MissMonka Loc: Ohio

What a disappointment. I just found this site a few days ago and was really enjoying it. I hope it all works out.

gessman Loc: Colorado

info@uglyhedgehog.com

Vast Publishing
IDF Technologies, LLC
364 East Main Street, Suite 322,
Middletown, DE 19709
USA

DB Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

I did email admin on this gessman and the response I got was a link to another discussion on this matter..

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-1742-1.html

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

Please look at DB link, it will answer most of youur questions and put your fears to rest.

Big Nickel Loc: New Hampshire

After reading that I decided i'm not going anywhere!
I've learned alot in the past few weeks. I got a lot more to learn from ALL of you.

phoneguy55 Loc: upstate NY

this article gets into the topic and shows that only by member outcry has the subject begun to be addressed and in some cases modified.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/twitpic-copyright_n_860554.html

DB Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

interesting articlem would be nice if the terms for UHH became the same as MobyPicture:

All rights of uploaded content by our users remain the property of our users and those rights can in no means be sold or used in a commercial way by Mobypicture or affiliated third party

That would solve a lot of problems....

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I just found this article on registering your copy right on photography.
I guess if we are worried for not that much money CR your work before uploading.
http://www.copyrightwitness.com/register/p24_howto_register_photography

gessman Loc: Colorado

I'm not a scholar of any kind, especially a legal scholar but what the "rules" are saying and what Admin is saying do not seem to me to be the same thing. There must be some legalese way of saying what Admin is saying without it looking like they're coping involuntary co-ownership of the images of anyone who submits them to the site. I find it very distasteful to have to say that I "don't trust some folks no farther than I can throw them" but in the absence of an ability to have a historical perspective of other folks, I tend to err on the side of caution. I'll say this - if that submission rule doesn't mean what it says then change it to say what you mean." I don't like what it says. Admin seems perfectly genuine and honest but then so did Ted Bundy from what I hear. Html is just not that tough. Just change it and take out the part where you can do anything you want to including selling my pics worldwide without any further consent from me simply because I'd like to participate in your forum. Just do it - appease and humor me, just this once.

helmigr

I think you're right about image size, gessman. I think the the site probably has a binding right to use the images through implied consent [I'm not a lawyer], however, the counter to that might well be to make the images unuseable. A small, low resulution image is much less useable. The other thing is a watermark. Although I hate to look at watermarked images, they provide an element of security that's hard to breach. Furthermore, they can be done automatically and at a level that's not too obtrusive. My images always have the metadata attached if I'm working in Lightroom, not that metadata alone is any assurance that this site owner wouldn't try to sell or use an image but it might prohibit a buyer from wanting to go there.

I'm very disappointed. I was thrilled to find this site. The people are great - I haven't found a prima donna in the bunch - and I appreciate the feedback and advice I've received. I assume the best out of everyone and I came into this without thinking about any pitfalls. I even know better. I hope this has a positive ending.

user2071 Loc: New England

I read the statement. It's as honest as one might ask.

I said at one point and I got slammed for it that I wouldn't post an image if I were worried about having it stolen or misused. My single "protection" (and it's probably not much protection, really) is that I only post 72 dpi images.

In theory, for example, Flickr isn't going to use my photos for any purpose at all, but anyone can go onto Flickr and steal anything they feel like stealing. There's even a convenient "download" feature to help with the process. If you post it on Flickr, ANYONE with a computer can take it. Click "download" and voila, it's yours.

Thieves don't ask permission. That's what makes them thieves.

So. If I am worried about it being stolen, I don't post it. Anywhere.

That is the Internet. So my position is that after I put it out there, if someone wants it, they will take it and I will probably never know about it.

FYI, I've had other intellectual property stolen over the years including book cover designs, stuff I've written, ideas proposed IN writing where they turned down the idea and suddenly, there it is, in prime time. Just someone else's name is on it. In theory, I've got a case ... but in reality, they have a big corporation and lots of expensive lawyers, so even if I win, I lose. J.R.R. Tolkien's work was stolen early on and he received zilch from his books. This has been true for many authors and other artists.

And that was BEFORE the Internet. Without even posting it. I know one author who has been in court with her publisher for failing to EVER pay royalties for literally millions of book sold over a nearly 50 year period. This is in France and the case has been in court for several decades. The author is now in her late 80s. Even if she wins in court, the publisher REALLY won. The author is desperately poor while the publisher made big money.

It has always been hard to protect art and intellectual property. The law is on our side, but reality is not.

helmigr

I am well aquainted with a photographer who posts on another forum. He uses a website that does a search for his metedata - I forget the site name. He found that someone had pirated one of his images and was using it on their website. He contacted them via email and they promptly removed the image. Had it not been for a regular search of the internet he would probably never have known.
Copyrighting is something we should be doing if were serious about our work but I have to admit that I haven't done it through the US Copyright Office as it should be.

blueeyes3515 Loc: WV

Bob ~Don't Go!~
Gessman, so glad someone realized this and that it was brought to our attention (I personally would like to say thank you)!
I am however interested in what the admin. has to say on this matter!!!
I too just found this site, and get LOTS of valuable information from others. I would hate to have to leave so soon!!!

user2071 Loc: New England

I did copyright my book before I published it. If you are publishing, you really need to copyright your manuscript. And/or images.

If my business were photography, I would be even more careful than I am about what I post and where. As it is, I post images only at 72 dpi, which makes them easier to upload anyhow and renders them pretty shabby for anything other than viewing. But since I'm not a professional, if you ask nicely I'll give you a better one for printing. And if someone wants to use my pictures as desktops, I'm okay with that.

I don't think there is any happy solution to this. The Internet is a giant free for all, so we can choose to participate or not. I think that's the only real choice we get.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Here's a couple of urls that have been posted up the line that seems, in the minds of some, to explain the issue pretty well. I would invite you to read them and by all means, let your conscience be your guide:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-1742-1.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/twitpic-copyright_n_860554.html
http://www.copyrightwitness.com/register/p24_howto_register_photography