Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Copyright infringement
Feb 22, 2014 07:03:28 #
Here is a link to a New York Times article running today on the issue of copyright and the court cases now going back and forth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/arts/design/photographers-band-together-to-protect-work-in-fair-use-cases.html
It has always been my contention that the poor man's copyright, namely just creating a piece of original art, was sufficient to protect its creator against hack "artists" that take the original, splash some paint on it and sell it for millions.
I looked into International as well as U.S. Copyright Law and it does seem to be the case that some form of notification that the piece is copyrighted does enable the originator to collect larger damages, especially in the case of internet copies where innocence is a defence on the part of the uninformed public.
Consequently, I have given you the link above to read the article. I have also put up two versions of a recent photo taken in Jerusalem. I would like to hear opinions on whether the copyright symbol effaces the art.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/arts/design/photographers-band-together-to-protect-work-in-fair-use-cases.html
It has always been my contention that the poor man's copyright, namely just creating a piece of original art, was sufficient to protect its creator against hack "artists" that take the original, splash some paint on it and sell it for millions.
I looked into International as well as U.S. Copyright Law and it does seem to be the case that some form of notification that the piece is copyrighted does enable the originator to collect larger damages, especially in the case of internet copies where innocence is a defence on the part of the uninformed public.
Consequently, I have given you the link above to read the article. I have also put up two versions of a recent photo taken in Jerusalem. I would like to hear opinions on whether the copyright symbol effaces the art.
Conspirators
Conspirators (c)
Feb 22, 2014 07:17:38 #
mosbenav wrote:
Here is a link to a New York Times article running... (show quote)
The copyright symbol doesn't hurt one bit. It's also irrelevant because if someone wanted to steal it, they would steal it and remove the symbol.
I wouldn't want to have to sue for copyright infringement. Lawsuits like that seem to be getting more common, and the outcome isn't always predictable. You might have heard about the French(?) photographer who modified someone else's image and won a photo contest with it. The original photographer sued and lost, since the court thought that the original image was modified sufficiently.
Another type of suit we're seeing too often is for patent infringement. Companies buy up thousands of patents at a time and then sift through them to see if they can sue someone for using something contained in the patent.
Feb 22, 2014 07:28:35 #
It was someplace in the EU that passed a law saying that if a photo wasn't labled as copyrighted with the owners information (name being sufficient) and a person couldn't "find the owner of the work" then the picture was considered "fair game for use and considered public domain".
Feb 22, 2014 07:31:22 #
jerryc41 wrote:
The copyright symbol doesn't hurt one bit. It's a... (show quote)
In the latter case, Jerry, it would hardly apply to art, unless the artist was foolish enough to patent his work and then mortgage the patent. Patenting a drug is one thing, and even in that case you've got either eleven or seventeen years exclusivity before the generic can be manufactured. Art is more likely copyrighted since it is in the present and not a process like making drugs.
In the case of removing the symbol it goes back to the old "follow the money" routine, tracing it back to where the thief got it from, and how it was originally published. Publishing a photo here in UHH is sufficient to show original ownership and the date it was published.
Yes, cases for copyright infringement have been nightmares to prove since all the costs of the lawsuits have been borne by the artists. But I believe that is about to change now that the prices of art have gone through the roof.
Feb 22, 2014 07:31:39 #
Let's play this game...
You post an original with a copyright (anything, watermark, C, exif).
Some guy downloads it and repost it w/o the notice.
A third guy takes the picture modifies it and post it as his art.
Who are you going to go after if you do not know the second guy who used the 'fair use' as there is no copyright notice?
This is the type of subject that is often unproductive because 1) we are not lawyers 2) existing laws are vague 3) laws differ from state to state, country to country and 4) every post made here is an opinion.
Only thing you can do that is efficient? Don't post your work or better yet, sell it and let the buyer deal with that crap (as many photo journalists do)
You post an original with a copyright (anything, watermark, C, exif).
Some guy downloads it and repost it w/o the notice.
A third guy takes the picture modifies it and post it as his art.
Who are you going to go after if you do not know the second guy who used the 'fair use' as there is no copyright notice?
This is the type of subject that is often unproductive because 1) we are not lawyers 2) existing laws are vague 3) laws differ from state to state, country to country and 4) every post made here is an opinion.
Only thing you can do that is efficient? Don't post your work or better yet, sell it and let the buyer deal with that crap (as many photo journalists do)
Feb 22, 2014 07:36:15 #
diensthunds wrote:
It was someplace in the EU that passed a law saying that if a photo wasn't labled as copyrighted with the owners information (name being sufficient) and a person couldn't "find the owner of the work" then the picture was considered "fair game for use and considered public domain".
Wouldn't it depend on where the copier originally saw the art he copied. Wouldn't the burden of proof be upon the thief to show the date of his work, and if it was agreed that it was not his work, how he happened to come in contact with it? Let's say it was a billboard, wouldn't the billboard company have information leading to the artist?
Feb 22, 2014 07:41:02 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Let's play this game... br br You post an origina... (show quote)
Good points. That's why the issue has taken the front burner and may have more specific language and circumstances coming out of it. It's interesting to follow the cases anyway.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Feb 22, 2014 07:47:44 #
mosbenav wrote:
Wouldn't the burden of proof be upon the thief to show the date of his work...?
Innocent until proven guilty. "You have the right to remain silent." The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Feb 22, 2014 07:57:20 #
Feb 22, 2014 08:35:26 #
Camerabuff wrote:
You can embed your details vi meta data using pp
You can remove the metadata as well. Facebook, Twitter, etc. have gotten really good at that.
Feb 22, 2014 08:47:19 #
Convo is about the law 'bokeh' not about what to do... :shock: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Feb 22, 2014 09:34:58 #
There are several online resources available to help you with copyrights. Only you can read the details of each site and make up your own mind about whether or not it's suitable for your situation:
http://www.copyrighted.com/
http://www.freecopyrightregistration.com/
http://www.copyrighted.com/
http://www.freecopyrightregistration.com/
Feb 22, 2014 09:37:22 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty. "You have the right to remain silent." The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
I'm not sure about that. You may want to read up on case law before venturing an opinion. The plaintiff could never get an attorney to represent him unless he had powerful proof of origin. If the plaintiff (complainant) actually goes to court with strong evidence I believe the burden of proof is on the second or subsequent user to prove his origin. That's what makes sense to me, but in your research you may discover a different process.
Feb 22, 2014 09:39:36 #
Michael66
Loc: Queens, New York
jerryc41 wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty. "You have the right to remain silent." The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
This is why you should always watermark your work. Something faint and unobtrusive is sufficient to prove that.
Feb 22, 2014 09:43:06 #
jerryc41 wrote:
The copyright symbol doesn't hurt one bit. It's a... (show quote)
Taiwan has no copy write!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.