Copyright issues on the web

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:56:39 +0200, DD wrote:

Is it safe to assume that whoever posts the image to such a
website has not protected their rights adequately?

I'm thinking specifically along the lines of product photography.

As others have pointed out, under U.S. law and the Berne
convention, copyright exists as soon as the image is
fixed on film, transmitted, or stored electronically.

However, in the U.S. adding a copyright notice does have the
legal benefit of negating a "innocent infringement" defense.
In addition, U.S. citizens must register their copyright in
order to sue in U.S. courts. While you can still sue for
infringement which occurs before registration, the damages
you can recover may be limited to the point where suing is
a losing proposition.

So while you shouldn't assume that the poster hasn't protected
their rights adequately, you also shouldn't assume that the
automatic attachment of copyright provides adequate rights.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:56:39 +0200, DD wrote:

If an image appears on a website and it does not have any copyright
information on it, or the website does not state that the image is
protected by copyright, is it safe to assume that whoever posts the
image to such a website has not protected their rights adequately?

I'm thinking specifically along the lines of product photography.

In the USA photos are automaticly copyrighted by the photographer
unless he/she has made a contract to give copyright to another party.


--
Colyn Goodson

http://www.colyngoodson.com

In article ,
says...
In article , Helge Nareid
writes
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:56:39 +0200, DD wrote:

If an image appears on a website and it does not have any copyright
information on it, or the website does not state that the image is
protected by copyright, is it safe to assume that whoever posts the
image to such a website has not protected their rights adequately?

Absolutely not.

Copyright is automatic, in that any creative product (e.g. an image)
is copyrighted from its creation until 75 years after the death of the
person who created it. In some cases (basically paid work), the
copyright is transferred to the employer or client of the
photographer. Copyright statements are not required at all. They have
no legal status under current copyright law, and only have
informational content, in that the copyright owner is named.

Unless permission is explicitly given, you should not assume that any
image, on the web or elsewhere, is in the public domain. Mistakes can
get very expensive if the copyright owner decides to pursue the
matter.

I'm thinking specifically along the lines of product photography.

In that case, the copyright is most likely to belong to the client who
commissioned the photograph.

Copyright law is also international under the Berne convention, which
have been ratified by virtually every country in the world.

In UK law, copyright can only be assigned by written agreement, so your
assumption about the client would only be true if the contract
specifically included such an assignment. Otherwise, I agree. Oh, and
there is also a potential can of worms regarding the use of someone
else's trademarks as a principal feature of a photograph, but let's not
go there.

Dallas, what are you thinking of? How would you like it if someone
ripped of your photos and made a lot of money from them.

I was just looking at Ken Rockwell's site and he has taken the D200
images from one of the Nikon websites, put his name on them and is
hosting them from his own site.

If they are royalty free, how do we know?

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

In article ,
says...

I would have a guess that South Africa, being originally a British
colony, might have adopted a similar version of copyright law based
rather loosely on the Westminster system. In which case, the proposal
Dallas has may not be as clear cut as you think.

I'm not that familiar with copyright law in SA, but I did have a
complaint from one of our competitors when I started my paving
manufacturing business. We have a very similar paver to them and we used
what we thought was the generic name for it. They freaked and we got a
lawyers letter demanding that we cease all production of the item, crush
existing stock, blah-blah-blah... You get the picture.

When we referred it to our own lawyers they told us that you cannot
copyright the shape of a product and in this instance the plaintiff also
didn't have a registered trademark on the name we were using for the
product. To keep the peace (and our money) we just changed the name of
the product and we haven't heard from them again.

If Dallas proposes to take Leica images and use them for his own benefit
on his own web site, he will need the authority of Leica. If however his
proposal is to use the "advertising images" from product suppliers he is
setting up a web site to market from, he probably doesn't need to
concern himself too much.

Well this is one of the things I am trying to determine. I have been in
touch with three different on-line vendors asking permission to use
their product images on one of my websites and none of them have
bothered to get back to me. I am an affiliate of these three companies
so the images would benefit both of us if a sale is made. I'm wondering
if they maybe don't have permission to use them either!

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

DD wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article , Helge Nareid
writes

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:56:39 +0200, DD wrote:


If an image appears on a website and it does not have any copyright
information on it, or the website does not state that the image is
protected by copyright, is it safe to assume that whoever posts the
image to such a website has not protected their rights adequately?

Absolutely not.

Copyright is automatic, in that any creative product (e.g. an image)
is copyrighted from its creation until 75 years after the death of the
person who created it. In some cases (basically paid work), the
copyright is transferred to the employer or client of the
photographer. Copyright statements are not required at all. They have
no legal status under current copyright law, and only have
informational content, in that the copyright owner is named.

Unless permission is explicitly given, you should not assume that any
image, on the web or elsewhere, is in the public domain. Mistakes can
get very expensive if the copyright owner decides to pursue the
matter.


I'm thinking specifically along the lines of product photography.

In that case, the copyright is most likely to belong to the client who
commissioned the photograph.

Copyright law is also international under the Berne convention, which
have been ratified by virtually every country in the world.

In UK law, copyright can only be assigned by written agreement, so your
assumption about the client would only be true if the contract
specifically included such an assignment. Otherwise, I agree. Oh, and
there is also a potential can of worms regarding the use of someone
else's trademarks as a principal feature of a photograph, but let's not
go there.

Dallas, what are you thinking of? How would you like it if someone
ripped of your photos and made a lot of money from them.


I was just looking at Ken Rockwell's site and he has taken the D200
images from one of the Nikon websites, put his name on them and is
hosting them from his own site.

If they are royalty free, how do we know?

I think you'll find promotional images like these are free of copyright
or close to it.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

In article ,
says...
I was just looking at Ken Rockwell's site and he has taken the D200
images from one of the Nikon websites, put his name on them and is
hosting them from his own site.

If they are royalty free, how do we know?

I think you'll find promotional images like these are free of copyright
or close to it.

Which brings me back to my original question: how do you know if an
image is protected by copyright if this is not stated on the image or
website?

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

In article , DD
writes
In article ,
says...
I was just looking at Ken Rockwell's site and he has taken the D200
images from one of the Nikon websites, put his name on them and is
hosting them from his own site.

If they are royalty free, how do we know?

I think you'll find promotional images like these are free of copyright
or close to it.

Which brings me back to my original question: how do you know if an
image is protected by copyright if this is not stated on the image or
website?

As others have said, rules differ somewhat in different jurisdictions.
However, in most if not all developed countries, the image will be
copyright (unless the author has been dead for over 70 years).

The only safe position is to assume:

(a) Copyright exists,

(b) If the copyright owner has not specifically given permission for the
use of the image (by, for example, a statement on the site) you do not
have the right and may be sued for unauthorised use.

Whether the owner will do so is of course a more uncertain question. It
is likely that mere use to illustrate a personal site would get a
request to remove it, whilst use in a big advertising campaign could
result in a claim for millions. You just never know.

Best advice is to contact the website owner and ask him.

Otherwise, at your own peril.

David
--
David Littlewood

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:08:23 +1000, "Douglas..."
wrote:

[snip]
I got absolutely zilch from the thief. Anyone who thinks of suing
someone for copyright violation needs to think carefully about the cost
right enough. Some half life with no assets is not the sort of person
you should sue and these are the ones who abuse copyright!

I feel for you, I really do!

I have an issue with a website. Not only did they use my image
without my permission but they edited the image by adjusting
brightness/contrast AND they also cropped the image to remove the
Copyright notice! However they did post a link back to my website, so
go figure!

This is my original image:
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/laos/tiger.htm

And this is the illegally altered image:
http://www.manager.co.th/IndoChina/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000144410

I have been e-mailing them for some time now but I have not received
a reply. I've also posted onto their forum. Either they're ignoring
or they can't find a translator! Not sure what to do next. Any
suggestions?

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash

DD wrote:

If an image appears on a website and it does not have any copyright
information on it, or the website does not state that the image is
protected by copyright, is it safe to assume that whoever posts the
image to such a website has not protected their rights adequately?

I'm thinking specifically along the lines of product photography.

Under Berne Convention, and all countries that signed and agreed to
that, there is no need for a copyright notice to be placed upon an
image. Publication on a web site is just as valid as publication on
paper. If an image is not registered as a copyrighted image, then the
image owner could only sue for actual damages against any misuse or
unauthorized use of an image. If the image is registered with a
copyright authority in a specific country, then upon discovery of any
unauthorized usages, the person who had the copyright on that image
could sue for punitive and actual damages.

The biggest issue often occurs when an image is found as unauthorized
usage at a location (country) not covered by the Berne Convention nor
Madrid Protocols. In such situations, the only recourse is to sue for
damages in the country where the unauthorized use took place. In many
cases, it might not be worth the trouble.

Another side issue is Fair Use. In practice, if someone wrote an article
or commentary about your images, and used the images to illustrate that
article, then the Fair Use would be editorial. The other more common
Fair Use is for educational purposes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:08:23 +1000, "Douglas..."
wrote:

[snip]
I got absolutely zilch from the thief. Anyone who thinks of suing
someone for copyright violation needs to think carefully about the cost
right enough. Some half life with no assets is not the sort of person
you should sue and these are the ones who abuse copyright!

I feel for you, I really do!

I have an issue with a website. Not only did they use my image
without my permission but they edited the image by adjusting
brightness/contrast AND they also cropped the image to remove the
Copyright notice! However they did post a link back to my website, so
go figure!

This is my original image:
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/laos/tiger.htm

And this is the illegally altered image:
http://www.manager.co.th/IndoChina/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000144410

I have been e-mailing them for some time now but I have not received
a reply. I've also posted onto their forum. Either they're ignoring
or they can't find a translator! Not sure what to do next. Any
suggestions?

Contact the local government authorities about the matter. You might also
try to get an attorney to write a letter to them. Definitely contact the
ISP that hosts that site, and the owners of the particular netblock.

If all those legal options fail, get a hacker to dump their server. When
legal choices fail, it is better to take matters into your own hands.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com