Info Floridaherps.com Copyright infringement - I found my photo their website

[Chris Anderson]

I guess I don't understand the "photo police".

If you care enough about your work, put your name on it. If someone doctor's your name off the photo, then you would have something to complain about IMO.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim "bait and switch" against the person that pulled the photo off the internet. I haven't seen anyone make the claim this person tried to sell the photo.

I wonder how many of the "photo police" burn CD's, DVD's or used Napster.

Unfortunately your logic is completely full of holes. A copyright holder is under no obligation to brand their photo with a name, copyright or watermark for it to be protected by copyright and photos are protected by copyright from the moment they are taken. Utilizing a copyrighted image without the expressed written permission of the copyright holder to aid in the sale of a product constitutes infringement for commercial gain, which does not qualify as a "Fair Use" exemption, regardless of whether their was any attempt to sell the image itself. Finally, failure to understand the law is also not an excuse to breaking it.

As I've mentioned previously in this thread, you've obviously never put any considerable amount of time, effort or money into photography so clearly you have no concept of their value to the photographer. You can label those who call companies out for infringing their copyrights "photo police" all you want, I'll continue to regard those companies who infringe my and other's copyrights exactly what they are, thieves.

Chris

 

[JayCee]

Photography is obviously important to you, so you can't really be expected to be objective about something you are so passionate about.

In your reply, you "quoted" my words. I don't remember you asking me for permission to essentially make a copy of my words and then use them to illustrate your point. I didn't specifically say "These words are protected so don't use them or I will send the word police after you", so you felt free to copy them without a second thought.

You never thought to ask because the general expectation is that once I put those words out there on the internet, they were for you to use.


Words, pictures, sounds.

 

[scaledverts]

Photography is obviously important to you, so you can't really be expected to be objective about something you are so passionate about.

In your reply, you "quoted" my words. I don't remember you asking me for permission to essentially make a copy of my words and then use them to illustrate your point. I didn't specifically say "These words are protected so don't use them or I will send the word police after you", so you felt free to copy them without a second thought.

You never thought to ask because the general expectation is that once I put those words out there on the internet, they were for you to use.


Words, pictures, sounds.

The point isn't necessarily using the photo without permission (although that is a separate issue), it is using the photos as your own! When Chris, and I, quote you; your name (Fauna ID) is linked to it so proper credit is given.

Oh and using someone else's words without their permission IS a big deal. It's called plagiarism and is a big problem on many college campuses (as many here will know).

 

[scaledverts]

Photography is obviously important to you, so you can't really be expected to be objective about something you are so passionate about.

In your reply, you "quoted" my words. I don't remember you asking me for permission to essentially make a copy of my words and then use them to illustrate your point. I didn't specifically say "These words are protected so don't use them or I will send the word police after you", so you felt free to copy them without a second thought.

You never thought to ask because the general expectation is that once I put those words out there on the internet, they were for you to use.


Words, pictures, sounds.

I think the TOS of Fauna also address your particular "copyright" example

Member Participation

You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for the form, content and accuracy of any material placed by you on the Web Site.

If you submit comments or other content to the Web Site, we may make use of your submission, including showing your submission to other users who might benefit from your submission. As such, we need broad rights in the content you submit to the Web Site. The following paragraph describes these rights.

By submitting content to the Web Site, you grant FaunaClassifieds the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license (including a waiver of any moral rights) to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, communicate to the public, perform and display the content (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, for the full term of any rights that may exist in such content. You also warrant that the holder of any rights, including moral rights in such content, has completely and effectively waived all such rights and validly and irrevocably granted to you the right to grant the license stated above. You also permit any user of the Web Site to access, display, view, store and reproduce such content for personal use. Subject to the foregoing, the owner of such content placed on the Web Site retains any and all rights that may exist in such content.

I read this to say that as a person accessing this web site I can use your post for personal use (i.e. quoting) so long as I don't claim it to be my own. Perhaps I am incorrect or just reading it differently than I should be and someone else can correct me .

 

[Southern Wolf]

Kyle... he can't help himself. He knows everything.... well everything except what pertains to copyright infringment.

John .... Just because an image or music is on the web does not mean its your's to take and use as you see fit. If that was the case then there wouldn't be 5 figure lawsuits for copyright infringement both in the photo world and the music world.

 

[Kaa22]

Photography is obviously important to you, so you can't really be expected to be objective about something you are so passionate about.

In your reply, you "quoted" my words. I don't remember you asking me for permission to essentially make a copy of my words and then use them to illustrate your point. I didn't specifically say "These words are protected so don't use them or I will send the word police after you", so you felt free to copy them without a second thought.

You never thought to ask because the general expectation is that once I put those words out there on the internet, they were for you to use.


Words, pictures, sounds.

Unfortunate, but no. Quoting a message is much different from taking a photo that belongs to someone else, without permission, and using it publicly whether it be to sell a product or not. Essentially what you are doing is arguing the point that you can sue someone for re-iterating something back to you, for copyright infringement, when having a conversation with them. Good luck in court with that one.

Now if he were to take what you say, and use it on another board as his own answer without citing you as the source of that text, that would be plagiarism. There is a big difference. One of the reasons you see the date and time of posts provided on boards. Not a main reason, but a reason non-the-less.

Now taking a photograph of someone's and using it any way you see fit in any public area, without written permission or transfer of copyright from the copyright holder is a federal offense. It's copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it were used for profit, or not, nor if you cite who's photograph it belonged to. It's stealing, as well as legally defend-able in court.

To compare the two is like saying spraying Febreeze on your clothing is the same thing as washing them. You have me stumped on how that rings true

 

[Chris Anderson]

Photography is obviously important to you, so you can't really be expected to be objective about something you are so passionate about.

In your reply, you "quoted" my words. I don't remember you asking me for permission to essentially make a copy of my words and then use them to illustrate your point. I didn't specifically say "These words are protected so don't use them or I will send the word police after you", so you felt free to copy them without a second thought.

You never thought to ask because the general expectation is that once I put those words out there on the internet, they were for you to use.


Words, pictures, sounds.

John,

I would argue that in being completely clueless about copyright law and what constitutes copyright infringement that you fail to be objective on this issue more than anyone who actually has taken the time to learn what constitutes copyright and what doesn't, for whatever reason they may have done so.

As for your comparison to me quoting you, this is not a valid comparison for two reasons. First, as Kyle pointed out, by posting on this forum you agreed to the TOS of the forum which allows me to quote you as long as I don't claim your words as my own. Even if this were not the case, according to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Fair use does not include reproduction for commercial purposes, which is why the use of the photos mentioned in this thread are not included under the copyright exception of fair use.

Chris

 

[JayCee]

Sorry, I'm not a member of the photo police, a lawyer or even a lawyer working for the photo police. We seem to have a good number of them on this website though.

I'm not trying to argue that you don't have the right to copyright your photos. But I do think that if you put your photos on the internet, without making it clear that you do not want those photos copied in any way, you are putting them out there for public use.

The courts may not agree. The photo police, lawyers and lawyers for photo police might not agree. I really don't care what they think. IN MY OPINION (we are still allowed to have those, yes??), the internet is there for public use. As long as the person was not trying to sell the photos, or making a claim to sell a particular reptile and then did a bait and switch, then I have no problem with what they did. I would continue to buy from them.

Once the person made it clear they did not want their photos used, they were removed from the website.

Once the person realized their photo had been copied, it was posted HERE before they contacted the owner of the website. That is the person I have lost respect for. Rather than handle the situation between the parties (right thing to do), they ran to a message board (wrong thing IMO).

John

 

[Lucille]

If you care enough about your work, put your name on it.

You seem to equate ownership with labelling (the law does not agree with you).
I'm hoping that your mommy still writes your name on the back inside collar of your shirts with a permanent marker.

 

[scaledverts]

Sorry, I'm not a member of the photo police, a lawyer or even a lawyer working for the photo police. We seem to have a good number of them on this website though.

I'm not trying to argue that you don't have the right to copyright your photos. But I do think that if you put your photos on the internet, without making it clear that you do not want those photos copied in any way, you are putting them out there for public use.

The courts may not agree. The photo police, lawyers and lawyers for photo police might not agree. I really don't care what they think. IN MY OPINION (we are still allowed to have those, yes??), the internet is there for public use. As long as the person was not trying to sell the photos, or making a claim to sell a particular reptile and then did a bait and switch, then I have no problem with what they did. I would continue to buy from them.

Once the person made it clear they did not want their photos used, they were removed from the website.

Once the person realized their photo had been copied, it was posted HERE before they contacted the owner of the website. That is the person I have lost respect for. Rather than handle the situation between the parties (right thing to do), they ran to a message board (wrong thing IMO).

John

Sigh .

Insert: previous discussion here regarding what copyright actually is and about them "taking down" the photos when requested.

 

[Python Dreams]

Southern Wolf,
I shoot in RAW every time I take a photo since I got my D70 years ago. I know that photos can take a certain amount of energy, but unless your talking HDR or some extreme photoshopping, I just dont buy the post production argument, especially about switching from RAW to jpg... Its seems more of a lets make this sound really difficult so it looks worse... As opposed to saying I just hit one button for the switch.

One thing that is really interesting from JayCee is his point about music. If anyone that has such strong arguments about their photos has ever illegally downloaded music, well they would be extremely hypocritical. IMO that would be much worse... Probably has been done by quite a few of us.

I get that it is against the law. I get that some people love their photos! I personally would never take someones photos for myself, but again it really doesnt bother me.

 

[Focal]

One thing that is really interesting from JayCee is his point about music. If anyone that has such strong arguments about their photos has ever illegally downloaded music, well they would be extremely hypocritical. IMO that would be much worse... Probably has been done by quite a few of us.
.

That point isn't valid to me because these were pictures someone else was using to make profit off of. Now, if someone is downloading music and selling the music as their own, then you would be able to compare the two. Stealing pictures and music are the same, yes, but unless you are being misleading about where the music came from and reaping profits, I don't see how the two work together.

 

[Wraith]

I'm not trying to argue that you don't have the right to copyright your photos. But I do think that if you put your photos on the internet, without making it clear that you do not want those photos copied in any way, you are putting them out there for public use.

A person DOES NOT have to register their work for it to be copyrighted nor do they have to include any Copyright notice on their work. Photos are granted Copyright protection from the moment they are taken and that status is held until the owner of that photo declares otherwise (or until roughly 70 years after the death of the photographer).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that public display is the same thing as public domain. Public display =/= public domain. Putting a copyrighted photo on the internet for public display DOES NOT mean that the photo is has been declared "public domain" for anyone to take and use as their own.

 

[lauraleellbp]

I wouldn't care too much if someone used one of my pictures in an informational type of setting (though of course I'd really prefer to be asked first)- but in a commercial setting is something else. If I contacted that person/business and they refused to stop using my photos, I would seriously consider a lawsuit, and you'd better believe I'd be going after a portion of any proceeds they'd gathered using MY photo for THEIR advertizing!

 

[skinwrappedbox]

A person DOES NOT have to register their work for it to be copyrighted nor do they have to include any Copyright notice on their work. Photos are granted Copyright protection from the moment they are taken and that status is held until the owner of that photo declares otherwise (or until roughly 70 years after the death of the photographer).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that public display is the same thing as public domain. Public display =/= public domain. Putting a copyrighted photo on the internet for public display DOES NOT mean that the photo is has been declared "public domain" for anyone to take and use as their own.

Could NOT have said it Better myself. Exactly. It does not matter how you "feel" or what you "think" or whether a photographer is objective about the importance of his work. What matters is the law. It was Illegal for Fla. Herps to use those photos- and photos off of flickr or any other website unless the authors SPECIFICALLY stated the photos were for public domain use. How you 'feel' about this issue does not matter.

I wouldn't care too much if someone used one of my pictures in an informational type of setting (though of course I'd really prefer to be asked first)- but in a commercial setting is something else. If I contacted that person/business and they refused to stop using my photos, I would seriously consider a lawsuit, and you'd better believe I'd be going after a portion of any proceeds they'd gathered using MY photo for THEIR advertizing!

Exactly! Even people who create stock photography for public use almost always request a copy of the final work just to see how their photos were used. I highly doubt Florida Herps consulted with any one they took 'stock' from.
And by using other people's photos- even though they were not directly making a profit by saying "this is a photo of the animal I have forsale" they still made a profit by using the photos as a reference.

 

[Southern Wolf]

Sorry, I'm not a member of the photo police, a lawyer or even a lawyer working for the photo police. We seem to have a good number of them on this website though.

I'm not trying to argue that you don't have the right to copyright your photos. But I do think that if you put your photos on the internet, without making it clear that you do not want those photos copied in any way, you are putting them out there for public use.

The courts may not agree. The photo police, lawyers and lawyers for photo police might not agree. I really don't care what they think. IN MY OPINION (we are still allowed to have those, yes??), the internet is there for public use. As long as the person was not trying to sell the photos, or making a claim to sell a particular reptile and then did a bait and switch, then I have no problem with what they did. I would continue to buy from them.

Once the person made it clear they did not want their photos used, they were removed from the website.

Once the person realized their photo had been copied, it was posted HERE before they contacted the owner of the website. That is the person I have lost respect for. Rather than handle the situation between the parties (right thing to do), they ran to a message board (wrong thing IMO).

John

Something to keep in mind. The law trumps your opinion!! The fact that you have no problems over what they did (or that the courts disagree with you) shows me alot about your character and morals. You may be willing to continue to buy from them... but I'd never do business with you.

The fact that they ran to a message board allowed others to find their infringed photos on their site. So was that really wrong? Just one more nail in your coffin for your character... or lack of it.

 

[Southern Wolf]

Southern Wolf,
I shoot in RAW every time I take a photo since I got my D70 years ago. I know that photos can take a certain amount of energy, but unless your talking HDR or some extreme photoshopping, I just dont buy the post production argument, especially about switching from RAW to jpg... Its seems more of a lets make this sound really difficult so it looks worse... As opposed to saying I just hit one button for the switch.

One thing that is really interesting from JayCee is his point about music. If anyone that has such strong arguments about their photos has ever illegally downloaded music, well they would be extremely hypocritical. IMO that would be much worse... Probably has been done by quite a few of us.

I get that it is against the law. I get that some people love their photos! I personally would never take someones photos for myself, but again it really doesnt bother me.

As a photographer... I dont just hit one button for the switch to JPG. If that's the case... what's the use in shooting RAW.

 

[Ssthisto]

But I do think that if you put your photos on the internet, without making it clear that you do not want those photos copied in any way, you are putting them out there for public use.... IN MY OPINION (we are still allowed to have those, yes??), the internet is there for public use.

If I take a photograph (or create any other intellectual property), I own that photograph - in the exact same way that I own, say, my car.

If I park my car in a public parking lot, that doesn't suddenly make my car free for anyone to use however they like, right? You wouldn't assume you're allowed to just hop in and take my car for a test-drive, because it's still my car, it just happens to be in a public place at the time.

If I park my car on my driveway, again, although people can see my car, it doesn't mean they can borrow my car, use my car for business purposes or otherwise make use of my car in any way without my permission.

That's because the car itself belongs to me. I don't have to paint my name on it to prove that, either.

If I put my photograph on my own personal website, it's like parking my car on my drive. Visible "from the street" but still on private property. Not free to use, whether or not I've labelled it as mine.

If I put my photograph on a photo storage website - like Flickr - it's like parking my car in a public parking lot (or, more appropriately, like parking in a mall parking lot - it's owned by the mall). Still not free to use without explicit permission.

The internet is not a public place - it's a collection of private and corporate properties.

 

[zero0grav]

Hm wonder if any of you ever speed ? Last I checked it is against the LAW but I would bet a million every last one of you has. Kinda funny everyone throwing mud. Anyhows I agree if you use a photo and the photographer ask you too remove it you should and that should be the end of it and if it is copy written you must have permission or pay for it's use.

 

[Chris Anderson]

zero0grav,

While you may view copyright infringement on the same level as laws such as speeding or jaywalking, that does not mean they are on the same level legally. I've never seen anyone fined up to $100,000 plus damages and legal fees in the US for speeding but that is what you can potentially lose for every instance of copyright infringement. Now, going along with your comparison, however, if someone chooses to speed (and thus break the law), when they are caught, they get taken to court and fined. If breaking traffic laws is a recurring trend and they get caught over and over again, in many states, they lose their license and are no longer allowed to drive. In this case, the copyright infringer is getting off easy if all he has to do is remove the images from his site.

Also, every photograph is protected by copyright from the second it is taken, so you need to have permission or pay for the use of every photograph unless the source explicitly states that you don't.

Chris