Copyright issues on the web

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?

Quite doubtful about being royalty free, nor public domain. My guess is that
he is trying to pass it off as being Fair Use under the principal of his
writing being an editorial.

Personally, I think non-news organizations doing editorials is fairly shaky
ground. After the Apple and Bloggers cases earlier this year, it appears
that individuals just writing on the internet do not fall under protections
given to journalists.

Altering images and claiming credit is another matter entirely. My guess is
that if Nikon USA discover his alteration, he will be asked to take it down.

Ciao!

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

DD wrote:

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?

You contact the postmaster or hostmaster at the website and ask. Really
quite simple.

Ciao!

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

"Douglas..." wrote:

Skip M wrote:


No, it is not safe to assume that. By international and US law, an image is
copyrighted at the moment of inception. Any use of that before the
expiration of the copyright (usually 75 years after the death of the
creator) constitutes infringement.

That's not entirely correct Skip. The world does not start and stop at
the boarder of the United States.. . . . A twist on this on is when you "do the
right thing" by your clients and
hand over copyright. The client then assigns those images to another
photographer (maybe for enlargements) and doesn't stipulate a time or
purpose and they use them to advertise their own business. ****es you
off no end but in Australia and Canada it's quite legal!

--

Shows why Copyright Laws in Canada and Australia are so ****ed up. Quite
obviously not in line with the Berne Convention, unlike the majority of the EU.
Makes me wonder why so many people talk about trying to bring intellectual
property rights into line in China, when there are ****ed up copyright laws in
Canada and Australia.

The US take on Copyright Laws is another matter. Mostly the visual images
provisions match Berne Convention, but in some ways are not nearly as protective
as Berne Convention provisions, despite that the US signed that agreement.

Ciao!

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

On 2005-11-04 00:12:41 -0500, DD said:

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 believe he gave stated that the images are from the Nikon Manual and
were used by permission.
--
Jim

"Douglas..." wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:


No, it is not safe to assume that. By international and US law, an image
is copyrighted at the moment of inception. Any use of that before the
expiration of the copyright (usually 75 years after the death of the
creator) constitutes infringement.

That's not entirely correct Skip. The world does not start and stop at the
boarder of the United States. Try as they might, the US "Free Trade
Agreements" do not entirely force Microsoft's initiated idea of copyright
onto the rest of the world.

I was referring to the Berne agreement, hardly an internal US law...

Australian and Canadian (to name just 2 countries) Copyright law treats
people like you and me differently. Copyright of family and wedding
photographs pass to the person who instigated the photography
automatically. It's only if you write a contract specifically awarding
yourself copyright, do you have any.

and I was speaking in general terms, not getting into the ins and outs of
photography for hire, which is what the AU and CA laws are about.

Also if you take photographs in a "servant master" relationship in those
countries, the copyright automatically belongs to the master. A servant
master relationship is said to exist if the master issues the servant
instructions and the servant receives payment for following them.

True, but the instance that Dallas was referring to isn't a part of that.

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.

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.

Then again if he intends to use your images on his web site to promote his
wedding photography. I have no doubt your house will be mortgaged to fund
the case... It'll need to be if the fees a US lawyer quoted me are
anything to go on.

That's one reason copyright laws are so openly flaunted, and seldom
pursued...

A twist on this on is when you "do the right thing" by your clients and
hand over copyright. The client then assigns those images to another
photographer (maybe for enlargements) and doesn't stipulate a time or
purpose and they use them to advertise their own business. ****es you off
no end but in Australia and Canada it's quite legal!

And, I believe, here, too...unless otherwise stated in a copyright
agreement.
and I was speaking in general terms, not getting into the ins and outs of
photography for hire, which is what the AU and CA laws are about.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:56:04 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:

[snip]
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.

I'm tempted, I'm soooo tempted!

I'll keep e-mailing them and posting on their forums until they take
notice. I'll send something by snail-mail as soon as I've worked out
the address!

--
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 writes:

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?

No, it's not safe at all. Hasn't been safe in the US since 1986, when
we passed the Berne Convention enabling legislation. Hasn't been safe
in the rest of the developed world for even longer.

Need for notice to protect copyright was a US-only thing under our
previous legislation, but that's long gone.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/