Watermark

[MICKEY88]

Don't Copy, Modify or Display Images You Find
The Copyright act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.

Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement.

If you take a copyrighted image without permission, and put it on a web page, you are violating the exclusive right of the copyright owner to display his work. (See 17 U.S.C.A. § 106).


taken from....http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm

 

[MICKEY88]

For example, I was questioned about defining arrogance. I am not saying that anyone posts their picture saying how great they are, but some people give a general vibe of knowing everything but do not deliver on the goods.
.

Kevin

sorry I thought it was a fair question...

as for people giving the vibe they know everything, but don't deliver, that's very well possible,

there are many fields where people know how to do something, but don't neccessarily pull it off themselves, \\


some of the best sports coaches, of all time, never played the sport they coach, but they know the sport inside and out, and are good at teaching others..

 

[MarkBarbieri]

whether you harbor guilt or not, does not determine whether something was right or not...

I was thinking more of the inverse...I don't harbor guilt because I think what I did was right rather than wrong.

the copyright act of 1976 has been altered greatly especially the coverage of photos.. are you referencing the section on photos or on printed literary works, the factual or fictional leadss me to belief it's written works not photos...

I'd love to see the relevant sections.

there is a big difference between an educational setting and a message board...

The scenario I was discussing was printing for personal scrapbooking purposes, not using on a message board. I'm not sure how close the analogy betwen using a photo in a teachers slideshow is with using a photo in a scrapbook. Both share the qualities of being non-commercial and unlikely to diminish the commercial value of the original work.

The concept gets even more confusing if we switch from a physical scrapbook to a virtual one. What if in stead of printing the photo the user simply embedded it in the page via a link? The effect is the almost the same. Does that affect the situation? What if instead of putting the photo in an <IMG> tag, they just used an <HREF> and required you to jump to it?

people have already been prosecuted for the use of copyrighted photos on the internet...

Yes, they have, but just because some uses are considered copyright infringement doesn't mean that all uses are copyright infringement.

What if the person got permission from Werner Technologies (our gracious hosts)? When we post photos here, how much control over how they are used to do we give to Werner Technologies?

that isn't really part of the discussion, if we give werner full usage rights, that doesn't give any usage rights to members of the boards...

I'm not sure about that. I really don't know what rights I am giving Werner. For all I know, they have the right to reproduce anything we say or display here (assuming that we had the right to do so in the first place). If that's the case, they could authorize the reproduction of this thread or pictures that appear in it.

the law fairly defines stealing as the taking of someone elses property without their permission, so no matter how someone chooses to sugarcoat it, it is in fact stealing

You may want the law to be that simple, but it isn't. Fair use isn't just a phrase, it's a right. It's a darn vague right, but, despite the best efforts of media companies, it still exists.

I'm certainly not going to call you a thief for quoting my prior comments in your reply. I'm well aware of the fact that you took my words without my permission, but your use almost certainly falls under fair use.

I read through the article that you sited and here is the part that seemed most relevant to the question of whether printing a photo online for use in a scrapbook is legal. Please note that I am reprinting it based on my understanding of fair use and that I am not doing so with the intent to steal.

"Q: I make collages. Are there any problems that I might encounter?

A. Yes. If a collage artist incorporates any copyrighted material into the collage, there is a risk of infringement. In making a collage, it is fine to use your own work or work that is in the public domain. However, when collage artists take work from other artists, there is a risk of copyright infringement. As with fair use of copyrighted materials, one must inquire as to how much of the copyrighted work is used and the impact this use will have on the potential market for the copyrighted work. This is another instance where common sense and good judgment should rule."

It doesn't say that it's infringement (let alone the more pejorative "stealing"). It says that there is a risk of copyright infringement. I'm not sure how to assess the "how much of the copyrighted work" part applies. Is it more likely to be fair use if I use part of a posted photo rather than the whole thing? The latter part "the impact this use will have on the potential market for the copyrighted work" clearly seems to imply. Obviously, it will have no measurable impact, so that implies that it is likely fair use.

I think the use of the term "stealing" in a situation like the scrapbook example is way over the top. After spending a good thirty minutes trying to determine if it is legal, I'm still completely unsure (though leaning towards saying that it is). The word stealing implies harm to the victim and I just don't see the harm here. I'd be about as inclined to believe that publicly declaiming that someone exercising their fair use rights is "stealing" is itself defamation as I would be to believe that printing a single photo for a personal scrapbook amounts to copyright infringement.

Again, I think it's polite to ask permission, but I remain unconvinced by any of the arguments put forth so far or by anything I've been able to find online that it is actually a crime. I also think that it is impolite to use pejorative terms like "stealing" against people with innocent intent when less inflammatory and more accurate terms like "infringement" apply.

 

[MICKEY88]

I will even point the finger at myself. I know a decent amount of the theory stuff, like having a general idea of what settings are likely the best for a situation, etc. Given that, I have not had one of my images make it to the final round of the weekly contest.

Kevin

that doesn't mean your photos aren't good or great, just that the people voting chose another pic for whatever reason, I've seen some photos that have left me in awe, that never made it to the finals, and wondered how that was possible..

in the end, unless you're selling your photos or taking them for a client, the person that you must satisfy with your work, is you, because you are the one who will view it most..

 

[photo_chick]

When someone uses a copyrighted work without express permission for any purpose, it is against the law. If someone posts somethign and says "you may use this image for blah blah blah..." then you can use it. But if they did not you can't without first getting their permission. The law also says it is up to the accused infringer to prove they have the right to use the work.

This is why you can link to the artists posting of the image, but you cannot copy it and upload it to your own site, account, whatever. I have seen people use others images (including my own) and give credit to the image, that is not enough. You have to have permission. DH works for a large media company and they are meticulous on copyright stuff. That is one of the things he has to deal with when he gets or creates art for games. They have lawyers who are paid to tell them all this stuff!

All that said, just ask before using someone elses image should the need ever arise. Then we can all get along!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I personally feel that this has gone too far. Is anyone else with me?

If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue with the discussion on the legality of using images posted here for person works. While I can't say that I have any personal need for the information, I find the subject interesting and hope to learn more about it.



I read the pdimages site that MICKEY88 so helpfully posted and I still remain unconvinced.

First, the site sells public domain images. They obviously have a financial interest in convincing people that their use of copyrighted material (which competes with their public domain material) is illegal. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but it does make their advise suspect.

Here's a quote that also damages their creditibility for me:

The Copyright act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.

It this is the way the law is written, it's a bad law that will never withstand being reviewed by, what was Gore's phrase, "a controlling legal authority." I say that because I don't think I can look at a photo on the web without it being saved to my hard drive. My cache is littered with copyrighted materials.

The page also trivializes the notion of fair use. They list off possible fair use scenarios (teaching, scholarship, etc) giving the implication that those are the only possible fair use scenarios. I don't believe that is the case. The stuff I read earlier made it clear that those were common cases of fair use but never implied that they were exclusive.

Even if you take those to be exclusive uses available for fair use, the term "scholarship" is vague enough to allow for the scrapbooking example. I merely have to refer to my theoretical scrapbook as a "History of the Excursions of the Barbieri Family in 2007."

My guess (it would be nice to get a lawyer in on this) is that the use is so trivial that it just doesn't rise to level of copyright infringement. It's like cutting pictures out of magazine, building a CD of your favorite tunes for your other CDs, or any of a bunch of other similar activities that media owners portray as illegal but which often turn out not to be.

 

[photo_chick]

I will even point the finger at myself. I know a decent amount of the theory stuff, like having a general idea of what settings are likely the best for a situation, etc. Given that, I have not had one of my images make it to the final round of the weekly contest.

Kevin

That goes back to what I said, photography is art and art is subjective. Just because they were not picked does not mean they are not good work. It just means whoever was judging did not think it was as good. It is all subjective.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

When someone uses a copyrighted work without express permission for any purpose, it is against the law.

That's just not true. Search on the term "Fair Use" and you will see that there many exceptions to that rule. Unfortunately, fair use appears to be a poorly defined legal concept, so it is not exactly clear when it applies.

 

[MICKEY88]

If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue with the discussion on the legality of using images posted here for person works. While I can't say that I have any personal need for the information, I find the subject interesting and hope to learn more about it.



I read the pdimages site that MICKEY88 so helpfully posted and I still remain unconvinced.

First, the site sells public domain images. They obviously have a financial interest in convincing people that their use of copyrighted material (which competes with their public domain material) is illegal. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but it does make their advise suspect.

Here's a quote that also damages their creditibility for me:

It this is the way the law is written, it's a bad law that will never withstand being reviewed by, what was Gore's phrase, "a controlling legal authority." I say that because I don't think I can look at a photo on the web without it being saved to my hard drive. My cache is littered with copyrighted materials.

The page also trivializes the notion of fair use. They list off possible fair use scenarios (teaching, scholarship, etc) giving the implication that those are the only possible fair use scenarios. I don't believe that is the case. The stuff I read earlier made it clear that those were common cases of fair use but never implied that they were exclusive.

Even if you take those to be exclusive uses available for fair use, the term "scholarship" is vague enough to allow for the scrapbooking example. I merely have to refer to my theoretical scrapbook as a "History of the Excursions of the Barbieri Family in 2007."

My guess (it would be nice to get a lawyer in on this) is that the use is so trivial that it just doesn't rise to level of copyright infringement. It's like cutting pictures out of magazine, building a CD of your favorite tunes for your other CDs, or any of a bunch of other similar activities that media owners portray as illegal but which often turn out not to be.

as I stated before fair use, for photos is much more limited than for written works... and when the law references educational use, you can call your scrapbook whatever you want but it will not meet the letter of the law.. there is no section of the fair use law for photos that covers personal use...

 

[photo_chick]

It this is the way the law is written, it's a bad law that will never withstand being reviewed by, what was Gore's phrase, "a controlling legal authority." I say that because I don't think I can look at a photo on the web without it being saved to my hard drive. My cache is littered with copyrighted materials.

While your computer downloads the images to the hard drive for viewing in your temp files, they are still the property of the copyright owner and you are still not allowed to access or modify them in any way, except for deletion. Yes, I am saying there are files on your computer that you do not won and cannot do anything with except erase.

This is similar to when you install software on your computer. You have the license to the software, but you cannot do with it as you please. You have to use it within the confines of the license. Only with the copyrighted images the only license you are being given is to view them in the context the artist intened (like the posting or web site)

 

[photo_chick]

That's just not true. Search on the term "Fair Use" and you will see that there many exceptions to that rule. Unfortunately, fair use appears to be a poorly defined legal concept, so it is not exactly clear when it applies.

ok. my wording was too broad, you got me there. having searched here...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It seems to support that what is fair use is unclear and that some uses MAY be exceptions but not necessarily so. It also tells you to ask permission.

Geez, can the government vague that up a little for us?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

as I stated before fair use, for photos is much more limited than for written works

You've stated it, but that isn't a particularly satisfying answer. I've stated I think it's fair use; you've stated that it isn't. No one has sited a law, case, or even a reputable and impartial website that gives clarity to the issue.

... and when the law references educational use, you can call your scrapbook whatever you want but it will not meet the letter of the law..

The legal process still has to determine what is scholarship in this case. You may trivialize my theoretical scrapbook, but that doesn't make it any less scholarly. Scholarship is, according to Merriam-Webster (quoted under my fair use rights) "a fund of knowledge and learning." I'd argue that a scrapbook could certainly fall into that category, particularly if the scrapbook took the form of a family history.

 

[Master Mason]

Here is the big question.

You posted a picture to the web for others to view. Someone without your permision copies the picture, prints it out and puts it in a scrap book that only they will ever see.

Are you really injured in anyway?

I think not.

 

[MICKEY88]

Here is the big question.

You posted a picture to the web for others to view. Someone without your permision copies the picture, prints it out and puts it in a scrap book that only they will ever see.

Are you really injured in anyway?

I think not.

that doesn't matter, how does that make it right or legal..

 

[ukcatfan]

that doesn't matter, how does that make it right or legal..

OK, fine then, stop posting your work on the Internet so it is safe. There are plenty of people that have no problem printing a pic for their scrapbook even if it has a watermark, so it is still not safe with that. This whole entire site is about cooperation due to our love for Disney. To me it sort of implies that you do not mind someone using your image if you post it, therefore do not post if you do not want to share.

To me, this thread is getting very old and souring my taste of our community we have going on this board. Go over to the Resort board and post something about refillable mugs or pool hopping and you will realize how well we typically get along on the photog board. IMO there is not going to be a happy resolution on this.

At least this has a Canon fan and a Pentax fan joining forces, which is rare.

Kevin

 

[MICKEY88]

If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue with the discussion on the legality of using images posted here for person works. While I can't say that I have any personal need for the information, I find the subject interesting and hope to learn more about it.



I read the pdimages site that MICKEY88 so helpfully posted and I still remain unconvinced.

First, the site sells public domain images. They obviously have a financial interest in convincing people that their use of copyrighted material (which competes with their public domain material) is illegal. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but it does make their advise suspect.

how can they SELL free public domain photos....

they offer them but they do not sell them, so where is the financial interest

 

[MICKEY88]

OK, fine then, stop posting your work on the Internet so it is safe. There are plenty of people that have no problem printing a pic for their scrapbook even if it has a watermark, so it is still not safe with that. This whole entire site is about cooperation due to our love for Disney. To me it sort of implies that you do not mind someone using your image if you post it, therefore do not post if you do not want to share.

To me, this thread is getting very old and souring my taste of our community we have going on this board. Go over to the Resort board and post something about refillable mugs or pool hopping and you will realize how well we typically get along on the photog board. IMO there is not going to be a happy resolution on this.

At least this has a Canon fan and a Pentax fan joining forces, which is rare.

Kevin

WOW... no need to get spun...

the site is about sharing a love of disney, the photo board is about sharing photography knowledge, posting photo implies nothing except you want others to see the photo, not take it... if this thread is upsetting you , you have the option of not reading it, so now it has gone from people telling others that they shouldn't watermark photos and they are obliged to share them....to telling people to go post elsewhere...

this is a civil discussion, anyone who doesn't like it can turn to another thread, just like you can change channels on your radio or tv if youdon't like what's on..

 

[ukcatfan]

this is a civil discussion, anyone who doesn't like it can turn to another thread, just like you can change channels on your radio or tv if youdon't like what's on..

It does not seem very civil at all to me, but that is my opinion. I really do not see where you and Mark are ever going to agree, but feel free to burn out your keyboards.

Kevin

 

[MICKEY88]

It does not seem very civil at all to me, but that is my opinion. I really do not see where you and Mark are ever going to agree, but feel free to burn out your keyboards.

Kevin

there's no name calling nor hostility that I've seen...

if I say anything to offend Mark or cross the line I hope he will tell me....

I have the utmost respect for Mark, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him on this issue..

 

[photo_chick]

Here is the big question.

You posted a picture to the web for others to view. Someone without your permision copies the picture, prints it out and puts it in a scrap book that only they will ever see.

Are you really injured in anyway?

I think not.

While I would probably be flattered, I still would like to be asked permission first. To me all legalities aside that is still the right thing to do. But then the "right" thing is also subjective.