Photo Use Infringment ... ?? copywrite copyright
/forum/topic/905375/4

1       2       3       4      
5
       end

mdude85
Registered: Apr 12, 2004
Total Posts: 4402
Country: United States

RustyBug wrote:
+1

I greatly reduced tagging & captioning most everything a year or so ago. Much of my posted stuff has no tags, no captions and no titles, except for test shots with aperture notes maybe when shooting manual glass. Cumbersome for me to find things sometimes, but I figured it was a bit 'safer' ... ooops, I forgot to go back and 'untag' some of my earlier stuff ... made it a sitting duck, or in this case a nesting turtle.


I don't really understand your thought process here. Instead of making your life more difficult by untagging and not captioning all your work, just make your galleries private or set your preferences so that people can only download small versions of your work instead of full size crops. Flickr has set up a lot of very extensive privacy features for its users, especially Pro users. No need to reinvent the wheel here. If your photos are already uploaded to Flickr, then just use Flickr to manage how accessible they are to others.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13413
Country: United States

mdude85 ... maybe I am overlooking something here, will factor that in, maybe for a quick fix. There's just something about KNOWING that Flickr is a massive target, that has me a bit uneasy with them now ... kinda like walking into a high crime area (oh wait ... ) ... so I'm looking for some peace of mind alternatives as well, not necessarily just re-inventing the wheel.

A recommendation for DROPBOX came via the other thread ... any thoughts on it ?? It sounds appealing as I move from workstation to laptop to www access.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13413
Country: United States

But how is that any different from making a print and showing it around (not for sale), then someone taking a picture of it, and using it as they see fit?

EVERYTHING IS COPYRIGHTED AT THE MOMENT OF INCEPTION, with or without a copyright mark ... correct ?? Just because I would ALLOW others to view or want their feedback doesn't meet the present legal definition of publishing ... does it ??

BTW ... I NEVER BLAMED Flickr, and I'm not blaming Flickr. The blame lies ENTIRELY on the offender. Flickr just happens to be a "Happy Hunting" grounds for many. Yes, I hear what you are saying about the Private capability that Flickr has, but it still 'feels' like driving a locked car through the middle of a turf war. It's supposed to be safe, but you just don't feel as good about it knowing that there are others out there watching for you to make a mistake ... yes, my mistake, but still their (offenders, not FLickr) WRONG DOING.

It's like blaming me for leaving my door unlocked and someone stealing my camera out of my car. Probably not wise to do (my mistake in judgment), and yes it was in public sight ... BUT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE IT, AND I"M NOT THE ONE TO BLAME FOR THEIR WRONG ACTIONS ... if we were to believe that, then 'date rape' is okay too ... SIMPLE, SIMPLE, SIMPLE ... you DIDN'T have PERMISSION !!!

We routinely share images in FM and they could as easily be lifted from here (just as wrong), but the world does not come to FM to look for free imagery as they do in the case of Flickr. It's the popularity of Flickr that makes it a target, not that there's anything wrong with Flickr.



Craig Gillette
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Total Posts: 3415
Country: United States

People lift images when they find one they like. It's different now because in the good old days, if you passed a picture to Grandma, she almost never had a scanner down the hall to snipe a copy of it. So casual sharing, even many forms of public display, almost never created an opportunity for the "unpublished" work to be captured.

Any digital display that someone else can see, they can capture the image. Like many other things, "laws" probably aren't needed for the honest and ineffective against those who would behave badly anyways. But as "outraged" as you are, you are going to have to decide if you are going to lock your doors or not. Because people aren't going to stop taking images off the net. Keep in mind that even some of those uses might be both ones you'd support or that are legal under various country's "fair use" type laws.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13413
Country: United States

Yes ... I know I'm venting a bit here ... and I do appreciate the FM'ers tolerance of my doing so.

Funny that you mentioned 'honest' people. I had one individual ask me permission to use a shot (not the one in question) and I said that I would consider it pending notification of specific intended use (possible 'fair use' scenario). The person never followed up with me after that.

Then when this started, it prompted me to check with that person to find out whether or not they ever did (I couldn't find any evidence of it on their website/blog/etc.), who replied by saying that they only use imagery from "Creative Commons" out of respect for "All Rights Reserved" imagery. As such, they 'passed' on using any of my imagery because it was clearly marked "All Rights Reserved" on Flickr ... and looked elsewhere.

WOW !!! An honest bargain hunter ... gotta love it.

Everyone has been quite helpful ... whether as a cheerleader, tour guide directing me to proper legal assistance or as a devil's advocate, etc. I appreciate the dialogue / discussion over the last week.

I have a


TREMENDOUSLY GREATER UNDERSTANDING


of the issue today than I did a week ago.


Some of this has come from direct info from FM'ers, some from Legal Counsel, some from my own other research, and some from having a place to develop and capture my thoughts (think tank, of sorts) here in this thread/forum. This is not a simple matter, at least not nearly as simple as it should be. But the one thing that does seem to be a simple concept in it all is the need to develop a registering regimen ... and understanding the inherent risks that the law does not provide for.

It seems that copyright laws have part A and part B (non-legal oversimplification)

Part A ... yes, it is copyrighted at the moment of inception, but the law offers only a little tooth at this point (mostly bark, and little bite)

Part B ... timely & properly registered material gives the law an opportunity to take a much bigger bite


Thanks to all who have chimed in and helped with this discussion ... and I hope that there are others who may have been lurking who have learned some things along the way as well.

I'm definitely a non-pro, but with aspirations of getting there ... my appreciation to all the pros ( and am's) out there who have suffered the forebearance I've presented is significant.

Thanks everyone.


TT1000
Registered: Sep 16, 2007
Total Posts: 364
Country: N/A

"Full time ..."

"I'm definitely a non-pro,"

?



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13413
Country: United States

See other thread re: definition of pro vs. $$$

Think full time student/apprentice/retired/disability/etc. doing as much photography as possible, just not generating sufficient $$$ ... full time does not necessarily constitute pro

i.e. my shingle is not out ... yet



TT1000
Registered: Sep 16, 2007
Total Posts: 364
Country: N/A

I was merely speculating why VLA rejected you as a threshold matter. Now I know:

"my shingle is not out ... yet "



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13413
Country: United States

It was a different critera re: VLA.



1       2       3       4      
5
       end