should have requested permission to use those images or purchased the rights to use those images. That is a fairly cut and dry situation. This would be something for a court to decide.
2. The publishing company you worked for should be held liable for the theft of other people's work. Just as they would/should be held liable for using illegal copies of software or if the company stole all of the hardware they did their publishing on. If I had discovered my own work being used in such a fasion, I would confirm that there was an archive of the page on the Internet Archive web-site and then proceed with a copyright infringement letter, prepared by an attorney.
3. Recording music/information off the radio is considered 'Fair Use' in the United States and is allowed. You just can't go and start selling those copies anywhere, that would break the fair use provisions in Copy Right law.
4. I don't believe that a building can be copy right protected, perhaps the blue prints, but those most often become a matter of public record as anyone can go down and request blue prints from city offices. (At least from what I understand.) Unless the laws changed yesterday there is very little legally binding that would exclude someone from photographing any building, anywhere. Those include posted "No Photography" signs just to name one.
5. Your neon entry is a photo of a time and a place, it would be a real stretch to make it an illegal copyright infringing work. I suppose if you printed it out large enough and attached it to enough places in a building and attempted to represent yourself as the company/place that the sign depicts, you could be held liable for something, but a straight image of something placed in public view should never be considered copyright infringement. If that was the case... This would be a really messed up world.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:08:25 AM · #13 |
Check out Creative Commons. I think it may provide just what you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:24:17 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
4. I don't believe that a building can be copy right protected, perhaps the blue prints, but those most often become a matter of public record as anyone can go down and request blue prints from city offices. (At least from what I understand.) Unless the laws changed yesterday there is very little legally binding that would exclude someone from photographing any building, anywhere. Those include posted "No Photography" signs just to name one. |
In the U.S., I believe that any view of a building from a public place is considered public domain. If you have to enter private property to take the photograph, the property owner can set conditions like whether photography is allowed and how such photographs can be used, and refuse entrance to anyone who doesn't agree. And even if you don't realize you are agreeing to these conditions, I think they can be legally enforcable. Major league baseball is one example that has come up in a recent thread.
Laws may be different in other countries.
Edit: added hyperlink
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 09:28:43. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:42:49 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by dr rick:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
4. I don't believe that a building can be copy right protected, perhaps the blue prints, but those most often become a matter of public record as anyone can go down and request blue prints from city offices. (At least from what I understand.) Unless the laws changed yesterday there is very little legally binding that would exclude someone from photographing any building, anywhere. Those include posted "No Photography" signs just to name one. |
In the U.S., I believe that any view of a building from a public place is considered public domain. If you have to enter private property to take the photograph, the property owner can set conditions like whether photography is allowed and how such photographs can be used, and refuse entrance to anyone who doesn't agree. And even if you don't realize you are agreeing to these conditions, I think they can be legally enforcable. Major league baseball is one example that has come up in a recent thread.
Laws may be different in other countries.
Edit: added hyperlink |
That's what I was referring to, I was just being lazy and didn't want to hunt down the other thread... |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:45:30 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
4. I don't believe that a building can be copy right protected, perhaps the blue prints, but those most often become a matter of public record as anyone can go down and request blue prints from city offices. (At least from what I understand.) Unless the laws changed yesterday there is very little legally binding that would exclude someone from photographing any building, anywhere. Those include posted "No Photography" signs just to name one. |
Many buildings are copyrighted. The architect created essentially a 3d 'image' that they own the rights to. You infringe on that when you copy it via any means, photographic or otherwise. Pretty much every building in the last 14 years in the US is copyrighted and you are technically infringing if you take a photo. Particularly if you then try to profit from selling that photo.
In many cities pictures of the downtown skyline cannot be sold without permission from the city. In Paris, pretty much everywhere is copyrighted and can't be photographed for commercial use without permission.
Buildings are copyrighted.
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 09:48:38.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:48:04 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by dr rick:
In the U.S., I believe that any view of a building from a public place is considered public domain. If you have to enter private property to take the photograph, the property owner can set conditions like whether photography is allowed and how such photographs can be used, and refuse entrance to anyone who doesn't agree. And even if you don't realize you are agreeing to these conditions, I think they can be legally enforcable. Major league baseball is one example that has come up in a recent thread.
Laws may be different in other countries.
] |
From the US copyright office FAQ:
Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on Dec. 1, 1990. The copyright law defines âarchitectural workâ as âthe design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.â Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by Dec. 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to Dec. 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See, Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works
So no, the view is often not in the public domain, in terms of creating derivative works (like photographs) for commercial use.
There are some fair use provisions (holiday snaps etc) but if you are
making money from them, you'll likely need approval & a license.
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 09:49:39.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:52:22 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by jonpink:
I don't see much wrong with that really - of the made it into a montage and edited it a lot.
I think intent is more important. The public didn't go to see the picture show they went to see the band I presume?
And as you say it's more of an oversight on their behalf.
In one of my roles some years back, I worked for a publishing company in London - we need images for our websites all the time, and they would not pay for any wanted me to take them from other sites - they would trawl google etc, get some URLs and tell me that's the images they wanted alongside their news story.
I used to record off the radio as a child, breaking copyright as I am sure most kids did.
A lot of people submit shots on DPC of copyrighted buildings, logos etc - but don't have a problem with it.
My Neon challenge entry has a huge Copyright infringement on it and I too didn't even think twice before submitting it - not out of ignorance, but simply because it never occurred to me - so i requested a DQ on my own pic.
What I am trying to say is that it happens a lot without any malice intent. |
I would like to comment on each of your points...
1. If that band was playing muic written by other groups without those groups permission, famous or not, they would be liable for monetary compensation. In the case of the montage, that was put together as an enhancement to their show as such, they should have requested permission to use those images or purchased the rights to use those images. That is a fairly cut and dry situation. This would be something for a court to decide.
2. The publishing company you worked for should be held liable for the theft of other people's work. Just as they would/should be held liable for using illegal copies of software or if the company stole all of the hardware they did their publishing on. If I had discovered my own work being used in such a fasion, I would confirm that there was an archive of the page on the Internet Archive web-site and then proceed with a copyright infringement letter, prepared by an attorney.
3. Recording music/information off the radio is considered 'Fair Use' in the United States and is allowed. You just can't go and start selling those copies anywhere, that would break the fair use provisions in Copy Right law.
4. I don't believe that a building can be copy right protected, perhaps the blue prints, but those most often become a matter of public record as anyone can go down and request blue prints from city offices. (At least from what I understand.) Unless the laws changed yesterday there is very little legally binding that would exclude someone from photographing any building, anywhere. Those include posted "No Photography" signs just to name one.
5. Your neon entry is a photo of a time and a place, it would be a real stretch to make it an illegal copyright infringing work. I suppose if you printed it out large enough and attached it to enough places in a building and attempted to represent yourself as the company/place that the sign depicts, you could be held liable for something, but a straight image of something placed in public view should never be considered copyright infringement. If that was the case... This would be a really messed up world. |
1.) I was imaging something very fast and flickery where you can't really see the images. I agree with you it's wrong, but I also think there is a difference between that and blatant ripping off.
2.) Yes Sir, in a word they are %^&#s. I disliked their ethics in everything they did, from images to sacking people. Karma will get them in the end. Just trying to highlight that it is rife, even in lareg companies.
3.)Didn't know that.
4.)It can and it does - just the same as you can't use the coca cola logo on your business stationary, you can't print certain buildings on there too.
Not sure how far that stretches though, i.e if using the coca cola logo is OK for DPC..
5) My neon entry is 'messed up' ;)
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 09:52:52. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 10:36:33 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dr rick:
In the U.S., I believe that any view of a building from a public place is considered public domain. If you have to enter private property to take the photograph, the property owner can set conditions like whether photography is allowed and how such photographs can be used, and refuse entrance to anyone who doesn't agree. And even if you don't realize you are agreeing to these conditions, I think they can be legally enforcable. Major league baseball is one example that has come up in a recent thread.
Laws may be different in other countries.
] |
From the US copyright office FAQ:
Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on Dec. 1, 1990. The copyright law defines âarchitectural workâ as âthe design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.â Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by Dec. 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to Dec. 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See, Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works
So no, the view is often not in the public domain, in terms of creating derivative works (like photographs) for commercial use.
There are some fair use provisions (holiday snaps etc) but if you are
making money from them, you'll likely need approval & a license. |
Thanks for the clarification, and especially for backing it up with a reliable source. This contradicts many things I've read on photography copyright issues. I can only conclude that either:
1. These articles were written before 1990, or more likely, the authors weren't aware of the copyright law change; or
2. The copyright of a building's "design" prohibits creating new buildings based on that design, and not to images of a building on public display, at least in the author's opinion.
I'm not a lawyer, so can't make a judgement. I do note that entering photos into contests is not considered commercial use, so there shouldn't be an issue submitting photos of buildings to challenges here. (DPCPrints is a different story.) |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 10:53:12 AM · #20 |
Building Copyrights? That's messed up.
That could make professional skyline shots an impossibility, or at least extremely cost prohibitive.
Perhaps someone should enact a law requiring 'Public View but Copyrighted' objects to be covered or otherwise obscured from view in order to keep the copyright.
That's absolute BS. I can't believe how silly Intellectual Property has and is becoming in our modern world. It's like nobody is applying logic to anything anymore. Sure, there is a point and a reason to have the limited copyright protections we had 20 years ago, in place, but to continually extend those protections, increase the scope of what is protectable...
Our modern world is heading for a 'crash' similar to what happened when the Library of Alexandria burnt to the ground all those centuries ago. Only this time it will be because our society decided to lock away all knowledge, science and art so that a handful of people/corporations could reap large 'endless' profits off of items long after they are dead and gone. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 12:06:36 PM · #21 |
This is not necessarily so.
There wasa photog in California that was photographing the ENTIRE California coast line. He shot from above (helicopter) with his DSLR. He was sued by Barbara Streisand for showing her house and her interiors of her house (privacy issues + probably using the copyright issue). The guy is involved in some sort of a beach erosion project. Anyway, he won the case.
If a photograph's sole purpose is to show architecture, then maybe you hav ea point, otherwise, they can't just claim it on architecture copyrights.
Originally posted by Gordon:
[From the US copyright office FAQ:
Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on Dec. 1, 1990. The copyright law defines âarchitectural workâ as âthe design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.â Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by Dec. 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to Dec. 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See, Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works
So no, the view is often not in the public domain, in terms of creating derivative works (like photographs) for commercial use.
There are some fair use provisions (holiday snaps etc) but if you are
making money from them, you'll likely need approval & a license. |
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/01/2025 03:44:51 AM  |
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: 06/01/2025 03:44:51 AM EDT.
|
