Using photo’s from the gallery (Page 2): No problem. Don't let it worry you.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Linda From Maine wrote:

You know, free of "worry" is what I wrote first. I'm going to have to stop editing my postings

No problem. Don't let it worry you.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

DirtFarmer wrote:

No problem. Don't let it worry you.

bleirer

Fair use doctrine is confusing and seems to be a judgement call. I like the unofficial fifth factor, is the use ethical and moral. You don't know if the artist might wish to sell their work now or in the future, so without permission it is stealing in my moral universe, and my parents taught me not to steal. I guess it's do ask, do tell.

https://www.blogherald.com/guides/the-basics-of-fair-use/

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

AlanD wrote:

There are several photographers who consistently post photo’s that I find remarkable. These are photo’s I would love to have hanging on my walls. What are thoughts about using fellow UHH photo’s for personal display in my home—not for pecuniary gain, just for my enjoyment. And, given that, modifying them minimally, i.e., perhaps going from color to monochrome.

Contact the photographer and buy a print.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

bleirer wrote:

Fair use doctrine is confusing and seems to be a judgement call. I like the unofficial fifth factor, is the use ethical and moral. You don't know if the artist might wish to sell their work now or in the future, so without permission it is stealing in my moral universe, and my parents taught me not to steal. I guess it's do ask, do tell.

https://www.blogherald.com/guides/the-basics-of-fair-use/

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use

Fair Use may be confusing and open to interpretation, but I can't see any way it would cover printing someone's photograph and displaying it in their home.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

CHG_CANON wrote:

Another reason why members should resize their images ....

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

That's the problem with uploading anything to the internet, including photos of kids. Once it's posted any control of its use if out of one's control.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

bleirer wrote:

Fair use doctrine is confusing and seems to be a judgement call. I like the unofficial fifth factor, is the use ethical and moral. You don't know if the artist might wish to sell their work now or in the future, so without permission it is stealing in my moral universe, and my parents taught me not to steal. I guess it's do ask, do tell.

https://www.blogherald.com/guides/the-basics-of-fair-use/

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use

Fair use is a "legal" call. It becomes a "judgement" call when it goes before a judge.

So many in today's world equate "legal" with moral "right" or "wrong". Someone is only guilty of a crime when they break a law. It is a "legal" thing. But "moral" issues are as important, perhaps more important, than the legal. It is why we often hold those in positions of "moral" leadership to a higher standard than just the "law".

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Food for Thought: You have some lawn ornaments displayed that I find remarkable and obviously are for the public to see. I admire them, think they would look good on my yard, do not plan to make money on them, may paint a couple differently, so you would be cool with me taking them? Is this any different (outside the trespassing issue) than your post?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Stardust wrote:

Food for Thought: You have some lawn ornaments displayed that I find remarkable and obviously are for the public to see. I admire them, think they would look good on my yard, do not plan to make money on them, may paint a couple differently, so you would be cool with me taking them? Is this any different (outside the trespassing issue) than your post?

Yes, of course. You are taking something, not copying it.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

DirtFarmer wrote:

Yes, of course. You are taking something, not copying it.

It's stealing real property as opposed to intellectual property.

bleirer

Apparently the same copyright laws apply to public art such as graffiti, statues, sculpture, etc. In a similar way, you can't sell a photograph of a statue that someone else has a copyright to.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

bleirer wrote:

Apparently the same copyright laws apply to public art such as graffiti, statues, sculpture, etc. In a similar way, you can't sell a photograph of a statue that someone else has a copyright to.

There must be some limitations to that.

If I take a photo of something and one of those statues is visible in the background does that mean I can't sell it?

I would think that the photo has to feature the statue in some way to be subject to copyright. Otherwise it's fair use.

bleirer

DirtFarmer wrote:

There must be some limitations to that.

If I take a photo of something and one of those statues is visible in the background does that mean I can't sell it?

I would think that the photo has to feature the statue in some way to be subject to copyright. Otherwise it's fair use.

I think the same four factors apply to the copyright as for print or other art. Especially the 3rd, the amount used in proportion to the whole. So a statue in the background I don't think is a concern to the owner of the statue copyright, but if I sold my close up of the statue on EBay it might be. The law seems pretty reasonable in my view to balance the public good with the rights of the copyright owner.

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you decide to attach a fully edited, full-pixel resolution image file that is freely available for download from an internet site that does not even require sign-on credentials to access, what do you think is going to happen?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you decide to attach a fully edited, full-pixel resolution image file that is freely available for download from an internet site that does not even require sign-on credentials to access, what do you think is going to happen?

That doesn't mean it's ethical or legal to take it for your own use. Sounds a little like blaming the victim. But I never post full sized images online for that reason. Even so I had someone print a web file on a t-shirt to sell, and someone who recognized it let me know.