wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Copyright has always been a can of worms. I will occasionally use other people's pictures for non-profit educational purposes only (a legal use of copyrighed photos). Even then, if I know the owner, I will give credit to who was the photographer. If I would use those photos for educational purposes with profit, and do not get some form of permission, I could be fined or fined and jailed. That one word, profit, is usually the biggest deciding factor for copyright use or infringement. There are other forms of infringement, but cutting into a photographer's rights for profit is the biggest.

Bob Werre

There are cases where you see, especially in political/Hollywood reportage, where photographers are lined up to basically make the same shot. I've seen seminars/camera club situations where a model is photographed by six guys each two foot apart. So let the arguments began! I've been asked to re-create another photographer's work, --this is real tricky. An ad agency will show me a mockup and I'll have to try and make something similar. I don't know if it's a unique concept or they are copying something from already published work. In a couple of cases they've hired several photographers to work on the same theme. I once was asked to 'bid' on shooting an ad that was based on one of my own shots. The art director just took my work, turned it 90 degrees and make a layout then received client approval. I priced the project the same as I had done for the first client, however I would have changed the shot to make it different enough--I didn't get the job, oh well! In many cases you only have so many options to work with--this happens in all types of commercial work--industrial design, architecture, and our world of graphic design/illustration/photography.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Photolady, have you ever noticed that videos of movies and programs start with a Copyright Warning about prison or fines? It says, "whether for profit or not."

Netflix rents out DVDs by mail if you like, but they pay a lot more for the DVD than you do, because your permission is for your own home use only. If you play it in your business or lend it to others (for money or not), the price jumps way up. That is why if you lose a Netflix DVD, the price for replacement can be over $100.

It is true that copyright can include fair use for education--but this is often limited, and all the colleges I have worked for absolutely forbid us to include copyrighted materials in our classes. Even a 200-year old work by Kant has a valid copyright on the translation, editor's notes, and introduction. One exception as a humorous lecture on postmodernism by a Canadian professor. I emailed him and asked for permission to show it to my students (with his name on it) and he gave written permission.

Another exception is using a line or two when writing about some author (as a critic can do). It is journalism if a critic does it for pay, and it is scholarship if one scholar writes about another. This includes students, but citing the source is vital, and long quotes require permission. (Notice that reviews on TV about a new movie only show clips a few seconds long?) The exemption for scholars applies only to scholarly use--we can refer to a sentence we agree with or disagree with. Journalistic use applies when the public is being informed as news (and we all have the right to do that--not just professional reporters).

If a copyright work is already online, and I publish the URL so others can go to it themselves, am I publishing it? That may depend on the jury--courts can go either way, so colleges are wary of that. The legal hangup is whether we knew the cite was itself a violation, and we might have trouble proving we did not--it is our duty to know, before we publish it, if we reasonably can.

My college has regular training on this question, and that is what I go by. If in doubt, don't publish anything. You have to know you are not violating copyright, and collaborating with somebody who does is just as bad.

Here is one site for royalty-free photos--there are many (example attached):

https://unsplash.com/images/stock/royalty-free

Attached file:
(Download)

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

“Blatant bombast concept”? Seems like a bombaster accusing someone else of being bombastic. Just sayin’.

For physical printed media this is very realistic option. A little overboard, but easily done. I have heard of marking with fluorescent dies, and know of fluorescent tattoo inks, and there is the old ‘hand-stamp-at-the-door’ for various clubs & venues.

Just for the hell-of-it, I ground up some Carnotite (uranium) ore and filtered the solution through a coffee filter. The resultant solution registered on a scintillator, and after drying, I mixed the residue with a bit of silicone grease. Applications on both a piece of parchment and on an old print were visually undetectable, but still were radioactively detectable.

As various ore specimens would exhibit specific ratios and types of radioactive emissions, similar low-level (non-hazardous) ‘tagging’ would be a viable non-visible manner to prove authenticity or provenance.

Not so good for digital media though . . . [Grin].

(Geologist, Engineer, Formation Evaluation Engineer since 1977)

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

A very through analysis of the problem faced by scholars and researchers. Thank you for the explanation and clarification.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

There are also many bots looking for violations to charge you fees.
You could be "guilty" until you proved that you weren't.
Many were prevalent on youtube before they clamped down.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

It is a big thrill for some people to do that. You know the reality, so I would handle it like others have said: Ignore and block!!!

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

That brings up another whole dimension--we could buy rights from someone who stole them... A jury would have to decide whether we were crooks or victims.

WAstinkbug Loc: Silverdale, WA, U.S.A.

Maybe try to look at it as a compliment you drew the attention of a hater. They usually pick on the most talented and original people, in my observation. Blocking might not be a bad idea if they keep it up ... otherwise decide to consider it a backwards compliment. Some poor broken person felt less-than when they saw your beautiful pictures. As sad as that is... it's not your fault. It wasn't about you ... it's about them.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

A famous man once said, "It is better to be through a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt!" This person would have been wise to have kept their thoughts to themselves.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Anyone can say anything, and defense is impossible.

Tstplt Loc: Northwest Arkansas

I once walked into a restraunt and saw one of my photos, framed, hanging on their wall. I was impressed until I noticed someone else's signature on the mat. On closer examination, it was a slightly different angle and cropping, but was taken about the same time. I did not get upset about it. I was pleased that we had shared the same inspiration. Don't let them bother you.

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

Where does one get an "Invisible radioactive watermark"? BTW, I do include my © on my work & resent being called a sad little nobody pretending to have something to protect. I'm sure many here feel their work is worth protecting.

OkramSystems Loc: Miami FL

I use a watermark. With that said your photos metadata will prove it's yours or not. Just ignore that jerk.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

These are really both useless. A lock keeps an honest person honest (hopefully). If a third wants something/photo, they will steal it.

Water marks can be edited it and so can metadata. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, just bringing people to reality, water marks can be edited out. They have a purpose (portrait people sometimes use them as a reminder to the purchaser where they got it, and advertisement) but they really don't protect you.