HELP! Photo used without permission and pay by company

[andywag]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

What? WHAT?? WHAT???

Do you have the slightest idea how copyright actually works??

 

[andywag]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

Get a new lawyer. This one does not know what he/she is talking about.


um no, thats not how copyright works.

I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.

His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.

I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.

When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.

Get a new lawyer. This one obviously knows absolutely NOTHING about copyright.
Try that one in court and you better have very deep pockets.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Hamlet, I own any picture I take and have the copyright to it. I don't have to register it with the copyright office but that would make it easier to show my ownership if I ever needed to do that.

The difference is in how I might use a photo that I took. I can just keep it and enjoy looking at it as part of my personal collection. If I wanted to sell an art print that is intended for the buyer's personal use (to hang it on the wall) I probably wouldn't need to get a release signed by the subject. If I wanted to license usage, that's often for a company or a business to use for example for marketing or advertising or commercial purposes, so I'd need to get a model or a property release signed to allow me to make money from using the person's image or an image of their property.

The difference with a statue could be that I'm not just photographing someone's property, I'm photographing someone else's artwork. That could get into being an infringement of their copyright, it would depend I think on where it is - if it's on public property it might be fine to photograph it as part of a scene including a building (and possibly sell a print or license it if I get a release signed).

But I couldn't photograph someone else's photo and use it in any way - that's just making a copy of their photograph. I suppose I could take a picture of a photo that's framed and on display if cameras are allowed at an exhibit.

I'm trying to think of an example of something in the public domain. Probably a picture of a historic or famous statue that was made many, many years ago and is well documented as to who sculpted it and where it's located etc. (like going to the Lincoln memorial in DC and taking a picture of it). It would have been photographed countless times and been published in countless history and art books and you could probably take a photo of it (if that's allowed wherever it's displayed). Any copyright that existed (if there ever was one) probably would have long since expired.

 

[MOREGONE]

Look at this fruitful discussion for a poster who probably will never see the responses.

 

[CAP]

Ok well my statements may have been miss interpreted or i may have incorrectly phrased them towards the context i was applying them to.

So let me clarify what i had attempted to imply through my apparent outlandish comments, Before you collect your pitch forks.

First off let me start off by saying that laws can not keep up with technological advancements of the world. Now that being said, I was just trying making my point that there are many avenues and methods that both sides in a copyright case that both sides could take regardless of who is at fault or who allegedly do this or that. But what i am saying is nothing will ever be full proof there will always be a another way round it or loop or something that ether side could use or exploit. You all also have to consider the determination factor regardless of whose wrong or right the side that apply's the most determination and effort into there goal will generally come out on top.

My friend and college buddy who has recently won a multi-million dollar copyright case in US courts on copyright works. He argued that the two works where not the same to your eye both works looked and felt exactly the same but that when you where to look at the original form of of the image that the ones and zeros where not the same and there for there copyright was not applicable the to the work as it was actually different. So if i take a photo of your photo and they both look the same but truly mine is different if you look at the code of it and the judge felt the same way and he won.

So they used your photo without your consent, that's wrong and you should be compensated. I was not trying to draw away from that fact what they did you use was wrong. If one wanted to use any copyrighted image for his or her self for any reason there are plenty of ways he could do it and there is nothing you could do about it.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PvaC8eRNF...6uCYU4ifQ8/s1600/Simpsons+Movie+Angry+Mob.jpg

Well any ways back to work.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok well my statements may have been miss interpreted or i may have incorrectly phrased them towards the context i was applying them to.

So let me clarify what i had attempted to imply through my apparent outlandish comments, Before you collect your pitch forks.

First off let me start off by saying that laws can not keep up with technological advancements of the world. Now that being said, I was just trying making my point that there are many avenues and methods that both sides in a copyright case that both sides could take regardless of who is at fault or who allegedly do this or that. But what i am saying is nothing will ever be full proof there will always be a another way round it or loop or something that ether side could use or exploit. You all also have to consider the determination factor regardless of whose wrong or right the side that apply's the most determination and effort into there goal will generally come out on top.

Dude.. seriously? Do you have any idea how much time it took me to pass out that many sporks?

Rotfl

 

[Tailgunner]

Ok well my statements may have been miss interpreted or i may have incorrectly phrased them towards the context i was applying them to.

So let me clarify what i had attempted to imply through my apparent outlandish comments, Before you collect your pitch forks.

First off let me start off by saying that laws can not keep up with technological advancements of the world. Now that being said, I was just trying making my point that there are many avenues and methods that both sides in a copyright case that both sides could take regardless of who is at fault or who allegedly do this or that. But what i am saying is nothing will ever be full proof there will always be a another way round it or loop or something that ether side could use or exploit. You all also have to consider the determination factor regardless of whose wrong or right the side that apply's the most determination and effort into there goal will generally come out on top.

Dude.. seriously? Do you have any idea how much time it took me to pass out that many sporks?

Rotfl

Wut? I didn't get my Spork?

 

[dweazel]

Well.... i did qualify as a lawyer...and i did happen to lecture in copyright law at one time...

"So if i take a photo of your photo and they both look the same but truly mine is different if you look at the code of it and the judge felt the same way and he won."

ha ha..... ha hahahhhahahhahhhhaaa

stop it..... no please.. no.... i'm dying of laughter! (collapses on floor).

 

[KmH]

My friend and college buddy who has recently won a multi-million dollar copyright case in US courts on copyright works. He argued that the two works where not the same to your eye both works looked and felt exactly the same but that when you where to look at the original form of of the image that the ones and zeros where not the same and there for there copyright was not applicable the to the work as it was actually different.

What court was that action heard in, and what was the case number, so we can read the court's decision?

I follow copyright court decisions and haven't heard of any case that was decided based on the digital numbers in an image file.

The case number info would look like this - Case 1:08-cv-00067-LPS-CJB Document 230 Filed 10/11/13

 

[robbins.photo]

Wut? I didn't get my Spork?

You don't get a spork till you sign the waiver. You don't think I'd hand out pointy stuff to this group of slappys without making them all sign waivers do you? Talk about a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen...

rotfl

 

[Tailgunner]

Wut? I didn't get my Spork?

You don't get a spork till you sign the waiver. You don't think I'd hand out pointy stuff to this group of slappys without making them all sign waivers do you? Talk about a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen...

rotfl

Naw Dawg, you can trust me. I'm safe...well, there was that time I almost cut my finger off with a spoon, talking about a close call.

 

[The_Traveler]

What Happens When a Supermodel Violates Your Copyright

 

[wallstreetfool]

I see what you did there OP - you're one sneaky little, you know what!