thoughts on this?

[er111a]

Removed

 

[er111a]

haha what erose?

 

[er111a]

haha you dont know who that is do you Its the San Diego Chargers RB

 

[er111a]

haha :lmao: that's ok. just so you know he was the draft pick by the chargers and this will be his first year. He is going to be beast!

 

[er111a]

haha gezz where is that one football fan who always is criticizing me, he would be able to teach you

 

[er111a]

haha well then fine

 

[er111a]

haha you never did tell me what you thought of it

 

[supraman215]

the most glaring problem is you live in VA and you're a chargers fan! Did you obtain permission to edit this photo?

 

[KmH]

Did you obtain permission to edit this photo?

I would recommend you remove that image er111a, unless you made the photo of #24 you used, and your attorney can prove it in court.
And here is why:

From the US Copyright Office web site: (my bold text) http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.



Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised May 2009

 

[er111a]

But I got the photo from facebook

 

[er111a]

and I use to live in San Diego supraman

 

[er111a]

good point haha

 

[Derrel]

In the context of an educational web site use, I think you're probably okay with this image....your own retouching and graphics work has created a new image, which you own the copyright to...and this is for educational use and discussion...you're probably okay as far as Fair Use goes... but....we do have this TPF rule....what you have posted is not the original work, but a derivative work of art. Oh, wait, crap, P-P says a photo can NEVER be ART!!! But, the US Supreme Court has ruled that photography and works of photography can be considered artworks...we'd better hire lawyers to write up a brief to send to those knuckleheaded Supreme Court justices to reconsider their stance on photographic artworks!!!

Anyway...the running back needs, "more room to run into"...so you need to expand the canvas on the right hand side of the artwork, to allow more room,visual space that is, into which he will "run".

 

[er111a]

thanks derrel

 

[KmH]

Is The Photo Forum and educational web site? Or is it a commercial web site, a vehicle for generating income for the owners by selling advertising space and selling membership perks?