Court decides snatching online phots OK

[smoke665]

There is no way to secure images; if it can be seen, it can be stolen.

Actually the encryption technology already exists but most aren't willing to spend the time or money to follow through.

 

[tirediron]

There is no way to secure images; if it can be seen, it can be stolen.

Actually the encryption technology already exists but most aren't willing to spend the time or money to follow through.

Can't encrypt against "PRT SCN"

 

[Derrel]

Or this: Wrong Lady Liberty on Stamp to Cost US Postal Service $3.5M

Briefly...."
A stamp that mistakenly featured the image of a Statue of Liberty replica in Las Vegas instead of the original New York Statue will cost the U.S. Postal Service $3.5 million in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Las Vegas sculptor Robert Davidson, who created the replica Lady Liberty in the facade at the New-York-New York casino-resort on the Las Vegas Strip, sued the Postal Service five years ago over its 2011 "forever" stamp design."

 

[smoke665]

Can't encrypt against "PRT SCN"

Going back to the trespass example, not only am I required to put up signage, if I have on my property an "attractive nuisance" (IE a creek with a swimming hole or a bluff that photographers might want to take photographs from), I'm also required to put up fencing to keep people out, so they don't get hurt. The point is that the photographer as the owner of the image rights has to take responsibility for protecting his work, which includes control of where he posts those images on the internet, the signage, legalese, and locks as best he can. Like my swimming hole example, people will still walk past the signs, and even climb the fence, sorry that's the way people are. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a giant world without fences or signs) are it's greatest dangers, yet people will not only blindly share their images with the misguided belief that they are safe from theft. Not saying it's right, but it's the way it is. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a big world without signs or fences) are also the biggest dangers.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Here's another take on the judge's ruling. I'm wondering if the judge took the stance of considering the image chattel rather than intellectual rights. Several of the points brought up in the ruling seemed to be leaning toward property rights. This could be a dangerous direction if so, because in this country there are laws that state if someone sends you property without your consent you can keep it and are under no obligation to pay for it. Then the question will become at what point does the image (property) change hands, and does viewing it on you personal computer constitute an unauthorized transfer.

Here's a similar argument if I post a program on the internet for analyzing the optimum entry and exit points on a stock trade, with no use restrictions, and a 3rd party uses it to make a million dollars in the market. Is that 3rd party obligated to pay me anything for my program?

By posting to the internet you are doing the same thing as publishing in a newspaper, its not my fault your a dope for not realising that, is what they say.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Or this: Wrong Lady Liberty on Stamp to Cost US Postal Service $3.5M

Briefly...."
A stamp that mistakenly featured the image of a Statue of Liberty replica in Las Vegas instead of the original New York Statue will cost the U.S. Postal Service $3.5 million in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Las Vegas sculptor Robert Davidson, who created the replica Lady Liberty in the facade at the New-York-New York casino-resort on the Las Vegas Strip, sued the Postal Service five years ago over its 2011 "forever" stamp design."

Will he get the cheque posted to him I wonder.

 

[BananaRepublic]

...found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted...

This is the part with which I have the greatest issue; the fact that it exists means that there is a copyright; the terms of use are a different matter, but does this idiotjudge expect that we are to publish a copyright & use document with every image? As me old Mum used to say, "You may not know whose property it is, but you damn sure know whose it is not!"

Apple or Facebook dont send anything out with layers of T's & C's

 

[zombiesniper]

Like my swimming hole example, people will still walk past the signs, and even climb the fence, sorry that's the way people are.

This is where laws need to change.
We have similar ones in Canada.
Personally if I put a sign up stating private property and you walk through and get hurt die what ever, then too bad shouldn't have been there.

On the same front the law should be if you steal someone's photo/art that the artist didn't give usage rights for you should have to immediately pay their standard limited use licence fee. Seems like the ONLY fair way to deal with it.

The current interpretation boils down to is "You didn't say I couldn't" which is a pile of crap. I'd probably have spent a few week in jail for what I would have said to the judge after the ruling.

 

[smoke665]

This is where laws need to change.

Agree wholeheartedly, but to what??? Canada can change their laws, the US can change their laws, other countries change their laws, but if I grab your image how do you enforce Canadian law on me in the US, or vice versa. Hell we can't even get universal world wide enforceable copyright laws.

 

[BananaRepublic]

The EU where trying to double down on copyright laws but it failed to get through.

GDPR Consent

 

[tirediron]

Going back to the trespass example, not only am I required to put up signage, if I have on my property an "attractive nuisance" (IE a creek with a swimming hole or a bluff that photographers might want to take photographs from), I'm also required to put up fencing to keep people out, so they don't get hurt. The point is that the photographer as the owner of the image rights has to take responsibility for protecting his work, which includes control of where he posts those images on the internet, the signage, legalese, and locks as best he can. Like my swimming hole example, people will still walk past the signs, and even climb the fence, sorry that's the way people are. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a giant world without fences or signs) are it's greatest dangers, yet people will not only blindly share their images with the misguided belief that they are safe from theft. Not saying it's right, but it's the way it is. The very things that make the internet so attractive (a big world without signs or fences) are also the biggest dangers.

While I find it ludicrous that I have to tell people to stay off of my property, I accept that it is the reality and I agree with all of your points. My issue is that the ruling is essentially saying "It's okay to take what isn't yours" and that it's going to make it even more difficult for artists and other producers of IP to defend their position as it is setting a precedent. Regardless of whether or not future magistrates accept it, they will have to consider it.

 

[smoke665]

My issue is that the ruling is essentially saying "It's okay to take what isn't yours" and that it's going to make it even more difficult for artists and other producers of IP to defend their position as it is setting a precedent. Regardless of whether or not future magistrates accept it, they will have to consider it.

As Zombiesniper said, "Laws need to change". First and foremost there needs to be a universal world wide copyright agreement between all countries, because without one there will never be protection. Second there needs to be clearly written laws regarding violations and compensations, because otherwise judges have nothing but opinion to rule on.

 

[limr]

Once again, the lack of notice is only a portion of one standard the defendant has to prove in order to claim fair use.

"In the United States, whether or not a use of copyrighted material without permission can be considered fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107) depends on four main factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use (including whether it’s “transformative” and commercial vs. non-commercial), (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) how much of the work is used, and (4) how much the use affects the market and/or value of the work."

You're all acting as if the entire case hinged on this issue, and that now it's going to go all post-apocalyptic anarchy. It's not. The sky is not falling.

 

[chuasam]

My photos are all people and pretty much useable commercially (would love to see them try)

I’m not so fussed about copyright. They wanna use my photos...whatevs. If I can sue for money, sure... more money for me. If I can’t, oh well. It wasn’t my money to begin with.

 

[zombiesniper]

You're all acting as if the entire case hinged on this issue,

I'm ignoring the rest because if this one aspect was changed then the whole use case is a mute point if you ALWAY have to get the artist permission no mater what.

I realize the way it is today there is more involved.