Can I have and display your photo's ? (Page 11): If you are bored...don't read anymore on the subject. I happen to disagree with your summary and your assumption that everyone agrees...

rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

If you are bored...don't read anymore on the subject. I happen to disagree with your summary and your assumption that everyone agrees with you. I will decide what I find interesting and I find this subject interesting!

rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

Max, wasn't it you that started this mess? I am not surprised by the response of the law students. Go talk to a bunch of lawyers that have 15 or more years experience and you'll get an even more confusing response! Actually that's one of the two points I have been trying to get across...
1. As far as the law is concerned, it's not as cut and dried as many on this forum think. They may be assuming protections they don't have.
2. Someone who downloads a picture and puts it on his wall may be doing so totally innocently.
The funny thing is...I would not normally react to this discussion. The thing that drew me in was the anger that has come out in this discussion. The disdain for just asking the question....Wow!

Now just to stir the pot I have a question. What if someone viewed a picture...loved it...read the photographers description of how he captured it...then shot it himself....recreated it in such a way as to look identical. Did he violate copy right laws?

Pw0812151 Loc: St. Petersburg

I think there is an expectation on a photography forum website that you are safe from having your work stolen. The law states an artist's work is protected for the life of the artist, though artists should either put a signature containing a date and copyright symbol on the photograph or in the name the photograph is saved under. There are several instances where local artists, usually painters, tell me a particular photograph of mine is inspiring and wonder if it would bother me if they used the photo as the basis for a work of their own. Once I am asked, I almost always give them an 8x10 print to study from. My work amounts to 'children' of my imagination. When I sell a work, I feel the piece is moving to a new home. When someone takes a work without my permission, I consider it a theft.

Max Kurz Loc: Newark, De

RCIRR;
Yes, I agree with you.
I too am amazed at the anger and downright viciousness that some responses bring forth.[ not only on this question, but others also ]. There appears to be a lot of angry people out there.
I've concluded that if you want something to remain " yours", you must place visable ownership on it, no matter what the item is or to how many people you "loan" it to for viewing.

Jim Peters Loc: Pittsburgh

Lucian wrote:

Don't understand your postJim, why all the large letters? I'm very well aware of copyright and lawyer and federal law etc. And I'm a member of KY and OH PPA.

Nothing Personal It's Just My Style Of Highlighting. I Was Refering to The Masses. The Only Way To Sum Up this Thread Is To Have Those That are not Members to join And Learn.

coastlawyer Loc: Coastal Mississippi

rcirr wrote:

Now just to stir the pot I have a question. What if someone viewed a picture...loved it...read the photographers description of how he captured it...then shot it himself....recreated it in such a way as to look identical. Did he violate copy right laws?

Most photographed in South Mississippi is the Biloxi Lighthouse. Nothing special about the photo I am sending except that have an exclusive copyright.

If someone else finds the lighthouse in morning fog for a photo, no copyright laws are violated.

Richard Miller

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Max Kurz wrote:

I had breakfast with a group of pre-law students, ... (show quote)

Let us know what they say AFTER they pass their bar exams and have been pounded in court a few times.

Jim Peters Loc: Pittsburgh

rcirr wrote:

If you are bored...don't read anymore on the subject. I happen to disagree with your summary and your assumption that everyone agrees with you. I will decide what I find interesting and I find this subject interesting!

This Could Go On forever.Talk to A Copyright Layer. Free to Members Of The PP Of A. Regaurdless As to How Anybody Feels.
The Law Is The Law Until Someone Changes It!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Jim Peters wrote:

rcirr wrote:

If you are bored...don't read anymore on the subject. I happen to disagree with your summary and your assumption that everyone agrees with you. I will decide what I find interesting and I find this subject interesting!

This Could Go On forever.Talk to A Copyright Layer. Free to Members Of The PP Of A. Regaurdless As to How Anybody Feels.
The Law Is The Law Until Someone Changes It!

The law IS the law until someone changes it, however it can be changed by any judge that disagrees with previous interpretations of the law - and this is one of those cases. That is precisely why lawyers have myriads of clerks, interns and paralegals examining books and other court records in search of precedents. This is why the only legal solution is an attorney who specializes in this field and can argue case law versus legislated law.

madcapmagishion

Original question; Can I have and display your photo's?
Original best answer; NO! But you can buy it and then display it. :mrgreen:

Photoquilter Loc: Virginia

"The law IS the law until someone changes it, however it can be changed by any judge that disagrees with previous interpretations of the law - and this is one of those cases. That is precisely why lawyers have myriads of clerks, interns and paralegals examining books and other court records in search of precedents. This is why the only legal solution is an attorney who specializes in this field and can argue case law versus legislated law."[/quote]

NO. A law does NOT get changed by a JUDGE. Judges may rule in a defendant's favor for individual cases, and may set precedents that other judges may also use for similar rulings, but they do not MAKE LAWS, the MAKE RULINGS.

Jim Peters Loc: Pittsburgh

Photoquilter wrote:

"The law IS the law until someone changes it, however it can be changed by any judge that disagrees with previous interpretations of the law - and this is one of those cases. That is precisely why lawyers have myriads of clerks, interns and paralegals examining books and other court records in search of precedents. This is why the only legal solution is an attorney who specializes in this field and can argue case law versus legislated law."

NO. A law does NOT get changed by a JUDGE. Judges may rule in a defendant's favor for individual cases, and may set precedents that other judges may also use for similar rulings, but they do not MAKE LAWS, the MAKE RULINGS.[/quote]
Dito This Federal Law.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Photoquilter wrote:

"The law IS the law until someone changes it, however it can be changed by any judge that disagrees with previous interpretations of the law - and this is one of those cases. That is precisely why lawyers have myriads of clerks, interns and paralegals examining books and other court records in search of precedents. This is why the only legal solution is an attorney who specializes in this field and can argue case law versus legislated law."

NO. A law does NOT get changed by a JUDGE. Judges may rule in a defendant's favor for individual cases, and may set precedents that other judges may also use for similar rulings, but they do not MAKE LAWS, the MAKE RULINGS.[/quote]
OK. I will grant that you are semantically correct, but my general point is that the law is (too?) often open to human interpretation. Cases in point: Miranda, Scott, Roe/Doe (Cano).