STEALING Photographs

If everyone would just own Uglier snakes this wouldnt happen! He hehehe

LoL lil' thieves!!! Will people ever grow up and learn.

Hey, ALL of us have posted pictures from the net. Are we all thieves?


You forgot a myth too, or is it?

It's OK to post pictures that aren't yours from the net, as long as you wrap the images url with the [ img ]xxx[ /img ] tags.


I mean, technically, you're just linking to a picture somewhere else, right? Or is it still infringement?

Just wondering, because that's my usual method.

Originally Posted by crotalusadamanteus

Hey, ALL of us have posted pictures from the net. Are we all thieves?

Nothing is ever black and white. If the "Myths" article was to be taken as scripture...then every person who has ever uploaded any image onto the net...will win a judgment against Google. At the same time...everything in that article is accurate. I guess what it boils down to is the "common sense" interpretations of what's right and wrong. That's probably why the term "its frowned upon" is so frequently used. Its a cop-out of sorts...because the vast majority of us aren't aware of any specific case law (if there even are any) to cite, so we use that term instead .

Copyright law is complicated as hell. We all infringe upon it, without even knowing. Hell, I quoted that outside article, hence (hypocritically enough) I probably engaged in copyright infringement. If Lucille burns a friend her copy of NWA () she's an infringer. If you fwd me a photo of a pic that a friend of yours took, showing another one of your buddies passed out drunk wearing a dress, then you're and infringer.

Taken in the context of why I posted that article...I'll say yes...if someone tags an image of my animal into their add...they are a thief. If my convictions are strong enough...we'll go to court. Will I win? Based on the malicious intent behind such activity, I believe so. On the other hand...they might pull out some case law that will outweigh my "frowned upon" argument, and I'll lose, lol.

By tagging an image, one is not "copying" it...one is simply promoting it. The original source is cited within the tags...and the image itself is still located in that sources server. So has the image been "stolen?"...no. But, hasn't the usage of the visual content of that image been stolen? That depends on ones intentions for tagging it, and the intentions behind the copyright holder for uploading it in the first place. Tagging is obviously not illegal...the reason for why/what has been tagged, is what can make using it, illegal.

The malicious motivations behind doing such things is when these laws are relevant. Because, those are the only times where they have been/will be enforced.

to make water marks use photo shop or similar program. this day and age on the internet everything is fair game, unfortunately.

I have even increased the size of my watermarks for my personal photography. Actually... I completely redone the logo. Its not perfect.... but your gonna work at it.

Polasian, did you get Kathy Biehl's permission to reprint that article?

Actually I am being sarcastic here but I also wanted to point out how easy, and how common, copyright infringement is.

Originally Posted by kmurphy

Polasian, did you get Kathy Biehl's permission to reprint that article?

Actually I am being sarcastic here but I also wanted to point out how easy, and how common, copyright infringement is.

LOL...yea, I mentioned that above...

Originally Posted by polasian

Copyright law is complicated as hell. We all infringe upon it, without even knowing. Hell, I quoted that outside article, hence (hypocritically enough) I probably engaged in copyright infringement.