I'm confused...

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

The guy is breaking the law and Pbase does pull violaters off their site when they are notified.

If you do a search on copyright here on TPF you will find many good discussions on the subject but as the law was recently rewritten you own the copyright the second that the image hits a recording medium *see sometimes you don't use a shutter per se. Also that copyright is part of your estate I believe for 75 years past your death. *reason that the Carter allows no photographs of their photographic collection too many problems.

Now it starts to get iffy when you use the works for educational purposes, say you are teaching a class on the masters of photography and want to put them online for your students to see. *bet John could fill us in on this so there are some use exceptions but most likely this guy doesn't fall under them.

BTW the Carter owns copies I believe of that whole Avedon show in their collection.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

Copyright accrues upon the creation of the work. So the same thing would presumably true about a layered Photoshop file, which could be loaned out for a single use.

Before you can sue someone for infringement, you need to register the copyright. If you register at the time of creation, you may be able to recover presumptive damages and attorney fees.

The mark that people put on their work is more like a "Beware of Dog" sign than anything else.

Duffy

Thanks--that's what I've always heard. Is there some officious website link that might spell that out? It might be handy to refer people to when they have -ahem- "issues".

[jeffkohn]

The mark that people put on their work is more like a "Beware of Dog" sign than anything else.

That's true with respect to copyright law. However I've recently been reading Carolyn Wright's Photographer's Legal Guide and she points out that actually having the copyright notice on the image may give you additional legal remedies under the DMCA if someone removes the copyright notice from your image when using it improperly.

It may also help to show that the when someone infringed on your copyright they did so knowingly and with intent; after all they can't claim ignorance or that it was an "orphaned" work if there was a copyright notice and they removed it.

[boxofrocks]

This site helps with some answers.

So does wikipedia, if you trust them.

[Jezebel]

I see a lot of posts like this on this forum... and I gotta be honest, I don't know what the big deal is, haha. I don't mind one bit if someone shows my art on their site. As long as my name is associated with it and my work isn't being tied in with any religion/politics/etc I see it as free publicity. My paintings are on more random galleries than I can count and I really can't tell you how many emails I receive from people that found my website through one of those places. To me the internet is like... well.. "word of mouth" but more visual. I've also seen posts from people complaining when models use the images of themselves on myspace... I don't get it. What's all the fuss about?

I'm not trying to stir up any arguments here, I'm genuinely curious to know why people get so upset about this. Maybe there is some huge negative drawback that I've never considered. Otherwise... eh... it's just not worth my time/energy to weed out people that display my work because they like it. I take it as a huge compliment. :)

[adirty1]

to me it's no different than using the image a paper for school. it's for education. he has sited the author's and given them contact informaiton to pull the image.

the important thing is he's not trying to make a profit from the works.

I would agree with Jezebel that i would be pleased to have someone site my work as examples of just what is a master's work.

[boxofrocks]

I'm more concerned about reproduction and the issue of "ownership". Also, I've had my photos scanned and put up on websites before. The scans were really poor, and the colors way off. It made it look like I was a crap photographer (I may be, but not as bad as this scan was). A cached version of it can be seen here. I think the site had to be taken down due to Disney copyright violations. She assured me she had rights to do the stuff she was doing, but I think otherwise. I wouldn't want to mess with those guys.

[boxofrocks]

Here's one last link on the subject for anyone that's interested.

[Jim Victory]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

I'm more concerned about reproduction and the issue of "ownership". Also, I've had my photos scanned and put up on websites before. The scans were really poor, and the colors way off. It made it look like I was a crap photographer (I may be, but not as bad as this scan was). A cached version of it can be seen here. I think the site had to be taken down due to Disney copyright violations. She assured me she had rights to do the stuff she was doing, but I think otherwise. I wouldn't want to mess with those guys.

This is one valid reason and that is when your work is displayed in such a manner that it doesn't reflect the original work and therefore reflects poorly on your abilities.

The main reason that would concern me is it makes available to anyone a photo I use for sales as a stock photo. If you can get it free it has no value for sales.

The stock photo business is getting very competitive because everyone has a camera and can take a potential stock photo. You have to be unique with your examples for them to sell and when someone uses them, without your permission, and puts them all over the net they no longer become marketable.

[Gordon]

FWIW, not all photographic images, particularly by 'masters' of photography are copyrighted in a restricted way. E.g., from what I understand, the FSA works were all shot for the US government and placed in the public domain. This would cover things like Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother for example.

You can download 55Mb scans of the original negatives from the Library of Congress and do what you like with them.

Certainly much work is still copyrighted, but not all.

[Bartman01]

Originally Posted by adirty1

to me it's no different than using the image a paper for school. it's for education. he has sited the author's and given them contact informaiton to pull the image.

the important thing is he's not trying to make a profit from the works.

I would agree with Jezebel that i would be pleased to have someone site my work as examples of just what is a master's work.

The difference is that he is using it in a public forum, not a private classroom setting. The fact he is publicly displaying the images takes it out of 'fair use'. What he is doing is no different than if I posted MP3's on line for all the world to download/listen too under the guise of 'education on how to make music'.

The 'profit' loophole was closed during the Clinton Administration. It is now a punishable offense to distribute copyrighted material for no profit in the US.