Is it OK?

[MarkBarbieri]

I was in a discussion on photo law and ethics last night and thought I'd pose some of the questions here. For each situation, I'd like to know if you think it is a legal, non-infringing use in your country and also whether you think it is ethical. The two aren't always the same - many people find situations where the law doesn't allow for a use they think is morally OK and vice versa.

1) Printing a picture published publicly on the Internet with no listed restrictions and using it for something personal like a scrapbook. Does it make any difference if there is no way for you to track down the copyright owner?

2) Publishing on a website a photo that incorporates someone else's copyrighted work, such as a picture that includes someone else's picture in the background or even something like Cinderella's Castle in the background. What if you publish the photo on a website that allows people to buy photos? What if you directly profit from the sale?

3) Creating a slideshow of pictures you've taken and adding a song from a CD you own to the slideshow. Does it matter if the slideshow is for your personal use? For your household use? For use by close friends and relatives? To publish on the Internet for friends and strangers to view? To sell for a profit?

4) Taking a picture that is primarily a photo of a photo? As an example, there are lots of posters on Disney World that are made from photos. If you took a picture of one of these posters, would that be OK? What it matter how you use the photo?

5) Can you freely plagiarize someone's photographic idea? Are there cases when someone has created an incredible technique that you love but you wouldn't re-use because you are essentially stealing their idea?

 

[alan]

Interesting thread... wonder where it's going to lead.

My country is Scotland. My knowledge of copyright law is superficial, at best, so I wouldn't place any reliance on the legal/illegal bit!

1) Printing a picture published publicly on the Internet with no listed restrictions and using it for something personal like a scrapbook. Does it make any difference if there is no way for you to track down the copyright owner?

AFAIK, under Scots law everything that is not a human is owned by someone. So it would be illegal. But I would not consider it unethical if I had made a reasonable effort to find the owner (which if for non-commerical use would probably be limited to looking at the EXIF data).

2) Publishing on a website a photo that incorporates someone else's copyrighted work, such as a picture that includes someone else's picture in the background or even something like Cinderella's Castle in the background. What if you publish the photo on a website that allows people to buy photos? What if you directly profit from the sale?

I'm not going to pretend to know the legal situation. But as for the ethical one: if the copyrighted work is displayed in a public place, I regard it as fair game. So, for example, I would not shy away from photographing a statue in a town square because it might be under copyright.

Getting closer to home, let's imagine I was taking a picture of a lady holding her wedding dress in one hand and her wedding photo album in the other, and one picture was clearly visible. Since the wedding photo was not the main subject of the photo, I would not consider that to be unreasonable.

OTOH, putting a copyrighted work into a document holder and photographing that - clearly wrong.

In between is more grey than I'd pretend to be ready to dissect.

3) Creating a slideshow of pictures you've taken and adding a song from a CD you own to the slideshow. Does it matter if the slideshow is for your personal use? For your household use? For use by close friends and relatives? To publish on the Internet for friends and strangers to view? To sell for a profit?

Legally, I am pretty sure that I would be on very thin ice here. Ethically, I believe that it is quite reasonable to use music I have purchased if I am showing the pictures to friends, family or even on the Internet, so long as the use is non-commercial.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but the arrogant approach from the entire recorded entertainment industry - DVD region codes being a prime example - does not endear it to me.

4) Taking a picture that is primarily a photo of a photo? As an example, there are lots of posters on Disney World that are made from photos. If you took a picture of one of these posters, would that be OK? What it matter how you use the photo?

Unless I misunderstand you, this is a special case of #1. I would say this is both wrong and illegal.

5) Can you freely plagiarize someone's photographic idea? Are there cases when someone has created an incredible technique that you love but you wouldn't re-use because you are essentially stealing their idea?

Plaigirising someone else's technique and location is just fine, I would say. I have no unique right to claim the top of ben Nevis as a spot where only I may ever take a photograph, nor could I claim that only I may ever use Unsharp mask.

Them's my feelings

regards,
/alan

 

[jann1033]

I was in a discussion on photo law and ethics last night and thought I'd pose some of the questions here. For each situation, I'd like to know if you think it is a legal, non-infringing use in your country and also whether you think it is ethical. The two aren't always the same - many people find situations where the law doesn't allow for a use they think is morally OK and vice versa.

1) Printing a picture published publicly on the Internet with no listed restrictions and using it for something personal like a scrapbook. Does it make any difference if there is no way for you to track down the copyright owner?

2) Publishing on a website a photo that incorporates someone else's copyrighted work, such as a picture that includes someone else's picture in the background or even something like Cinderella's Castle in the background. What if you publish the photo on a website that allows people to buy photos? What if you directly profit from the sale?

3) Creating a slideshow of pictures you've taken and adding a song from a CD you own to the slideshow. Does it matter if the slideshow is for your personal use? For your household use? For use by close friends and relatives? To publish on the Internet for friends and strangers to view? To sell for a profit?

4) Taking a picture that is primarily a photo of a photo? As an example, there are lots of posters on Disney World that are made from photos. If you took a picture of one of these posters, would that be OK? What it matter how you use the photo?

5) Can you freely plagiarize someone's photographic idea? Are there cases when someone has created an incredible technique that you love but you wouldn't re-use because you are essentially stealing their idea?

in the US o f Jan the laws are:
1)no, imo if you can't get an ok don't use it unless it is explicitly on some photo sharing site, then they knew it could/would be used when they posted it. just cause it's on the internet doesn't make it fair game to me, to me what makes it fair game or not is if they intend for it to become "public property" or not, which you can't know unless you find them.

2)putting on a site for common view would be ok imo as long as you aren't selling it. if you have other photos for sale but not that one, i don't see that as an issue. this goes for something iconic like CC, if it's someone else's photo you included in say a collage, imo you should get their permission first...i say this because while you aren't allowed to sell iconic photos like CC , to me by wdw putting up kodak moments signs all over they are giving you permission to take the photo, just not sell it. but with someone else, you haven't gotten permission to even use the photo

3) guessing it's probably illegal to use the song since i know some cds stop you from even downloading them to your own ipod. so i guess you should probably look for a song that is a free download instead. but for my own use or family use, while that would probably be illegal as well, my feeling on that is i bought the right to listen to the song, can they really tell me where i can listen to it? how many times i can listen to it? who is with me when i listen to it? i think i have a right to listen to something i purchase in whatever form i want to since imo they sold me that right along with the cd....which is probably technically piracy, so then "ahoy matey" selling it would totally be illegal and unethical to me though

4) same basically as 2 imo, ok to photograph since it's in a public place with a reasonable expectation of being photographed...to sell, no to pretend it is your work, no

5) hmm this is a touchy one since is there really a "new idea" ? i guess it would depend on what...say i see a photo i love with multiple layers and i figure out how to do something similar ...i guess that would be ok since it's my interpretation of that idea and really we do that all the time by learning how to use lightroom how to print etc, someone had to figure that stuff out the first time...but to totally copy someone's technique/idea is a little different to me. number one, where is the enjoyment in that? how creative is it to just copy something? and that was their idea which imo belongs to them, i didn't use my brain to think it up so they should get the credit for their idea, not me...imo someone else's work can be a starting point to inspire you but it's their work so you need to add your own distinct twist to it. it would really tick me off if i found out someone copied my work detail for detail or just maybe changed the hue, etc a little. to me that is immoral and unethical ()since unless you are going to give the person credit you are lying imo by pretending you had the idea. i think this is why a lot of art places won't allow photos taken of the art...( not photo related but that happened to us with my daughter's wedding someone we know had the nerve to copy it exactly right down to the bridesmaids dresses, the hall etc and even wanted to use our decorations from it, tacky tacky tacky imo and i was ticked so i know that is how i would react )

 

[tripodjw]

I'll start by saying I'm a patent attorney which means i've had to learn about copyright law BUT my day to day practice is not in copyright and whatever i say below is only a simplified version. It is not intended to be legal advice in any form and should you be concerned about copyright issues and infringement i recommend you see a patent attorney or IP solicitor.

Right, disclaimer over...

Comments below relate to England and Wales. There may be some crossover with Scotland but Scotland does have some of its own laws in this area.

As a general rule, if profit is made then there is unlikely to be a defence or exemption from copyright infringement. However, enforcing copyright has to show that the work was copied, which can be difficult in many situations, especially in literary areas.

1) Printing a picture published publicly on the Internet with no listed restrictions and using it for something personal like a scrapbook. Does it make any difference if there is no way for you to track down the copyright owner?

This would be an infringement of copyright in E&W as the work is being reproduced (copied) exactly. It may be exempt if only a portion of the photograph is reproduced (has to be as a whole or a substantial portion being copied).

It may also be exempt if the copyright has expired (for photos this is the end of the yr 70 yrs after the photographers death, or if the photographer is unknown then the end of the yr 70 yrs after the picture is first published).

If its printed for personal use then it is likely covered by the fair dealing exemption which includes “private study”. There is technically no private use exemption, but there is a reasonable argument that any pivate use is provate study of some form.

2) Publishing on a website a photo that incorporates someone else's copyrighted work, such as a picture that includes someone else's picture in the background or even something like Cinderella's Castle in the background. What if you publish the photo on a website that allows people to buy photos? What if you directly profit from the sale?

There is a specific exemption from infringement for “incidental inclusion”. So in the case of Cinderella’s castle appearing in the background, this is likely to be exempt.

Plus there is a strong argument that there is no copyright in the building itself, there is copyright in the architectural designs/plans, and in the decoration upon the building, but the building as a physical whole may not be a copyrighted work (however a drawing or picture of it will be).

If you profit form the sale then arguably you infringe – if it can be shown that you copied the work (which isn’t the building) and that the incidental inclusion exemption doesn’t apply.

3) Creating a slideshow of pictures you've taken and adding a song from a CD you own to the slideshow. Does it matter if the slideshow is for your personal use? For your household use? For use by close friends and relatives? To publish on the Internet for friends and strangers to view? To sell for a profit?

As the pictures are ones you’ve taken, you own the copyright and a re free to do what you want with them. The only work with copyright is the song. If the song is included for personal use then it is likely covered by the fair dealing exemption which includes “private study”. If you publish it, e.g. on youtube, then it is arguably not personal use and is technically an infringement. It will certainly be an infringement if you make money off it.

4) Taking a picture that is primarily a photo of a photo? As an example, there are lots of posters on Disney World that are made from photos. If you took a picture of one of these posters, would that be OK? What it matter how you use the photo?

This comes back to no. 1 – if you take a photo of the whole poster it is technically an infringement – but if you do not sell it then you will be exempt. If you only take a picture of a portion, then it may not be an infringement.

5) Can you freely plagiarize someone's photographic idea? Are there cases when someone has created an incredible technique that you love but you wouldn't re-use because you are essentially stealing their idea?

Legally, yes. The photographic idea is not protected by copyright. Only the actual photo cannot be copied. Copyright is only designed to cover the actual product and not the ideas behind it, else someone would have a monopoly on a technique that is not their right.

For example, if a technique such as HDR was copyrighted, only the originator could do it for any subject. Obviously that is unfair. However, if the technique required special equipment then any equipment invented to do the technique would possibly be protected via the patent and/or design systems, which would then extend to cover the use of that equipment in any situation.

As an incidental note to UK people - bet you didn't know that converting your own CD to MP3's even to load onto your own personal device is actually illegal under the current copyright law. (This is because the form of the music is changed from CD to Electronic) The UK Intellectual Property Office is currently consulting on a variety of copyright law changes including allowing ripping of cd's for personal use.

 

[Geoff_M]

There's "legal" and then there's "Is it OK?" We all make personal choices that carry some legal ramifications if our actions are discovered by the "wrong" people.

As for "legal", it's pretty clear that #1 thru #4 are copyright no-nos. "For personal use" isn't a legal defense against copyright law violations in the US.

As for #5, the legal answer is that it's generally "OK." The only exception might be if you did something like agree to hire a photographer for a specific photo shoot, get their unique ideas about how to execute the shoot, and then fire them and do it yourself as the photographer described. If you're talking about copying someone's "style" or "look and feel"... that happens all of the time with no legal ramifications. It's not hard to look at people's work and think "They were obviously influenced by X or Y." My auto racing work was heavily influenced by the likes of people such as Michael C. Brown and Peter Burke.

 

[drcandon]

Wow, this thread is going to cause some discussion...

First since copyright laws vary (somtimes wildly) between countries, sometimes as in Canada, provinces, what is legal someplace is not somewhere else...so in some cases it comes down to a set of personal morals...

Sooo that being said..

Item 1 - universally if there is something in the public domain ie the internet, that does not have CLEAR, unmistakable copyright restrictions on it or on the page/access point/container mechanism in which it resides, whether it is simply intellectual property or other types of property then it is freely usable as the target(you) sees fit - including susbsequent realised profit...now that being said if, say a photograph is on a web page and you arrive on that page via a hard web link and there is no copyright on that page BUT, the hosting page/site/container does have copyright restrictions and you then use the item without permission written or otherwise then you are theoretically violating copyright law... how is that for sticky...you as the target are responsible for researching copyright..it is NOT the responsibility of the owner to hard copyright every page/item/link..provided there is an FREELY accessible area explaining any restirctions...for example ( again) if you put up a bunch of pictures that are not watermarked or the page is not copyright noted, but the main access area does have that clearly defined BUT that main access area is somehow resticted so it cannot be publically viewed/read/reseach/noted, then again theoretically you cannot be not held responsible...

Item 2 - see one

Item 3 Even though you own the CD - unless it is a public domain CD - forget it - and there is a big mess in Canadian copyright law right now about using a CD for personal use..I was under the ( mistaken ???) impression that in the US it was cut and dried - no way.


Item 4 -see item one - falls under the ruling of implied ownership

Item 5 - that one is a bit tricky - but as a whole -unless the exact way of doing an job is fully copyrighted and not reproducabe in the public domain by any way except by the owners copywritten program then you can get away with it..lets take an example...Adobe photoshop is a copyright program, but once you buy it you own the program and the abilty to work within it. So if someone publishes a routine on how to solarize your cat to turn it into a dog then you can reproduce that all you want, because that is reproduceable in the public domain by methods not particularly copywritten and the resultant output does not carry am embedded copyright flag. Another example on the flip side is DW who, is into astrology - she has several professional programs which she can use to get charts and all that horoscope stuff , the resultant charts are only produceable using that software, so she had to also purchase the rights to the output, so she can resell...If she did not purchase the rights to resell then she pruchased a whole lot of expensive bits and bytes...so if someone publishes a photo on how to take the Disney castle at night with x apeture and y shutter speed with z other conditions then that method is publically reproduceable and not able to be copywritten...but if you have to use XYZ camera and XYZ copywritten software to produce a result a result and that result has specific limitations of use - you must abide by the limitations of use - if that limitation is no selling of result for profit - then you can't

No, I am not a copyright lawyer- I had to research all this crud because DW is putting up the aforsaid Astrology site under her own name in the future and I had the RESPONSIBILITY to research all this crap....claiming ignorance of copyright violation in a court is only a partial defense these days and the courst decides on the extremity of vioation..

Let the flaming begin....

 

[jann1033]

There is a specific exemption from infringement for “incidental inclusion”. So in the case of Cinderella’s castle appearing in the background, this is likely to be exempt.

Plus there is a strong argument that there is no copyright in the building itself, there is copyright in the architectural designs/plans, and in the decoration upon the building, but the building as a physical whole may not be a copyrighted work (however a drawing or picture of it will be).

If you profit form the sale then arguably you infringe – if it can be shown that you copied the work (which isn’t the building) and that the incidental inclusion exemption doesn’t apply.

maybe 6 months to a yr ago some here had photos with the castle, mickey etc removed from their smugmug type accounts, supposedly due to copyright infringement issues from having disney "icons" in their photos, iirc, disney somehow owns the castle, characters etc as icons and you can't use them in a photo for sale without permission

 

[Geoff_M]

Item 1 - universally if there is something in the public domain ie the internet, that does not have CLEAR, unmistakable copyright restrictions on it or on the page/access point/container mechanism in which it resides, whether it is simply intellectual property or other types of property then it is freely usable as the target(you) sees fit - including susbsequent realised profit...now that being said if, say a photograph is on a web page and you arrive on that page via a hard web link and there is no copyright on that page BUT, the hosting page/site/container does have copyright restrictions and you then use the item without permission written or otherwise then you are theoretically violating copyright law... how is that for sticky...you as the target are responsible for researching copyright..it is NOT the responsibility of the owner to hard copyright every page/item/link..provided there is an FREELY accessible area explaining any restirctions...for example ( again) if you put up a bunch of pictures that are not watermarked or the page is not copyright noted, but the main access area does have that clearly defined BUT that main access area is somehow resticted so it cannot be publically viewed/read/reseach/noted, then again theoretically you cannot be not held responsible...

I'm not quite sure if I followed you on all of that, but it's important to note (in the US) that it doesn't matter if there's a copyright notice on the work or on the web page. In the US, a work is "copyrighted" the moment it is created. No one is required to assert their rights along with the work. You are only required to register a work with the US Copyright Office if you intent to pursue legal damages if your work is misappropriated.

 

[labdogs42]

They sell a lot of photos of Disney park icons, etc. on this website. I know they have been around for a while, so it makes me think it might be OK to sell pics of Disney World. I'm not sure if they have some kind of licensing agreement with Disney, but the website does say it is unofficial and not affiliated with the Walt Disney World company, so I'm guessing there is no agreement. I would think photos of Disney could be sold just like photos of the Statue of Liberty can be sold. (but I'm no lawyer)

As for using someone's picture for your scrapbook, I have allowed people to access my smugmug account to copy pictures they would like to have for their books (just like you, Mark!). I don't expect them to credit me in their personal family albums. If they did a digital layout and posted it online, I'd love if they put a link to my blog or my name in their digital credits, but again, it isn't a big deal. I have NOT given permission for anyone to SELL my images, that would upset me. If anyone gets to sell me images, it should be me!

I am interested in this topic as well, as I have had some requests for some of my Disney photos and I have considered selling them in collections for folks that might want a CD os generic Disney pictures to use, especially for scrapbooks. I think it would be OK, as Disney doesn't own a copyright to YOUR picture of their park. I just don't see how they could own such a thing. They own the copyright to pictures their photographers take in their parks, like the ones offered for sale on Disney's Photopass site, but I don't think they own my pictures. I could be wrong.

 

[orchjoe]

1) Printing a picture published publicly on the Internet with no listed restrictions and using it for something personal like a scrapbook. Does it make any difference if there is no way for you to track down the copyright owner

According to US Laws:

Link
The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

______________________________________________

So downloading / essentially making a copy of a photograph for even non-commercial use is a violation of the NET Act (No Electronic Theft Act) which "provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement." Link

________________________________________

A copy of the copyrighted material (I.E. a picture someone took) under fair use is allowed if it can fit into certain guidelines:

Link
"Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

_____________________________________________

So I guess it would come down to what's really the purpose of the scrapbook. Are you using it for a class to teach? Are you using the picture as a filler? The morals and ethics behind this sort is definitely a gray area. Like if your starving is it alright to steal a loaf of bread?

Even if I knew who is owned the copyright I probably wouldn't take the time to ask for permission. I know it might be in violation of some copyright law but what is the likely hood that someone is going to know if I printed out a picture and put it in my scrapbook that I have sitting in my bookshelf?


Oh... if I got something wrong in the above feel free to correct me. I am not a copyright attorney or anything. Just getting some info out.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Is there a bright line separating personal and commercial use? On one extreme, I print a picture and sell it on eBay - clearly commercial. On another hand, I print a picture a keep it under my pillow so that I can look at it when I wake up in the morning - clearly personal.

What about if I post it to my Smugmug site and allow others to view it but not print or download it? Is that a commercial use? What if I allow others to print it but I don't make any money, just Smugmug? What if I allow people to print it (and I take a cut), but I also allow them to download it for free and print it for themselves.

What if I put it on my Smugmug site and then embed it in a post here? DISboards is, to my knowledge, run as a commerical, for profit enterprise. They make money off of advertisement sold based on the reading of the posts here. If I post one of my pictures here, am I not using it commercially?

 

[Anewman]

According to US Laws:

Link
The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

Ok, now when said copyright owner posts that image(or other) openly on the web with no stated or unstated restrictions... Is he/she in a round about way authorizing its use to any one with web access?

 

[drcandon]

Hmmmmm... decided to do further research in US copyright law and in the US work is copyrighted as soon as it is created...and copyright is assumed as being in force for the life of the owner and further years after death.....ouch so you are correct - just goes to show you how things vary even from countries close in economic ties...

However further investigation reveals..

" note that when (2) the author failed to satisfy statutory
formalities to perfect the copyright (reference... definition of copyright vrs public domain - Copyright bill )- the work transfers immediately to public domain"..so as I said in item one, yes ownership is immediate when the item is born however if you want to keep copyright for life plus 70 years, then the owness is on you to protect your work...

please refer to this link for US..

xxxx://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

This is a deviation from Canadian copyright laws bill c-42 in Canada and its ammedments speak different of copyright and the holder.

xxxx://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-42/

The copyright laws are similar but vary in some minor ways and that is what I based my original post on. In Canada if the copyright even though owned from birth (as in the US) is not correctly asserted then the item falls into public domain.

However one point is worth noting

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
. Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

So therefore in US law any idea of how to produce a photograph or manipulation of a wholly owned photograph is not applicalbe to copyright laws.

Also another point on foreign ownership is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) signed by Clinton ..this restores copyright on certain foreign items in the public domain - that hurts a bit...

Confused yet????

 

[Geoff_M]

Ok, now when said copyright owner posts that image(or other) openly on the web with no stated or unstated restrictions... Is he/she in a round about way authorizing its use to any one with web access?

No, doing such things have no impact on the copyright status of the work. One of the biggest copyright myths is "If its put on the Web, then its public domain."

 

[Geoff_M]

Is there a bright line separating personal and commercial use? On one extreme, I print a picture and sell it on eBay - clearly commercial. On another hand, I print a picture a keep it under my pillow so that I can look at it when I wake up in the morning - clearly personal.

To my knowledge, there's no real legal differences between "commercial" and "personal" infringement of copyrighted works other than the type and degree of legal sanctions that may be assigned if sued. The only hope of escaping legal sanction for "personal issue" would be if you can defend that your infringement should fall under "fair use" using the criteria posted above. Another example would be the court acknowledged taping of broadcasted works so they may privately be viewed at a later time (the legal concept is known as "time shifting").

What about if I post it to my Smugmug site and allow others to view it but not print or download it? Is that a commercial use? What if I allow others to print it but I don't make any money, just Smugmug? What if I allow people to print it (and I take a cut), but I also allow them to download it for free and print it for themselves.

One only has to look at the legal issues surrounding MP3 file sharing networks to understand this. The people sued by the recording industry for damages for sharing MP3 of copyrighted works themselves made no money for their actions. The same would be true of photos. Again, the lack of a profit motive is no defense of infringement activities. If you're copying someone's entire work without permission, you're making an unauthorized copy.

What if I put it on my Smugmug site and then embed it in a post here? DISboards is, to my knowledge, run as a commerical, for profit enterprise. They make money off of advertisement sold based on the reading of the posts here. If I post one of my pictures here, am I not using it commercially?

The same as above is true here too. The status of the DIS doesn't really matter all of that much. If you post a copyrighted work here of mine, and I oppose, both you and the owner of the DIS (if he knowingly allowed the work to remain) could be liable.

 

[ramkam]

Many of these issues depend on where you are standing when you take the picture. For example, when you are at Disneyland you are on private property and the place is full of protected intellectual property. Disney could forbid all photography in the parks if they want to. On the other hand, I can stand on the public side walk outside the park and photograph whatever I can see in the park, for example the Tower of Terror. My use of a photo taken from public property would only be restricted to the extent that it contained an image of copyrighted material. The question becomes what are the terms of the license Disney grants you to photograph in the parks? I have assumed you are permitted to photograph in the parks as long as the images are for personal use and not for commercial use. However, I have never seen a written policy from Disney on photography in the parks. Assuming such a policy/license is hidden away in fine print somewhere, I think it would be interesting to read.

 

[jann1033]

i was trying to find just what disney copyrights...the characters are "trademarks' so not sure how that differs if it does( legally i mean, as to use)... this is interesting, esp. the first use fair use and if you scroll down to the egs almost at the end http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/~howard/Papers/copyright99.html http://www.netatty.com/copyright.html and from the mouse's own mouth http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/conduct_standards18.html

 

[Geoff_M]

The question becomes what are the terms of the license Disney grants you to photograph in the parks? I have assumed you are permitted to photograph in the parks as long as the images are for personal use and not for commercial use.

There is no explicit license granted to you by Disney covering photos at WDW. It would be the same if you came on to my property. You would be there at my pleasure and I could ask you to leave at any time under the threat of trespassing. Any photos you take while on my property would belong to you for the purposes of copyright... the same for WDW. However, as you pointed out, you may be restricted in what you may due with them based on what they may predominately feature.

 

[alan]

There is no explicit license granted to you by Disney covering photos at WDW.

This is a really interesting discussion. I wonder how the presence of the "Kodak Photopoints", or whatever they are called, affects this. Given that you are being explicitly encouraged to take photos there, wouldn't it be harder for Disney (should they wish to) to restrict the use of any photos you take?

regards,
/alan

 

[cmwade77]

I haven't looked at a guide map in a while, but there used to be a section on them that told you that you are free to take any pictures you want for personal use, but not commercial use, providing you follow any attraction specific rules, i.e. no flash, etc.

Really, if it is just for your use, i.e. a scrapbook, chances are no one is going to call you on it, if you do need to reuse it publicly, do your best to find the original creator, unless specific permission is given on the website or other source.