15 replies to this topic

[Dennis]

Why does this site make it easy to take folks images? I can download anyones images? In this day and age, copyright infringement should not be allowed.

[Afterimage]

Hi Dennis!

I cannot speak for the site's administration so please consider this an "OpEd"..

 

I honestly don't see a major flaw with the 'security" here. Yes images can be downloaded but if that is your major concern you could watermark them or just upload small versions that wouldn't be useful for anything but displaying on the web. Using "right click" protection doesn't help either. Hitting "Print Screen" or fiddling with your browser's setting can by-pass that in a heartbeat. I look at it this way... if someone wants to steal your images there's little you can do to deter a determined thief. It's like the lock on your front door... you lock it to feel secure, maybe it will deter a causal person but it does little more than slow down a determined individual. 

 

And for the record... I have had an image "stolen"... used as a sample image in an advertisement for an online web gallery... I still never watermark my images because for every "jerk" I deter I also disappoint 1000 casual users that just wanted to use my pic for their desktop background.

[Brazeal]

Yep, lower resolution watermarked photos is about the best protection.  The next step up is to register copyrights for your images, which is $$. 

As Afterimage stated, right click and any other web protection is useless.  Besides print screen, there are numerous Chrome addons that let you capture images. 

[Dennis]

I do that, I have water marks, use low res and copyright. But, this site makes it easy, if you click on an image, it opens a window and one of the options is to save the image. that gives the impression to anyone, not just the ones who are bent on copyright infringement, the idea that this place is public domain, which voids your copyright, even if registered.

 

Lets say you paid the $700 (I know you can do batch for $35) to quickly register a hot shot you just took. You post it here, even low res, and someone uses it on a national website, because low res still looks good on a website. Normally, you can sue. But, since it was taken from a public site, with a save option, you lose your copyright, as now you made it available as public domain (part of the copyright laws, as you need to show intent).

 

The other things mention, on how to get around taking an image, shows intent, which is part of the weight of copyright infringement. But, you lose that intent protection and copyright strength when you place an image for public distribution. Which is what happing here, the fact that the save button allows anyone the ability to save your image.

As a side note, that is also the same issues with places like face book. Terms of service allows FB to distribute your images. In the beginning, the term of service did not state that, but now they do. Also social sites are public domain, and if you agree to the term of service, you agree to public distribution. You lose your copyright protection.

 

A judge wants to know, is this image reported as stolen protected under copyright laws. If it is in public distribution, it is not protected.

[Afterimage]

Giving the impression does not necessarily circumvent permission. Can you cite precedence that having a "download button" waives an artist's rights to an image? I don't think this is correct, I'd like supporting evidence: 

 

 

But, since it was taken from a public site, with a save option, you lose your copyright, as now you made it available as public domain

 

 

My SmugMug gallery which could be considered "public" has a download option and nothing I could find in their documentation warns that unless you turn that feature off you're giving global permission for anyone to take and use your photographs commercially without acknowledgement or reimbursement.

[Dennis]

Go to the copyright.gov site and see this document; http://www.copyright...ircs/circ01.pdf

 

there are several sections about publication; "Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner that are set forth in sections 107 through 122 of the law."

 

You would then have to go to the actual law after that. But, there are lots of places on the copyright site (this is the place you go to get copyright registration). I have a website and a blog. I do not allow downloads without payment or permission. I have a copyright notice as well.

 

If you allow anyone to download your images from your website, you can not go back after a national company, because, even though you own the copyright, you give the image to anyone. So, you own the copyright to an image, but can not get compensated to that image if you allow it to be distributed to the public. I'm not saying you do that, as I have not looked at your site. But, if you allow anyone to download your image without permission or compensation, you can not claim copyright infringement on that image, this is not talking about losing your copyright, it is talking about losing or limiting your copyright protection.

 

That is why big name photographers stopped posting to face book, and place a link to show off their work. That does not agree to the terms of service, and directs you to a site that disallows anyone from downloading without permission or payment. Keep in mind, you can give permission to use your image without payment to one group, and charge someone else. The thing is, is the image generally available for public distribution for protection to be determined. Also, I asked my lawyer.

[Afterimage]

I am certainly no lawyer but this says to me that "willful violations can result in criminal cases" but using anyone's material without permission still will allow for civil penalties:

 

 

 

Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.

 

 

Backed up by this additional statement. No mention of whether it was on public display or willfully "stolen". Sounds pretty open and shut from that perspective:

 

 

 

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples? 
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

 

 

Source: Fair Use (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

[Adam]

The unfortunate reality is that as soon as something is posted online, people can download it, save it, and basically do whatever they want with it.  That's why social media exploded: by making sharing profitable, photographers no longer need to worry as much about infringement.  Regardless, your best defense (short of not posting at all) is a watermark or copyright text.  I don't really like the placement of the "download" button either, so I might look into getting rid of it.  However, even this wouldn't prevent people from saving your files.

 

The good news is that 99% of the time, people who download photos don't "steal" them by using them commercially or pretending they shot them.  In the odd chance that they do, you can always reach out to them and chances are they will be happy to send some money your way rather than to risk being sued.

[Dennis]

The good news is that 99% of the time, people who download photos don't "steal" them by using them commercially or pretending they shot them.  In the odd chance that they do, you can always reach out to them and chances are they will be happy to send some money your way rather than to risk being sued.

 

Yes, and I agree. I am talking about a technicality, of which there are many. But, for the ones that are concerned, these technicalities can stop or hinder sharing of ideas. Especially if the idea of a site is to share idea and examples (by way of images). this site has a copyright statement, it just the fact that a technicality will strip protection. If you can remove that option, that would be great.

... photographers no longer need to worry as much about infringement. 

 

but, I do disagree with this statement. Photographers need to be concerned with infringement. If one devalues art, why produce it?

[Dennis]

I am certainly no lawyer but this says to me that "willful violations can result in criminal cases" but using anyone's material without permission still will allow for civil penalties:

 

 

 

Backed up by this additional statement. No mention of whether it was on public display or willfully "stolen". Sounds pretty open and shut from that perspective:

 

 

 

Source: Fair Use (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

 

 

Yes, these are there and true. But, these are general statements, when your in the court room you have to show; intent and value. That's why when you register, you have to state if the work has been published or not. For example; If you post a pic on a website on 1-1-2000, and then register your work on 1-1-2001. If someone used your image on Aug of 2000, you can only get the value of the image, can't go for; lawyer fee, court cost or damages. So, if your price is $100, that is what you get in court for an infringement that occurred before you registered. All you would prove, is that you are the owner. What is the value of an image if it is given to the public free of charge? You don't have to answer this, it is a rhetorical statement just to make a point.

 

Again, these are technicalities, I agree. Most people would not care. And I support that. I have friends that know and don't care. They make full res available to anyone, that is their choice. I support that choice. But, we should also be concerned with those that do care, that try to make a living at this. I believe that will hinder sharing, we can agree to disagree.

 

This site made the copyright statement, look below, Nikonforums has a copyright notice. If it is not important, why bother putting that there? Why bother getting the LLC? Why is the Nikon disclaimer present if none of this is not important, since everyone takes it, there is nothing anyone can do, so why do it?

[Afterimage]

I understand your point but I still don't necessarily think it's 100% accurate. I've found no evidence that says you give up any rights by displaying an image in a public setting. To the contrary I found information that clearly states that such an action can lead to civil litigation, criminal if done willfully. Yes, there are a few allegorical tales and cautionary statements about user notification on sites like Pinterest and Facebook but nothing beyond that. I think we all would be very interested if there was a case where an image was lifted off of a forum, used in an advertisement, the artist took the case to court and lost because they gave up their rights by way of publicly display. Heck, my credit card company won't even let me use one of my own pieces as the card image for fear of copyright violation! I wish I were kidding! LOL

 

The bottom rung of the ladder here is if you are not comfortable using the upload feature... host the files externally, watermark them, and link them into your posts.

[Rontography]

I park my car outside on a public street, that doesn't mean anyone can drive it.

 

 

I know people that have won the fight on having a shot plucked from a public site. If you are concerned then please don't post your pictures here.

[K-9]

90% of sites you go on you can just right click the image and save it to your computer.  I've only seen a few sites where the photos were embedded in such a way where you couldn't just save the pic individually.  Those sites are rare, though.  It's not the norm.

[Dennis]

You know, I never said people can't, people don't get around it. I merely pointed out that there is a save button on your images. All the justifications presented, are just that, justifications. I'm voicing concern for everyone's copyright protection. It will be hard to prove "willful infringement" when there is a save button.

 

Your right, if I don't like it, I should not post images.

 

I'm sorry I brought this up. I'm sorry I offended all you.

[gramps]

Seems odd to provide such an invitation to misuse the work of others

[TBonz]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, BUT...

 

I expect a lawyer could come up with some text that indicated while you were posting images to the site for various reasons (mini-challenges, contests, or just to show other photographers), that the images were published by the owner of the image and that the owner retained all rights other than the rights granted to the site (for contests and the like).  Any other use without permission of the owner and / or the site could be considered theft.

 

I assume at worst some statement like that (by the site or each individual) would probably cover any potential issue other than the fact that it would still be possible for people to acquire the image. 

 

I have a very generic statement like that on my SmugMug site just to make people aware.  I've still had people screen grab and post the watermarked screen grab on Facebook or send it via Twitter.  Heck, I've even had them tag me or mention me in the tweet about it being my photograph.  I would take it quite differently if the image was published in Sports Illustrated (or similar) or used commercially.