Permission to use a photo (Page 3): Every image made is "copyrighted" the instant it is created. Whether or not it is registered is immaterial, and a watermark has never been required...

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Carl S wrote:

If it is copyrighted or water marked, it is not in the public domain.

Every image made is "copyrighted" the instant it is created. Whether or not it is registered is immaterial, and a watermark has never been required to denote ownership or public use status. The presence or absence of a watermark does nothing to change the status of ownership or affect the rights of the image's creator. Anyone who thinks that slapping an ugly, contrasting signature across the image "protects' it is fooling only themselves, and degrading their work.

I used to follow the controversy that developed when graphic designers began taking images off the Web and using them in their work, and claiming that if it was on the Web it was automatically public domain. It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now, but there will no doubt always be those who adhere to that claim. Unfortunately, it is expensive to pursue legal action against copyright infringement, and I doubt many amateurs and maybe even a lot of pros take the time and effort to register their copyrights, and if not registered, your chances of getting any monetary recompense are pretty much nil. Even if you do win a case, getting a judgment may be easier than actually collecting anything.

In my opinion, it is unethical to use another's artwork for any purpose, personal or commercial, with some legal exceptions for Fair Use, without permission, whether it is signed/watermarked or not, for any use where payment would be expected if the item were found in a store. I see no difference between taking a picture from the Web and using it on my desktop or printing it out and hanging it on the wall.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

gvarner wrote:

I’d like to know if anyone can post a copy of a court decision where copyright law has been violated by anyone using for personal non-commercial use a photo that was posted on public media. That would settle the issue for me. Otherwise we’re just tossing around personal opinions that are not based on evidence.

It is a copyright violation to use someone else's photo for personal use without permission, but if there is no monetary gain, it isn't worth hiring an attorney at your own cost to pursue it in court.

srt101fan

gvarner wrote:

Yes and I’m subject to being corrected by evidence, as we all must be. I sense that you’re upset about the certainty I expressed in my comment about public use. Such a trivial thing to be upset about just to make an argument.

Some people come to UHH to learn. In this case the issue is limitations on the use of photos posted on the internet.

People will look at an emphatic answer like yours as having credibility when it's no more than conjecture.

No, it's not trivial. You're doing a disservice. You are cluttering up what could be a valuable discussion.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

srt101fan wrote:

Some people come to UHH to learn. In this case the issue is limitations on the use of photos posted on the internet.

People will look at an emphatic answer like yours as having credibility when it's no more than conjecture.

No, it's not trivial. You're doing a disservice. You are cluttering up what could be a valuable discussion.

Heaven forbid that we "clutter up" dialogue on this forum. Perhaps everyone being in lockstep agreement would be more agreeable. SMDH

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

This may help dispel some of the ignorance around this issue. Technically, the maker owns it but keeping others from using it without permission of the owner is a harder sell.

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

I would be honored if someone wanted to use my image for a screen display or something like that. As long as they do not profit from it.
Others are more protective of their work.
I am happy to know that you asked the photographer.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

tramsey wrote:

If someone posts a photo on the internet it becomes public domain, that's been understood since the internet was created

Nope. Every photo is copyrighted to the one that took the photo. If what you say was true if you put it on internet, it becomes public domain, then every business that sells photos gives away their photo. Plus this website rules says you cannot download use anything from this site. So the app is wrong it's illegal to do what he did.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

gvarner wrote:

This may help dispel some of the ignorance around this issue. Technically, the maker owns it but keeping others from using it without permission of the owner is a harder sell.

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Also, copyright laws vary country by country...

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

jaymatt wrote:

Personally, I would never, ever use another's photo without permission simply because it is unethical.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I have had a few people ask permission to use my photos as screen savers. Never had a problem with that. But I have stated that with permission doesn't mean that they can be SOLD. Not that that is enforce-able. Just relying on some ones' honesty. And, yes, I know that sounds silly to some people!

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

tramsey wrote:

If someone posts a photo on the internet it becomes public domain, that's been understood since the internet was created

Really?
Is that something like vehicles parked at curbside on a public street, rather than in a private garage attached to a private dwelling, are public property -- ever since streetside curbs were invented?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

dustie wrote:

Really?
Is that something like vehicles parked at curbside on a public street, rather than in a private garage attached to a private dwelling, are public property -- ever since streetside curbs were invented?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

dustie wrote:

Really?
Is that something like vehicles parked at curbside on a public street, rather than in a private garage attached to a private dwelling, are public property -- ever since streetside curbs were invented?

That’s a ridiculous comparison. Vehicles are registered to their owner for one thing and parking on a designated area on a public street does not make them public property. You need to think ahead about what you post in Ryder to keep from looking silly instead of brilliant.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

gvarner wrote:

That’s a ridiculous comparison. Vehicles are registered to their owner for one thing and parking on a designated area on a public street does not make them public property. You need to think ahead about what you post in Ryder to keep from looking silly instead of brilliant.

Yeah.
Too bad there are no laws in the U.S. that assign the copyright of a photo to the creator/maker of the photo.
That would solve a lot of problems for those of us who only lack about $14.00 o' havin' twenty-seven cents.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

gvarner wrote:

That’s a ridiculous comparison. Vehicles are registered to their owner for one thing and parking on a designated area on a public street does not make them public property. You need to think ahead about what you post in Ryder to keep from looking silly instead of brilliant.

Neither does posting images on the internet make them public property...................