Texas court says photographer has no recourse against university copyright infringement
Jun 19, 2019 01:21:21 #
robertcbyrd
Loc: 28754
https://m.chron.com/business/article/Texas-court-says-photographer-has-no-recourse-13973674.php
This can't be good (for photographers).
This can't be good (for photographers).
Jun 19, 2019 02:01:19 #
Harry0
Loc: Gardena, Cal
It's not good for anybody.
Call it anything that blows up your skirt and makes you happy.
Eminent domain. Manifest destiny. Money, guns and lawyers.
If somebody wants it, They think they can make money off it, they can get it. Too bad, so sad.
I can LEGALLY take a picture of your painting, PS it a bit, and sell the print. As mine, 'cause I an artiste!
https://petapixel.com/2019/06/14/texas-can-steal-your-photos-without-paying-for-takings-court/
Call it anything that blows up your skirt and makes you happy.
Eminent domain. Manifest destiny. Money, guns and lawyers.
If somebody wants it, They think they can make money off it, they can get it. Too bad, so sad.
I can LEGALLY take a picture of your painting, PS it a bit, and sell the print. As mine, 'cause I an artiste!
https://petapixel.com/2019/06/14/texas-can-steal-your-photos-without-paying-for-takings-court/
Jun 19, 2019 02:35:08 #
Robert, this was discussed at very great length yesterday. Sorry you missed it. /Ralph
Jun 19, 2019 06:12:01 #
rjaywallace wrote:
Robert, this was discussed at very great length yesterday. Sorry you missed it. /Ralph
I guess some people don't live on this site. They have a life.
Jun 19, 2019 07:10:28 #
traderjohn wrote:
I guess some people don't live on this site. They have a life.
And others stay alert.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-597073-1.html
Jun 19, 2019 07:28:15 #
rjaywallace wrote:
This is what you call "awake"?
Jun 19, 2019 09:46:05 #
robertcbyrd
Loc: 28754
rjaywallace wrote:
Robert, this was discussed at very great length yesterday. Sorry you missed it. /Ralph
I'm sorry I missed it too. But am glad that I found it anyway.
Jun 19, 2019 16:45:50 #
Universities give credit to authors and contributor's for everything they 'use'. it is called a Bibliography or footnote. They do not buy every book they 'quote' and students rarely read all of the book they quote from.
Consider Art - would you expect every university to own all the great works....there would be only ONE....or a very short class!
Consider Art - would you expect every university to own all the great works....there would be only ONE....or a very short class!
Jun 20, 2019 09:00:28 #
OlinBost
Loc: Marietta, Ga.
That is a crock! Especially when they removed his signature. Robbery period.
Jun 20, 2019 10:53:50 #
Harry0 wrote:
It's not good for anybody.
Call it anything that blows up your skirt and makes you happy.
Eminent domain. Manifest destiny. Money, guns and lawyers.
If somebody wants it, They think they can make money off it, they can get it. Too bad, so sad.
I can LEGALLY take a picture of your painting, PS it a bit, and sell the print. As mine, 'cause I an artiste!
https://petapixel.com/2019/06/14/texas-can-steal-your-photos-without-paying-for-takings-court/
Call it anything that blows up your skirt and makes you happy.
Eminent domain. Manifest destiny. Money, guns and lawyers.
If somebody wants it, They think they can make money off it, they can get it. Too bad, so sad.
I can LEGALLY take a picture of your painting, PS it a bit, and sell the print. As mine, 'cause I an artiste!
https://petapixel.com/2019/06/14/texas-can-steal-your-photos-without-paying-for-takings-court/
Ahhh...this isn't completely true. The photographer who took the iconic Obama image that was then tri-colored by another "artist" (thief is more accurate), sued...and won. The "artist" argued he made a "completely new, different, and unique image" (he fcking colored it, that's it). Sorry Charlie, derivatives do not count.
There was also a photographer who took a photograph of two dog breeders/trainers who were holding about 8 puppies in their arms. Another "artist" (again, thief) claimed she created a new image in a different medium, and therefore it was a totally new work of art. The court did not agree.
Jun 20, 2019 10:56:35 #
This doesn't end here. He needs to find a GOOD attorney (not the dumbass he used, obviously) and appeal. This case shouldn't stand. He can find an attorney who wants to take on cases of government fcking the common man.
Jun 22, 2019 03:41:20 #
Harry0
Loc: Gardena, Cal
sbohne wrote:
Ahhh...this isn't completely true. The photographe... (show quote)
There will always be examples- and exceptions.
Here in LA there have been a few cases of celebs suing because someone copied their tattoos.
The "real" Batman was prohibited from dressing like batman, others posing on corners were "fair use".
The city of Long Beach claimed copyright to any image with a recognizable LB object- get a license.
Jun 22, 2019 13:29:12 #
Harry0 wrote:
The city of Long Beach claimed copyright to any image with a recognizable LB object- get a license.
The city of Long Beach claimed copyright to any image with a recognizable LB object- get a license.
That actually got through a court? I'll call bullshit. First of all they can make no claim to any type of private property, recognizable or not. Toy have to own it to license it... Basic late.
Secondly, if your building or landmark is in public view and it can be photographed without trespassing, there is no protection: buildings are not subject. Anyone who paid LB money for such a thing was fcking stupid.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.