Fair Use and Copyright

[Groucho]

This discussion began as part of a thread on Disney Photo sites. I think it is an important and valid subject that should be explored so that everyone knows what their rights and protections are for photos. The message was getting lost in the other thread so I have split it to allow it to continue. I apologize that it is somewhat disjointed due to the split but I hope the message will continue to evolve.

Jeff

I respectfully disagree with that train of thought, taking someone's photos without permission is basically stealing copyrighted material, it is always best to ask permission first

It depends on your definition of "taking". This is the problem with copyrights in the digital era. I don't like the use of the word "steal" as that implies taking something physical away from the rightful owner, like stealing a car or a camera. Certainly the MPAA and RIAA would like to equate downloading an copyrighted work to being no different that breaking into a store and taking cash out of the register, but I think that's an unfair mischaracterization. A Mom making a scrapbook with pictures of her kids from Disney and using a couple pictures of the castle that she downloaded is a far cry from Thelma and Louise!

It's pretty safe to assume that if someone puts up their photo gallery on Photobucket, etc, that you are not restricted from putting a copy on your page. You are not stealing it by saving a copy to your hard drive; after all, it's already there, in your cache folder. This is the most I do - and being an archivist by nature, I have a few "collections" of my favorite Disney photographers who have online galleries. I don't feel any need to ask - after all, what would I say? "Mind if I save some of your pictures?"

Printing out a copy for your own personal use, like for a scrapbook, would clearly fall under "fair use" even if it is fully copyrighted... at least, that's the way I understand it. I'm no lawyer but I don't think there's any jury that would have a problem with that. Still, it's probably not a bad idea to ask.

If you're doing a Disney scrapbook anyway, it will be full of copyrighted characters, and again, that would be "as I understand it" completely legal. Now, if you tried to sell it, you'd need to get permission from all original photographers and give them proper credit, as well as get permission from Disney to use their characters.

Basically, if it's on a public, non-restricted web site, it's generally considered fair game. For example, the people who do sell their photos on the web site are really selling you a high-quality copy without watermarking, instead of the low-resolution watermarked glorified thumbnail on their web page.

There are gray areas, too, of course. If you were going to get some "family trip" shirts printed up at CafePress and were going to use a photo that you found on the internet as a background, you probably should get permission, even if you're not actually selling them.

I dunno. I don't disagree that it never hurts... and I have had my photos used on other sites without my permission (I had a lot of pretty nice car photos that I took on-line back in the early days of the internet), but what can you do? It's the internet. I took it as flattery and didn't let myself get upset. It's just not possible to display your photos properly on the internet yet keep them from being collected by others.

It should go without saying that I don't think that anyone should take someone else's photos for their own web page without getting permission first.

And the "common sense" definition is fair use is not doing anything that will keep the copyright holder from being able to make money with their product, whereupon a scrapbook that only the family and a few friends will see certainly isn't going to be a problem. A quick Google search came up with this page, specifically talking about using internet-sourced images in a scrapbook.

Boy, I really rambled a lot here. I apologize for this message's complete lack of cohesiveness.

 

[MICKEY88]

this page fair use defining fair use, clearly shows that scrapbooking does not constitute fair use

for the most part fair use only applies to criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,

the bottom line is, if it is not an image that you created, you are stealing it, whether you like that word or not..

it is not safe to assume it's OK to take an image just because someone posted it on the internet, and it's already in our cache...anymore than it's safe to assume you can copy a dvd, just because it's already in your dvd player..

the disney scrap book would be full of copyrighted characters, and would be legal if you took the pictures, disney basically gives you permission by allowing you to take the pictures in the first place,

there is a difference if you have taken someone elses images without permission.

and as for what are you to say to the image owner..it's quite simple, many of us who believe in the copyright laws, have done it...

you simpy tell the person you like their pictures and were wondering if you could possibly have copies, for a certain use, explaining what that use is..

the page you listed is only partially accurate, they state it's OK to use images from a gov. web site,

then they say you may not legally take an image with a copyright attached...

the photography copyright law was changed years ago, the moment the shutter is tripped, the image is copyrighted, therefore the copyright is not required to be attached, it makes prosecution a little easier, but it is not neccessary, therefore any photo you find online IS copyrighted, and based on the page you sited, may not be legally taken


as a photographer I strongly believe in the copyright laws and follow them, encouraging others to do the same, everyone is free to make their own choice

It depends on your definition of "taking". This is the problem with copyrights in the digital era. I don't like the use of the word "steal" as that implies taking something physical away from the rightful owner, like stealing a car or a camera. Certainly the MPAA and RIAA would like to equate downloading an copyrighted work to being no different that breaking into a store and taking cash out of the register, but I think that's an unfair mischaracterization. A Mom making a scrapbook with pictures of her kids from Disney and using a couple pictures of the castle that she downloaded is a far cry from Thelma and Louise!

It's pretty safe to assume that if someone puts up their photo gallery on Photobucket, etc, that you are not restricted from putting a copy on your page. You are not stealing it by saving a copy to your hard drive; after all, it's already there, in your cache folder. This is the most I do - and being an archivist by nature, I have a few "collections" of my favorite Disney photographers who have online galleries. I don't feel any need to ask - after all, what would I say? "Mind if I save some of your pictures?"

Printing out a copy for your own personal use, like for a scrapbook, would clearly fall under "fair use" even if it is fully copyrighted... at least, that's the way I understand it. I'm no lawyer but I don't think there's any jury that would have a problem with that. Still, it's probably not a bad idea to ask.

If you're doing a Disney scrapbook anyway, it will be full of copyrighted characters, and again, that would be "as I understand it" completely legal. Now, if you tried to sell it, you'd need to get permission from all original photographers and give them proper credit, as well as get permission from Disney to use their characters.

Basically, if it's on a public, non-restricted web site, it's generally considered fair game. For example, the people who do sell their photos on the web site are really selling you a high-quality copy without watermarking, instead of the low-resolution watermarked glorified thumbnail on their web page.

There are gray areas, too, of course. If you were going to get some "family trip" shirts printed up at CafePress and were going to use a photo that you found on the internet as a background, you probably should get permission, even if you're not actually selling them.

I dunno. I don't disagree that it never hurts... and I have had my photos used on other sites without my permission (I had a lot of pretty nice car photos that I took on-line back in the early days of the internet), but what can you do? It's the internet. I took it as flattery and didn't let myself get upset. It's just not possible to display your photos properly on the internet yet keep them from being collected by others.

It should go without saying that I don't think that anyone should take someone else's photos for their own web page without getting permission first.

And the "common sense" definition is fair use is not doing anything that will keep the copyright holder from being able to make money with their product, whereupon a scrapbook that only the family and a few friends will see certainly isn't going to be a problem. A quick Google search came up with this page, specifically talking about using internet-sourced images in a scrapbook.

Boy, I really rambled a lot here. I apologize for this message's complete lack of cohesiveness.

 

[Groucho]

The letter of the law is one thing, the spirit of the law is another.

I think it's unrealistic for anyone who puts a photo on the internet to expect that no one may take it and keep a copy for their own reference.

I'm sorry, but the whole "copyright" situation is an absolute debacle and has been used as a bloody hammer by the MPAA and RIAA. I do not disagree with one's right to protect their photographs but I do not agree with the heavy-handed approach that some groups use (especially while short-changing the actual artist.) (Can you guess that I'm also very anti-DRM?)

IMHO it comes down to harm done. There is absolutely no harm done to the original photographer if someone prints out one of their photos. Especially when it comes to WDW photos - if the photographer says "they may have bought it", that's pretty unlikely when you'll find tens of thousands of photos where the photographer won't charge you.

Similarly - my local diner has "mickey pancakes" in the morning. Should Disney sue them? My child's doctor has a room with a wall painted with Disney characters. Should Disney sue them? These are not haming Disney. Heck, there's a local playground that has a replica of an X-Wing Fighter (from Star Wars) - Lucasfilm could probably claim that that's an infringement, but again, no harm is being done. "Illegal" but harmless copyright infringement happens every day and most copyright holders accept it.

I also absolutely and completely refuse to go along with the notion that saving someone's JPG to my hard drive constitutes stealing. And technically, you can copy a DVD, if it's your own. But that's a bad comparison. You can LEGALLY record a TV show - remember the Betamax lawsuits? I think that saving JPGs to your hard drive would fall under that decision. It's available for your free viewing, just like an over-the-air TV broadcast, and you're entitled to make a local copy for viewing later.

To sum up: I agree that it's never a bad idea to ask permission, but I would also not accuse anyone of stealing who has used an internet photo in a scrapbook that only they see. I respect your desire to protect your photos but I think you're not being realistic if you expect them to "protect" them if you provide them free for viewing on the internet.

 

[MICKEY88]

I also put my christmas lights outside for the world to view, does that make them free for the taking..

if you can find tens of thousands of photos, where the photographer won't charge you, then you should choose those, rather than the one where the photographer would want compensation, if you want that photo instead, then it is obviously better than the tens of thousands, and worth paying for, if the photographer won't give permission to borrow it..

yes their are ways to safeguard pics and make them less desirable for taking, is that the way it should be, or should people be educated so they understand it's wrong to take someones intellectual property.

If the burden is placed on the photographer, should we place the same burden on all of society.

perhaps if a car is stolen, it's the owners fault for parking it outside rather than locking it in a garage.


we could debate this forever, the law is the law...just because it's easy to take pictures on line does not make it right.

I prefer to educate people when they ask how to {borrow pictures as you word it}

we all choose what laws to obey and what laws to bend or break, I believe these choices should be made with proper knowledge of the law,

ability or ease to do something does not make it legally or morally right,


my point is based on the copyright law, yours is based on your beliefs,


let's apply that to another law, I believe speedlimits are too low on interstate highways, I drive a high performance vehicle, does that mean it would be OK for me to tavel at 100MPH...

The letter of the law is one thing, the spirit of the law is another.

I think it's unrealistic for anyone who puts a photo on the internet to expect that no one may take it and keep a copy for their own reference.

I'm sorry, but the whole "copyright" situation is an absolute debacle and has been used as a bloody hammer by the MPAA and RIAA. I do not disagree with one's right to protect their photographs but I do not agree with the heavy-handed approach that some groups use (especially while short-changing the actual artist.) (Can you guess that I'm also very anti-DRM?)

IMHO it comes down to harm done. There is absolutely no harm done to the original photographer if someone prints out one of their photos. Especially when it comes to WDW photos - if the photographer says "they may have bought it", that's pretty unlikely when you'll find tens of thousands of photos where the photographer won't charge you.

Similarly - my local diner has "mickey pancakes" in the morning. Should Disney sue them? My child's doctor has a room with a wall painted with Disney characters. Should Disney sue them? These are not haming Disney. Heck, there's a local playground that has a replica of an X-Wing Fighter (from Star Wars) - Lucasfilm could probably claim that that's an infringement, but again, no harm is being done. "Illegal" but harmless copyright infringement happens every day and most copyright holders accept it.

I also absolutely and completely refuse to go along with the notion that saving someone's JPG to my hard drive constitutes stealing. And technically, you can copy a DVD, if it's your own. But that's a bad comparison. You can LEGALLY record a TV show - remember the Betamax lawsuits? I think that saving JPGs to your hard drive would fall under that decision. It's available for your free viewing, just like an over-the-air TV broadcast, and you're entitled to make a local copy for viewing later.

To sum up: I agree that it's never a bad idea to ask permission, but I would also not accuse anyone of stealing who has used an internet photo in a scrapbook that only they see. I respect your desire to protect your photos but I think you're not being realistic if you expect them to "protect" them if you provide them free for viewing on the internet.

 

[Groucho]

Stealing cars or driving fast are apples and oranges. (100mph is nothing, anyway, I did that on a test drive a few years ago. Yes, somewhere where there was no one else around.) Besides, 56mph in a 55mph zone is just as illegal are 156mph. OK, back to serious mode.

Violating a copyright is not the same as stealing a physical object, no matter how hard the RIAA and MPAA wish that it were so. So let's please have no more comparisons to stealing a car.

Again, think of the Betamax case. It is 100% legal to record a TV show and watch it later. It's also 100% legal to cut out the commercials and burn it to a DVD. For your own use.

My opinion is that printing out a picture for a scrapbook is no different that cutting a picture out of a magazine for your scrapbook.

Under your definition, something as innocent and commonplace here in the Photography forum as taking someone else's photo and editing it slightly (for the purposes of reposting it and showing them a possible improvement that they could make) without them specifically asking is no different that donning a ski mask, brandishing a pistol, walking into a store, and demanding money.

I've also never heard of any web mirroring programs ever being threatened by the law in any way. Furthermore, most every browser includes a "save page" function that will also take any pictures on that page, and no copyright holder has complained about that. If you've been online a while, chances are that your photographs are stored by archive.org and at least thumbnailed by the major search engines.

Technically, anyone selling personal pictures from WDW is probably in violation of Disney's copyrights. Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character and the Magic Kingdom is private property, developed at considerable expense. Why should an amateur photographer expect to make money from their hard work without compensating Disney?

I'm being glib here. But the point is, the law is not so black and white or heavyhanded as it could be. Personal scrapbooking use is about as innocent as you can get and I don't think any judge would ever even consider a case where someone sued because one of their photos that was online was printed up and stuck in a private scrapbook.

 

[MICKEY88]

if you cut a picture from a magazine, you've paid for the magazine and the content,

just because a judge wouldn't prosecute for scrapbook usage , doesn't make it legal,

one thing we do agree on is the selling of disney photos,
having contacted disney legal dept, on that very issue I can tell you there stance, my daughter worked the college program, i put together a book of 8x10's for her to get her friends to autograph, several asked if I would sell them a copy of the book, so I contacted disney, they told me I could sell them to the cast members as long as I didn't price gouge, they also assured me that if I started selling albums or pictures on ebay or anywhere else and they found out, they would prosecute to the ful extent of the law..

as far as your comments about brandishing a pistol etc. I never said any such thing and to imply it is the most absurd thing yet

yes taking a pic from this forum is in violation of the law, will a judge prosecute, probably not, but that doesn't make it legal, moral or ethical.

why is it so wrong to advise people to ask first, the only reason i can think of, is because you know it's wrong and the owner might say no

we will obviously never agree on this because we have different standards, so, we can agree to disagree, you can continue to tell people to just take that which is not theirs, and I will continue to advise people to ask permission first..

Stealing cars or driving fast are apples and oranges. (100mph is nothing, anyway, I did that on a test drive a few years ago. Yes, somewhere where there was no one else around.) Besides, 56mph in a 55mph zone is just as illegal are 156mph. OK, back to serious mode.

Violating a copyright is not the same as stealing a physical object, no matter how hard the RIAA and MPAA wish that it were so. So let's please have no more comparisons to stealing a car.

Again, think of the Betamax case. It is 100% legal to record a TV show and watch it later. It's also 100% legal to cut out the commercials and burn it to a DVD. For your own use.

My opinion is that printing out a picture for a scrapbook is no different that cutting a picture out of a magazine for your scrapbook.

Under your definition, something as innocent and commonplace here in the Photography forum as taking someone else's photo and editing it slightly (for the purposes of reposting it and showing them a possible improvement that they could make) without them specifically asking is no different that donning a ski mask, brandishing a pistol, walking into a store, and demanding money.

I've also never heard of any web mirroring programs ever being threatened by the law in any way. Furthermore, most every browser includes a "save page" function that will also take any pictures on that page, and no copyright holder has complained about that. If you've been online a while, chances are that your photographs are stored by archive.org and at least thumbnailed by the major search engines.

Technically, anyone selling personal pictures from WDW is probably in violation of Disney's copyrights. Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character and the Magic Kingdom is private property, developed at considerable expense. Why should an amateur photographer expect to make money from their hard work without compensating Disney?

I'm being glib here. But the point is, the law is not so black and white or heavyhanded as it could be. Personal scrapbooking use is about as innocent as you can get and I don't think any judge would ever even consider a case where someone sued because one of their photos that was online was printed up and stuck in a private scrapbook.

 

[Groucho]

if you cut a picture from a magazine, you've paid for the magazine and the content,

Not true - you have no more ownership of the content than you do if you buy a movie on DVD. You have no right to reproduce that media for the use of others. The photo copyrights in the magazine are retained by the magazine.

just because a judge wouldn't prosecute for scrapbook usage , doesn't make it legal,

Whether it does it doesn't, it gives give an idea of the seriousness of the alleged violation.

they also assured me that if I started selling albums or pictures on ebay or anywhere else and they found out, they would prosecute to the ful extent of the law..

That's about what I would expect in terms of reasonable copyright law. I think that on a legal basis, anyone who attempts to sell a WDW photograph (via any photo site that lets people pay for full-resolution copies of your photographs, or any other way) is breaking the law much more than anyone making a local copy of a JPG. I have not seen anyone complaining about that happening - and we have at least a few active members who sell their Disney photos for profit, and while I don't know for sure, I'm pretty confident that they haven't gotten permission from Disney.

as far as your comments about brandishing a pistol etc. I never said any such thing and to imply it is the most absurd thing yet

You did compare copying a jpg to stealing Christmas lights or stealing a car.

yes taking a pic from this forum is in violation of the law, will a judge prosecute, probably not, but that doesn't make it legal, moral or ethical.

It's "taken" every time it's viewed. What difference does it matter if it's in a cache or in another folder?

why is it so wrong to advise people to ask first, the only reason i can think of, is because you know it's wrong and the owner might say no

If you read the thread over again, at no point did I ever recommend against asking permission. I've repeatedly said the opposite, actually. The closest I did was was that it's "probably safe to assume" that the original photographer won't mind. That's my opinion and it has nothing to do with the act of asking permission. Please don't misunderstand or me or accuse me of saying things that I didn't.

we will obviously never agree on this because we have different standards, so, we can agree to disagree, you can continue to tell people to just take that which is not theirs, and I will continue to advise people to ask permission first..

I don't know what to say here. You're accusing me of some pretty serious stuff here and I do resent being called a thief or accused of encouraging thievery. Why not go after the OP, the one who said that her intention was to use downloaded photos in a scrapbook (something I've never done)? Why not go into the scrapbooking forum and go after those folks? I'm sorry that I've managed to get you so riled up, I assure you that it was not my intention.

Again, if you can explain why the Betamax laws would not apply to keeping a local copy of a jpg for one's own viewing later, please do so.

 

[MICKEY88]

Not true - you have no more ownership of the content than you do if you buy a movie on DVD. You have no right to reproduce that media for the use of others. The photo copyrights in the magazine are retained by the magazine.


Whether it does it doesn't, it gives give an idea of the seriousness of the alleged violation.


That's about what I would expect in terms of reasonable copyright law. I think that on a legal basis, anyone who attempts to sell a WDW photograph (via any photo site that lets people pay for full-resolution copies of your photographs, or any other way) is breaking the law much more than anyone making a local copy of a JPG. I have not seen anyone complaining about that happening - and we have at least a few active members who sell their Disney photos for profit, and while I don't know for sure, I'm pretty confident that they haven't gotten permission from Disney.


You did compare copying a jpg to stealing Christmas lights or stealing a car.

but I never mentioned brandishing a weapon of any type
It's "taken" every time it's viewed. What difference does it matter if it's in a cache or in another folder?if it's in cache it should be cleared out occassionally unless you set your computer to retain the cache which will eventually slow down your machine


If you read the thread over again, at no point did I ever recommend against asking permission. I've repeatedly said the opposite, actually. The closest I did was was that it's "probably safe to assume" that the original photographer won't mind. That's my opinion and it has nothing to do with the act of asking permission. Please don't misunderstand or me or accuse me of saying things that I didn't.
but you repeatedly state I guess there would be no harm in asking, you never state that a person should ask, you just state that there is no damage done..

I don't know what to say here. You're accusing me of some pretty serious stuff here and I do resent being called a thief or accused of encouraging thievery. in your original reply, you tell the op how to take a picture, then you continue to defend taking other peoples work by talking about intent and spirit of the law, the law is quite clear as stated in the page I listed which was defining the law, your page was just an article written by someone talking about scrapbooking..Why not go after the OP, the one who said that her intention was to use downloaded photos in a scrapbook (something I've never done)? Why not go into the scrapbooking forum and go after those folks? I'm sorry that I've managed to get you so riled up, I assure you that it was not my intention.I'm not riled at all, just explaining that the law is the law whether or not your or any other diser believes it is right..

Again, if you can explain why the Betamax laws would not apply to keeping a local copy of a jpg for one's own viewing later, please do so.

photo copyright laws are seperate from movie ,music, or written text copyright laws.

again the bottom line is, why is it so difficult to seek permission

 

[Groucho]

My original reply said nothing about taking pictures. It was a response to how to find galleries of WDW pictures online (and one that took quite a few minutes to put together.) (Again, your definition of "taking" a picture is a bit different than mine. On a technical side, it is impossible for you to know if someone has saved your JPG to their hard drive - it's all the same in the web server logs.) Again, the OP is the one interested in scrapbooking, not I. I'd invite you to share your thoughts on this matter on the Scrapbooking forum. When you're done with that, the next target are the people selling their Disney photos online without Disney's permission. After that, the people who have Disney attraction replica paper models available for download, and Disney fonts, and Disney EPS images.

I never encouraged anyone to not seek permission. And feel free to change my earlier line to "donning a ski mask, walking into a store, and demanding money." I do think it's a bit much to demand permission for someone to save a jpg to your own hard drive and I will not be seeking permission for that. Feel free to call the cops. (It never gets past my hard drive - I never print anything out and produce my own content for my web sites.) I have no doubt that if such a case did work its torturous way to the courts, that saving a jpg to a hard drive would be found legal.

Now, if you catch someone taking your pictures and putting them in a book that they're selling, or using them on their web site without your permission, or in any other way using your photographs for their profit without your permission - I'll stand right there next to you and demand recompense. I have no tolerance whatsoever for reselling someone else's work.

By the way, did you get Disney's permission to put Mickey Mouse's all over your car? Furthermore, I don't see a "(c) Disney" on the image, which is found on all such official Disney signage like bumper stickers. Disney is not very fond of their characters being used without their permission.

To recap:
JPGs are not physical property.
I see no problem with asking for permission and would definitely recommend doing so if you're going to use a photo for anything that will be seen by anyone other than family and friends. (Such as a t-shirt, web page, book, etc.)
I do believe that most people will not mind if you use their photo for your own personal use.
I do not feel that it is so important to ask for permission if you save a jpg to your hard drive with no plans to do anything other than look at it occasionally. If I were to do a scrapbook myself, I probably would ask for permission if using someone else's photos.

 

[MICKEY88]

the moment you take the picture you own the copyright, whether or not you file the appropriate paperwork with the copyright office...whether or not you label your pics...

filing the paperwork, just helps make your case if you do go to court...

Well I guess I'll post a link and get the thread back to where it began:

www.disneyworldpics.com

By the way, as a serious photographer I can tell you this......any photo you put online can be "stolen". However, if you do own a copy right on your photos (which I do on any that are labeled as such), and you can prove they are yours (I use hidden watermarks that I can pull up as proof after someone has copied it) then you can use the law if necessary to retain your property. Just because it the photo is OF a Disney item doesn't mean you can't own the photo, hence owning the copyright (which is a legal ownership).

 

[Groucho]

Just because it the photo is OF a Disney item doesn't mean you can't own the photo, hence owning the copyright (which is a legal ownership).

No question about that. However, it does limit what you can do with that photo - specifically, I would suspect that you're not allowed to sell it or use it in a commercial venture, like a doctor's office.

 

[civileng68]

No question about that. However, it does limit what you can do with that photo - specifically, I would suspect that you're not allowed to sell it or use it in a commercial venture, like a doctor's office.

I'm not 100% on this so I could be wrong but, I would think if YOU took the photo and YOU own the photo and there was no sign stating "no photography" then it would be legal to sell.

I say this because, there are so many photos out there of things that technically are copyright. The copyright (to my knowledge) covers the reproduction (in terms of reconstruction) of something or the copying of it (physically) and reselling it. This is why copying a DVD is illegal, you are physically duplicating the product. Taking audio and copying it and reselling it is the same thing.

However, a photograph is NOT a physical reconstruction or duplication. A photograph is in my opinion an artform and would be no different than someone painting a professional grade painting of something at WDW and re-selling it, which I believe is perfectly legal.

I'm sure it's probably one of those "sticky" things but, I have a feeling it's legal.

 

[Groucho]

I believe that the difference is whether or not the picture is taken on public property. You can sell street photos all day long as they're public property, in the same way that you don't need releases from people if you film a documentary outside. As soon as they're inside - gotta get a release.

Pictures taken inside Magic Kingdom, Epcot, etc are private property, so Disney has the ultimate legal control, I believe.

I'm no lawyer, but that is my understanding.

 

[MICKEY88]

I'm not 100% on this so I could be wrong but, I would think if YOU took the photo and YOU own the photo and there was no sign stating "no photography" then it would be legal to sell.

I say this because, there are so many photos out there of things that technically are copyright. The copyright (to my knowledge) covers the reproduction (in terms of reconstruction) of something or the copying of it (physically) and reselling it. This is why copying a DVD is illegal, you are physically duplicating the product. Taking audio and copying it and reselling it is the same thing.

However, a photograph is NOT a physical reconstruction or duplication. A photograph is in my opinion an artform and would be no different than someone painting a professional grade painting of something at WDW and re-selling it, which I believe is perfectly legal.

I'm sure it's probably one of those "sticky" things but, I have a feeling it's legal.

you can not legally sell photos taken on disney property, nor of disney property, in one of my earlier posts I explained that one.....

any picture of privately owned property can not be sold without a property release from the owner....

 

[MICKEY88]

I believe that the difference is whether or not the picture is taken on public property. You can sell street photos all day long as they're public property, in the same way that you don't need releases from people if you film a documentary outside. As soon as they're inside - gotta get a release.

Pictures taken inside Magic Kingdom, Epcot, etc are private property, so Disney has the ultimate legal control, I believe.

I'm no lawyer, but that is my understanding.

if you film a documentary outside you still need releases unless the area is well posted with a warning that you are filming and entering the area gives implied consent, WDW, wdw must post signs outside their gates to avoid needing model releases when filming on their own propeerty,

the only way to take street photos and sell them and not need a model release is if it is a newsworthy event, and you are selling it to the news media.. if you take a picture of an individual just walking down the street, make copies and start selling them you do indeed need a model release...

even with public events/newsworthy events, the law varies based on the subject. if you photograph a high school sporting event, you can not offer the pics for sale without a release since the subjects are minors..you may only sell them to the parents of the individual student athletes..

 

[AZ JazzyJ]

This thread began as a sidebar discussion here where the original poster was asking about Disney Photo Sites. I think this is a valuable discussion around copyright so I have therefore split it like an atom so that the discussion could continue.

Jeff

 

[ukcatfan]

During cast member orientation for a friend of mine, they went over how to answer guest's questions. On that was covered was the use of pictures taken on WDW property. They can pretty much be used for anything but selling them, unless you have written permission from the legal department. The people on here selling pics are probably too small time for Disney to care about or they do not know about them. Unless they have permission, but that is unlikely. It all has to be put in perspective. They are not going to spend huge amounts of money in legal fees, lawyer salaries, etc in order to stop someone that is making $1,000 a year selling Disney pics. Their dollars are much better spent on infringement from companies like Dreamworks, Fox, etc.

The use of pictures on websites that make a profit indirectly from having Disney images is on a case by case basis(i.e. they make money from ads on their site that happens to have images of Disney). Basically they know that these sites are free advertising and therefore let it slide, but if someone opens a for profit site bashing them and it has images from somewhere on their property, the site owners will be sent a cease-and-desist letter. If they do not take it down they will take legal action. They of coarse reserve the right to change their minds in the future on the fan sites.

It was interesting hearing about this from an inside source.

Kevin

 

[mickeyfan2]

It never occurred to me to scrapbook other's photos. I only use my own photos.

 

[teh fish]

^a few people find their photos are ruined or forget to take certain photos.

 

[ramkam]

Mickey88 is wise and knowledgable.