MR. Philco temporarily removed access to his gallery
TwoMuttHeads
permission or at least giving credit. I hope he finds a way to put
them back on securely. It's a great resource. I hate it when the few
idiots out there spoil it for the rest us. I've been able to identify
dozens of Philcos thanks his gallery.
John Robertson
Watermarking images is fairly easy to do. You can even batch watermark
if you have dozens/hundreds to do...you could suggest this solution to him.
John :-#)#
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
Bill M
>
> Watermarking images is fairly easy to do. You can even batch watermark
> if you have dozens/hundreds to do...you could suggest this solution to him.
>
> John :-#)#
I don't think that was the issue here. You can copy watermarked ones
just as easily as unwatermarked. What Ron was ticked off about was the
fact that it was done without asking - and then there was an ensuing
thing about a nastygram from the pilcher and a clumsy followup by an ARF
moderator.
I hope Ron will reconsider his action. He has a thread on his own Forum
regarding this.
Michael Coslo
I don't really blame him if he has an issue, but there are some truths
out there.
1. If you don't want it taken, don't post it. It's all well and good as
well as legal, to demand your copyright rights. But it it's there, it
will be lifted and it will be used.
The only way to get around this is to put a big watermark right across
the image. Let people see whay the image is, but leave no doubt as to
the origin.
2. Moderation is a funny thing. Some times it works for you, and
sometimes against you. No one who is moderated ever thinks it's fair.
- Mike -
Brenda Ann
"Bill M" <radio...@geeeemail.com> wrote in message
news:hgonq...@news3.newsguy.com...
I know there is script out there to disable right click/copy/paste on a
website. Perhaps that is the solution, at least for most instances?
Bill M
>
> I don't really blame him if he has an issue, but there are some truths
> out there.
>
> 1. If you don't want it taken, don't post it. It's all well and good as
> well as legal, to demand your copyright rights. But it it's there, it
> will be lifted and it will be used.
>
> The only way to get around this is to put a big watermark right across
> the image. Let people see whay the image is, but leave no doubt as to
> the origin.
>
> 2. Moderation is a funny thing. Some times it works for you, and
> sometimes against you. No one who is moderated ever thinks it's fair.
>
>
> - Mike -
Admittedly I didn't see the context in which the photo was used but
given the thread topic, and I know Gary, it surely wasn't like he was
trying to rip him off somehow.
Ron is certainly within his rights to do what he chooses with his photos
and to protect their use in any way he decides. But your Point #1 is
very true. The next guy may lift it (or the link) off of ARF and put on
his own site, and the next guy steals THAT one to do a fraudulent ad on
ebay or it shows up in a book somewhere competing in the marketplace
against Ron's book and the newest finder of the photo may have no clue
where it originated. Thats bad business overall.
Re watermarks...is there a 'simple' method that would only apply the
watermark when a photo is copied or hot-linked? Its a shame to screw up
all the photos on your website just to lay claim to them. I suppose
some redirect methods might work if the pilcher isn't very savvy.
-Bill M
John Robertson
> Michael Coslo wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't really blame him if he has an issue, but there are some truths
>> out there.
>>
>> 1. If you don't want it taken, don't post it. It's all well and good
>> as well as legal, to demand your copyright rights. But it it's there,
>> it will be lifted and it will be used.
>>
>> The only way to get around this is to put a big watermark right across
>> the image. Let people see whay the image is, but leave no doubt as to
>> the origin.
>>
>
> Re watermarks...is there a 'simple' method that would only apply the
> watermark when a photo is copied or hot-linked? Its a shame to screw up
> all the photos on your website just to lay claim to them. I suppose
> some redirect methods might work if the pilcher isn't very savvy.
>
> -Bill M
It is very easy to clip the image you see on your computer with a MAC -
we use the key combination shift-Apple-4 and then we can clip anything
visible on the screen. I suspect something similar is available for PCs
so there would be no way to protect an image UNLESS you boldly watermark
it from clipping.
Michael A. Terrell
John Robertson wrote:
>
> Bill M wrote:
> > Michael Coslo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I don't really blame him if he has an issue, but there are some truths
> >> out there.
> >>
> >> 1. If you don't want it taken, don't post it. It's all well and good
> >> as well as legal, to demand your copyright rights. But it it's there,
> >> it will be lifted and it will be used.
> >>
> >> The only way to get around this is to put a big watermark right across
> >> the image. Let people see whay the image is, but leave no doubt as to
> >> the origin.
> >>
> ...
> >
> > Re watermarks...is there a 'simple' method that would only apply the
> > watermark when a photo is copied or hot-linked? Its a shame to screw up
> > all the photos on your website just to lay claim to them. I suppose
> > some redirect methods might work if the pilcher isn't very savvy.
> >
> > -Bill M
>
> It is very easy to clip the image you see on your computer with a MAC -
> we use the key combination shift-Apple-4 and then we can clip anything
> visible on the screen. I suspect something similar is available for PCs
> so there would be no way to protect an image UNLESS you boldly watermark
> it from clipping.
Press 'Ctrl' & 'Print screen', then paste the image into a graphics
program. Crop it, and save it. Takes very little time, even in
'Paint'.
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
Bill M
> It is very easy to clip the image you see on your computer with a MAC -
> we use the key combination shift-Apple-4 and then we can clip anything
> visible on the screen. I suspect something similar is available for PCs
> so there would be no way to protect an image UNLESS you boldly watermark
> it from clipping.
>
> John :-#)#
Fortunately (or not, in this case) we Windows users have a "Print
Screen" right there on the keyboard. Thats why I included the word
"savvy" in the previous post because a lot of folks don't know what to
do next after they have saved a screen shot.
In the instance with Ron's photo it was a simple hotlink, no copying
involved. Thats easy enough to prevent but I suspect Ron (and maybe
Phil here too) get fed up constantly having to chase down the
photo-crooks even though some have no malicious intentions.
I understand that there's a general legal philosophy that if you don't
take measures to protect the content then its a difficult defence if you
have to become involved in some sort of claim in the future. Satellite
TV became a victim of that in the early days. Existing laws didn't have
enough teeth.
IGot2P
As I have said before, I don't know anything about radios. OTOH, I do
know a bit about HTML coding. I just stuck a simple page together at
http://www.crsales.com/stealthis.htm to show that you can at least make
it more difficult for individuals to steal your images.
Go ahead and right click on the image and save it and it will appear
that you just got it. Now bring up the saved image in a graphics program
and you will find that you did not get the image but in fact got a one
pixel by one pixel transparent image in gif format.
Of course this will not keep someone from getting it if they really want
the image. They can use a screen capture and then past the capture into
a graphics program and edit it.
In short, there is no perfect solution; the best you can do is slow
users down a bit using the table background trick that I used in the
page or some other coding trick. Feel free to look at the code and copy
it if you so desire. I am not familiar with Ron's page but I would think
that he could do as I did without much trouble.
Don
Jeffrey D Angus
> In short, there is no perfect solution; the best you can do is slow
> users down a bit using the table background trick that I used in the
> page or some other coding trick. Feel free to look at the code and copy
> it if you so desire. I am not familiar with Ron's page but I would think
> that he could do as I did without much trouble.
The new thing seems to be converting the image to flash.
Thats normally rather hard to copy. However, with a
screen capture program like SnagIt, it's VERY easy. I
use that to capture street view images on google maps.
Jeff
--
�Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.�
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
Jim_Menning
"IGot2P" <d...@crsales.com> wrote in message
news:hgpbci$h$1...@news.netins.net...
No need at all to do a screen capture. It took less than 20 seconds to
steal your image by finding www.crsales.com/no_steal_pic.jpg in the source
code. This is how I have to save images from the enlarged view in many eBay
auctions, depending on the host.
Bill M
> the best you can do is slow
> users down a bit using the table background trick that I used in the
> page or some other coding trick. Feel free to look at the code and copy
> it if you so desire. I am not familiar with Ron's page but I would think
> that he could do as I did without much trouble.
>
> Don
So is this simply a matter of:
BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" and that its set as a background?
As you can tell, I'm not very html savvy.
-Bill
>
>
>
IGot2P
I simply put a transparent gif over the image so that you are actually
looking through the transparent gif to see the image but when you right
click on it you will get the transparent gif instead of the image that
you see.
And yes Jim, if you know anything about HTML code you can just look at
for the source of the image in the code and go directly to it.
Again, it certainly is NOT sure way to protect your image but rather
only a method that will keep the average user or below average user from
getting it. You must remember that there are a lot of individuals out
there that do not even know that they can view the code. OTOH, if they
want it to use on an Internet site they will certainly know how to get it.
Don
Bill M
> I simply put a transparent gif over the image so that you are actually
> looking through the transparent gif to see the image but when you right
> click on it you will get the transparent gif instead of the image that
> you see.
Aha, so that is indeed like a transparent 'background' image
layer...excuse my lack of knowledge of the correct terminology but I
think I get it.
Well...if I ever have a need to protect myself I at least know which
direction to go. FWIW, anybody who wants anything from my site they are
welcome to it. Asking would be courteous but I really don't expect that.
I once found my website copied over with a .cn address and full Chinese
translations. Actually I thought it was pretty cool. I emailed the
site owner and it disappeared. I guess it scared him. I would be
perfectly happy as long as he wasn't taking credit (vanity). I couldn't
read the text :)
Scott W. Harvey
> Admittedly I didn't see the context in which the photo was used but
> given the thread topic, and I know Gary, it surely wasn't like he was
> trying to rip him off somehow.
>
> Ron is certainly within his rights to do what he chooses with his photos
> and to protect their use in any way he decides. But your Point #1 is
> very true. The next guy may lift it (or the link) off of ARF and put on
> his own site, and the next guy steals THAT one to do a fraudulent ad on
> ebay or it shows up in a book somewhere competing in the marketplace
> against Ron's book and the newest finder of the photo may have no clue
> where it originated. Thats bad business overall.
>
> Re watermarks...is there a 'simple' method that would only apply the
> watermark when a photo is copied or hot-linked? Its a shame to screw up
> all the photos on your website just to lay claim to them. I suppose
> some redirect methods might work if the pilcher isn't very savvy.
A steganographic watermark will apply an invisible watermark to the
photo that will survive resizing, reformatting, rescanning, and
cropping. (Playboy uses this technique on its centerfolds, you can
actually scan one in and run it through Photoshop and it will show a
Playboy copyright)
I don't know if eBay is monitoring posted photos for these watermarks
but they should be if they are really serious about stopping infringement.
I think that pulling pictures from a website to stop infringement is
rather silly. If you put stuff out there, you have to accept the fact
that you are not going to be able to stop every single possible
nefarious use of it. You gotta take the bad with the good. That's reality.
-Scott
Scott W. Harvey
> I understand that there's a general legal philosophy that if you don't
> take measures to protect the content then its a difficult defence if you
> have to become involved in some sort of claim in the future. Satellite
> TV became a victim of that in the early days. Existing laws didn't have
> enough teeth.
Yes, you must vigorously defend copyright even if you don't want to.
Even then, you may not keep it in all situations. I remember when George
Lucas sued to prevent Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative from being
referred to as "Star Wars" in the press. The judges in that case
basically politely told him to go crap in his hat.
-Scott
Robert C
> Of course this will not keep someone from getting it if they really want
> the image. They can use a screen capture and then past the capture into
> a graphics program and edit it.
or they could just view the page source & copy the link to the actual image
& paste it in their browser url window.
here's the link your trying to hide:
http://www.crsales.com/no_steal_pic.jpg
i use Linux & both of the browsers that i have on my system (Firefox &
Konquerer have view page source options & will let me see what is actually
being downloaded by my browser. just about every popular browser that i
know of has that option.
another thing to note, & this applies to ALL PCs, regardless of the OS or
browser, when you go to a website, once you connect to the server, you
download all the data (images & HTML code) to a temporary file on your HD.
that means, you allready have the images downloaded even though you did not
do anything to save them. it is trivial to just use the file browser to
navigate to your systems temporary internet files directory & copy the
image from there too while the browser is still open.
Registered User
wrote:
>IGot2P wrote:
>
>> Of course this will not keep someone from getting it if they really want
>> the image. They can use a screen capture and then past the capture into
>> a graphics program and edit it.
>
>or they could just view the page source & copy the link to the actual image
>& paste it in their browser url window.
>
>here's the link your trying to hide:
>http://www.crsales.com/no_steal_pic.jpg
>
>i use Linux & both of the browsers that i have on my system (Firefox &
>Konquerer have view page source options & will let me see what is actually
>being downloaded by my browser. just about every popular browser that i
>know of has that option.
>
Most browser also have the ability to save an html page and all its
associated files.
Bill Noble
"Robert C" <inv...@spews.org> wrote in message
news:7pda23...@mid.individual.net...
Of course, there is a way around this if you want - store the files as some
thing other than JPEG - for example an encrypted file, then use a java
script to decrypt and display it - a simple XOR with your system time when
the photo is accessed will produce a unique key and cyphertext file, and you
can store that key in a cookie for your script. This is not all that
secure, but it will certainly mess up the casual opportunist, and I'll bet
it will mess up ebay links as well
Michael Coslo
Get's pretty complicated after a while. My own suggestion would be
threefold:
1 Use the transparent .gif method.
2. Use a copyright notice on the web pages. Perhaps even make a small
copyright notice on the picture itself.
3. Provide a friendly notice regarding use by other people, with
"permission needed" type statements
This does not prevent people from stealing pictures. There really isn't
anything that can be done where I can't lift the photo. I can retouch
out copyright notices to where you cannot tell. Technological fixes
aren't going to work here.
What this all does is to set up a system where you can show that you
tried to protect the image, and that requires some effort on the part of
the would be thief to obtain the photo. Then if losses are egregious,
you have a very good case. Basically, ebay usage or some schmedlock
posting on his website isn't worth legal efforts. A book? Maybe so.
- Mike -
IGot2P
Well said.
Don
Phil Nelson
> his website isn't worth legal efforts. A book? Maybe so.
My website is a regular target for lazy eBay sellers or people attempting
fraud by listing an auction for something that I own and they don't. In a
case of outright fraud, or where a buyer could be confused about what
they're bidding on, I ask the seller to delete the copied material and I
file a complaint with eBay.
My site has hundreds of HTML pages and thousands of image files. I don't
want to deface the photos with watermarks or complicate the HTML with tricky
scripts or other hijinks. If you maintain a large website, you'll understand
the virtue in having HTML that's as simple and consistent as possible. I
want every page to display reasonably on a variety of browsers and
platforms, and basically pass W3C validation.
I take reasonable steps to defend my copyrights when an infringement comes
to my attention, but I'm not an Internet cop. The vast majority of people
using the Internet are honest and there are only so many hours in a day.
Dealing with an occasional bad apple is part of the overhead of running a
website.
Phil Nelson
Phil's Old Radios
http://antiqueradio.org/index.html
Robert C
> Most browser also have the ability to save an html page and all its
> associated files.
yes, they do. what i was trying to explain was that when you load a webpage,
it downloads to "cache" otherwise known as "temporary internet files" in
Windows or /var/temp/* in Linux. when you click on the "save webpage", all
it does is move all the files associated with that webpage to a directory
of your choice.
Robert C
> Of course, there is a way around this if you want - store the files as
> some thing other than JPEG - for example an encrypted file, then use a
> java script to decrypt and display it - a simple XOR with your system time
> when the photo is accessed will produce a unique key and cyphertext file,
> and you can store that key in a cookie for your script. �This is not all
> that secure, but it will certainly mess up the casual opportunist, and
> I'll bet it will mess up ebay links as well
THAT, is a great idea!
i was about to suggest that, but you beat me to it :-).
Eddie Brimer
radio. Sorry guys, it is just petty. If it is your original work, then
I agree...but a photo. C'mon.... If they are that sacred, don't post
them on the internet. I know.... YOU took the picture and it is YOUR
picture. Besides... how can you claim copyright on the image of a
product that you do not own the rights too? In this day and time
photos are so easy to produce, post and maintain, I just dont get it.
I also dont get it when you scan old manuals etc. and post it on the
internet and claim copyright on it. Had a guy bitchin' on the forum
because someone stole a scan of Zenith ad material that he stole from
Zenith. Screwed up world we live in.
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> IGot2P wrote:
>> In short, there is no perfect solution; the best you can do is slow
>> users down a bit using the table background trick that I used in the
>> page or some other coding trick. Feel free to look at the code and copy
>> it if you so desire. I am not familiar with Ron's page but I would think
>> that he could do as I did without much trouble.
> The new thing seems to be converting the image to flash.
> Thats normally rather hard to copy. However, with a
> screen capture program like SnagIt, it's VERY easy. I
> use that to capture street view images on google maps.
Flash... Yuck. It will prevent google from finding your image, and it will
prevent some users and browsers from loading the image quickly (or at
all). I tink the method with the one by one image in the table background
is rather elegant.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Maarten Bakker.
Scott W. Harvey
Besides... how can you claim copyright on the image of a
> product that you do not own the rights too?
The subject in a photo has almost nothing to do with who owns the
copyright. If it did, photos of the world trade center getting hit
couldn't be published without consent of the owners of the buildings,
and Zapruder couldn't have sold his film without consent of the
Kennedys. Photos of objects are permissible and copyrightable under the
following scenarios:
You own the object being photographed.
The object is owned by someone else and you have permission to
photograph it.
The object is in a non-public place where photography is permitted.
The object is in a public place.
> Had a guy bitchin' on the forum
> because someone stole a scan of Zenith ad material that he stole from
> Zenith. Screwed up world we live in.
That IS silly, but....
Depending on when, where, and under what circumstances it was published,
that Zenith ad may now be public domain. If so, then he really didn't
"steal" it, but he can't claim copyright on his scan of it unless he did
something to the ad that adds significant artistic value to it.
-Scott
Bill Turner
COPYRIGHTS? ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAY USE ANYTHING FROM MY WEBSITE
(dialcover.com) AT ANY TIME IS WELCOME TOO. I WOULD APPRECIATE A CREDIT
BUT IT ISN'T NECESSARY. PICTURES OF RADIOS AREN'T SACROSAINT, THEY ARE
AVAILABLE IN HUNDREDS OF PLACES. WHAT WOULD THE VALUE BE, 50 CENTS? A
DOLLAR? CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE DISTURBANCE AS TYPIFIED BY
THIS THREAD.
CHECK MY WEBSITE: www.dialcover.com
Bill Turner, excuse caps, short answers, stroke.
sparky
Bill. Some people are more greedy than others.
.
sidejobscooter
Bill,
It's called intellectual property. It is both thoughtless and dis-honest
to represent someone else's work as your own, even if that
misrepresentation is by omission of citation. This includes photographs
of old radio's and written articles lifted from websites. When someone
uses another's work for profit (ebay etc) then it is downright
fraudulent with a potential loss to the buyer and the owner of the
intellectual property. This is not difficult to understand. If you are
still not clear on the issue you can probably consult any 13 year old
that has passed English composition.
Warmest regards and merry Christmas,
Scott McAuley
ps: you spelled sacrosanct wrong.
Scott W. Harvey
>
> It's called intellectual property. It is both thoughtless and dis-honest
> to represent someone else's work as your own, even if that
> misrepresentation is by omission of citation. This includes photographs
> of old radio's and written articles lifted from websites. When someone
> uses another's work for profit (ebay etc) then it is downright
> fraudulent with a potential loss to the buyer and the owner of the
> intellectual property. This is not difficult to understand. If you are
> still not clear on the issue you can probably consult any 13 year old
> that has passed English composition.
One minor quibble with your interpretation. A photo or book is NOT
intellectual property. I wish it was because if it were, then EVERY old
radio manual or pamphlet would be freely available for anyone to put on
the net and download now without restriction or permission.
For the record, Intellectual property is something innovative that is
patentable, and the patent is good for some fairly long period of time
that allows the patent holder exclusive control over the invention.
(Drugs are a pretty good example of this). Last I heard the period was
19 years after the initial filing, but that might have changed.
A book, movie, or photo is copyrightable, which currently extends 70
years after death of the creator. At the time that most antique radio
manuals were published, the copyright was 28 years with an option to
renew for another 28 years.
So, clearly, one category affords longer protection than another.
It should be noted that software is often both copyrighted as a
published work and patented as an invention. Debate has raged in legal
circles for a long time as to whether this is appropriate or even desirable.
-Scott
Eddie Brimer
If I take a picture of picture of a radio is that my copyrighted
'work"?
Randy
>If I take a picture of picture of a radio is that my copyrighted
>'work"?
Yes, that picture is - as it is the "product" of your labor, skill,
talent, effort, etc. "Things" - choices - such as composition make
your photo different than other people's photos. Timing sometimes
comes into play as well. For instance - a picture of a person
deplaning might be snapped by a dozen photographers - yet only one
wins an award as "best". Why? that's subjective of course - but it's
that "uniqueness" that's subject to copyright.
Copyrights can come in some surprising forms as well- for instance -
if you were to take a dozen songs - all of which are in the public
domain - and assemble them into a compilation - that compliation of
those song can be subject to copyright - even though no copyright
extends to the individual songs. If you were to take a song that is
in the public domain - and create a unique and significant arrangement
of it (such arrangement being more than "simple changes") - then your
arrangement of that public domain song can be subject to copyright.
The point is - it's your unique creation of a "work" (as opposed to a
process) that can be subject to copyright. Dirivitive works also exit
- that gets really complicated really fast - but there are allowances
where dirivitive works (say your satire of another work) can both be
allowed and enjoy it's own copyright. But as noted - these issues can
get real complicated real fast.
best regards...
rg
Randy
>Dirivitive (should be derivative) works also exit (should be exist) (blasted computers!)
rg
Scott W. Harvey
>
> If I take a picture of picture of a radio is that my copyrighted
> 'work"?
No, whoever took the original picture owns the copyright, unless that
person sold the rights or the original picture has been placed into the
public domain. It's no different from scanning something from a book or
magazine.
-Scott
John Robertson
"It's a poor workman who blames his tools"
(ducking)
John ;-#)#
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
William Sommerwerck
I've never liked that expression. It makes no sense. It would more
accurately be...
"It's an unskilled workman who blames his tools."
John Robertson
Well, it could be that because he is poor he can't afford good tools -
or he is poor because he does not buy good tools...
Randy
<NOT_M...@email.com> wrote:
>No, whoever took the original picture owns the copyright, unless that
>person sold the rights or the original picture has been placed into the
>public domain. It's no different from scanning something from a book or
>magazine.
Ah - depends - that is specifically why I mentioned "derivative works"
(Spell checker turned back on = blasted updates!). There are
circumstances (such as parody, satire, etc.) when a "picture of a
picture" might not only be allowable - (fair use) but also subject to
copyright on it's own. Also note the "gets real complicated real
fast"...
rg...
Randy
wrote:
> It's a poor workman who blames his tools"
Well, yeah - but in this case it's the tool maker I was blaming - got
an update the other day - and apparently it reset some of the settings
- including spell checker...
best!
rg
Eddie Brimer
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:01:49 -0800, "Scott W. Harvey"
>
Real complicated. It's not as simple as some want to make it out to
be. If I paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa can I copyright it?
If two people taje the exact same picture of the exact same radio, is
the second one violating copyright?
Bill M
>
> Real complicated. It's not as simple as some want to make it out to
> be. If I paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa can I copyright it?
Probably so. But thats hypothetical and based on the fact that you
cannot 'paint' an exact replica.
> If two people taje the exact same picture of the exact same radio, is
> the second one violating copyright?
Scott touched on this earlier but the way I interpret things is that
BOTH people have copyrights to their work. The copyright is not based
on the subject of the photo in such an example...its based on the
person's "work". We may not be able to distinguish one from the other
but they still both enjoy the same protection.
That raises some other issues..." hey, thats my photo. No ,its MY
photo". Thats what we have courts (and forensic experts) for should it
become an issue.
Ron freely admits that many of the photos are not his own. They were
donated to him and his site for his use. To me, that obliges him to
offer some protection to the donor and Ron isn't out of line in doing so.
I experienced something similar. I have a genealogy-related webpage and
have a few pictures that were donated by private individuals. I've been
asked on several occasions if a guy could use them in a book or
something. I'm not sure of where the legal line is drawn in such a case
but I've always referred the person inquiring back to the person who
allowed me to post his pictures. I think thats the moral and courteous
approach and most people publishing for profit would understand that.
Thats hardly the same as a hapless ebayer simply hotlinking the photos.
A link to another person's site isn't the same as copying the photos
and using them as your own property. But thats a very gray area.
-Bill M
graham
"John Robertson" <sp...@flippers.com> wrote in message news:5SuZm.59022$PH1.58694@edtnps82...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."
>>
>> I've never liked that expression. It makes no sense. It would more
>> accurately be...
>>
>> "It's an unskilled workman who blames his tools."
>>
>>
>
> Well, it could be that because he is poor he can't afford good tools - or he is poor because he does not buy good
> tools...
>
> John ;-#)#
.... one would think ...
if he was a good workman, he could afford the tools ...
Scott W. Harvey
picture of a picture. If it is enhanced with commentary or critique, or
the picture itself has been artistically enhanced, then it MIGHT be a
horse of a different color.
And then again, maybe not. There is a case that is currently going
around the courts pertaining to the Obama "HOPE" poster. The original
Obama image used in the poster was lifted from an AP news story. The
artist massaged it heavily with Photoshop, making it look more like a
drawing with stark contrasts and heavy blue and red colorations. It
could certainly be argued that the image in question was artistically
and editorially enhanced (The original photo is a completely ordinary
photo of Obama, indistinguishable from thousands of other like photos
taken of Obama during his campaign). Nonetheless, AP is suing because
the artist did not get permission to use the image.
-Scott
Scott W. Harvey
> Eddie Brimer wrote:
>>
>> Real complicated. It's not as simple as some want to make it out to
>> be. If I paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa can I copyright it?
>
> Probably so. But thats hypothetical and based on the fact that you
> cannot 'paint' an exact replica.
>
>
>> If two people taje the exact same picture of the exact same radio, is
>> the second one violating copyright?
>
> Scott touched on this earlier but the way I interpret things is that
> BOTH people have copyrights to their work. The copyright is not based
> on the subject of the photo in such an example...its based on the
> person's "work". We may not be able to distinguish one from the other
> but they still both enjoy the same protection.
>
> That raises some other issues..." hey, thats my photo. No ,its MY
> photo". Thats what we have courts (and forensic experts) for should it
> become an issue.
The question raised is interesting, but really moot. It is technically
impossible to take the exact same image twice with a camera. If you
think it isn't, go ahead and try it...take a digital camera, put it on a
tripod, point it at an object, and take two pictures. Take the two JPEGs
that are produced (or if you are a real stickler for accuracy, the RAW
files) and compare the files bit for bit (or easier, just do a checksum
on each and compare them). They will NOT be exactly the same, no matter
how careful you are when you take the pictures. Sure, they may look the
same with the naked eye, but they won't be exactly the same.
If such a thing were possible, then Bill M is correct. Each photo would
have its own copyright, and both would be perfectly legal and enforceable.
-Scott
Registered User
wrote:
>Eddie Brimer wrote:
>>
>> Real complicated. It's not as simple as some want to make it out to
>> be. If I paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa can I copyright it?
>
>Probably so. But thats hypothetical and based on the fact that you
>cannot 'paint' an exact replica.
>
If the painting were patented it would be considered prior art (sri
couldn't resist).
>
>> If two people taje the exact same picture of the exact same radio, is
>> the second one violating copyright?
>
>Scott touched on this earlier but the way I interpret things is that
>BOTH people have copyrights to their work. The copyright is not based
>on the subject of the photo in such an example...its based on the
>person's "work". We may not be able to distinguish one from the other
>but they still both enjoy the same protection.
>
>That raises some other issues..." hey, thats my photo. No ,its MY
>photo". Thats what we have courts (and forensic experts) for should it
>become an issue.
>
Patents, copyrights, trademarks etc. all require some degree of
protection. Proof of ownership is a good place to start.
>Ron freely admits that many of the photos are not his own. They were
>donated to him and his site for his use. To me, that obliges him to
>offer some protection to the donor and Ron isn't out of line in doing so.
>
>I experienced something similar. I have a genealogy-related webpage and
>have a few pictures that were donated by private individuals. I've been
>asked on several occasions if a guy could use them in a book or
>something. I'm not sure of where the legal line is drawn in such a case
>but I've always referred the person inquiring back to the person who
>allowed me to post his pictures. I think thats the moral and courteous
>approach and most people publishing for profit would understand that.
>
These individuals understand their need to obtain reproduction rights
for such materials. Most of the 'donors' probably did not explicitly
transfer copyright ownership. The owner is the one who should pursue
unauthorized/unlicensed reproduction.
>Thats hardly the same as a hapless ebayer simply hotlinking the photos.
>
Absolutely.
> A link to another person's site isn't the same as copying the photos
>and using them as your own property. But thats a very gray area.
>
It's a gray area because after the initial take-down request, things
can get expensive. The reality is an endless series of battles in a
war which will bankrupt the average Joe. Watermarking is the best way
to avoid Pyrrhic victories.
Eddie Brimer
Generally speaking a photo of a three dimensional object can be
copyrighted. Pictures of a two dimensional object cannot. In other
words, my example of a picture of the Mona Lisa cannot be
copyrighted. Unless......