Copyright question..
Ravey
I am a digital artist working with photography and 3D programs as well as
freehand.
I am designing a poster and came across a photo of a man in a book that
would fit ideally in my image although manipulated quite a bit and with
other images over the top. The original pic is copyrighted and I was
wondering if anyone knew the rules about whether I would be infringing that
copyright if the image was changed considerably to suit what I wanted to do
with it. Where are the lines drawn?
Please advise me:
d.had...@virgin.net
Curtis Leeds
Ravey wrote:
>
> I am a digital artist...
> I am designing a poster and came across a photo of a man in a book that
> would fit ideally in my image although manipulated quite a bit and with
> other images over the top. The original pic is copyrighted and I was
> wondering if anyone knew the rules about whether I would be infringing that
> copyright if the image was changed considerably to suit what I wanted to do
> with it. Where are the lines drawn?
If the original image is copyrighted, then it means that
"all rights" are reserved. That would apply to your "right"
to copy the image for the purpose of manipulating it. The
extent that you would alter that image is moot if the mere
act of copying it prior to manipulation is itself a
violation.
--
***************************************************
cle...@idt.net "I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause." (Bob Dylan)
***************************************************
Brian Yarvin
Ravey wrote:
>
> I am a digital artist working with photography and 3D programs as well as
> freehand.
>
> would fit ideally in my image although manipulated quite a bit and with
> other images over the top. The original pic is copyrighted and I was
> wondering if anyone knew the rules about whether I would be infringing that
> copyright if the image was changed considerably to suit what I wanted to do
> with it. Where are the lines drawn?
> d.had...@virgin.net
The line is drawn as soon as you copy the image from the book. I believe
that no amount of manipulation will seperate that image from its'
copyright.
Think of it this way (the copyright owner will!) If you stole money from
a bank, how much of that money would you have to convert to foreign
currency before you were excused for the bank theft?
I suggest you read many of the excellent web pages on copyright.
Brian
sho...@ibm.net
>I believe that no amount of manipulation will seperate that image from
>its' copyright.
This would be a "derivative work" - rights to which are reserved to the
copyright owner of the original work.
>I suggest you read many of the excellent web pages on copyright.
Here's a few:
Copyright FAQ
http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
Oppedahl & Larson pages
http://www.patents.com/index.sht
The Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/
Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger
Hi,
I subscribe to the weekly journal BJP (British Journal of Photography) and also
Professional Photographer (monthly). Both these publications give many
excellent reports on a variety of photographic and digital topics. To me, they
are a must and are available from your local newsagent by special order or by
subscription from the respective publishers. One has a URL which is
www.bjphoto.co.uk and the other is an email address marke...@dial.pipex.com
In one of them quite recently, the very subject that you are raising was
discussed at length and was as a result of a lengthy courtcase. The findings
were that in principle, you would not be able to make your image digitally if
you did not in the first place have a template (the original photograph) to
work from. The court decided that it did not matter how much the original
photograph had been altered (the case in question referred to an image which
was totally removed from it's original to the point that it was hardly
recogniseable), the fact that the photograph had been used was in breech of
copyright. The user was found guilty of using the copyrighted image without
approval or consent and had to make a heavy recompense to the original
photographer.
I would therefore say to you - unless you know the copyright holder of the
photograph you want to use and get his permission - don't use it - it could
cost you a small fortune in compensation!!
Scan the web for royalty free images for safety.
Regards
Aaron Brunger
AB Photography
Woody
In article <01bd75b1$2d544300$2a79a8c2@packard>, "Ravey"
<d.had...@virgin.net> wrote:
>I am a digital artist working with photography and 3D programs as well as
>freehand.
>
>I am designing a poster and came across a photo of a man in a book that
>would fit ideally in my image although manipulated quite a bit and with
>other images over the top. The original pic is copyrighted and I was
>wondering if anyone knew the rules about whether I would be infringing that
>copyright if the image was changed considerably to suit what I wanted to do
>with it. Where are the lines drawn?
>Please advise me:
>d.had...@virgin.net
There was a case quite a few years ago where a well known sports
photographer successfully sued a painter who had produced a limited
edition run of prints which, although they were substantially different
form the original, were deemed by the Judge to have infringed the "spirit
of the legislation".
Regardless of the legality, its morally pretty shoddy to produce work
based on someone elses without at least asking first.
Woody
--
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S Thompson
-------------------
Remove spammenot to reply by email.
Ghengus Khan
Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger <aa...@kingspark.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> In one of them quite recently, the very subject that you are raising was
> discussed at length and was as a result of a lengthy courtcase. The findings
> were that in principle, you would not be able to make your image digitally if
> you did not in the first place have a template (the original photograph) to
> work from. The court decided that it did not matter how much the original
> photograph had been altered (the case in question referred to an image which
> was totally removed from it's original to the point that it was hardly
> recogniseable), the fact that the photograph had been used was in breech of
> copyright. The user was found guilty of using the copyrighted image without
> approval or consent and had to make a heavy recompense to the original
> photographer.
How did the guy get caught? If it had been unrecognizable, he wouldn't have
been caught.
One of the problems with Web is that normal rules don't apply. If you post a
picture on a web server, you are posting it with the expectation that it will
be copied. That is the only way it can be seen. it gets copied into memory,
and with most browsers an image will be stored on the hard drive. Therefore
having a a copyrighted image, and even modifying it, is probably perfectly
legal. Reposting it on a web sight, or redistributing it is another thing
entirely, and calling it your own would be even worse. I realizing I'm this
thread is concerned with British law, but copyright laws are somewhat the same
on both sides of the sea.
--
Liberty ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty :Freedom is first earned
liberty...@revolutionist.com :by demanding it. Its lost by
:forgetting its value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
evp...@insync.net
Not true! Not True at all, especially if the site, contents of the site,
and/or individual images are clearly posted as being copyrighted material! I
am not a lawyer but I know that there is lots of legal rulings about this.
With freedom comes individual responsibility.
In article <354dee88...@news.c-com.net>#1/1,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ghengus Khan
evp...@insync.net wrote:
> Not true! Not True at all, especially if the site, contents of the site,
> and/or individual images are clearly posted as being copyrighted material! I
> am not a lawyer but I know that there is lots of legal rulings about this.
> With freedom comes individual responsibility.
What part of what I said isn't true? ..If its legal for me to browse the site
then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will leave
a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
illegal for me to browse it.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any case history. But I do know common
sense, and it just stands to reason that if its illegal for me to copy or to
store a copy, then it must be illegal for me to browse with Netscape or IE.
Keith Whaley
kh...@phoenix.net (Ghengus Khan) said:
<<What part of what I said isn't true? ..If its legal for me to browse
the site
then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will
leave
a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
illegal for me to browse it.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any case history. But I do know
common
sense, and it just stands to reason that if its illegal for me to copy
or to
store a copy, then it must be illegal for me to browse with Netscape or
IE. >>
You misunderstood, I think.
It's never against any law anywhere for you to make a copy of anything
that's already a part of public record, such as a web site.
What could be illegal is what you DO with that information you just
copied.
If you re-publish it later and claim it's your own output, that's a big
no-no.
If you re-distribute any of it and get money for doing so, that's
another no-no.
If all you want to do is make a copy for your own personal use, and do
nothing else with it, there is no law broken.
Just don't make what you've copied be a part of what you later publish
or otherwise expose to the public. That's what's against the law,
without getting written permission from the original author.
keith whaley
Daniel Pead
In article <354dee88...@news.c-com.net>, Ghengus Khan
<kh...@phoenix.net> writes
>One of the problems with Web is that normal rules don't apply. If you post a
>picture on a web server, you are posting it with the expectation that it will
>be copied. That is the only way it can be seen. it gets copied into memory,
>and with most browsers an image will be stored on the hard drive. Therefore
>having a a copyrighted image, and even modifying it, is probably perfectly
>legal.
In order to see a printed image you have to make a temporary copy (on
your retina!) and you might even store a copy (in your memory) and you
have the opportunity to rip off words, pictures and music by re-creating
something similar from memory. Whats the difference?
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
Anthony
Keith Whaley wrote in message <354E83...@earthlink.net>...
>It's never against any law anywhere for you to make a copy of anything
>that's already a part of public record, such as a web site.
Web sites are not in the public domain unless they are explicitly marked as
such, and anyone who believes otherwise can get into a lot of trouble. Web
sites are not public records, either. Even when a web site is explicitly
identified as public domain, it is possible that part of its contents might
not be. When in doubt, copyright applies, not public domain.
>What could be illegal is what you DO with that information you just
>copied.
Just making a copy of it can be illegal. Nothing beyond what is necessary
to actually view the site is permitted without the permission of the
copyright holder for the site. Technically, you cannot even save a copy of
a graphic that you find on the site for your own use (in most
jurisdictions), although few copyright owners seem to pursue this, I think.
>If all you want to do is make a copy for your own personal use, and do
>nothing else with it, there is no law broken.
That depends on the jurisdiction.
I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
-- Anthony
Anthony
Daniel Pead wrote in message ...
>In order to see a printed image you have to make a temporary copy (on
>your retina!) and you might even store a copy (in your memory) and you
>have the opportunity to rip off words, pictures and music by re-creating
>something similar from memory. Whats the difference?
Honesty.
--
Anthony
Phill Hugo
Ghengus Khan (kh...@phoenix.net) wrote:
: Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger <aa...@kingspark.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
: > In one of them quite recently, the very subject that you are raising was
: > discussed at length and was as a result of a lengthy courtcase. The findings
: > were that in principle, you would not be able to make your image digitally if
: > you did not in the first place have a template (the original photograph) to
: > work from. The court decided that it did not matter how much the original
: > photograph had been altered (the case in question referred to an image which
: > was totally removed from it's original to the point that it was hardly
: > recogniseable), the fact that the photograph had been used was in breech of
: > copyright. The user was found guilty of using the copyrighted image without
: > approval or consent and had to make a heavy recompense to the original
: > photographer.
: How did the guy get caught? If it had been unrecognizable, he wouldn't have
: been caught.
: One of the problems with Web is that normal rules don't apply. If you post a
: picture on a web server, you are posting it with the expectation that it will
: be copied. That is the only way it can be seen. it gets copied into memory,
: and with most browsers an image will be stored on the hard drive. Therefore
: having a a copyrighted image, and even modifying it, is probably perfectly
: legal. Reposting it on a web sight, or redistributing it is another thing
: entirely, and calling it your own would be even worse. I realizing I'm this
: thread is concerned with British law, but copyright laws are somewhat the same
: on both sides of the sea.
Except that the owner of the work on the web server has given permission
for download, view, cache storage and NOTHING ELSE. Anything beyond that
will cause problems.
Phill
Scott Royer
Keith Whaley wrote:
>
> kh...@phoenix.net (Ghengus Khan) said:
>
> <<What part of what I said isn't true? ..If its legal for me to browse
> the site
> then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will
> leave
> a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
> illegal for me to browse it.
>
> I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any case history. But I do know
> common
> sense, and it just stands to reason that if its illegal for me to copy
> or to
> store a copy, then it must be illegal for me to browse with Netscape or
> IE. >>
>
> You misunderstood, I think.
> that's already a part of public record, such as a web site.
> copied.
>
> no-no.
> If you re-distribute any of it and get money for doing so, that's
> another no-no.
>
> nothing else with it, there is no law broken.
> or otherwise expose to the public. That's what's against the law,
> without getting written permission from the original author.
>
> keith whaley
I agree in principle, even if it is not abvsolutely legally correct.
After all, everyone makes copies of tv shows to view late, and this is
also technically illegal.
John Francis
In article <3551888e...@news.c-com.net>,
Ghengus Khan <kh...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
>What part of what I said isn't true? ..If its legal for me to browse the site
>then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will leave
>a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
>illegal for me to browse it.
>
>I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any case history. But I do know common
>sense, and it just stands to reason that if its illegal for me to copy or to
>store a copy, then it must be illegal for me to browse with Netscape or IE.
Your first problem is assuming that common sense is in any way applicable to law.
Beyond that - viewing in a browser (and the resulting copy in your browser cache)
could be argued to be a permitted use implicitly granted by the copyright holder
when he put the item up on the server. Assuming that this gives you a general
right to make and distribute copies as you see fit is extremely questionable.
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Unsolicited electronic mail will be subject to a $100 handling fee.
evp...@insync.net
In article <6io64p$ch...@fido.asd.sgi.com>#1/1,
Hi there all, this is Ellis again, responding to some of the interesting
things said, including "Gengus Khan"'s original post. Mr. "Gengus" you assume
that because an image has been published in such a way that it is availible
on the browser that you use, it is therefore "free" for your, shall be polite
and say "appropriation." My opinion is that this is analogous to saying I am
walking down a street, your street, and I see a car in a driveway. Your
driveway, and i like the way it looks, and besides that I am tired of doing
something original, like walking: an activity I do with my two feet not
someone else's. By your "logic" it is okay for me to "appropriate" aka
"steal" your automobile. Because after all it uses the same street that I
use. Secondly, you sign off with some vaguely libertarian slogan about
freedom. As you grow wiser I think that you will discover that as Bono so
eloquently put it on the song "Please" from U2's "Pop" CD; "that what you
thought was freedom was just free". I think a closer examination of your
nom-de-web "Gengus Khan" is more revealing of the state of your moral
values: tyrannical and extremely self centered. That is fine as long as you
don't try to inflict them on the rest of us. Finally, I think R. said
in his posting "I think it is illegal to tape TV shows." I am not a lawyer,
but I believe that is only true if you are going to rebroadcast the
transmission, or charge admission for showing that tape." These are just
my opinions. Ellis Vener, evp...@insync.net Unsolicited electronic mail will
be subject to a $150 handling fee.
Ghengus Khan
Keith Whaley <keit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> kh...@phoenix.net (Ghengus Khan) said:
>
> <<What part of what I said isn't true? ..If its legal for me to browse
> the site
> then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will
> leave
> a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
> illegal for me to browse it.
>
> I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any case history. But I do know
> common
> sense, and it just stands to reason that if its illegal for me to copy
> or to
> store a copy, then it must be illegal for me to browse with Netscape or
> IE. >>
>
> You misunderstood, I think.
> It's never against any law anywhere for you to make a copy of anything
> that's already a part of public record, such as a web site.
> What could be illegal is what you DO with that information you just
> copied.
I think I got it right, and meant to say precicly what you have said bellow.
> If you re-publish it later and claim it's your own output, that's a big
> no-no.
> If you re-distribute any of it and get money for doing so, that's
> another no-no.
Yup, I and everyone that I've seen in these threads all seem to agree with
this.
> If all you want to do is make a copy for your own personal use, and do
> nothing else with it, there is no law broken.
> Just don't make what you've copied be a part of what you later publish
> or otherwise expose to the public. That's what's against the law,
> without getting written permission from the original author.
This is where others have disagreed. You can do what ever wish with the
material you download as long as it it remains in the realm of your own
personal possesion and not distributed. Everything the Web is presumed to be
covered by copyright, unless stated otherwise. To follow some folks reasoning
it would be illegal to simply view it with a browser, or even worse to print a
web page. Even librarys have copying machines today. I realize that there are
many Jurisidictions and several interpratations of copyright law, but for
folks to say that it is illegal to have a copy of anything on the Web is
rediculous. When the very proccess of viewing it creates a copy. There is also
the claim that its Illegal to modify a picture downloaded from the web, Its
illegal to draw a moustaches on the sunday paper??
BTW: according to these peoples reasoning its illegal to download USenet also.
The artcles we type are protected under copyright law. Some of the articles I
doanload I keep for several months.
Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger
Hi Phil and other posters to this question,
Problem with quoting from individual postings is that sometimes one part of one
posting gets twinned with the posting from another.
The text below that Phil wrote picks up on half of my posting and some of another.
Regarding the case in question where Phil refers " How did the guy get caught? If
it had been unrecognizable, he wouldn't have been caught."
My actual comment as quoted below says "hardly recogniseable"!
My answer to that is that Most photographers know their own work. I certainly do.
The case in question related to an image that was used on a cover of a CD of a well
known group.
I believe the photographer was a fan of that group and on buying the CD recognised
that the CD Cover was a photograph he'd taken for a particular commission (which
copyright etc had been approved). Originally he approached the distributors of the
CD, but, being large , they thought the photographer would slink away with his camera
between his legs - but he didn't. If I recall correctly, the company were fined more
heavily because they felt their size and reputation would protect them from small fry
suing.
As a freelance professional photographer, I apply copyright to every image I produce.
I work on the principle, "if you want to use it - pay for it" after all, repro's is
part of my income.
Copyright has always been a shambles in the past, but UK professional organisations
are getting their act together and incorporating much clearer guidelines to
copyright.
As far as the Web is concerned, it is my understanding that there are basically two
areas in respect of copyright. That is Public domain and Private Homepages etc.
Public domain often applies to "Royalty Free" images whereas Homepages are
invariably copyrighted unless specifically stated.
However, images posted to public domain sites can also be covered by Copyright. It
is a question of reading the text as well as looking at the pictures that are posted.
For myself, all my work is digitally watermarked prior to posting to the galleries I
use and I am advised whenever the image is accessed.
Actual case scenario: I recently went into a site where it showed 13 images of one
of the many models I work with. These photos had been posted originally to 12
newsgroups by the photographer without permission as no model release had been signed
by the model for those photos to be posted to the Web. The webmaster of the site had
pulled them from the newsgroup and put them onto his site. However, he immediately
removed the photos (sensible person) after I contacted him on behalf of the model (I
was not the photographer for these photos). The model is now taking legal action
against the photographer for posting his images to the web.
Anyone could download those photos (prior to removal) for their own personal use
(thats the rules as they apply), however, if those photos appear anywhere else on the
web or in any magazine or public place, then whoever permits them to be "published"
(published applies to all and every form of media), is in breach of copyright to the
model (not the photographer) as permission wasn't given to the photographer to post
them in the first place.
Perhaps now you may see how complicated copyright can be.
In conclusion, the simple solution is "If it's not your own work, don't use it unless
you have written authority to do so"
Regards to all
Aaron
AB Photography
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Don Smith
In article <3551888e...@news.c-com.net>, kh...@phoenix.net (Ghengus Khan) wrote:
>evp...@insync.net wrote:
>
>> Not true! Not True at all, especially if the site, contents of the site,
>> and/or individual images are clearly posted as being copyrighted material! I
>> am not a lawyer but I know that there is lots of legal rulings about this.
>> With freedom comes individual responsibility.
>
>then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will leave
>a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
>illegal for me to browse it.
Not according to Copyright law or the recently signed NET Act, the No
Electronic Theft act.
If an author writes something to their or the ISP disk, that's a
"tangible medium" which places those works under copyright law.
If you save images or source code which is of a certain value ($5K ?)
then those works fall under the NET Act, which can get you 3 years in
jail and $250,000 fine.
Using your analogy of "if its legal for me to browse hte site then it
has to be legal for me to have a copy of it"... If I go into a bank and
they give me cash because I cashed a check, that doesn't give me the
right to create my own copies of the currency
For reference there's some good books about copyright and digital
rights at:
http://www.oneworld-design.com/bstore.html
Don
Bill Newkirk
I believe there's an exemption for home taping of radio and TV.
was a big fuss over this years ago when home VTRs were new and
there were some that thought that broadcast TV should not be
recordable. at that time, there was an exemption for home
taping (the common thing to do was to move LPs into cassettes
to save the record from repeated playing damage and to be able
to use the tape in the car. had the manufacturers of the LPs and
cassettes improved the quality of the cassettes somewhat,
people probably would have just bought the tape in the first place.)
Scott Royer wrote in message <354F9A...@desupernet.net>...
Wally Mayo
...
> >
> > You misunderstood, I think.
> > It's never against any law anywhere for you to make a copy of anything
> > that's already a part of public record, such as a web site.
> > What could be illegal is what you DO with that information you just
> > copied.
> >
> > no-no.
> > If you re-distribute any of it and get money for doing so, that's
> > another no-no.
> >
> > nothing else with it, there is no law broken.
> > Just don't make what you've copied be a part of what you later publish
> > or otherwise expose to the public. That's what's against the law,
> > without getting written permission from the original author.
> >
>
> I agree in principle, even if it is not abvsolutely legally correct.
> After all, everyone makes copies of tv shows to view late, and this is
> also technically illegal.
Hold on a minute. Be on a web site does not mean much ("public record").
Plenty of copyrighted stuff is on web pages. Just watch for the
copyright
claim (symbol etc.), although latest law says copyright holder does not
have to place notice on it anymore. However, if one cares and wished to
press rights and/or litigate, it must be registered, and it would make
sense to post notice. Incidently, the "for profit" provision is no
longer
a consideration for violation. That is, you DON'T have to make any
profit and you
still could be in violation (changed with the 1976 new law).
Now, all that said, courts and congress have established that having
stuff in cashe on computer is NO violation. It is considered OK and
LEGAL.
So, no worries mate.
Wally Mayo
...
> > You misunderstood, I think.
> > It's never against any law anywhere for you to make a copy of anything
> > that's already a part of public record, such as a web site.
> > What could be illegal is what you DO with that information you just
> > copied.
> >
> > If you re-publish it later and claim it's your own output, that's a big
> > no-no.
> > If you re-distribute any of it and get money for doing so, that's
> > another no-no.
> >
> > If all you want to do is make a copy for your own personal use, and do
> > nothing else with it, there is no law broken.
> > Just don't make what you've copied be a part of what you later publish
> > or otherwise expose to the public. That's what's against the law,
> > without getting written permission from the original author.
Hold on a minute. Be on a web site does not mean much ("public record").
Plenty of copyrighted stuff is on web pages. Just watch for the
copyright
claim (symbol etc.), although latest law says copyright holder does not
have to place notice on it anymore. However, if one cares and wished to
press rights and/or litigate, it must be registered, and it would make
sense to post notice. Incidently, the "for profit" provision is no
longer
a consideration for violation. That is, you DON'T have to make any
profit and you
still could be in violation (changed with the 1976 new law).
Now, all that said, courts and congress have established that having
stuff in cashe on computer is NO violation. It is considered OK and
LEGAL.
So, no worries mate.
Oh, regarding TV show taping, I believe "time shifting" video/music
by audio/video tape is allowable by special provision.
Dominic Young
In article <3551becf...@news.c-com.net>, Ghengus Khan
<kh...@phoenix.net> writes
>>You can do what ever wish with the material you download as long as it
it remains in the realm of your own personal possesion and not
distributed.<<
If you're trying to imply that it is *legal* to do anything you want
then you're wrong. You might be *able* to do it, and you probably won't
be caught, but it's not legal.
>>To follow some folks reasoning it would be illegal to simply view it
with a browser, or even worse to print a web page.<<
Obviously if you're viewing a webpage which has been posted publically
(and you are complying with any terms and conditions on the page) then
there is an *implied* licence to do whatever you need to in order to
view it. This obviously includes making copies in RAM and (arguably)
your local disk cache. The fact that you have to do these things to view
the page doesn't mean you can also do anything else.
>>Even librarys have copying machines today.<<
There are special provisions in the UK Copyright Act specifically to
deal with (and limit) what libraries do with copying machines.
>>I realize that there are many Jurisidictions and several
interpratations of copyright law, but for folks to say that it is
illegal to have a copy of anything on the Web is rediculous. When the
very proccess of viewing it creates a copy. There is also the claim that
its Illegal to modify a picture downloaded from the web, Its illegal to
draw a moustaches on the sunday paper?? <<
Actually it could be. The UK Copyright Act includes several "moral
rights" in which the creator of something has the right to object to
it's "mutilation". If that right is asserted then drawing a moustache on
a picture might well infringe it. Obviously, though, the chance of
getting caught and someone taking action are so small that it's a
trivial risk.
>>BTW: according to these peoples reasoning its illegal to download
USenet also. The artcles we type are protected under copyright law. Some
of the articles I doanload I keep for several months. <<
--
Dominic Young
Dominic Young
In article <IJs$SUAnLv...@octpen.demon.co.uk>, Daniel Pead
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> writes
>In order to see a printed image you have to make a temporary copy (on
>your retina!) and you might even store a copy (in your memory) and you
>have the opportunity to rip off words, pictures and music by re-creating
>something similar from memory. Whats the difference?
>
Hardly a helpful comparison. But since you ask the difference is that
the copies you allude to aren't fixed in a "tangible" form, as required
by copyright law. And before anyone starts, let's not bother getting
into an argument about what "tangible" means. It's been argued in court
plenty.
--
Dominic Young
Ghengus Khan
Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger <aa...@kingspark.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
Some one who seems to understand copyright law!! :) maybe he can explain
things a little clearer.
> As a freelance professional photographer, I apply copyright to every image I produce.
>
> I work on the principle, "if you want to use it - pay for it" after all, repro's is
> part of my income.
But do you have to pay for it to use it for your own purposes. If I see a
copyrighted work on a web page do I have the legal right to stab my print
icon? If the work is to stay in my own home for my viewing pleasure.
> Copyright has always been a shambles in the past, but UK professional organisations
> are getting their act together and incorporating much clearer guidelines to
> copyright.
Its also getting more standardized for nation to nation.
> As far as the Web is concerned, it is my understanding that there are basically two
> areas in respect of copyright. That is Public domain and Private Homepages etc.
> Public domain often applies to "Royalty Free" images whereas Homepages are
> invariably copyrighted unless specifically stated.
What makes a page public domain or a private homepage?
> In conclusion, the simple solution is "If it's not your own work, don't use it unless
> you have written authority to do so"
>
What is use? I think we can agree its legal to use it for ones own private
purposes, but as long as the image doesn't get displayed, or distributed to
others for fun or profit you can do whatever you like with it.
Dominic Young
In article <355b1c32....@news.c-com.net>, Ghengus Khan
<kh...@phoenix.net> writes
>What makes a page public domain or a private homepage?
Be careful with your terminology. Generally "public domain" means "no
copyright". This applies to works in which copyright has expired
(currently this happens 70 years after the death of the author in the
UK) or if it is put in the public domain by statute (eg most works
produced by employees of the federal government in the USA). Everything
else is "copyrighted". There has been some discussion I have seen about
whether it is even possible to release a copyright work to the public
domain in other circumstances and it was generally agreed that it is
not, although it is possible to release it with such a broad licence as
to have virtually the same affect. However this has to be done
explicitly. Therefore it is a very, very unwise thing to assume
*anything* is in the public domain unless you are absolutely certain
about it.
--
Dominic Young
Ghengus Khan
jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com (John Francis) wrote:
> In article <3551888e...@news.c-com.net>,
> Ghengus Khan <kh...@phoenix.net> wrote:
> >
> >What part of what I said isn't true? ..If its legal for me to browse the site
> >then it has to be legal for me to have a copy of it. Most browsers will leave
> >a copy in their cache. If its illegal for me to have a copy, it must be
> >illegal for me to browse it.
> >
> >I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any case history. But I do know common
> >sense, and it just stands to reason that if its illegal for me to copy or to
> >store a copy, then it must be illegal for me to browse with Netscape or IE.
>
> Your first problem is assuming that common sense is in any way applicable to law.
> Beyond that - viewing in a browser (and the resulting copy in your browser cache)
> could be argued to be a permitted use implicitly granted by the copyright holder
> when he put the item up on the server. Assuming that this gives you a general
> right to make and distribute copies as you see fit is extremely questionable.
I haven't seen anyone claim it is legal to distrubute or display it in public.
My only claim was that its legal to to copy it, print it and view it privatly.
The original claim was that its illegal to copy anything downloaded from the
web. My claim was that this is false. If I like a picture I see on the web I
can copy it on my harddrive modify it change it any way I like print it and
burn it if I like. It is not legal for me to sell it. give it away, repost it.
or display it in public.
Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger
Hi all,
Ghengus Khan wrote:
> Aaron Derrick Jon Brunger <aa...@kingspark.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some one who seems to understand copyright law!! :) maybe he can explain
> things a little clearer.
>
> > As a freelance professional photographer, I apply copyright to every image I produce.
> >
> > I work on the principle, "if you want to use it - pay for it" after all, repro's is
> > part of my income.
>
> But do you have to pay for it to use it for your own purposes. If I see a
> copyrighted work on a web page do I have the legal right to stab my print
> icon? If the work is to stay in my own home for my viewing pleasure.
> My Answer to your comment is this: It is my understanding that any image can be used by
> an individual for their own personal use within the confines of their own home/property
> providing that it is only for their own personal use. For it to be displayed in your
> home/property as an altered image or as an image without royalty payment where others
> (friends, guests etc) may view it is again in breach of copyright albeit the chances of
> the copyright holder being aware that you are displaying it in your home is highly
> unlikely. So you can in that respect hit your print icon!
> > Copyright has always been a shambles in the past, but UK professional organisations
> > are getting their act together and incorporating much clearer guidelines to
> > copyright.
>
> Its also getting more standardized for nation to nation.
>
I agree!
> > As far as the Web is concerned, it is my understanding that there are basically two
> > areas in respect of copyright. That is Public domain and Private Homepages etc.
> > Public domain often applies to "Royalty Free" images whereas Homepages are
> > invariably copyrighted unless specifically stated.
>
> What makes a page public domain or a private homepage?
>
>
It is my understanding that Private Homepages are those produced by individuals solely to
promote their own personal issues, likes, dislikes etc. Invariably the photographs are
personal images taken of the homepage builder. Even though the site may not indicate
copyright restrictions, one should consider the images as copyrighted as a matter of common
sense and respect for the individual who posted them.
Public domain images are generally found in commercially produced sites but one must err on
caution as many commercial sites clearly state all images are copyrighted. If all else
fails "read the smallprint".
> > In conclusion, the simple solution is "If it's not your own work, don't use it unless
> > you have written authority to do so"
> >
> What is use? I think we can agree its legal to use it for ones own private
> purposes, but as long as the image doesn't get displayed, or distributed to
> others for fun or profit you can do whatever you like with it.
>
> In short - Agreed
In conlusion, "Improper Use" as far as I am concerned is when an individual, agency,
company, organisation, etc acquire an image (or text) produced by an artist/writer and
reproduces it for public or private viewing (private meaning not for all and sundry but
for others than the acquirer - such as in a private studio or a members only club etc)
without having first obtained permission from the author or photographer or paid a
reproduction fee for permission to use.
I genuinely feel that this subject has now been fully explored and would like to see more
topics of interest posted.
shooter dan
having a a copyrighted image, and even modifying it, is probably perfectly
>> > legal. Reposting it on a web sight, or redistributing it is another
thing
>> > entirely, and calling it your own would be even worse.
I believe even with British law, viewing an image for the time it takes on
your screen is fine, but keeping and manipulating a copy of it in any way is
illegal. You don't own the image. If you want to play with it, contact the
photographer and purchase rights to do so. It is posted to look at, not the
change and work on.
dan smith
Jeff Cochran
>> As a freelance professional photographer, I apply copyright to every image I produce.
>>
>> I work on the principle, "if you want to use it - pay for it" after all, repro's is
>> part of my income.
>
>copyrighted work on a web page do I have the legal right to stab my print
>icon? If the work is to stay in my own home for my viewing pleasure.
You don't have the legal right to reproduce the image, either by
printing it out or any other means, unless you've been given that
right by the copyright holder. It's implied that you have the right
to view it on your screen when viewing the web site, but it's not
implied that you can print that image, even for reference.
But there are really two questions, first, do I have the legal right,
and second, will there be any repercussions. If you print it for
personal reference, you're probably not going to get in trouble, even
if it's technically against the law. If you go beyond that, it's your
lawyer's problem.
Note, electronic reproductions are still in a gray area, but getting
more clear every day.
Jeff
PH
So Karen
I take that your interpretation means that if I book you to photograph my
wedding, and then copy all the proofs for my own personal reference, it
would be OK..
PH......
Karen Simmons wrote in message <356A6C7D...@thedkgallery.com>...
>Jeff Cochran wrote:
>
>> You don't have the legal right to reproduce the image, either by
>> printing it out or any other means, unless you've been given that
>> right by the copyright holder. It's implied that you have the right
>> to view it on your screen when viewing the web site, but it's not
>> implied that you can print that image, even for reference.
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>I may be wayyy off base here - I just don't know enough about this
>aspect of copyright law to be any kind of authority. But...
>
>My understanding is that if you are copying something for your own
>personal use only - i.e. for reference - then it is allowed by law.
>
>For example, if I read something in Time magazine that I find
>interesting and think might be of use to me professionally, it is
>legally allowed for me to make a photocopy of that page and file it away
>for my own reference. It is NOT ok for me to make 20 photocopies of
>that page and route them to my various friends and co-workers.
>
>Wouldn't it work the same way for the web? If I were to read info on a
>site that is of interest to me, I can print one copy for my personal
>use.
>
>Karen
>--
>----------------------------
>Karen Simmons, Photographer
> The DK Gallery
>http://www.thedkgallery.com
>Atlanta, GA 404.233.1230
>----------------------------
Bob Martin
PH wrote:
>
> So Karen
>
> I take that your interpretation means that if I book you to photograph my
> wedding, and then copy all the proofs for my own personal reference, it
If you bought and own the proofs, yes.
Bob
Karen Simmons
PH wrote:
> I take that your interpretation means that if I book you to
> photograph my wedding, and then copy all the proofs for my
> own personal reference, it would be OK..
Yes, if you copied them only for yourself and did not pass them on to
anyone else. If you were to copy all of the proofs and then file them
in a folder and take them out only for your own reference, it would fall
under the "fair use" provisions of the copyright act.
You could not send the copies to anyone else - you could show the copies
to someone, but they could not take them out of your possession.
The kicker is that you cannot make a copy for a purpose where you would
otherwise be required to purchase a copy of the magazine/photo/book.
That's my understanding of how it works. I could be way off base.
sho...@ibm.net
Here are some references that may help:
The Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/
Copyright FAQ
http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
--
Bob
http://www.jps.net/shomler/gallery.htm
Anthony
Sure... it's work for hire, after all. This assumes that you've paid for
the work done, of course (that is, you could not keep the proofs and yet
refuse to pay the photographer, even if you didn't want prints). Much
depends on the agreement you have with the photographer.
I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
--
Anthony
PH wrote in message <6kdslk$ekt$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...
>So Karen
>
>I take that your interpretation means that if I book you to photograph my
>wedding, and then copy all the proofs for my own personal reference, it
>would be OK..
>
>PH......
>
Karen Simmons
Anthony wrote:
>
> Sure... it's work for hire, after all. This assumes that
> you've paid for the work done, of course (that is, you could
> not keep the proofs and yet refuse to pay the photographer,
> even if you didn't want prints). Much depends on the agreement
> you have with the photographer.
Anthony,
One thing - when you hire a photographer to shoot your wedding or your
portraits it is NOT work for hire - or not in the US, anyway. Not unless
the contract states otherwise, that is. Specifically (from the
copyright law)
A "work made for hire" is -
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as
a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a
motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a
translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation,
as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material
for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly
agree in a written instrument signed by them that the
work shall be considered a work made for hire.
Notice that part (2) specifically states that the parties must agree in
writing that the commission constitutes a work for hire.
rachel delaney
I think you are at cross purposes here. If in the UK, you definitely
could not copy photographic proofs by a professional photographer. If a
lab did it for you then both the lab and the technician personally would
be subject a hefty fines.
Karen Simmons wrote:
>
> PH wrote:
>
> > I take that your interpretation means that if I book you to
> > photograph my wedding, and then copy all the proofs for my
> > own personal reference, it would be OK..
>
> Yes, if you copied them only for yourself and did not pass them on to
> anyone else. If you were to copy all of the proofs and then file them
> in a folder and take them out only for your own reference, it would fall
> under the "fair use" provisions of the copyright act.
"fair Use" provisions? I'm not entirely sure of American law on this
subject, but a professional photographer who gave proof prints to
someone would not and should not expect that these proofs will be copied
even for personal use. After all, what would be the point of doing
weddings (in my estimation one of the most stressfuljobs a photographer
can undertake) if you don't make money on the re-prints? That is where
most photographers will manage to recover from the stress - a giant
order for prints. If the subject could just go out and copy them (but
only for their own use!!) then they would be out of a job/car/house.
> You could not send the copies to anyone else - you could show the copies
> to someone, but they could not take them out of your possession.
Where do most wedding photos. stay? .....
> The kicker is that you cannot make a copy for a purpose where you would
> otherwise be required to purchase a copy of the magazine/photo/book.
>
> That's my understanding of how it works. I could be way off base.
>
> Karen
You definitely are way off base for UK-ers, but if you are spot on for
USA phtographers remind me never to send any of my photos. over there!
Rachel Delaney
Senior Photographer
University of Stirling
I don't do weddings - far too stressful!
Photoshopper
>Jeff Cochran wrote:
>
>> You don't have the legal right to reproduce the image, either by
>> printing it out or any other means, unless you've been given that
>> right by the copyright holder. It's implied that you have the right
>> to view it on your screen when viewing the web site, but it's not
>> implied that you can print that image, even for reference.
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>I may be wayyy off base here - I just don't know enough about this
>aspect of copyright law to be any kind of authority. But...
>
>My understanding is that if you are copying something for your own
>personal use only - i.e. for reference - then it is allowed by law.
Folk legend.
>For example, if I read something in Time magazine that I find
>interesting and think might be of use to me professionally, it is
>legally allowed for me to make a photocopy of that page and file it away
>for my own reference.
'Legally allowed' is the key here. No, it isn't. In fact, it is
strictly prohibited. However, prosecuting such an offense would be
ludicrous, so it won't happen. That doesn't make it legal though.
> It is NOT ok for me to make 20 photocopies of
>that page and route them to my various friends and co-workers.
>Wouldn't it work the same way for the web? If I were to read info on a
>site that is of interest to me, I can print one copy for my personal
>use.
Nope.. not unless there is a specific notice that you can.
Again, whether or not someone would go after you for doing it it
another matter.
Karen Simmons
Photoshopper wrote:
>> For example, if I read something in Time magazine that I find
>> interesting and think might be of use to me professionally,
>> it is legally allowed for me to make a photocopy of that page
>> and file it away for my own reference.
> 'Legally allowed' is the key here. No, it isn't. In fact, it is
> strictly prohibited. However, prosecuting such an offense would be
> ludicrous, so it won't happen. That doesn't make it legal though.
Ok, I was right and wrong. According to the Copyright Law I *am*
allowed to make a personal copy of something for research purposes (like
copying the aforesaid page of Time Magazine to use later to quote in a
company report). The section of the law is below:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106
and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
^^^^^^^^
However, there are criteria to be met where "fair use" applies and one
of them is how the copying effects the market and value of the item(s)
copied:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of a commercial
nature <snip>
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work.
So based on the above, if I make copies of photographs in order to not
pay the price of reprints and my making those copies damages the
photographer's market for the images (by limiting his/her ability to
sell those images to members of the bride and grooms family, for
example), then it is not fair use.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I learned something this evening.
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
On Tue, 26 May 1998 17:51:52 +0200, "Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sure... it's work for hire, after all. This assumes that you've paid for
>the work done, of course (that is, you could not keep the proofs and yet
>refuse to pay the photographer, even if you didn't want prints). Much
>depends on the agreement you have with the photographer.
There's the rub. If the *contract* the client signs recognizes that the
photographer retains certain rights, then that supercedes copyright.
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a *former* photographer (whew!)
I recall one less-than-pleasant discussion with a couple who were of the
trailer-park type culture. I had the misfortune of covering their wedding,
and they only agreed to come in to decide on the album after hours. So, I
grit my teeth, and came in that evening. When they arrived at the studio,
the husband decided to shove his weight around and demanded the negatives.
I politely refused. He then tried to reason with me. He wanted to know why
he should pay me ten bucks for an 8x10 (this was a loooong time ago) when he
could get it cheaper at the drugstore.
At this point, I was sick and tired of the idiot, so I said, "Because I won't
give you the negatives".
He was not happy with the answer. He demanded them, because "I already paid
you to shoot the wedding, you made your money. Why won't you give me MY
negatives."
I told him to read his contract, and either place his order or leave.
He placed an order.
Man, I *hated* wedding photography...
>I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
>
>--
>Anthony
>
>PH wrote in message <6kdslk$ekt$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...
>>So Karen
>>
>>I take that your interpretation means that if I book you to photograph my
>>wedding, and then copy all the proofs for my own personal reference, it
>>would be OK..
>>
>>PH......
>>
>
>
--
Calling spam "free speech" is like calling rape "unsolicited love" (me)
(reply to usenet at clubvb.com)
Mark Cudworth
In article <356a501a....@news.supernews.com>, jcoc...@gate.net (Jeff Cochran) writes:
> >
> >But do you have to pay for it to use it for your own purposes. If I see a
> >copyrighted work on a web page do I have the legal right to stab my print
> >icon? If the work is to stay in my own home for my viewing pleasure.
>
> printing it out or any other means, unless you've been given that
> right by the copyright holder. It's implied that you have the right
> to view it on your screen when viewing the web site, but it's not
> implied that you can print that image, even for reference.
(Note: I am from the U.S. and can't even pretend to understand the UK
legal system, but this post may be of general interest, so I'll leave
the UK newsgroup in the list.)
There is a problem with this argument that comes from a lack of
understanding of how the WWW works. It may appear subtle or perhaps
pedantic, but keep in mind that no legal cases of copyright violations
on the WWW have been brought to court. (As least that I am aware of here
in the U.S.)
Technically speaking, people don't view web sites. The World Wide Web
consists of servers using Hyper Text *TRASNSFER* Protocol (HTTP). All
browsers like Netscape, etc. do is browse files. The servers send files
to client programs on request. In other words, you browse a file that
contains hyper-links, and when you select a hyper link like
http://fubar.net/foo.html you are really telling your browser program to
"connect to the server fubar.net using the hyper text transfer protocol,
and tell it to send you a copy of the file foo.html". Whether the file
gets displayed, written to disk, translated to french, etc. depends on
what browser you choose to use. HTTP is an Internet standard whose sole
purpose is to allow a way for servers to send COPIES of files to
clients. It does not cover what the clients do with it.
Because most of the Internet is based on HTTP servers sending copies of
files to people, I would really like to see a legal precedent on this.
When a person puts files on a web server they are expecting to send
copies of those files to other people. This implies that people are
allowed to have at least one copy of the file somewhere. It is quite
possible, and probably pretty easy to write an HTTP client that requests
certain files and sends them directly to a printer. (Such a program may
be useful for blind people, using braille.) So how would this be
treated? If you didn't want me to have a copy of your file, why did you
make copies available to the public via HTTP? Did you set any limits on
how long I can keep the file?
This last point seems to be the important one. All of HTTP and the WWW
is based on people making copies of files, but HOW MANY copies they can
make and HOW LONG they can keep them are important points. Does anyone
put legal notices to these effects on their web pages? Has anyone heard
of a legal case that has covered this? If so, I'd be interested in
reading about the decision. Of course, the WWW is "World Wide", so
international law will complicate things. What if some country taxes the
importation of computer files? :-)
Just for additional info, most browsers actually support several older
protocols as well as HTTP -- FTP, Gopher, etc. As far as I am aware,
they are all based on the voluntary transfer of files. The protocol
specifications for many of these are available on the Internet, if you
wish to read them.
Just a few thoughts. I realize that I have no legal training and that
this post doesn't help anything, but I didn't let that stop me. :-)
Mark Cudworth
Anthony
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply wrote in message
<3579c42f...@n2.supernews.com>...
>There's the rub. If the *contract* the client signs recognizes that the
>photographer retains certain rights, then that supercedes copyright.
Fortunately, everyone always reads every contract he signs completely before
putting pen to paper.
>I told him to read his contract, and either place his order or leave.
Just out of curiosity, why did you want to keep the rights to the negatives,
anyway?
--
Anthony
Ken Smith
> Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply wrote in message
> >I told him to read his contract, and either place his order or leave.
> Just out of curiosity, why did you want to keep the rights to the
negatives,
> anyway?
--
> Anthony
why 'give' them away, especially of the guy was disagreeable.
Frank van der Pol
rachel delaney wrote:
> After all, what would be the point of doing
> weddings (in my estimation one of the most stressfuljobs a photographer
> can undertake) if you don't make money on the re-prints?
> That is where most photographers will manage to recover from the stress - a giant
> order for prints.
There are photographers who love to do weddings. And when they love
their work and they are good at it (which often is the result of loving
their work) there is less stress and lots of creativity. It shows. Very
clearly. I respect them. For them there is no psychological need to
compensate anything with large orders for prints. It's nice
(financially), but their satisfaction is in the result of their work.
> If the subject could just go out and copy them (but
> only for their own use!!) then they would be out of a job/car/house.
Yep, so what? It happens all the time.
Sorry if this look rude, but imho the problem is non existant. Because
when this happens, the price for the photography itself will go up to
compensate for lost trade. And that will happen with all photographers.
>From an economic point of view, this is actually a much more healthy
situation, since the photographer gets paid for what he/she is good at:
Photography.
Economically, I think added value only exists in photography itself.
Prints are (very) good trade for lots of photographers, but from the
viewpoint of the client, the photographer adds no value at all to a pile
of prints he or she hasn't printed him/herself. The initial album might
be the only exeption to this.
By the way:
Under Dutch law (and I think in UK and US this works pretty much the
same) copyright on a portraits (and most wedding pictures are portraits)
is a joint/devided right. The person(s) on the picture and the
photographer share this right and can not decide seperately about
publication. (I don't know if it applies to duplication too).
Frank
Supertimer
Karen Simmons <ka...@thedkgallery.com> wrote:
>Photoshopper wrote:
>
>>> For example, if I read something in Time magazine that I find
>>> interesting and think might be of use to me professionally,
>>> it is legally allowed for me to make a photocopy of that page
>>> and file it away for my own reference.
>
>> 'Legally allowed' is the key here. No, it isn't. In fact, it is
>> strictly prohibited. However, prosecuting such an offense would be
>> ludicrous, so it won't happen. That doesn't make it legal though.
>
>Ok, I was right and wrong. According to the Copyright Law I *am*
>allowed to make a personal copy of something for research purposes (like
>copying the aforesaid page of Time Magazine to use later to quote in a
>company report). The section of the law is below:
>
>§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106
> and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
> such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
> by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
> such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
> or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
> ^^^^^^^^
You are right. Besides the company report, you can copy magazine
articles to read and reference from for classroom assignments like
term papers. You are also legally entitled to go to the library, get
a Time magazine article, copy it, and read it later. You are also
allowed to set your VCR and copy a program when you are away so
that you can view it later. For computer software, you are allowed
to make one or two backup copies of the software you buy. These
are all documented "fair use" practices. Also, if you buy a CD, you
are legally allowed to make a cassette tape copy of the CD to play
in your car provided you don't listen to the tape and the CD at the
same time (that is, you and your friend/family).
For photography, I'm not sure. Consider the case of the wedding
portrait. Technically, you are not supposed to make a copy. But
what about a BACKUP copy? For a fact, as the home movies you
buy ages, you are allowed to send your VHS videotape to some
digital enhancement shop where they can copy it to a newer tape
(VHS tape degrades after a decade or so). You are allowed to
make backup copies of audio material and software. Are you not
also allowed to make a backup copy of a wedding portrait and
lock it away as you would backup disks? (Some might say...
buy a backup from the photographer...but the when software
companies tried this argument, the courts ruled in favor of the
user not the software publishers...)
There is a BIG difference between making a backup of something
and making many copies to sell or give to others.
This is in the United States...
Dave Parker
Every wedding I have done the contract signed by me and the client clearly
states that I retain the negitives and I have the right to use in portfolio
or advertising, if the client wishes to purchase said rights to the
negitives then that is renegosiated.
even though it is their wedding, it is my artistic impression that makes
the photos.
Have had no problems by clearly stating what is going to happen, but the
key is to spell it out and make sure the client understands the agreement.
Dave Parker
Ken Smith <k...@slc.quik.com> wrote in article
<01bd89a2$c25fafc0$d72626cf@default>...
Don Forsling
Anthony wrote in message <6khkdb$n99$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr>...
>Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply wrote in message
><3579c42f...@n2.supernews.com>...
>
>>There's the rub. If the *contract* the client signs recognizes that the
>>photographer retains certain rights, then that supercedes copyright.
>
>Fortunately, everyone always reads every contract he signs completely
before
>putting pen to paper.
>
>>I told him to read his contract, and either place his order or leave.
>
>Just out of curiosity, why did you want to keep the rights to the
negatives,
>anyway?
>
>--
Holy smokes, maybe I've missed something: I thought _all_ wedding
photographers kept the rights to the negatives, i.e., keeping (owning) the
negatives was strictly routine in the business. How else could they make a
reasonably good living? Have I been wrong? I'm obviously not a wedding
photographer, so somebody clue me in on this, please.
Thanks.
--
=======================================
Don Forsling <fors...@netins.net>
"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"
Karen Simmons
Don Forsling wrote:
> Holy smokes, maybe I've missed something: I thought _all_
> wedding photographers kept the rights to the negatives,
> i.e., keeping (owning)the negatives was strictly routine in
> the business. How else could they make a reasonably good
> living? Have I been wrong? I'm obviously not a wedding
> photographer, so somebody clue me in on this, please.
Don,
I think that until recently the majority of wedding photographers *did*
keep the negatives and there just wasn't any issue about it. Part of
the reason, I'm sure, was the ability of the professional to get better
quality reprints, part was that it never occured to clients to ask for
negatives. In the last several years though, with better reproduction
technology available to the average consumer and with more client
education, clients are starting to *ask* for the negatives.
There's also another reason that I believe is a factor in the releasing
of the negatives - I might get flamed for posting this, but here goes.
In years past it was expensive and took a large amount of technical
knowledge to make it as a wedding photographer. Even when medium format
cameras became common for portraiture (which wasn't that many years
ago!) the cost was still prohibitive for the non-motivated person to
invest in the equipment needed to become a professional photographer.
In the last decade or so 35mm costs have remained low enough and
technology has improved to the point that pretty much anyone can grab a
camera, take a few lucky auto everything shots of the bridal couple and
call themselves a professional photographer. The dedication,
determination, and investment isn't necessary anymore for anyone to hang
out a shingle. (Note - I didn't say not necessary for someone to become
a good professional!) So a lot of people think that being a wedding
photographer is an easy weekend job that doesn't require any more work
than a couple of hours on a Saturday. Result: a lot of clients who get
their pictures months late or never, a lot of clients whos photographers
move or go out of business leaving them high and dry with no possibility
of getting reprints, a lot of clients who wind up with pictures made
from damaged negatives because their photogs never took into
consideration the problems of storing 100 weddings worth over the long
haul (I know of one guy who stored his in his attic - in Texas.
Summertime temps got into the mid 100's in his attic - needless to say
those negs were ruined.) So suddenly many wedding clients were the
victims of people who thought that weddings were easy money with little
work. Bad for the client and bad for the true professional with
integrity.
So I suspect that a lot of clients became more educated because of these
factors. And now more of them take an active interest in what happens
to their negs.
Just my $0.02.
Karen
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> =======================================
> Don Forsling <fors...@netins.net>
> "Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"
--
Anthony
Don Forsling wrote in message <6kkk0f$298$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
>Holy smokes, maybe I've missed something: I thought _all_ wedding
>photographers kept the rights to the negatives, i.e., keeping (owning) the
>negatives was strictly routine in the business. How else could they make a
>reasonably good living? Have I been wrong? I'm obviously not a wedding
>photographer, so somebody clue me in on this, please.
I'm not passing judgement on the practice, I'm asking why it is done. I
mean, you can't use the negatives for anything else, so why keep them?
--
Anthony
Daniel Pead
In article <356DF38C...@thedkgallery.com>, Karen Simmons
<ka...@thedkgallery.com> writes
> think that until recently the majority of wedding photographers *did*
>keep the negatives and there just wasn't any issue about it. Part of
>the reason, I'm sure, was the ability of the professional to get better
>quality reprints, part was that it never occured to clients to ask for
>negatives.
Main reason is, surely, that keeping the negatives allows the
photographer to offer a highly competetive-sounding price for the basic
service and then make their profit on the prints.
Its pretty common in the UK (although such a Barnum-esque system MUST
have come from the US :-) ) to receive a portrait session as a "prize"
or "free gift". Of course, if you want any prints you have to pay...
lots...
>In the last several years though, with better reproduction
>technology available to the average consumer and with more client
>education, clients are starting to *ask* for the negatives.
My niece is setting up as a wedding photographer, and her plan is to
offer something like "Buy xxx worth of prints and get the negatives
FREE!!!" which seems sensible.
One problem with the traditional "photographer keeps the negatives"
approach these days is the easy availability of colour photocopiers (not
to mention flatbed scanners & inkjets).
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
rachel delaney
Frank van der Pol wrote:
<snip>
> There are photographers who love to do weddings. And when they love
> their work and they are good at it (which often is the result of loving
> their work) there is less stress and lots of creativity. It shows. Very
> clearly. I respect them. For them there is no psychological need to
> compensate anything with large orders for prints. It's nice
> (financially), but their satisfaction is in the result of their work.
At cross purposes again! What I was referring to was that they only just
cover [their] costs on the first proofs. The competition is so high in
some areas that they can barely do that. Re-prints are where your
average Joe Photographer makes enough money to pay his salary, rather
than the lab. costs. Speaking as someone who prefers to do their own
thing with portraits, etc. I'm sure most photographers would rather
clients always allowed them free rein to be creative, but that is not
usually what most people require or want from a wedding photographer,
they want a beautiful record of their happy day and that, unfortunately,
means very much what everyone else has, cliche though it may be.
Of course, if I could afford to pay for my mortgage etc. by some other
means than work, I would work for the sheer satisfaction of acheiving a
good print, too <VBG>.
> > If the subject could just go out and copy them (but
> > only for their own use!!) then they would be out of a job/car/house.
>
> Yep, so what? It happens all the time.
> Sorry if this look rude, but imho the problem is non existant. Because
> when this happens, the price for the photography itself will go up to
> compensate for lost trade. And that will happen with all photographers.
>
> >From an economic point of view, this is actually a much more healthy
> situation, since the photographer gets paid for what he/she is good at:
> Photography.
> Economically, I think added value only exists in photography itself.
> Prints are (very) good trade for lots of photographers, but from the
> viewpoint of the client, the photographer adds no value at all to a pile
> of prints he or she hasn't printed him/herself. The initial album might
> be the only exeption to this.
See above re. costs.
> By the way:
> Under Dutch law (and I think in UK and US this works pretty much the
> same) copyright on a portraits (and most wedding pictures are portraits)
> is a joint/devided right. The person(s) on the picture and the
> photographer share this right and can not decide seperately about
> publication. (I don't know if it applies to duplication too).
No, the subject does not own any part of the copyright on either wedding
or portrait photography. The photographer must seek permission of the
subject if the prints are going to be exhibited or published, but the
subject can only veto such publication/exhibition, but has no rights at
all to duplicate/reproduce the photograph (copyright) without the
permission of the photographer. Copyright applies where the subject
themself is attempting to get copies made of any print given to them by
a professional photographer, any person/lab. making such copies without
the express written permission of the photographer is infringeing
copyright.
Graham Alcock
I heard on Radio 4 this morning (Tuesday 2/6) about the case of a market
trader in the U.K. who had his photograph taken unbeknown to him, and the
resulting photograph was sold to an advertising agency as having full rights,
who subsequently used it in an ad campaign for coffee.
He complained, - they withdrew the ad, but offered no compensation to him. I
thought that the moral rights question was subject to damages.
The speakers in the program suggested there were no rights to privacy for
people in a public place, and candid photographs taken of these subjects were
usable under U.K. law without further permissions. I do not think this is
true. Any ideas?
==================================
Graham Alcock AMPA ASWPP
Galaxy Studios
111 High Street
Gorseinon
Swansea SA4 4BR U.K.
tel 01792 898994
email gra...@galaxy.u-net.com
website http://www.galaxy.u-net.com
===================================
Duane Burleson
Graham Alcock <gra...@galaxy.u-net.com> wrote:
Not in the USA, you must have a signed model release to use a persons
likeness in an advertisement. I can't believe it is different in the
UK. Maybe the ad agencies lawyers got to him first??
duane
remove the .nospam to e-mail me
burl...@rust.net
---- VISIT MY WILDLIFE AND TRAVEL PAGE ----
<<< MY NEW PAGE IS NOW AVAILABLE >>>
<<< North Cascades and Olympic National Parks >>>
<<< at http://www.pair.com/burleson/washington.html >>>
--- Images of Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, Michigan ---
---and the Everglades at http://www.pair.com/burleson---
Anthony R. Gold
In article <35743711...@galaxy.u-net.com>
gra...@galaxy.u-net.com "Graham Alcock" writes:
> I heard on Radio 4 this morning (Tuesday 2/6) about the case of a market
> trader in the U.K. who had his photograph taken unbeknown to him, and the
> resulting photograph was sold to an advertising agency as having full rights,
> who subsequently used it in an ad campaign for coffee.
>
> He complained, - they withdrew the ad, but offered no compensation to him. I
> thought that the moral rights question was subject to damages.
>
> The speakers in the program suggested there were no rights to privacy for
> people in a public place, and candid photographs taken of these subjects were
> usable under U.K. law without further permissions. I do not think this is
> true. Any ideas?
Then the radio program got it totally wrong because that man had
indeed signed and delivered a release form in favour of the Seatle
Coffee Company which expressly allowed his picture to be used for
promotional purposes. Maybe by the time you read the morning papers
the media will have gotten it right.
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
Duane Burleson
"Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Duane Burleson wrote in message <6l1e8j$bd4$1...@news5.ispnews.com>...
>>Not in the USA, you must have a signed model release to use a persons
>>likeness in an advertisement. I can't believe it is different in the
>>UK. Maybe the ad agencies lawyers got to him first??
>I believe it depends on the purpose to which the image is put and the
>circumstances of the photo in most jurisdictions. A person appearing as a
>face in a crowd in a newspaper photo is not the same as a close-up of an
>individual used for a national advertising campaign. For some applications,
>such as motion pictures, you really do need a release from every single
>person recognizable in a scene (even in crowd scenes). For other
>applications, such as a pan across a large crowd for a nightly news program,
>you don't need anyone's permission (usually).
>--
>Anthony
I believe I was quite clear, the key word in my response is
ADVERTISEMENT. You can not use a persons likeness to sell a product. A
person walking on a public street can be photographed and published as
part of a news story in newspapers, magazines and television news
programs without permission.
Anthony
Curtis Leeds
Frank van der Pol wrote:
> How about an unconscious person ready to be put in an ambulance standing
> in a public street?
> And what if this person under the same circumstances would be conscious
> and clearly expressing his/her objections to the fact that he/she is
> being recorded?
>
> Is there a difference?
If the photograph would qualify as "news", then no
permission is required for publication provided that its use
is limited to news.
--
***************************************************
cle...@idt.net "I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause." (Bob Dylan)
***************************************************
Scott...........
Graham. Yes the R4 comment was correct. You can take photographs to your
hearts content in a public arena, although as the ad agency obviously
realised, if you use subsequent images of people for advertising, then I
believe that you must get a model release form, although because they are in
a public area, that is just common courtesy.
With the recent cases in the press over the last number of years, I believe
that the Press Complaints Council tried to restrict photographers taking
photographs of people in private areas, (their own gardens, property etc)
but legally from a public viewpoint.
Take the case of ginger royal, who's toe sucking was caught from afar by
long telephone lenses but legally from non-private land.
If you do take an image of someone, its always best to get a release,
usually for nothing but the odd fiver helps.
Think of all those people who have appeared in newspapers, taken legally of
course but who have no rights as to how the image is used.
Scott...................
Graham Alcock wrote in message <35743711...@galaxy.u-net.com>...
Frank van der Pol
Duane Burleson wrote:
> I believe I was quite clear, the key word in my response is
> ADVERTISEMENT. You can not use a persons likeness to sell a product. A
> person walking on a public street can be photographed and published as
> part of a news story in newspapers, magazines and television news
> programs without permission.
How about an unconscious person ready to be put in an ambulance standing
in a public street?
And what if this person under the same circumstances would be conscious
and clearly expressing his/her objections to the fact that he/she is
being recorded?
Is there a difference?
Frank
Pig
'long telephone lenses'
Is that like a digital camera with a modem attached for swift delivery to
the news bureaus...?
<snip>
> Take the case of ginger royal, who's toe sucking was caught from afar by
> long telephone lenses but legally from non-private land.
>
<snip>
R R M Tweek
Pig <pig*NOSPAM*@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
>'long telephone lenses'
>
>Is that like a digital camera with a modem attached for swift delivery to
>the news bureaus...?
>
>> long telephone lenses but legally from non-private land.
From what I recall hearing of the Sen Diane Feinstein promoted paparazi
legislation... and read this twice before you say "What?"
"If the picture cannot be take with a NORMAL lense without
trespassing, then you can't take it with a telephoto lense."
Knowing of Feinstein's understanding of things technological, I can't
imagine that the legislation defines what is a normal lense and what is a
telephoto lense. (ie: is an 80mm fixed a normal and is a 20-70mm zoom a
telephoto lense?)
--
tw...@netcom.com tw...@io.com | "Well, you and I would differ on
DoD #MCMLX tw...@ccnet.com | what's ignorance and educated."
sig...@tweekco.ness.com | - Senator Ernest Hollings
Scott...........
Pig wrote in message <01bd907a$f44c68a0$2123...@UKP015053.logica.co.uk>...
>'long telephone lenses'
>
>Is that like a digital camera with a modem attached for swift delivery to
>the news bureaus...?
>
Sorry folks, I pride myself on good spelling but after looking after 3 young
children all day, I am knackered, and my brain switches off well before my
fingers do. Good joke though, although it has sown the seeds of doubt, did
I see such a lens advertised by Bell and Howell.
(only joking :~)))))))) )
Scott...........
R R M Tweek wrote in message ...
>Pig <pig*NOSPAM*@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>
>>'long telephone lenses'
>>
I believe that if you are in the scum end of the market, taking photos for
the crude amusement of tabloid readers, (well perhaps readers is a bit to
ambitious), the money can be so worthwhile, that you just takes the shot,
gets yer $$$$, and says "tough!".
On the other hand, I was rudely awoken one night by fire crews attending a
fire at the local Spar shop, and the cheap buggers at the local paper only
offered me £15 for the shots I had taken.
'scuse me, must brush up on my spelling
Scott.................
Dominic Young
In article <6l6k6k$igj$1...@nnrp0.seg0>, Scott...........
<kel...@abel.co.uk> writes
>if you use subsequent images of people for advertising, then I
>believe that you must get a model release form
There's no specific law against using a picture of someone in an ad (or
anywhere else) - people don't own the copyright in their likeness in the
UK.
However if you use a picture of someone they might be able to claim
defamation of some kind; associating their image with a particular
product, for example, might imply that they endorse that product when in
fact they don't. Using a picture of Linda McCartney on an ad for British
Beef would be libellous (or it would have been when she was alive) and
commercially damaging because she is a high-profile veggie and has a
business based on her veggie credentials.
To successfully bring a case for defamation, though, you not only have
to be able to fund it yourself as legal aid is not available, you also
have to be able to prove that you were damaged materially. This might be
easier for a celebrity, who can claim that (for example) their chances
of being paid for promoting a rival product have been diminished or
their credibility in the eyes of the public has been diminished, than it
would be for an ordinary person whose only claim might be that their
Aunt Doris was a bit put out. A celebrity is also more likely to be able
to pay the lawyers.
To be on the safe side, however, advertisers tend to err on the side of
caution and normally insist on model releases being obtained. They don't
want to upset someone and perhaps get negative publicity.
--
Dominic Young
Andy Harmer
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<6kmao5$e3m$3...@platane.wanadoo.fr>...
> Don Forsling wrote in message <6kkk0f$298$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
>
> >Holy smokes, maybe I've missed something: I thought _all_ wedding
> >photographers kept the rights to the negatives, i.e., keeping (owning)
the
> >negatives was strictly routine in the business. How else could they
make a
> >reasonably good living? Have I been wrong? I'm obviously not a wedding
> >photographer, so somebody clue me in on this, please.
>
> I'm not passing judgement on the practice, I'm asking why it is done. I
> mean, you can't use the negatives for anything else, so why keep them?
>
To produce reprints from......and often that's where the bulk of the profit
is!
Why get rid of the negs?? There's no time limit on re-orders.
Andy.
Anthony
Andy Harmer wrote in message <01bd92d2$1a1c6d60$634d95c1@default>...
>Why get rid of the negs?? There's no time limit on re-orders.
Why keep them? If you have the only negatives, and you lose or damage them,
and your customer wants reprints, he or she might decide that you've been
negligent, and sue.
--
Anthony
Darryl Baird
In article <eG9x1Tt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Anthony"
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Why get rid of the negs?? There's no time limit on re-orders.
>
>Why keep them? If you have the only negatives, and you lose or damage them,
>and your customer wants reprints, he or she might decide that you've been
>negligent, and sue.
They (the wedding couple) would have to OWN the negatives, pay you to hold
them safely, and prove negligence in this last duty to have a case against
you. Photographers OWN the negatives, so the last two scenarios aren't
possible.
I've quit archiving past five years for my clients. I only keep those
images that are of some interest to me...remember I own them.
Darryl
--
remove the nospam_*******_noway for good address
=======================================================
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, _227, any and all non-solicited commercial E-Mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500.00 US. Emailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
====================================================
I'm serious about this junk.
Curtis Leeds
Dominic Young wrote:
> There's no specific law against using a picture of someone in an ad (or
> anywhere else) - people don't own the copyright in their likeness in the
> UK.
This is completely and totally false. There are numerous
laws in place to protect people from having images of them
used for commercial purpose in the absence of their
permission.
> However if you use a picture of someone they might be able to claim
> defamation of some kind...
Defamation has nothing to do with this matter whatsoever.
> To be on the safe side, however, advertisers tend to err on the side of
> caution and normally insist on model releases being obtained.
Advertisers dio not obtain model releases to "err on the
side of caution". They obtain the releases because they are
required to do so.
Dominic Young
In article <357C36D3...@idt.net>, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
writes
>There are numerous
>laws in place to protect people from having images of them
>used for commercial purpose in the absence of their
>permission.
Really? Laws specifically to protect people from having their image used
in ads? Which laws are they?
--
Dominic Young
Dominic Young
In article <357C36D3...@idt.net>, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
writes
>
>There are numerous
>laws in place to protect people from having images of them
>used for commercial purpose in the absence of their
>permission.
Hang on I have spotted the problem here. You're talking about US law and
I am talking about UK. Trust me, in the UK I am right. In the US there
is the "right to publicity" etc to which we have no equivalent.
My fault for not checking the headers (I read this in uk.rec.photo.misc)
--
Dominic Young
Andy Harmer
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<eG9x1Tt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>...
> Andy Harmer wrote in message <01bd92d2$1a1c6d60$634d95c1@default>...
>
> >Why get rid of the negs?? There's no time limit on re-orders.
>
> Why keep them? If you have the only negatives, and you lose or damage
them,
> and your customer wants reprints, he or she might decide that you've been
> negligent, and sue.
It doesn't matter what "he or she" thinks is negligent. Negligence can only
apply to an original contract (to take pictures and reproduce in print form
the initial requested amount) and that contract wouldn't include holding
the negs for eternity. It is the photographer who holds copyrightand is his
her decision to keep or not.
Imagine if a photographer, who takes a picture for you, whether it's a
school photo, wedding, graduation, having to destroy his negs and trannies
in case thfe original customer wants a print in the distant future.
commercial photography would be a nightmare.
Andy
shooter dan
If you want to dump negs, do it. Olan Mills and most major large chain
operations do so after a few months. If the customer doesn't order
relatively soon the odds of them ordering are small. They then give written
permission to copy the prints.
dan smith
Curtis Leeds
Dominic Young asserted that model releases are not required
for the use of an individual's image in advertising, and I
answered:
> >There are numerous
> >laws in place to protect people from having images of them
> >used for commercial purpose in the absence of their
> >permission.
Mr. Young asks:
> Really? Laws specifically to protect people from having their image used
> in ads? Which laws are they?
...and he also states:
> Hang on I have spotted the problem here. You're talking about US law and
> I am talking about UK. Trust me, in the UK I am right. In the US there
> is the "right to publicity" etc to which we have no equivalent.
Sorry, but I don't "trust you". You clearly have no idea
what you are talking about. The issue under discussion is
specifically an individual's image used without his
permission for advertising, and this is forbidden by a
variety of laws - some of it case law - in almost every
civilized country. Any country which is a signatory of the
Berne Convention or its preceding Universal Copyright
Convention recognizes this. Moreover, such rights are not
confined to a personal image, but are also broadly applied
to any property which is uniquely identifiable, and that may
include real property. (I.M. Pei, for example, forbids any
use of images of his architectural designs in the absence of
his permission, which he grants v-e-r-y sparingly.) The
matter is also frequently under the scope of the "reasonable
expectation of privacy" laws, which most countries observe.
If you are not a troll - and you truly believe that you can
use an image of anyone you desire for the purposes of
advertising, then I strongly urge you to contact an attorney
or professional organization in your country. With your
attitude, you're going to need their help... sooner or
later.
There is, of course, an exception provided for news or
editorial reporting. But that's not what's under discussion
here.
Frank van der Pol
Curtis Leeds wrote:
>
> Frank van der Pol wrote:
>
> > in a public street?
> > And what if this person under the same circumstances would be conscious
> > and clearly expressing his/her objections to the fact that he/she is
> > being recorded?
> >
> > Is there a difference?
>
> permission is required for publication provided that its use
> is limited to news.
At least when I'm conscious in the Netherlands and I express my wish
not to be recorded or have my picture taken and published, I 'll have
the law on my side. I'll get a black strip over my eyes or a blurred
face when the footage is broadcasted or the picture is published.
In a situation in which I would be unconsciuos, judges in the
Netherlands already have decided (with the growing number of
tasteless reality TV programs) that the privacy of the
patient/suspect/victim is more important than the newsvalue. The
identity of the person does not contribute to the value of the news.
(unless it is a celebrity or a political person)
However, newspapers and broedcasting companies more than once seem to:
a. have enough money to publish and pay (in case of a claim).
b. count on the fact that people will decide that it's not worth the
trouble (being in hospital, struggling for life is bad enough as it is.
You don't need a trial to go with it).
Large numbers of journalists do have better taste though.
Frank
Frank van der Pol
Darryl Baird wrote:
>
> In article <eG9x1Tt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Anthony"
> <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why keep them? If you have the only negatives, and you lose or damage them,
> >and your customer wants reprints, he or she might decide that you've been
> >negligent, and sue.
>
> them safely, and prove negligence in this last duty to have a case against
> you. Photographers OWN the negatives, so the last two scenarios aren't
> possible.
I think this would mean you probably would have to denie your customers
the right to reorder by contract. At least in the Netherlands. Legally
it's your right to get rid of the negs. But a judge might decide that a
customer may expect you to deliver reprints, since this service is
common practice in the photography business. There is a difference
between what is a strictly legal action and how a judge may decide on
the consequences of your action. Or is this different in the US?
Frank
Steve1chsn
>There is a difference
>between what is a strictly legal action and how a judge may decide on
>the consequences of your action. Or is this different in the US?
In the US : Whomever has the better lawyer wins (i.e.Simpson vs. the People).
--------------------------------------------------------
"knowledge is good"
Anthony
Andy Harmer wrote in message <01bd932a$c3354680$b05395c1@default>...
>It doesn't matter what "he or she" thinks is negligent. Negligence can only
>apply to an original contract ...
Negligence applies whenever you have enough money to hire a lawyer, in
today's lawsuit-happy client (at least in the U.S.).
>Imagine if a photographer, who takes a picture for you, whether it's a
>school photo, wedding, graduation, having to destroy his negs and trannies
>in case thfe original customer wants a print in the distant future.
What?
--
Anthony
Don Forsling
Frank van der Pol wrote in message
<357C7D0D...@mediacenter.demon.nl>...
>Darryl Baird wrote:
>>
>> In article <eG9x1Tt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Anthony"
>> <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Why get rid of the negs?? There's no time limit on re-orders.
>> >
>> >Why keep them? If you have the only negatives, and you lose or damage
them,
>> >and your customer wants reprints, he or she might decide that you've
been
>> >negligent, and sue.
>>
>> They (the wedding couple) would have to OWN the negatives, pay you to
hold
>> them safely, and prove negligence in this last duty to have a case
against
>> you. Photographers OWN the negatives, so the last two scenarios aren't
>> possible.
>
>I think this would mean you probably would have to denie your customers
>the right to reorder by contract. At least in the Netherlands. Legally
>it's your right to get rid of the negs. But a judge might decide that a
>customer may expect you to deliver reprints, since this service is
>common practice in the photography business. There is a difference
>between what is a strictly legal action and how a judge may decide on
>the consequences of your action. Or is this different in the US?
>
This would probably be a case (in the U.S.) where the rights of ownership
and what is _reasonable_ to do in light of the customs of the trade would
have to be balanced. There is no doubt that the photographer owns the
negatives and can do pretty much what he or she pleases with them. But the
custom of the trade and the expectation of the customer is that the customer
can order (and get) reprints from the negatives that the photographer owns.
So does the photographer have to keep the negatives forever just in case the
customer or the customer's kids come in twenty years later and want some
copies? Certainly not. To require that would simply be unreasonable. On
the other hand, might the photographer have some liability if he or she
destroyed the negatives the day after delivering the first set of prints to
the customer even though the photographer owned the negatives? You bet.
Putting aside the fact that no photographer in his or her right mind would
do such a thing, there is a zone of reasonableness concept that would come
into play. Lacking language in the written contract to the contrary, if the
negs were destroyed almost immediately, the photographer might well lose in
a court challenge. On the other hand, if the negs were destroyed six months
after the originally agreed-on prints were delivered, the photographer would
probably win. Just MHO, of course.
--
=======================================
Don Forsling <fors...@netins.net>
"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"
Andy Harmer
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<OkvHx$4k9G...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>...
> Andy Harmer wrote in message <01bd932a$c3354680$b05395c1@default>...
>
> >It doesn't matter what "he or she" thinks is negligent. Negligence can
only
> >apply to an original contract ...
>
> Negligence applies whenever you have enough money to hire a lawyer, in
> today's lawsuit-happy client (at least in the U.S.).
yes I know what you mean...hope it never gets like that here.
>
> >Imagine if a photographer, who takes a picture for you, whether it's a
> >school photo, wedding, graduation, having to destroy his negs and
trannies
> >in case thfe original customer wants a print in the distant future.
>
> What?
oops .... I'll try that again.....Imagine if a photographer, who takes a
picture for you, whether it's a
school photo, wedding, graduation, having to destroy his negs and trannies
in case the original customer wants a print in the distant future and finds
it sub-standard.
What a nightmare scenario.
Andy
Dominic Young
In article <357C5CE1...@idt.net>, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
writes
> Sorry, but I don't "trust you". You clearly have no idea
>what you are talking about. The issue under discussion is
>specifically an individual's image used without his
>permission for advertising, and this is forbidden by a
>variety of laws - some of it case law - in almost every
>civilized country. Any country which is a signatory of the
>Berne Convention or its preceding Universal Copyright
>Convention recognizes this. Moreover, such rights are not
>confined to a personal image, but are also broadly applied
>to any property which is uniquely identifiable, and that may
>include real property. (I.M. Pei, for example, forbids any
>use of images of his architectural designs in the absence of
>his permission, which he grants v-e-r-y sparingly.) The
>matter is also frequently under the scope of the "reasonable
>expectation of privacy" laws, which most countries observe.
> If you are not a troll - and you truly believe that you can
>use an image of anyone you desire for the purposes of
>advertising, then I strongly urge you to contact an attorney
>or professional organization in your country. With your
>attitude, you're going to need their help... sooner or
>later.
> There is, of course, an exception provided for news or
>editorial reporting. But that's not what's under discussion
>here.
>
Please, let's try to have a discussion without unprovoked insults being
hurled about. Since you are making such a grand claim of expert
knowledge I think you should quote chapter and verse to back up your
claims. First, let me clarify what I have said before by explaining the
particular scenario I am talking about which is the right of someone to
prevent a picture of themselves (which they didn't take themselves and
therefore don't own the copyright) being used in advertising or anywhere
else.
In particular I would like to know which part of the Berne Convention
gives individuals the right to control reproduction of images of their
likeness (we're not talking about the copyright owned by the creator of
the image here, don't forget). I would also like to know which UK laws
or UK case law (assuming you count the UK as a "civilised country") back
up your claims.
Your argument about architects and their designs is one about copyright
and design rights which I do not dispute. In any case, that right does
not (in the UK) extend to - for example - reproduction of a photograph
of a building. Please note as well that the UK does not have any
absolute "right to privacy" on the statute book, despite much debate
about this subject.
--
Dominic Young
Curtis Leeds
Dominic Young wrote:
> Please, let's try to have a discussion without unprovoked insults being
> hurled about.
I have hurled no insult here. That I corrected your claim
that no model release is required for the use of images of
people in advertising does not qualify as an insult. You
simply made a very erroneous claim. Please don't hold me
responsible for your mistake.
> Since you are making such a grand claim of expert
> knowledge I think you should quote chapter and verse to back up your
> claims.
I have made so such claim of "grand expert". That's an
absurd charge on your part.
> First, let me clarify what I have said before by explaining the
> particular scenario I am talking about which is the right of someone to
> prevent a picture of themselves (which they didn't take themselves and
> therefore don't own the copyright) being used in advertising or anywhere
> else.
>
> In particular I would like to know which part of the Berne Convention
> gives individuals the right to control reproduction of images of their
> likeness (we're not talking about the copyright owned by the creator of
> the image here, don't forget). I would also like to know which UK laws
> or UK case law (assuming you count the UK as a "civilised country") back
> up your claims.
>
> Your argument about architects and their designs is one about copyright
> and design rights which I do not dispute. In any case, that right does
> not (in the UK) extend to - for example - reproduction of a photograph
> of a building. Please note as well that the UK does not have any
> absolute "right to privacy" on the statute book, despite much debate
> about this subject.
It's certainly not worth my time to quote you "chapter and
verse" as you demand. It's up to you to obtain the
information that you require. The laws are clear and
unmistakable in this regard, so I can only reiterate my
original suggestion to you: check with a qualified attorney
or professional organization in your own country, because
you are woefully ignorant with respect to the necessity of
model releases. Very simply, you just don't know what you're
talking about.
Dominic Young
In article <357D9895...@idt.net>, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
writes
>I have hurled no insult here.
You said >>Sorry, but I don't "trust you". You clearly have no idea
what you are talking about."<< That's an insult in my book, especially
when it is you who is mistaken.
>I have made so such claim of "grand expert". That's an
>absurd charge on your part.
You asserted that your understanding of the law applies in all
"civilised countries" who are Berne Convention signatories. That implies
a knowledge both of the Berne Convention and of the law of every
"civilised country" in the world. Anyone with such knowledge would by
any standards be a pre-eminent expert in their field.
>It's certainly not worth my time to quote you "chapter and
>verse" as you demand. It's up to you to obtain the
>information that you require. The laws are clear and
>unmistakable in this regard, so I can only reiterate my
>original suggestion to you: check with a qualified attorney
>or professional organization in your own country, because
>you are woefully ignorant with respect to the necessity of
>model releases. Very simply, you just don't know what you're
>talking about.
Well, I have a very good reasons to say what I did about UK law and I
don't have any need to check any aspect of UK copyright law with any
lawyers other than the ones who I have repeatedly, exhaustively and
expensively discussed this matter over the years. I said what I did by
way of information. I would respectfully suggest that anyone who is
planning to act on *any* information they get on usenet should consult
an expert if they are uncertain of the information they received.
However the fact remains that you are the one who accused me of being
wrong, a claim you cannot now back up. Perhaps because you yourself are
wrong. But I can see that you're not someone who lets facts get in the
way of your confidence in your own knowledge.
Nonetheless, thanks for your advice. I am sure it has entertained many.
You'll forgive me if I don't take it.
--
Dominic Young
Curtis Leeds
Dominic Young wrote:
> You said >>Sorry, but I don't "trust you". You clearly have no idea
> what you are talking about."<< That's an insult in my book, especially
> when it is you who is mistaken.
You asserted that a model release is not required for the
use of an individual's image in advertising. When challenged
about this mistaken assertion, you said "trust me". Sorry,
but I don't "trust you" in regards to this matter one bit.
Neither have you shown that you have any clue as to what you
are talking about. If you want to consider that an "insult",
then that's fine by me. But it doesn't mean that you know
what you are talking about.
> You asserted that your understanding of the law applies in all
> "civilised countries" who are Berne Convention signatories. That implies
> a knowledge both of the Berne Convention and of the law of every
> "civilised country" in the world. Anyone with such knowledge would by
> any standards be a pre-eminent expert in their field.
You've twisted this completely. The Berne Convention (among
many other national laws and case laws) applies to this
matter, and nearly the entire civilized world is a signatory
to it. I've not claimed legal knowledge of the laws of every
civilized country; I've merely claimed a better
understanding of copyright than you. Of course, that's
obviously not saying much.
> Well, I have a very good reasons to say what I did about UK law and I
> don't have any need to check any aspect of UK copyright law with any
> lawyers other than the ones who I have repeatedly, exhaustively and
> expensively discussed this matter over the years. I said what I did by
> way of information. I would respectfully suggest that anyone who is
> planning to act on *any* information they get on usenet should consult
> an expert if they are uncertain of the information they received.
Would that you take your own advise. You've stepped into a
world of negotiated celebrity compensation and model
releases, and then claimed that model releases aren't
legally required. That's an extreme claim, and extreme
claims demand extreme proof. When you were offered specific
references as proof that you were mistaken, you then
demanded "chapter and verse". What you are practicing is
proof by assertion, and it carries no authority whatsoever.
Who are your sources? Who have you consulted in your
"exhaustive" study? Stand and deliver!
> However the fact remains that you are the one who accused me of being
> wrong, a claim you cannot now back up. Perhaps because you yourself are
> wrong. But I can see that you're not someone who lets facts get in the
> way of your confidence in your own knowledge.
Stand and deliver! You've been provided multiple references
- look them up! What are your references? Why are you right
and the rest of the world mistaken? (As to your claim that
buildings are exempt from the requirement of releases as
well, you might check Article Four of the Berne Convention.
It says otherwise:
Article 4
The protection of this Convention shall apply... to:
(b) authors of works of architecture, erected in a
country of the Union or of other artistic
works incorporated in a building or other structure
located in a country of the Union.
> Nonetheless, thanks for your advice. I am sure it has entertained many.
> You'll forgive me if I don't take it.
Frankly, I don't care what you do. I'm merely interested in
correcting your gross misinformation and ignorance for the
benefit of others.
Let me guess: your photography has never been published.
You've never worked for an advertising agency. You've never
been paid for an image. And you still haven't the foggiest
idea of what you're talking about. And - since you now claim
to have done exhaustive and expensive research into this -
you're also an outright liar. Pity.
Curtis Leeds
Dominic Young claimed that model releases weren't required
for the use of an individual's image in advertising. Now, he
writes:
> No I didn't. I said that UK copyright law doesn't demand a model release
> and that any action taken by someone would depend on finding a complaint
> based on other principles such as defamation. But let's not go round in
> circles here.
Here is *precisely* what you wrote:
> > There's no specific law against using a picture of someone in an ad (or
> > anywhere else) - people don't own the copyright in their likeness in the
> > UK.
Maybe you've now learned the truth, and it's okay to be
mistaken. But don't deny the misinformation you've spread
here like so much manure.
> I am not going to detail my professional credentials because I am
> writing in a personal capacity....
Obviously, you don't have any professional credentials. If
you did, you'd know that a model release is required for the
use of an individual's likeness in advertising.
> I'm not saying the rest of the world is mistaken, I am saying you are.
> Don't think that US law applies to the whole world; it doesn't.
The Berne convention applies to all it's signatories. That's
the primary source I quoted. You don't quote sources; you
practice proof by assertion. Then you deny what you've
written.
You also claimed that buildings didn't have any protection
from having an image used in advertising. When I provided
specific reference to the Berne Convention:
> >
> > Article 4
> >
> >The protection of this Convention shall apply... to:
> >
> >
> > (b) authors of works of architecture, erected in a
> >country of the Union or of other artistic
> > works incorporated in a building or other structure
> >located in a country of the Union.
...you then write:
> Let's stick to the main point shall we?
This *is* the main point. Identifiable likenesses: of
individuals, of distinctive protected property and designs,
enjoy broad copyright protection that prevents their use in
advertising in the absence of a proper release. Again, you
obfuscate and tap-dance around your mistakes.
> How about we leave it here and
> let the rest of the world judge who is the bigger fool?
Fine by me. Anyway, I think your mommy is calling you for
dinner.
Dominic Young
In article <357DB723...@idt.net>, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
writes
>You asserted that a model release is not required for the
>use of an individual's image in advertising.
No I didn't. I said that UK copyright law doesn't demand a model release
and that any action taken by someone would depend on finding a complaint
based on other principles such as defamation. But let's not go round in
circles here.
>You've twisted this completely. The Berne Convention (among
>many other national laws and case laws) applies to this
>matter, and nearly the entire civilized world is a signatory
>to it. I've not claimed legal knowledge of the laws of every
>civilized country; I've merely claimed a better
>understanding of copyright than you. Of course, that's
>obviously not saying much.
So, where in the Berne Convention does it say that copyright law extends
to individuals likenesses? Copyright protects creativity and
originality, not nature.
>Would that you take your own advise. You've stepped into a
>world of negotiated celebrity compensation and model
>releases, and then claimed that model releases aren't
>legally required. That's an extreme claim, and extreme
>claims demand extreme proof. When you were offered specific
>references as proof that you were mistaken, you then
>demanded "chapter and verse". What you are practicing is
>proof by assertion, and it carries no authority whatsoever.
>Who are your sources? Who have you consulted in your
>"exhaustive" study? Stand and deliver!
I am not going to detail my professional credentials because I am
writing in a personal capacity. But my day to day work involves
copyright and many associated areas. I didn't post here just to air some
made-up nonsense which I dreamt up in the bath the night before. But
please re-read what I wrote; I didn't say model releases weren't legally
required, I said that an action against someone using an image in an ad
would have to be based on a law other than copyright. And because
economic damage would have to be proved (and the case would have to be
funded by the complainant) celebrities would have a better case than
"ordinary" individuals. There is no requirement in UK copyright law for
permission to be obtained before using a picture of someone. However, in
some circumstances, the possibility of legal action based on some other
legal principle necessitates a model release. There is no law which
directly and explicitly required a model release. Might be a subtle
distinction but it exists nonetheless.
>Stand and deliver! You've been provided multiple references
>- look them up! What are your references? Why are you right
>and the rest of the world mistaken?
I'm not saying the rest of the world is mistaken, I am saying you are.
Don't think that US law applies to the whole world; it doesn't.
>(As to your claim that
>buildings are exempt from the requirement of releases as
>well, you might check Article Four of the Berne Convention.
>It says otherwise:
>
> Article 4
>
>The protection of this Convention shall apply... to:
>
>
> (b) authors of works of architecture, erected in a
>country of the Union or of other artistic
> works incorporated in a building or other structure
>located in a country of the Union.
Let's stick to the main point shall we? I'll see if I can find any UK
cases of someone being successfully sued by an architect for taking a
picture of their building. If it turns out there has been such a case I
will come back and say so. I am confident I won't have to.
> Frankly, I don't care what you do. I'm merely interested in
>correcting your gross misinformation and ignorance for the
>benefit of others.
> Let me guess: your photography has never been published.
Wrong (although I am not a photographer)
>
>You've never
>been paid for an image.
Wrong
>And you still haven't the foggiest
>idea of what you're talking about. And - since you now claim
>to have done exhaustive and expensive research into this -
>you're also an outright liar. Pity.
>
Now that is libel. And this is boring. How about we leave it here and
let the rest of the world judge who is the bigger fool?
--
Dominic Young
shooter dan
The proposed legislation aimed at "paparazzi" photogs would make it a crive
for "Pro Photogs" to use the tele lenses to take photos, but does not have
any mention of amateur photogs with long lenses. So, If I shoot Madonna
naked on an anthill with Dennis Rodman dying her hair (using my 600) I get
arrested, but my Doctor doing the same using his 600 can do it without
worry.
No wonder Diane Feinstein is a politician, she is too damn dumb to actually
work for a living.
dan smith
shooter dan
TheCharlie
>
>The proposed legislation aimed at "paparazzi" photogs would make it a crive
>for "Pro Photogs" to use the tele lenses to take photos, but does not have
>any mention of amateur photogs with long lenses. So, If I shoot Madonna
>naked on an anthill with Dennis Rodman dying her hair (using my 600) I get
>arrested, but my Doctor doing the same using his 600 can do it without
>worry.
You didn't actually read the legislation, did you?
..didn't think so.
Please do. It say nothing like the stuff you just spewed here.
The law does NOT make it illigal to use a telephoto lens for
professional photographers, as you claim.
Here, read it yourself. It is actually quite reasonable.
I just wish they extended the law to the people PAYING the
photographers .. eliminating the problem at it's source..
http://www.senate.gov/member/ca/feinstein/general/paparzzi.html
J Greely
I could not find the text of the bill at the URL you posted, merely
a few press releases.
One of the releases says:
The Bill would also allow civil action to be brought where
paparazzi have trespassed or used visual or auditory
enhancement devices -- such as telephoto lenses -- to capture
recordings that they could otherwise not have captured without
trespassing, for commercial purposes.
Translation: anyone who can be categorized as "paparazzi" (not a clearly
defined term in US law today, as far as I know) can be sued (not arrested)
for taking pictures of something visible from a public place, if they use
a "telephoto lens" or any kind of visual enhancement (such as, perhaps,
a high-res film scanner and a copy of Photoshop).
Unless the bill itself is written a lot better than the press
releases, this would indeed be a dangerous law. What's a paparazzi?
Does selling a picture of a celebrity make you one? Is a 90mm lens
"telephoto" enough to open you up to a lawsuit? 135mm? The standard
80-200/2.8 pro zoom? A 500mm reflex? Am I in trouble if I shoot with
Royal Gold 25 and have it cropped?
What about the optical and digital zooms on modern camcorders? The
Canon Optura has a 35x digital zoom *and* Image Stabilization
technology, which certainly sounds like "visual enhancement devices"
to me, even before you add the 1.4x teleconverter that they sell as an
accessory. A quick guesstimate based on Canon's data sheets suggests
that an Optura is capable of zooming in to an angle of view
approaching a 600mm lens for a 35mm camera (1/3" CCD, 5-72mm zoom
lens, 2x digital magnification).
The bill also seems misnamed, since it doesn't seem to have anything
to do with "personal privacy", protecting only the rights of people in
the public eye. Two pictures taken exactly the same way are treated
differently if the subject of one is "somebody famous".
-j
Rudy Garcia
In article <358e8e9c...@news2.new-york.net>, char...@cybernex.net wrote:
> You didn't actually read the legislation, did you?
>
> ..didn't think so.
>
> Please do. It say nothing like the stuff you just spewed here.
>
> The law does NOT make it illigal to use a telephoto lens for
> professional photographers, as you claim.
>
>
> photographers .. eliminating the problem at it's source..
>
Here is the appropriate text:
The Act allows a civil action (private lawsuit) where paparazzi have:
1) trespassed, OR 2) used ģvisual or auditory enhancement devicesē to
capture recordings that they otherwise could not have captured without
trespassing, for commercial purposes.
I think the operative word above is "OR". A private lawsuit can be
instituted if the photographer (paparazzi) used a long lens to capture the
image, even if they didn't trespass to obtain it.
So, the law doesn't make it illegal to use a telephoto lens. It just
makes it posible to have the celebrity bring a lawsuit if you used one.
--
Use address below for Email replies. Address on Header is bogus to defeat AutoSPAM.
ru...@jps.net
________________________________
Rudy Garcia
The answers I have found have just served to raise a whole new set
of questions. In some ways I am as confused as ever, but I believe
I am confused on a much higher level and about more important things.
Author unknown
Only Me...
Rox wrote in message <3588d70b...@news.alt.net>...
>"Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Unfortunately the same defense has already failed in the case of radio
>waves in the satellite industry. People argued that they should be
>able to whatever they wanted to with radio waves that fell upon their
>own property. But, at least in the US, it has now been established
>that this is not the case and that radio waves can be owned. Since
>light is just a higher frequency electromagnetic wave, the precedent
>has been set.
I fail to see the connection. Yes, light is a part of the
Electro-magnetic spectrum, but radio waves are manufactured, and therefore
can be owned. The light we see out there comes from the sun, and I doubt
that big ball of superheated gas, 93,000,000 miles away gives a shit as to
whether it owns the light or not.
You all fail to see my point. It's the Newspaper editors that publish
the pictures, and they, ultimately are responsible. I've taken candid
photographs, some of them of famous people, but I've never published them,
and if I did, would seek there approval first. Anyway, I bet you buy the
newspapers that carry controversial images, just like everyone else does,
and if you do, it's your fault there's a market for such things. If people
didn't have this insatiable appetite for pictures of celebrities, the
Princess of Wales would be alive now. Yes, the photographers are to blame
too, I'm not saying they were all saints, but the greedy editors, selling
newspapers.. that's where the buck stops so far as I'm concerned.
his is all very well, but this law will have far reaching effects: Will
an amateur photographer get arrested for taking candid shots of people?
Will someone who accidentally get in frame sue me if I have a telephoto lens
on my camera? It's a silly law.
Anyone who objects so much to having there photo taken has something to
hide sop far as I can see. If famous people don;t like being photographed,
they should have thought about that before wanting to become famous. After
all, if no one photographed them, they wouldn't be famous at all, and they'd
all be pissed off then wouldn't they?
David
Only Me...
Charles Gillen wrote in message <3586d...@news4.his.com>...
>In this newsgroup "Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
.
>
>I beg your pardon... you're violating *my* rights and stealing my
>likeness for your own unknown, possibly nefarious, purposes.
>
Why assume my purposes are nefarious?
>Any light reflected off *me* into your camera still belongs to *me*,
>and the resultant image as well.
I'd like to see you make that stick in a court of law. You may file for
invasion privacy, but "He stole my light" ? :-)
Go get another hobby or profession
>where you need not prey on the privacy of more civilized blokes.
>Any person's name, signature, and likeness all belong to him/her
>alone.
I pray upon no one. Why guard your likeness so much. I don't mind
having my photograph taken, why do you? Are you ugly?
>
>I don't pick the flowers growing in your yard... you stay out of
>mine.
Wow, you're really bad at this analogy thing, aren't you <laugh>
David
Lokari
"Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>I beg your pardon... you're violating *my* rights and stealing my
>>likeness for your own unknown, possibly nefarious, purposes.
>Why assume my purposes are nefarious?
"Possibly nefarious". No assumption there.
>Why guard your likeness so much. I don't mind
>having my photograph taken, why do you? Are you ugly?
Lots of people don't like having their picture taken. The reasons why
are their business and theirs alone.
Only Me...
By sending me unsolicited e-mail, aren't you invading my electronic privacy?
Please keep the debate within the newsgroup... however:
-----Original Message-----
From: Lokari <lok...@enteract.com>
To: Only Me... <dg...@globalnet.co.uk>
Date: 17 June 1998 03:19
Subject: Re: Long tele lenses & asinine legislation
>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 03:05:19 +0100, you wrote:
>There is an old saying related to electronic privacy and encryption,
>and it applies really well here: "Honest people do have something to
>hide from the dishonest."
Rubbish, honest people have nothing to hide.
>A great many famous people never intended to become famous, but are
>simply victims of circumstance.
A great many? <laugh> I think you'll find a very small minority
actually didn't want to be famous, and most absolutely RELY upon public
exposure to keep their careers alive. Trust me, I know what I'm talking
about.
>
>>After all, if no one photographed them, they wouldn't be famous
>>at all, and they'd all be pissed off then wouldn't they?
>
>You're applying very narrow criteria to a very broad group of people.
No, I'm applying very broad criteria to a very SHALLOW group of people.
Most celebrities would be slitting their wrists if no one wanted to
photograph them anymore, ESPECIALLY movie stars, TV stars, and rock stars.
I'll except that there ARE people out there who are victims of fame, but
there are many people out there who are victims of many things - that's
life:
Not everyone gets a good deal, but that's not my fault. As a photographer,
I'm paid to photograph people.
David.
Jonathan Gourd
Charles Gillen wrote:
> Any light reflected off *me* into your camera still belongs to *me*,
> and the resultant image as well. Go get another hobby or profession
> where you need not prey on the privacy of more civilized blokes.
> Any person's name, signature, and likeness all belong to him/her
> alone.
So this means that light reflected off of a mirror belongs to the mirror? Perhaps
the owner of a mirror can claim the reflections as his property? When will this
crap end.
If you are in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy PERIOD!
Lokari
"Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>By sending me unsolicited e-mail, aren't you invading my electronic privacy?
>Please keep the debate within the newsgroup... however:
My apologies - I hit the wrong button on my newsreader.
To answer your question, though, no - unsolicited e-mail doesn't
violate your privacy. It may annoy you (I know the amount of spam I
get annoys me), but it doesn't take from you information which you'd
rather I not know.
>>There is an old saying related to electronic privacy and encryption,
>>and it applies really well here: "Honest people do have something to
>>hide from the dishonest."
>Rubbish, honest people have nothing to hide.
Really? How about credit card numbers, medical history, financial
situation or vacation plans?
>>A great many famous people never intended to become famous, but are
>>simply victims of circumstance.
>A great many? <laugh> I think you'll find a very small minority
>actually didn't want to be famous, and most absolutely RELY upon public
>exposure to keep their careers alive. Trust me, I know what I'm talking
>about.
I'm sure you do know what you're talking about, but your definition of
"fame" is far too narrow. You're only thinking of celebs like actors,
musicians, and politicians, and in those cases I'm inclined to agree
with you. However, fame comes in many forms, and a look through the
any daily newspaper uncover many victims of circumstance.
RossPilot
<<
Charles Gillen wrote:
> Any light reflected off *me* into your camera still belongs to *me*,
> and the resultant image as well. Go get another hobby or profession
> where you need not prey on the privacy of more civilized blokes.
> Any person's name, signature, and likeness all belong to him/her
> alone.>>
What a load of unmitigated CRAP!
Ghengus Khan
"Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> You all fail to see my point. It's the Newspaper editors that publish
> the pictures, and they, ultimately are responsible. I've taken candid
> photographs, some of them of famous people, but I've never published them,
> and if I did, would seek there approval first. Anyway, I bet you buy the
> newspapers that carry controversial images, just like everyone else does,
> and if you do, it's your fault there's a market for such things. If people
> didn't have this insatiable appetite for pictures of celebrities, the
> Princess of Wales would be alive now. Yes, the photographers are to blame
> too, I'm not saying they were all saints, but the greedy editors, selling
> newspapers.. that's where the buck stops so far as I'm concerned.
Her drunk driver killed her. He was undeniably to drunk to be driving, and was
driving recklessly.
The Paparatzi were convienient scape goats. Although there were some who
snapped pictures anstead of giving aid. Her injuries were undeniably fatal. If
the world got as outraged about drunk drivers as they do about profesional
photographers this world would be a little safer.
--
Liberty ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty :Freedom is first earned
liberty...@revolutionist.com :by demanding it. It's lost by
:forgetting its value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Only Me...
Ghengus Khan wrote in message <358b4303...@news.c-com.net>...
>Her drunk driver killed her. He was undeniably to drunk to be driving, and
was
>driving recklessly.
>
>The Paparatzi were convienient scape goats. Although there were some who
>snapped pictures anstead of giving aid. Her injuries were undeniably fatal.
If
>the world got as outraged about drunk drivers as they do about profesional
>photographers this world would be a little safer.
No one's denying that, and I don't believe I made a statement contrary
to that. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that my blame is aimed
squarely at newspaper editors, not the shooters. I suggest you think before
you flame people.
However, you can't deny that if they weren't hounding her, the driver
wouldn't be trying to "escape" from anyone, and therefore wouldn't have
crashed. Even if he did crash due to alcohol, the speed wouldn't have been
fatal. I appreciate that you're probably a press photographer, and don't
wish to carry the guilt you no doubt feel by association, but the press
shooters played a vital role in her death.
I still maintain that the EDITORS are the ones to blame.
David.