Copyright Violators

[tecdavidt]

I have a question on this issue. How can somebody get a copyright on photos if the subject of the photos have a copyright? I worked in the printing industry for years and I would hope she has the approval from Disney Corp. I would think the one who should be upset would be Disney esp. if they gave the approval to taswira. Just food for thought. Kathy

 

[CRSNDSNY]

A good, basic site that explains Digital Millennium Copyright usage and Copyright in general can be found at:http://www.departments.dsu.edu/library/copyright.htm

I am a trained instructional designer for a college as well as a graphic designer and therefore, must be well-versed in the copyright issues.

taswira, you are well within your rights to be upset over this.

 

[digitalmom]

I am the husband to digitalmom wondering how trademark violations come into play when someone sells their photo talents (not the pictures), using Disney themes such as a photo of Mickey, etc. If bonifid artists can't sell oils or watercolors promoting Disney themes, without paying royalties, how can a photographer sell their talents using Disney themes as their subjects, which Disney payed good money to develop? Who is stealing what from whom?

 

[AnnMorin]

As many of you know I happen to be married to a magistrate and as this went on and on I asked him about this.. first of all.,, the CRIMINAL aspect is only for REGISTERED copyrights, there are CIVIL implications and remedies, however one would have to convince a jury of number one- intent to steal the "copy righted material" (everything published is automatically copyrighted not registered) number two- the damages from the copyrighted material being released without permission. This means dollars and cents lost by the person owning the copyright.

I do think it is wrong that someone would use her pictures without her permission...but DH has asked me to queery you did you get a release from everyone in the photos you are displaying on your website? If not you may have bigger problems than complaining about someone copying your pictures as photoing and selling someones image without their consent is not a civil infringment but criminal.. here is what the copyright law says:
WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT?

The owner of a registered copyright can enforce his rights by bringing a civil lawsuit in Federal District Court. In addition, the Federal government itself can act. Criminal actions can be brought by the U.S. Attorney; and Customs and Postal officials may seize and impound infringing articles that are being imported. Recovery of attorneys' fees is possible if the suit is successful.

The penalties for infringement can be substantial. In civil actions brought by the copyright owner, the court may order forfeiture and/or destruction not only of all infringing articles, but also of any implements used to manufacture the infringing articles. The court may even order seizure and impoundment of such articles prior to trial, and in some cases, without prior notice to the alleged violator. In addition to obtaining an order stopping the infringement and ordering destruction of infringing articles, the court can order payment of any provable damages, including lost profits. The copyright owner can elect to receive "statutory damages". The minimum amount of statutory damages that can be awarded for copyright infringement is $500; and the maximum is $20,000. If the infringement was willful, the potential statutory damage award is increased to $100,000 for each act of infringement. In addition, attorneys' fees may be awarded.

In addition to civil penalties, copyright violators can be prosecuted under the federal criminal laws. All willful copyright infringement is a criminal offense. The lowest penalty is conviction of a federal misdemeanor, with a prison sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to $5000. More serious penalties are levied against violators who make multiple copies of a work, or who copy expensive works. It is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 to willfully infringe copyrights of others by making, during a 180-day period, ten or more copies of a work which have a cumulative value of $2500 or more. Second and subsequent offenses carry a prison term of up to ten years in addition to the fine. Companies which willfully infringe can be assessed up to $500,000 in fines.

 

[zurgswife]

While I agree that people should not have used her pictures without first gaining permission...I'm also fairly sure that these Guilty parties ment no harm and probably didn't realize they were breaking a Civil law....

But I'm wondering how Taswira found these websites in the first places much less duplicate sites...I have been surfing most of the day and have quite frequently been checking Cruise board posters to see if they are the guilty parties...I have only come acrossed 3websites .....and I have checked alot of posters.... The other interesting thing is a have only come acrossed one poster who had no email address to have emails directed to....


It must have be a very time consuming project.

I would frankly love to hear from the "guilty" parties!

My curiosity is with Ann on this one......

 

[AnnMorin]

Thanks Zurgs wife... I guess I get a bit hot when people start talking law... But I am really curious as I too have been looking and can not find ANY sights.. and that includes Taswira's which used to be listed but no longer is.....

 

[wovenwonder]

This has been a very eductional thread. I have a family website that includes a section on our Disney Cruise. I've obtained clipart from many sites to use on my website. Gee, I hope I wasn't breaking any laws. This website actually is costing me money (it isn't a freebie site) and I am certainly not gaining any income from it. I've never even seen the sites/pictures in question so I am certain that I haven't copied anything from it on to my site.

 

[Stewblue]

Thanks AnnMorin for the clarifications. I'm so used to dealing with this issue from the standpoint of work that I tend to think in worst case. We have a lot of problems with people creating websites at work and then copying images, articles, etc. from the internet. Ususally the intent is quite good - sharing information on ergonomics to help prevent repetitive stress injuries. However, since in doing this, they are placing the information on the company Intranet, the action has placed the company at risk.

I never can think of a good example to make it clear why violating copyright is wrong. If you make a living by your intellectual efforts, then it is easy to understand but if you don't, then it is harder.

 

[tecdavidt]

I find it interesting that taswira's web site is no longer listed. Taswira did have nice shots but I must admit, no different than the ones my DH has taken on the Magic, we have not been on the Wonder. AnnMorin thank you for the legal stuff, I feel more comfortable about my post on how can you do a copyright on a subject that is a copyright. I know what I dealt with in printing concerning copyright laws. Kathy

 

[zurgswife]

I'm a little clear on the subject now...from what I have learned is that Taswira...has giving permission on other occassions if the person lists her copyright info and sites her as photographer....

But the sites that she has found has done neither.....I think that because her livlihood is connected to these pictures she needs to protect all her pictures whether they are professional or personal.....

any how I hope things get cleared up...

 

[kendall]

Kathy,

That is a really interesting question, and I too am intrigued by it. Obviously Disney pursues and protects its copyright vigorously, and one cannot manufacture something with a copyrighted disney item without penalty. For example, I couldn't manufacture and sell a key chain with Mickey Mouse without running the risk of infringement. So is a photo any different? An electronic representation of a copyrighted item for sale - hmmmm. Disney clip art and other electronic images are copyrighted. But a photograph is an interpretation - I imagine that the ship is not copyrighted, so a photo of the ship would be OK. What about a photo for sale of a character - the character would be copyrighted. Personal use is fine, but the selling of the character image is an interesting question.

 

[taswira]

I was determined not to reply, but the continuation of this thread has prompted additional response.

I analyze my server log files whenever I have time. Some of the visitors and referral sites caught my attention and I went to them and discovered my own photos. I have removed the link from the DIS to my own sites due to the increased traffic and critics from the DIS (I never bragged about the photos - only stated that they are mine) since this thread. In regard to the allegations, I DO have photo releases for all photos that I <I>sell or profit from</I>, and as a p/t TA affiliated with a major agency, and a certified Disney Specialist, I am authorized to use Disney subjects with approval provided I include their trademark/copyright notice, which I do.

HOWEVER, <B>I would like to make it clear that I do not sell or profit from my personal Disney photos I post on the Web</B>. Those are there for people to see and enjoy, just as they enjoy the pictures the rest of you post on your sites.

Many times people have contacted me asking for permission to use some of my photos on their personal websites. I usually grant permission provided they include my photo credit. I am not trying to be a "meanie," but since my business is primarily photography (wildlife and travel, NOT Disney), I can not allow "free use without credit byline" of my photos. It is not for protection of individual photos but for my name as a photographer.

I am aware that "stealing" is a strong word and that the "theft" was likely completely unintentional. If you read my original post (before accusations against <I>me</I> started) you will find that I did NOT use the word "stealing." I said "copied" "without my permission." I was trying to get the message to the parties involved in a strong but polite manner. IF they had contact info on their sites, it would not have been necessary. It was not my intent to start a copyright <I>debate</I>. Everyone just jumped in.

As an added note - By midnight last night, all but one of the sites had removed my photos. Yet they were not subjected to public embarrassment by having been personally named.

<B>The reason I did not ask the DIS administrators for help was EXACTLY because I was assuming the "theft" WAS unintentional, and I did not want to cause any embarassment for them by naming names to anyone else.</B> I could have listed their websites for all to visit and compare. Instead, my consideration for them caused several people to turn their accusations to me.

Anyway, I AM sorry now for ever posting my request.

 

[Michelle]

Taswira, thank you for the update and I'm glad that the photos have been removed from the other sites.

I think your post is a good place to end this discussion. If folks want to debate copyrights and copyright law feel free to post a question on the debate board.