Is this an infringement or not? Below is a link to an article I read this morning regarding misappropriation of an image. What do you think?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Below is a link to an article I read this morning regarding misappropriation of an image. What do you think?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/judge_dismisses_part_of_west_orange_couples_suit_against_anti-gay_organization.html#incart_river_default

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

dsmeltz wrote:

Below is a link to an article I read this morning regarding misappropriation of an image. What do you think?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/judge_dismisses_part_of_west_orange_couples_suit_against_anti-gay_organization.html#incart_river_default

I think that they should have left a private image alone. There isn't a need for taking it...there are a LOT of stock images showing guys kissing.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

dsmeltz wrote:

Below is a link to an article I read this morning regarding misappropriation of an image. What do you think?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/judge_dismisses_part_of_west_orange_couples_suit_against_anti-gay_organization.html#incart_river_default

When something goes to court, be ready for anything to happen. Since the picture was taken in a public place, do they have any rights? The picture was taken from his blog. What's the legality there?

If you don't want anyone to use your picture, don't let anyone see your picture. Relying on the kindness of strangers is not a good idea. Given the chance, people will do the wrong thing.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

jerryc41 wrote:

When something goes to court, be ready for anything to happen. Since the picture was taken in a public place, do they have any rights? The picture was taken from his blog. What's the legality there?

If you don't want anyone to use your picture, don't let anyone see your picture. Relying on the kindness of strangers is not a good idea. Given the chance, people will do the wrong thing.

My Mom used to say:

Dont do anything you would not be comfortable seeing published in a newspaper. And you should only get in the newspaper three times; your birth notice, your wedding announcement and you obituary.

I am sure she read that in the newspaper.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Based on info I have read (and copyright law is very confusing) since the image was altered, it was no longer an original work and covered under copyright. I have read an article about a photographer that makes a living photographing other photographers work and making alterations and selling the photos. He has been taken to court several times and has won each time. The question in the photo here is was it really a legal copyright, in other words was a copy of the photo sent in to the copyright office along with the fee and legally copyrighted? Also, since the photo was altered, is it still copyrighted?.. I don't know, but based on what this other photographer is doing, probably not. I put copyright restrictions on EVERYTHING in my camera and out of lightroom so that I at least have an argument. Will it do any good? Don't know, but it may keep everyone but the most diligent from trying.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

dcampbell52, would you post a link (or two) where I could learn more about the situation you cited? Thanks.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

krl48 wrote:

dcampbell52, would you post a link (or two) where I could learn more about the situation you cited? Thanks.

yes I have to look. have to go on a job now, but will try later tonight.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

krl48 wrote:

dcampbell52, would you post a link (or two) where I could learn more about the situation you cited? Thanks.

Here is one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2013/06/22/copyright-infringement-and-photo-sharing-a-new-lawsuit-tests-the-limits-of-fair-use/

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

Thanks, dcampbell52. Once again the complexity of law almost defies common sense.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

krl48 wrote:

Thanks, dcampbell52. Once again the complexity of law almost defies common sense.

If sense was really common, we would not need laws.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

If you read the decision it is correct.

The judge split the decision in two and rightly so.
First he determined if this was a commercial or free speech issue (propaganda). He decided, rightly toward free speech. The court case was to stop the mailing. remember?

The copyright issue was not ignored but dissociated from the case and the judge opened the door for copyright infringement. Here again the judge is correct the issue is copyright, not ideas however wrong these ideas maybe.

Due to this I really do not see why you folks are up in arm over this. Your rights to be rabid conservative/liberal sickos is preserved and your copyright as photographers/model not under attack so...

What gives here? Slow day?

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

dcampbell52 wrote:

Based on info I have read (and copyright law is very confusing) since the image was altered, it was no longer an original work and covered under copyright.

Wrong answer. That would be the same thing as me taking a photo you posted and I would "alter" it by putting my copyright watermark on it. You can't alter a copyrighted work and void the copyright.

dcampbell52 wrote:

I have read an article about a photographer that makes a living photographing other photographers work and making alterations and selling the photos.

The difference here is that he took a photo of a photo and didn't simply alter the original. This is the grey area where lawyers earn their money. Copyright is created when the shutter clicks. What happens when you take a photo of a copyrighted work? What if the photo that was protographed was not only copyrighted but also a trademark?

Did you know the lighting design on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted and if you want to take a photo of the tower at night you have to pay a licensing fee to have it published? Why would the same law not apply to a photo?

dcampbell52 wrote:

I put copyright restrictions on EVERYTHING in my camera and out of lightroom so that I at least have an argument. Will it do any good? Don't know, but it may keep everyone but the most diligent from trying.

Yes, the EXIF data is all you need and if it is altered or removed the penalties increase. Even better if it is registered.

Just whatever you do, don't go putting huge copyright watermarks on your images. Nothing screams amateur pretending to be professional like a big ugly watermark or logo.

amehta Loc: Boston

The idea that someone can take the picture alter it, and not be in copyright violation is absurd.

The idea that someone can take an existing picture of someone else, modify it, and then use it in a way that the subject objects to is also absurd.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

amehta wrote:

The idea that someone can take the picture alter it, and not be in copyright violation is absurd.

The idea that someone can take an existing picture of someone else, modify it, and then use it in a way that the subject objects to is also absurd.

Absurd http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit

amehta Loc: Boston

BTW, I see this has moved to the "Links" category, but I think it really belongs in the main discussion category.