| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2007 05:13:27 PM · #101 |
Cindi,
Originally posted by idnic:
That image would only be in copyright violation if the photographer were trying to sell it. Personal use, such as photography competition for no prize does not violate corporate copyright. |
That sounds just like what people say when they steal images for their myspace pages: "I'm just using it for my personal use, I'm not making money from it and I'm not doing any harm."
I'm certainly not an attorney, but I think it is clear that there is no exemption for personal use. I also don't think there is any difference between corporate copyright and individual copyright.
There is something called "fair use" in the U.S. copyright laws (but many other countries don't have a fair use clause in their laws). The photographer could claim that the use of a small portion of the image of Mickey Mouse falls under the fair use provisions. Unfortunately, recent changes in the copyright law have narrowed the kinds of uses that can be claimed as fair use. And if you get sued, even if you win in court, you'll spend thousand in attorney fees. I certainly would not risk including something like this in a photo I took. It is the media companies that have been most aggressive in asserting copyright claims.
--DanW |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:16:32 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
Cindi,
Originally posted by idnic:
That image would only be in copyright violation if the photographer were trying to sell it. Personal use, such as photography competition for no prize does not violate corporate copyright. |
That sounds just like what people say when they steal images for their myspace pages: "I'm just using it for my personal use, I'm not making money from it and I'm not doing any harm."
I'm certainly not an attorney, but I think it is clear that there is no exemption for personal use. I also don't think there is any difference between corporate copyright and individual copyright.
There is something called "fair use" in the U.S. copyright laws (but many other countries don't have a fair use clause in their laws). The photographer could claim that the use of a small portion of the image of Mickey Mouse falls under the fair use provisions. Unfortunately, recent changes in the copyright law have narrowed the kinds of uses that can be claimed as fair use. And if you get sued, even if you win in court, you'll spend thousand in attorney fees. I certainly would not risk including something like this in a photo I took. It is the media companies that have been most aggressive in asserting copyright claims.
--DanW |
You're a bit off base there. If that were the case Disney wouldn't allow tourists in with cameras for fear that they might capture a copyrighted object. Seriously, have a read here: What is Copyright?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:24:01 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by wheeledd:
Cindi,
Originally posted by idnic:
That image would only be in copyright violation if the photographer were trying to sell it. Personal use, such as photography competition for no prize does not violate corporate copyright. |
That sounds just like what people say when they steal images for their myspace pages: "I'm just using it for my personal use, I'm not making money from it and I'm not doing any harm."
I'm certainly not an attorney, but I think it is clear that there is no exemption for personal use. I also don't think there is any difference between corporate copyright and individual copyright.
There is something called "fair use" in the U.S. copyright laws (but many other countries don't have a fair use clause in their laws). The photographer could claim that the use of a small portion of the image of Mickey Mouse falls under the fair use provisions. Unfortunately, recent changes in the copyright law have narrowed the kinds of uses that can be claimed as fair use. And if you get sued, even if you win in court, you'll spend thousand in attorney fees. I certainly would not risk including something like this in a photo I took. It is the media companies that have been most aggressive in asserting copyright claims.
--DanW |
You're a bit off base there. If that were the case Disney wouldn't allow tourists in with cameras for fear that they might capture a copyrighted object. Seriously, have a read here: What is Copyright? |
It's not fair use. Read the section on Fair Use at the linked site
There is no exemption for "personal use".
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 17:27:39.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:28:06 PM · #104 |
I'm not saying taking a photo that has mickey mouse in it constitutes fair use, what I'm saying is that I have every right to take the photograph and to use it any way I see fit as long as I don't attempt to license it or sell it - that's when I step on Disney's copyright. Think about the zillions of images of kids wearing mickey mouse t-shirts. Disney cannot restrict your right to photograph your child wearing something they sold to you.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:28:29 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
I now embed my name in the file of each image I place on the Internet. Even paid shoots I enter "© Michael P. Randazzo 2007" right after I download them from my camera in the "copyright notice" with Photo shop. |
And as soon as someone does a "Save for Web" it is gone.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:30:57 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
if you don't want people to see/ use your images, don't post them. It's that simple. |
You're being a bit argumentatively uncooperative here. If we should adopt this attitude, why are there any laws anyway? And why should DPC exist? Stealing isn't right, and just because we don't have a perfect way to stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I'm sick of hearing "don't post them."
If that were a good position, let's apply it to books, too.... "If you don't want anybody to photocopy them, don't publish them."
Kind of a totally stupid line, if you ask me. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:33:53 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by idnic:
That is PRECISELY the point.... after voting, I would prefer for people to see the copyright notice FIRST, then enjoy the image. |
I understand the intention. I was saying that enjoying the image becomes problematic when some bright banner screams at you about copyright. |
That's why I suggested making it optional - so those that don't mind their images being stolen have the privilege of not watermarking theirs. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:35:29 PM · #108 |
Cindi,
Originally posted by idnic:
You're a bit off base there. If that were the case Disney wouldn't allow tourists in with cameras for fear that they might capture a copyrighted object. Seriously, have a read here: What is Copyright? |
I think Disney has chosen to allow tourists to photograph the things at Disney Land. There has been some discussion here about the limits on taking pictures at NASCAR races--in buying the ticket you agree that NASCAR owns the copyright for any pictures you take.
I looked at the site you linked. I did not find anything that contradicted my claim that there is no exemption for personal use. I also did not find the site to be very good. It was written some time ago by someone who says explictly that he is not an expert on intellectual property legislation.
--DanW |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:35:45 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I'm not saying taking a photo that has mickey mouse in it constitutes fair use, what I'm saying is that I have every right to take the photograph and to use it any way I see fit as long as I don't attempt to license it or sell it - that's when I step on Disney's copyright. Think about the zillions of images of kids wearing mickey mouse t-shirts. Disney cannot restrict your right to photograph your child wearing something they sold to you. |
That's not the same thing.
It is the same as the NFL or MLB, you can take pictures of those shirts, but you can't show the logos on TV unless it relates directly to the team/game etc.
You still can't take an image you find online that you think is "cool" and use it on your MySpace page without consent. Even though your MySpace page isn't selling anything. It's infringement.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 17:38:02.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:37:06 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by idnic:
I'm not saying taking a photo that has mickey mouse in it constitutes fair use, what I'm saying is that I have every right to take the photograph and to use it any way I see fit as long as I don't attempt to license it or sell it - that's when I step on Disney's copyright. Think about the zillions of images of kids wearing mickey mouse t-shirts. Disney cannot restrict your right to photograph your child wearing something they sold to you. |
That's not the same thing. Read the section about using the image from National Geographic.
You still can't take an image you find online that you think is "cool" and use it on your MySpace page without consent. Even though your MySpace page isn't selling anything. It's infringement. |
That's true! I think we're arguing 2 different points here. lol
I'm talking about creating an image - you are talking about using one that someone else created.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 17:37:41.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:37:58 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Quality of the experience for the legitimate users (thousands of people ) should be more important than blocking a minority of copyright infringers.
|
I disagree. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:40:06 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think more than a few people here consider their images art and having a logo plastered across the middle of it seems somewhat contrary to the notion that most of the image is important. |
Can I say this again?
THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL!!!!!!
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 17:53:37. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:43:37 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by soup:
well in a strctly business sense - that's a legitmate practice. many here aren't pro and are just trying to get there images seen in hopes of gaining some sort of photographic respect. i can see why it would be painful for someone to find out their best rated image has been attributed to someone elses name... a simple - fairly easy - fairly unabtrusive OPTION - doesn't seem like such a bad thing. i'd like to see a poll on how many would actually be annoyed enough at a watermark to stop participating at DPC.
|
Agreed.
I would also like to see the poll. With due respect, Mr. McGregor is speaking pretty loudly, but he does NOT speak for the entire community.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 17:53:27. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:49:53 PM · #114 |
I ran across this awhile back, but ignored it because I didn't feel I had enough good photos to worry about. (Although there are a couple...) This software looked interesting and might be helpful to some.
It would give you piece of mind and a way to know what's going where. :)
Digimarc MyPictureMarc
Just a thought. I'll shut up now! |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:03:34 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Quality of the experience for the legitimate users (thousands of people ) should be more important than blocking a minority of copyright infringers.
|
I disagree. |
I think the paying users should come first, over the freeloaders.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:08:01 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Gordon:
if you don't want people to see/ use your images, don't post them. It's that simple. |
You're being a bit argumentatively uncooperative here. If we should adopt this attitude, why are there any laws anyway? And why should DPC exist? Stealing isn't right, and just because we don't have a perfect way to stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. |
I agree. and if anyone can come up with a way to stop them that doesn't diminish the experience for the paying users, while actually doing more than cause one second of inconvenience to someone wanting to stick your image on their myspace site, then I say we should go for it.
But then if it existed, it would be in use on many sites already. If someone wants to suggest something that will do that, lets talk about it.
But it isn't honking big watermarks through the middle of the image, or right click blockers or transparent overlays or digimark. They all either do nothing or get in the way of normal use.
I don't disagree that something should be done if something useful can be done. But doing pointless stuff for the sake of it, isn't a good answer, particularly when it just costs the users or site money for no actual protection from casual misuse.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:09:33 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think more than a few people here consider their images art and having a logo plastered across the middle of it seems somewhat contrary to the notion that most of the image is important. |
Can I say this again?
THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL!!!!!! |
But it wouldn't. Where would be the option so I wouldn't see it ? Maybe if paying members can ignore it then it might be workable. A big load on the servers perhaps, but workable.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:28:33 PM · #118 |
Gordon the option would be per user. Does this user want his images watermarked. If they are watermarked they would stay watermarked. If the user doesnt want watermarked images then his arent watermarked and they stay that way.
Now on the better side If you chose not to water mark it can be watermarked later. But it cant be undone. However you can turn it off and have no future images water makred. Its easy
The only thing s watermarked images stay watermarked. Minus ones in ur portofilio that u can delete and reupload. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:32:55 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Gordon the option would be per user. Does this user want his images watermarked. If they are watermarked they would stay watermarked. If the user doesnt want watermarked images then his arent watermarked and they stay that way.
Now on the better side If you chose not to water mark it can be watermarked later. But it cant be undone. However you can turn it off and have no future images water makred. Its easy
The only thing s watermarked images stay watermarked. Minus ones in ur portofilio that u can delete and reupload. |
Yes - I realise that is what is being said. I'm saying as a paying user it would seriously diminish the enjoyment I get from the site, if for example, the 3 winning images in minimalism had large, obvious watermarks across the middle of them.
It would be increasingly probable that the winning images would be watermarked, as those would be the ones that would be actually likely to be misappropriated. So the end of the trend would be that all of the good images would be corrupted to the point of being unviewable.
I find it odd that this would be considered an enhancement for the paying users of the site (who make those images popular in the first place, we have to remember)
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 23:33:10.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:35:32 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by idnic:
This copyright notice is copyright protected.....
Hehehee just kidding. Anyone may use mine, I don't mind. :) |
You might once I stuff your name & copyright on some of my seriously visually challenged (that would be ugly in non-PC terms) images :-)))
The only safe option is not to put it online. Apart from that, I guess registration but the enforcement is expensive even if you would win. A whacking great visible watermark will do it but defeats the point of the image - anything close to subtle is not likely to be as effective (and obviously no good for challenges here). :shrug: |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:36:13 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think more than a few people here consider their images art and having a logo plastered across the middle of it seems somewhat contrary to the notion that most of the image is important. |
Can I say this again?
THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL!!!!!! |
But it wouldn't. Where would be the option so I wouldn't see it ? Maybe if paying members can ignore it then it might be workable. A big load on the servers perhaps, but workable. |
Stock sites have watermarks that are visible when browsing unless you are logged in. Why couldn't this be done the same way?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:46:12 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Gordon the option would be per user. Does this user want his images watermarked. If they are watermarked they would stay watermarked. If the user doesnt want watermarked images then his arent watermarked and they stay that way.
Now on the better side If you chose not to water mark it can be watermarked later. But it cant be undone. However you can turn it off and have no future images water makred. Its easy
The only thing s watermarked images stay watermarked. Minus ones in ur portofilio that u can delete and reupload. |
Yes - I realise that is what is being said. I'm saying as a paying user it would seriously diminish the enjoyment I get from the site, if for example, the 3 winning images in minimalism had large, obvious watermarks across the middle of them.
It would be increasingly probable that the winning images would be watermarked, as those would be the ones that would be actually likely to be misappropriated. So the end of the trend would be that all of the good images would be corrupted to the point of being unviewable.
I find it odd that this would be considered an enhancement for the paying users of the site (who make those images popular in the first place, we have to remember) |
ALl in understanding but also its up to other PAYING members that put their image shere at risk. Wether or not they want THEIR images watermarked. They pay they decide? It's unfortunate that their are other casualties. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:50:22 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
ALl in understanding but also its up to other PAYING members that put their image shere at risk. Wether or not they want THEIR images watermarked. They pay they decide? It's unfortunate that their are other casualties. |
Though they at least get a choice in the matter. Several choices really.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:52:59 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
But it wouldn't. Where would be the option so I wouldn't see it ? Maybe if paying members can ignore it then it might be workable. A big load on the servers perhaps, but workable. |
Stock sites have watermarks that are visible when browsing unless you are logged in. Why couldn't this be done the same way? |
Several stock sites also have their own customized rack servers with multiple redundant connections and make enough money to cover the expense of handling such a constant load while mainting normal viewing and operating speeds. This is their afforded way of maintaining image protection and balance cost effectivness for a profit plan that works. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 12:15:30 AM · #125 |
Yes, there are only two ways to serve both watermarked and non-watermarked versions of the same image:
1) Have two copies (space hogging)
2) Watermark prior to viewing (processor intensive)
Neither one of those options would really work for us. Either a photographer wants his/her image watermarked or they don't. The viewer doesn't get much say.
Either way, who's to say someone wouldn't come in pay the $25 and steal all our images?
So far, I really like GeneralE's idea of the Digimarc. It's invisible (mostly) and trackable. This should mean that we will know where are images are going.
I still like the original suggestion of moving the copyright notice until something better is done though.
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 00:16:29.
|
|
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: 07/28/2025 05:19:54 PM EDT.
