| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2005 04:50:02 PM · #1 |
Hello,
My husband is doing a college paper on copyright infringement and how it affects photographers. What is being done to control it over the internet and how common it is to get photos reproduced in print industry. I was wondering how all of you feel on this topic. We are hoping to use some of the comments to add to his paper.
I know that there was a thread on if downloading a image to use as wallpaper on the computer is infringment....I want to know more. Where do you draw the line on copyright?
Thank you
Jewelie and Brian |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:08:32 PM · #2 |
You have started a long dark path on a very touchy subject.
Personally I believe in the freedom of information. I believe that we have a right to have access to anything (photos, artwork, books, movies, music), because in order to learn we need to have access and if we go back to the old ways, only the rich will be educated. We learn from imitating. I will freely give access to anything I have produced and am willing to spend time explaining how I did it. People tend to overlook the fact that the majority of what is being "stolen" is of lesser quality than the original product. I just think we need to develop a code of ethics like we do when it comes to literature. We quote and steal from authors everyday, but we do not claim it as our own. The same should go for the arts. Cause if someone wants a 72dpi copy of my photo, great at least someone wants it. If they are going to hang it on their wall they come buy a real print from me. The same thing goes with music. I get the music for free and if I like it I go see them live, because nothing can beat a live show, then I buy a shirt am happy. I like a movie I go see it in the theatre and pay $10 for box office.
Now where the problem exhists is when someone tries to profit off your creation. When a printing company copies your photo for a magazine or when someone claims your writing is their work, or a movie theater shows your movie, or even a radio station plays unlicensed songs that becomes a problem.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:13:17 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
You have started a long dark path on a very touchy subject.
Personally I believe in the freedom of information. I believe that we have a right to have access to anything (photos, artwork, books, movies, music), because in order to learn we need to have access and if we go back to the old ways, only the rich will be educated. We learn from imitating. I will freely give access to anything I have produced and am willing to spend time explaining how I did it. People tend to overlook the fact that the majority of what is being "stolen" is of lesser quality than the original product. I just think we need to develop a code of ethics like we do when it comes to literature. We quote and steal from authors everyday, but we do not claim it as our own. The same should go for the arts. Cause if someone wants a 72dpi copy of my photo, great at least someone wants it. If they are going to hang it on their wall they come buy a real print from me. The same thing goes with music. I get the music for free and if I like it I go see them live, because nothing can beat a live show, then I buy a shirt am happy. I like a movie I go see it in the theatre and pay $10 for box office.
Now where the problem exhists is when someone tries to profit off your creation. When a printing company copies your photo for a magazine or when someone claims your writing is their work, or a movie theater shows your movie, or even a radio station plays unlicensed songs that becomes a problem. |
Yes this is a touchy issue.
Maybe you should read the United States Constitutation, because our fore fathers put copyright protection in the document because they new that inorder to encourage people to creat things, the people needed protection. If you want to give your right away have at it, but leave our stuff alone unless you get premission or a license.
The courts are starting penalties at around $50,000 per offense. It doesn't matter what either one of us believe. Just a note, even if you give your right away, they come back to you in a certain number of years.
Uunite States Constitutation Article 1 Section 8 says "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 17:18:00. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:19:12 PM · #4 |
yes it does matter what we believe because we have the right to change the laws. Its called civil disobedience. There is a new age of artists emerging that realize the advertising capabilites this ensues. That is why there are a record number of indie labels out their with free copyright. Art should be about art, remember when that was true, it has become to commercial.
Not all laws are right... Look how prohibition turned out.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:20:30 PM · #5 |
I think I'll keep my copyright protection. Unless someone wants to feed, clothe, house me and buy all my good photo equipment for me I don't see how giving my hard work away for free is even an option. As far as viewing what I post on the internet for free I see no problem with that. That is what it there for.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:23:05 PM · #6 |
I am a believer in copyrights. I think that if a photo is going to be reproduced you want it to be at a quality that will not reflect poorly as you the photographer. I think that it is a way that you can protect your livelihood and your reputation by knowing how your work is being reproduced. People that download the image without permission my print a low res copy and give you credit. Now the image doesn't look the way it was intended, it is dark with a color shift and low res. You are represented by this image as a photographer. Is this OK?
The other side of this is where are the copyright laws in regard to websites? Images uploaded to view and learn are awesome, but if you download and print for any reason, is that alright?
Thanks for the responses
This is exactly what we need
Jewelie |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:26:11 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
yes it does matter what we believe because we have the right to change the laws. Its called civil disobedience. There is a new age of artists emerging that realize the advertising capabilites this ensues. That is why there are a record number of indie labels out their with free copyright. Art should be about art, remember when that was true, it has become to commercial.
Not all laws are right... Look how prohibition turned out. |
If you had your way, the true artists would stop producing. Just look at Europe and South America where socialism breeds. People lose ownership and then they jsut don't produce. You will understand as you get much older. There isn't one older person here that didn't think like you did at one time. Winston Chruchil once said "that if you were not a liberal when you were young you had no heart, and if you were not a conservative when you were old you had no breain" Now do't shoot me, I didnt' say that. Winston Churchill did. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:26:20 PM · #8 |
| What you have said is nice and all, but as a photographer who makes his living with his photography, ( a photojournalis, portraits and weddings), I don't want people being able to use my pics or reproduce them however they want. It costs me money. I have a mortgage and family, Just because it's art (with the exception of the photojournalism) dosen't mean anyone should be allowed to take my work and reproduce it. You can offer your work copyright free if you want, but don't assume because it's art anyone should be able to have it for free. The laws are the laws for a reason. Civil disobidence is fine but be willing to pay the fines if someone comes after you. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:26:23 PM · #9 |
Also the laws have changed greatly to money. For instance Gone with the
Wind should have been in open souce in the 1980s but they changed the laws in 1976 allowing to recopyright material because that movie still makes a bundle every year in sales.
I have read about a time when everyone had something to say and would do anything to get that message out. I remember when sampling other artists as long as you give them due credit was alright. What happened to that.
Also what do you think of these forgers who make copies of paintings but they produce them themselves so it is legal
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:26:33 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
Art should be about art, remember when that was true, it has become to commercial.
|
Yes, the starving artist was all the rage just a few hyundred yars ago, and even the cave men painted for all to share. But a camera can easily cost over $10,000 and I don't see all these freedom of information advocates giving any away lately. Communism is cool in the right context, but at least it gives something back.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:30:18 PM · #11 |
we have been doing it for centuries to literature we make movies based on books after the author has been dead. He/she has no say in how that movie is made, but should we deny that director that movie.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:32:16 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
Also the laws have changed greatly to money. For instance Gone with the
Wind should have been in open souce in the 1980s but they changed the laws in 1976 allowing to recopyright material because that movie still makes a bundle every year in sales.
I have read about a time when everyone had something to say and would do anything to get that message out. I remember when sampling other artists as long as you give them due credit was alright. What happened to that.
Also what do you think of these forgers who make copies of paintings but they produce them themselves so it is legal |
So what you saying is that I can take a self portrait of you that you took and I can make a wanted poster for sex crimes and post it anywhere I want as long as I give you credit. Cool...... |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:32:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
Also the laws have changed greatly to money. For instance Gone with the
Wind should have been in open souce in the 1980s but they changed the laws in 1976 allowing to recopyright material because that movie still makes a bundle every year in sales.
|
It wasn't re-copyrighted. The rights were extended to life plus 70 years for the copyright holder. That means that my grandchildren stand to benifit from my work after I am long gone.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:33:25 PM · #14 |
magazines still hire photojournalists, wedding photos still need to be taken, there is a bigger market than every before out there and you still own the rights to your master. But what is wrong with someone getting copies of wedding photos, you charged them for to take the photo and then most of the time hire out the processing.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:34:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
magazines still hire photojournalists, wedding photos still need to be taken, there is a bigger market than every before out there and you still own the rights to your master. But what is wrong with someone getting copies of wedding photos, you charged them for to take the photo and then most of the time hire out the processing. |
Cause you don't make any money that way........ |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:34:45 PM · #16 |
Some useful reading about the alternative ...
About the Creative Commons
There's a difference between free as in speech and free as in beer that some don't understand.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:34:58 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
we have been doing it for centuries to literature we make movies based on books after the author has been dead. He/she has no say in how that movie is made, but should we deny that director that movie. |
The writer of the book has the same protection under US copyright law as the the producer of a movie.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:36:35 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by bod:
Some useful reading about the alternative ...
About the Creative Commons
There's a difference between free as in speech and free as in beer that some don't understand. |
Now free beer I would be in favor of.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:37:00 PM · #19 |
gwphoto... you took the photo so you get credit. Same as with paparrazzi. Maybe not saying they are sex offenders but they get pretty close some times. And if you are doing it to say a statement then go ahead. That is why we live in our country because we have that right.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:37:07 PM · #20 |
But what is wrong with someone getting copies of wedding photos, you charged them for to take the photo and then most of the time hire out the processing.
When you print one of your images, do you worry about quality, or do you make a scan and print it where ever?
I am picky about where my files are printed. I spend time editing and getting color correct. I want to be represented in the best way possible by this image that has my name as a photographer. That is my problem with having someone else do a print.
Jewelie |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:37:30 PM · #21 |
So mrmojo, you never answered my question. Here it is again...
"So what you saying is that I can take a self portrait of you that you took and I can make a wanted poster for sex crimes and post it anywhere I want as long as I give you credit. Cool......" |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:37:50 PM · #22 |
Copyright is there for a reason, to protect people's work and give credit where credit is due. I used to work at a copy place and constintly had to deal with customers who thought that just cause they bought something they owned the copyrights and could do what they wanted to it and would argue to no end. At that time it wasn't really a big deal to me and sometimes I would copy such things as photos and stuff from books, but when I started having pictures people wanted and it had the chance of effecting me I stopped. I do what I can to make sure I don't infringe on anyone's copyright laws whether it be Microsoft, Snoop Dog, or Shakespere because I don't want anyone infringing on mine.
By the way in case anyone is curious here is the laws website.
//www.copyright.gov/ |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:39:11 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Now free beer I would be in favor of. |
lol, strangely enough I've never found anybody opposed to that.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:40:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
So mrmojo, you never answered my question. Here it is again...
"So what you saying is that I can take a self portrait of you that you took and I can make a wanted poster for sex crimes and post it anywhere I want as long as I give you credit. Cool......" |
That would most likely fall under slander or libel (I can never remember which).
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:40:47 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
gwphoto... you took the photo so you get credit. Same as with paparrazzi. Maybe not saying they are sex offenders but they get pretty close some times. And if you are doing it to say a statement then go ahead. That is why we live in our country because we have that right. |
No I said if I use a photo you took, not one I took. You missed my point.. So do I have the right to use a photo that you took and do with it want I want? |
|
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: 08/14/2025 12:28:14 PM EDT.
