Wife's Birthday Project: Needing PS Help...

[cgipson1]

Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.

.

That DOES not make it right, either... does it?

I would be all for a policy here that requires instant and permanent bans for this type of thing....

 

[cgipson1]

Apparently none of the legal scholars here have ever heard of the principle, long recognized in the law, called "de minimis non curat lex."

In this instance that would probably apply, since the photographer seemed to not mind GIVING the OP that photo.

However, your willing violation of the ethical side of this issue is one that has caused you to lose all credibility with me, and probably a lot of others here! (Yea.. I know, Like you care.. right?)

 

[Peano]

However, your willing violation of the ethical side of this issue is one that has caused you to lose all credibility with me, and probably a lot of others here! (Yea.. I know, Like you care.. right?)

Bingo.

 

[kyledmontague]

So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.

 

[sm4him]

Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.

.

That DOES not make it right, either... does it?

I would be all for a policy here that requires instant and permanent bans for this type of thing....

It does seem to me like disregarding copyrights, and then basically STATING your intentions to continually, intentionally disregard copyrights should be grounds for a permanent ban.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

That DOES not make it right, either... does it?

I would be all for a policy here that requires instant and permanent bans for this type of thing....

My statement was not a wager of right versus wrong. It was simply an honest statement about the dedication level of our country's judicial system to uphold the law.

I could get a ticket and a $250 fine for walking across the street outside of a crosswalk. The chances of it ever happening??? It won't.

Unless the defendant made millions off of the alterations of your work or claiming it as their own, a courtroom doesn't even want it on their doorstep.

Once more, I will emphasize that I'm not condoning anyone to do any of this. All I'm saying is that there isn't really anything that can be done about it if someone actually does it, regardless of what ever the laws say.

 

[cgipson1]

So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.

This isn't your fault at all! It is just that some of us try to act Ethically, and some don't! Good luck with your gift, I hope it goes over very well... and makes your wife (and you) very happy!

 

[sm4him]

So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.

OP: I personally don't feel that YOu have anything to apologize for. You acted out of ignorance (I don't mean that as a slur, simply that you had no foreknowledge) rather than willful disregard for ownership. You did everything as you should have; when you were made aware of the problem, you removed the photo and you are taking steps to secure permission from the copyright holder before re-presenting your request. I see nothing wrong with any of that, and commend you for your willingness to learn and to correct your error.

 

[MLeeK]

I understand the "severity" of all of this as far as an ethical standpoint goes. I also know what the law says. Let me open this by saying that I am in no way condoning illegal behavior with what I'm about to say.

However, not only do I understand what Peano is saying, but I also agree with him in some aspects. Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.

I would never alter someone else's work, but ONLY because I respect the wants of you all. To be honest, that is literally the only reason. However, let's say I did, and you wanted to do something judicially over it, finding a judge that would even hear the case out would be a job in itself. Even finding a lawyer that would want to take the time out for such a thing would be pretty difficult.

It would be one thing if someone took your entire gallery and posted it and claimed it as their own, but one picture, or even "illegal alterations" to several pictures would be laughed at in mockery before someone in law would take it serious enough to present it in a courtroom with you. You're almost always going to get a "I'll write him a letter and let's hope he stops" type of response.

Do not be so delusional about "finding a judge." You don't have to "find a judge." All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case. The law is there in black and white and the penalties are as well. The judge has to follow the law and hear the case. The relief afforded to the plaintiff in the case is also there. This is a willful disregard to that law. The plaintiff wins. That easy.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

It does seem to me like disregarding copyrights, and then basically STATING your intentions to continually, intentionally disregard copyrights should be grounds for a permanent ban.

Please quote me where I said these were my intentions. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that I am not condoning these actions. I simply see where Peano is coming from.

K thx bai.

 

[sm4him]

It does seem to me like disregarding copyrights, and then basically STATING your intentions to continually, intentionally disregard copyrights should be grounds for a permanent ban.

Please quote me where I said these were my intentions. In fact, I have said REPEATEDLY that I am not condoning these actions. I simply see where Peano is coming from.

K thx bai.

:scratch: My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with any of YOUR comments and was not directed at you.

EDIT: I see now how you might have gotten that. I was quoting Charlie, and should have removed your "quote within the quote." Apologies.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Do not be so delusional about "finding a judge." You don't have to "find a judge." All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case. The law is there in black and white and the penalties are as well. The judge has to follow the law and hear the case. The relief afforded to the plaintiff in the case is also there. This is a willful disregard to that law. The plaintiff wins. That easy.

You can tell that there aren't many times that you have been in a courtroom. You do have to find a judge. I have been in and out of both court and prison from the time I was 18 to 25 years old or so (not saying I'm proud of it). In MANY cases I have personally seen, the judge will "hear" the case and then dismiss it because he/she simply doesn't want to waste time on issues that he/she finds to be "petty."

 

[MLeeK]

Just because the law says something, and even has a listed penalty for breaking it, does not mean that it will ever be actively enforced.

.

That DOES not make it right, either... does it?

I would be all for a policy here that requires instant and permanent bans for this type of thing....

It does seem to me like disregarding copyrights, and then basically STATING your intentions to continually, intentionally disregard copyrights should be grounds for a permanent ban.

I have to agree here. We post our images here every day and we have a member who is repeatedly stating he has no problems with breaking the law and unethical behavior toward copyright.
People are banned in here for disrespectful behavior, but illegal is OK? AND willful illegal behavior while scorning the laws and the ethics behind those of us who choose to follow it.

 

[tirediron]

So, I feel I deserve an apology to the forum after reading through the chaos that has ensued from my original request. I guess I thought since he was handing the photo out for free that he wasn't going to be upset if anything was done to alter it. I apologize for not recognizing the right way to do all of this early enough, and I'm sorry if anyone in this forum has potentially lost credibility as a result. I am still waiting to hear back from the photographer about editing his photo, so perhaps this issue can be salvaged. If I do receive permission I would still like to give the ability to members of this forum to do what they would like to the photo, it wouldn't hurt to get multiple edits and see which one I like best. So again, I apologize... and I will post again when I hear back from the photographer.

No need for you to apologize. An unfortunate fact that many photographers deal with is ignorance of copyright and related intelectual property law. People assume that because they have paid for or been given a photograph, that it is theirs to do with as they choose. In fact, it's really very similar to buying software. You pay for the right to have the photograph, and to display it, but generally speaking, there's really very little you're allowed to do with it.

Some people don't care about this sort of thing, and that tends to upset many photographers who view the situation as, "What if this was my work?" Granted, it's unlikely that cloning out something so small would bother the photographer, BUT as the creator of the image, he has to approve it first.

I notice that the poster who was the most vocal advocate of, "Who cares, it doesn't matter.." also never answered my question on what his thought would be if someone took his work and editied in whatever way they felt like. I'm guessing he or she might not be too happy. This is the same sort of attitude seen frequently in the lowlifes that think downloading software off of torrent 'sites and similar is okay...

 

[MLeeK]

Do not be so delusional about "finding a judge." You don't have to "find a judge." All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case. The law is there in black and white and the penalties are as well. The judge has to follow the law and hear the case. The relief afforded to the plaintiff in the case is also there. This is a willful disregard to that law. The plaintiff wins. That easy.

You can tell that there aren't many times that you have been in a courtroom. You do have to find a judge. I have been in and out of both court and prison from the time I was 18 to 25 years old or so (not saying I'm proud of it). In MANY cases I have personally seen, the judge will "hear" the case and then dismiss it because he/she simply doesn't want to waste time on issues that he/she finds to be "petty."

This isn't the PENAL system here. Quite obviously your lawyer sucks. Any copyright laywer worth his salt would have insured that the case be heard AND that the law be heard AND when the judge was too lazy to hear the case and dismissed it, would have filed beyond that. Copyright cases are heard every day. For ONE image. ONE. That's it.