Ripped off?

[EScanlon]

Ok folks, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that we are trying to "split" a legal definition here.

First of all, let's address what would be considered "ownership".

If as Corgan says: "So what if I saw your car at a car show... took a picture and posted that on my web page along with a bunch of other pictures I've taken...

Lets say I'm not trying to profit off of anything... I just have a gallery of Z's that I like and wanted to save the pictures of to use as reference on say a restoration...." (bold emphasis mine)

At this point, if at the show there was a limitation as to pictures, i.e. a sign posting that no cameras are allowed, then you have "stolen" the photograph. Any use you put to that photograph is essentially illegal. However, at most car shows, neither the promoter nor the owners place restrictions, therefore you ARE allowed to take pictures FOR YOUR USE AND ENJOYMENT. However, any time I've seen someone taking pictures for use OTHER THAN SELF-USE AND ENJOYMENT, typically, not always, there is a requirement by the promoter/organizer to at least advise them of their intent in order to receive tacit or formal approval.

Now, taking into considerations Corgan's second half of the post:

"So what if I saw your car at a car show... took a picture and posted that on my web page along with a bunch of other pictures I've taken... "(bold emphasis mine)

At this point, you have violated the agreement by which you took the pictures. Posting on YOUR home computer is fine, posting on the INTERNET is considered a PUBLIC display. That is no longer a personal use / enjoyment case. Now, you've disseminated the photograph. Unless they are pictures of items / people for which you have ascertained and received permission to post in a public forum (called a photo release), you cannot post them.

Now, addressing a picture obtained off the internet that you in turn put on your page. That is where it gets really foggy, but the basic process applies. That the internet allows wanton proliferation of permissionless copying and dissemination is part of the crux that the Music Industry is addressing. Anyway you want to address it, it boils down to this, unless you have permission of the subject, whether written or by ownership, you cannot post, nor RE-post a picture.

Whether your intent is to profit or not is not the issue. The issue is ownership that's what a copyright allows you to do. Since you created something you are allowed to control it's dissemination. By STATING that it is copyrighted, implies that others may NOT take a copy of it without obtaining permission and declaring for what purpose they will be using it. Again, this is difficult to enact, as most people just right click and go on. However, in the strictly legal sense, they've violated the copyright of the owner.

I can see that I took too long in my reply and others have already responded with much of the same as I had to say.

Enrique

[Bambikiller240]

Yes Carl,

I'm just WHINING.

I don't know why I bother posting on this site anymore.

Alan, where the hell to do get that I was talking to/about you anymore than all of the others who are complaining about this issue. There is no reason for you to take this personally. Grow Up!

[EScanlon]

Mike: What does "bordering on criminal behavior" mean. Is it illegal or not. Laws are generally quite specific as to what is or isn't legal.

Yeah right. Try telling that to any lawyer / barrister ANYWHERE in the world.

Although laws may be "specific", it is the INTERPRETATION of that law and it's applied societal response that is the crux of ANY lawyer's argument.

Doubts? How is it that O.J. Simpson was found liable for a CIVIL suit over the death of Nicole, yet was not convicted of her murder. Meaning, if the evidence did not support a guilty verdict, how could he be the one to tag for compensatory damages?

That something is or isn't legal is based on the presentation and concurring opinion of the ruling body.

Enrique

[MikeW]

Now, addressing a picture obtained off the internet that you in turn put on your page. That is where it gets really foggy, but the basic process applies. That the internet allows wanton proliferation of permissionless copying and dissemination is part of the crux that the Music Industry is addressing. Anyway you want to address it, it boils down to this, unless you have permission of the subject, whether written or by ownership, you cannot post, nor RE-post a picture.

That's my understanding. What you can do is link to the original author's picture. For instance, look at this really nice car:

<img width="640" height="480" src="http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/data/500/1490Full.jpg" border="0" alt="Full" />

In this case I haven't copied your image but rather provided a link to your original source. If you later decide you don't want anyone seeing your photo you take it down and the link is broken. Actually, in this case you've given classiczcars.com your permission to use your photo so you'd have to ask that entity to remove it.

[Bambikiller240]

Yeah right. Try telling that to any lawyer / barrister ANYWHERE in the world.

Although laws may be "specific", it is the INTERPRETATION of that law and it's applied societal response that is the crux of ANY lawyer's argument.

Doubts? How is it that O.J. Simpson was found liable for a CIVIL suit over the death of Nicole, yet was not convicted of her murder. Meaning, if the evidence did not support a guilty verdict, how could he be the one to tag for compensatory damages?

Civil law vs Criminal law. Different standards are applied, I'm sure you know that. Most laws do not cross international boundaries, that also muddies the waters in the internet situation we are discussing. Your post just spelled out generaly what is and isn't legal and the concept of "bordering on criminal behavior" didn't come up. That's what I wanted to know. "IS or ISN'T" "LEGAL or NOT"

Maybe now this thread will die and we can get back ON TOPIC to Z's instead of this law BS.

If someone has a beef about usage of a photo or post on this site, contact the admin & do your whining in private.

[EScanlon]

Am I wrong, or how does it in fact work. If you have a copyright to a photo are you willing to spend the money to enforce it; or is this just another WHINE?

Yes Carl, I'm just WHINING.

I don't know why I bother posting on this site anymore.

Alan, where the hell to do get that I was talking to/about you anymore than all of the others who are complaining about this issue. There is no reason for you to take this personally. Grow Up!

Hey, if you guys insist on taking offense at each other, do it off site!

This is a perfect example of two nations having a common language yet separated by it's colloquialisms.

Where you Carl, wrote in the generic application, to a person from England, who is in the discussion with you, your comments would be perceived as directed at them.

Alan, you jumped the gun and forgot that you cannot assume a label is directed at you SPECIFICALLY.

Carl, your last sentence is what can incites a large flame war. You lost a perfect opportunity to "keep your mouth shut!" as we say in sales.

Now hopefully we don't need to see a trillion posts on either side defending an obviously undefensible position. Want to flame someone, FLAME ME! Your flames are welcome!!!

Enrique

[Bambikiller240]

Hey, if you guys insist on taking offense at each other, do it off site!

This is a perfect example of two nations having a common language yet separated by it's colloquialisms.

Where you Carl, wrote in the generic application, to a person from England, who is in the discussion with you, your comments would be perceived as directed at them.

Alan, you jumped the gun and forgot that you cannot assume a label is directed at you SPECIFICALLY.

Carl, your last sentence is what can incites a large flame war. You lost a perfect opportunity to "keep your mouth shut!" as we say in sales.

Now hopefully we don't need to see a trillion posts on either side defending an obviously undefensible position. Want to flame someone, FLAME ME! Your flames are welcome!!!

Enrique

Respectfully disagree Enrique.

Only if one is coming at it from a self-centered point of view would a general statement in a discussion involving close to a dozen people be construed as directed at any one person. I stand by my statement as written!

[mperdue]

Now hopefully we don't need to see a trillion posts on either side defending an obviously undefensible position. Want to flame someone, FLAME ME! Your flames are welcome!!!

Enrique

Cool!! Enrique, you are so gay!

/just kidding

[HS30-H]

Only if one is coming at it from a self-centered point of view would a general statement in a discussion involving close to a dozen people be construed as directed at any one person. I stand by my statement as written!

So, if you were aiming the comment at anybody / everybody participating in the thread - then I should not take offence? Run that by me again........

In the light of all the "STOP WHINING" comments ( not to mention the dedicated avatars and "knock it off or else" PM's ) recently, I find it hard not to take offence.

The people making these comments ( notice the non-specific ) don't seem to be aware of the irony of they themselves being whiners who are whining about whiners whining.

Carl, do me a favour and stop whining about people bringing up issues that ( I think ) need a little discussion. Go back to the first post on this thread and try to imagine the long-term benefit to this site of bringing a subject like this to attention. If nobody cares about the subject then it will die a natural death. If it gets a few replies ( on topic - its you that's taking it OFF topic ) then that shows the heart of the site is still beating. Oh yeah, I forgot - that's just "In My Humble Opinion".....

You will allow me my opinion, won't you? Please? Pretty please?

[Alfadog]

Wow, look at the action here!!!

I had to do quite a bit of research on this exact topic a couple of years ago- from what I understand we have nailed it. If you take a picture the copyright is yours automatically... etc. etc. Just read what Mr. Camo and Alan T said and it's pretty straight-forward.

Can we just respect what those who know what they're talking about, and learn from what they have to say? Remember what we decided recently? If you know what you're saying is correct, please share it with us. If you're making a guess, make sure you let us know it is no more than that. If you're listening, listen and say thankyou if you learn something!

[Walter Moore]

Do not take this post as a flame on anyone. I do not ever intentionally try to provoke people. (Is that spelled right? :stupid: )

Ask Vanessa Williams or Dr. Laura what's her name who owns the rights to photographs... (They learned the hard way.)

The basic law in the U.S. at least is that the photographer owns ALL rights to the photographs that he(she) takes. This is particularly true of photographs taken in public places. (Like car shows.)

The doctrine of fair use generally only covers casual or academic settings, and would never allow for a photograph to be "harvested" off of this or any other web site for use on another without the owners express permission. (excluding cases where the owner had expressly relinquished those rights of course.)

You do not have to apply for a copyright for material that you have produced. It is yours plain and simple. Unless the posting agreement of this site explicitely permits the re-posting of these photographs everywhere then copying the photograph to other web sites is not an allowable act.

I doubt that anyone is actually interested in enforcing it, but posting pages from a technical manual here without permission is essentially a copyright violation. It may be covered by fair use, but be aware that the whole issue of fair use is once again under attack in the U.S. because the movie industry and the music industry are rabidly trying to protect their questionable claims to the intelectual property they control.

[Bambikiller240]

No one can stop you from voicing your opinion, nor does anyone wish to do so, but "run that by me again" how this subject is "on topic" as in "Z related"? And how does this site benefit from people getting bent out of shape and publicly complaining when their photos are "misused" "In Their Humble Opinon"? The people who really want to copy photos will do so no matter what you or I want them to do. This thread will in no way alter that.

The whining of "All the kings horses and all the kings men are not going to stop people from borrowing pictures from any of us." (did I just violate a copyright? )

I support you or anyone privately dealing with a person who misuses "your property" as you see fit (I personally couldn't be bothered, but support the right to do so), but this thread IN MY HUMBLE OPINION provides no benefit to anyone, least of all this site/club/whatever.

You certainly may take offense, but I don't feel that you should act like I was singling you out (note that no one else reacted that way), because that never happened. Incidently, I am quite aware of the irony of whining about whiners. THAT is exactly why I continue to do it, so the whiners might get a clue as to how foolish they appear. How IRONIC that I must explain it!