Digital Imaging etiquette and WIX

[skybolt2003]

Whenever I post a pic or something of mine, as in copyrighted to me, whether it says so or not, I expect it to be used, without my permission. That's just the way it is when it's in the public domain unfotunately. Now, if someone besides the owner plasters it all over the WWW claiming it to be theirs when it's not, that's another story.

Sorry, that's not true-because something is on the internet does not put it in the public domain. Although if you put photos on sites like Flikr you might very well have given away some of your rights to the image due to their T&C.

I'd be a lot more concerned about the Magnum photo of the A-20's. If anyone is interested in how professional photographers license their images, the link I posted in that thread is an excellent primer on the subject.

[spookythecat]

I know i'd be upset if I ran across one of my pictures somewhere w/o at least credit that I took it. I don't shoot for a living and certainly want others to enjoy what I do take, i'd just like to be credited and if possible put a link to my flickr page.

[RareBear]

It appears to me that "flyingheritage" or whoever this poster is, doesn't give a sh+t about following the rules, and that Scott or whoever is appropriate should take action to eliminate the problem.

He has been warned by a moderator innumerable times today alone.

Scott, the ball's in your court.

Walt

[RSpivey]

What part of fair use do you people not understand. He is not at any time making the statement that he took the picture, nor is he using it for monetary uses.

Using the argument of several in this thread no picture of anykind should be posted by anyone unless they took it or made it themselves. And with that logic I ask you who made those smilies that you folks are using and why are you using them... copyright copyright dmca copyright.... where is your personal letter of permission???

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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[262crew]

I know i'd be upset if I ran across one of my pictures somewhere w/o at least credit that I took it. I don't shoot for a living and certainly want others to enjoy what I do take, i'd just like to be credited and if possible put a link to my flickr page.

I am with Al on this one, I have several pictures in books and a recent quarterly report that was not credited to me. I don't want any money just recognition, thats all. To answer the question about the 47 as a bomber, everyone knows it cant carry a decent payload

[RSpivey]

The owner of the photograph clearly does not want it used without permission, "All photos on this site are copyrighted and therefore may not be used without permission. This includes hotlinking. We can be contated at jphotow@cox.net." Perhaps Wixlova--err,Flying Heritage has permission to use it. Just because someone has a photograph on their website does not grant you permission to use it. The only exception could be under 'fair use' or if it is in the public domain.

Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

As there is no binding agreement fair use does apply.

[noizeedave]

FYI Jiggersfromsphilly ... My 2 cents....

The C-130 Fire Bombing didnt have the wings fold due to more stress than the airframe can take, but more, the airframe couldnt take the stresses that fire bombing requires without a proper maintenance procedure, inspections and annual wing box x-rays that the forest service failed to provide annually. The wings on a C-130 will take many G's without folding.....Yes from expirience.....

[skybolt2003]

The owner of the photograph clearly does not want it used without permission, "All photos on this site are copyrighted and therefore may not be used without permission. This includes hotlinking. We can be contated at jphotow@cox.net." Perhaps Wixlova--err,Flying Heritage has permission to use it. Just because someone has a photograph on their website does not grant you permission to use it. The only exception could be under 'fair use' or if it is in the public domain.

Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

As there is no binding agreement fair use does apply.

A couple of things-I mentioned fair use. It is up to the photographer to defend his copyright. They can break the link, if they think their work is being infringed in a situation like this. (hot-linking) The next thing, do you want to stare down Magnum's lawyers and cry fair use? I've been in touch with Magnum as well as a couple of the other photographers who's work this fellow re-purposed today. Part of the reason that commercial photographers are having trouble is because of non-professional (whether working or not) photographers de-valuing or giving away work, selling royalty-free stock photography and just being happy to get a credit. I'm just doing my part to try and get people to understand that if it's on the internet, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it, and for photographers to understand pricing. licensing and the value of their work.
Sick of this, btw, and also just annoyed that hgu/wixlover is back.

[Steve Nelson]

Since I went to the trouble of looking this one up, I'm posting it anyway.

Not exactly a bomber, but...

SN

[Randy Haskin]

Clearly, that's a Boeing copyright photo!

[Paul Krumrei]

Unless someone is using the photo to make a ton of money off of illegally, who really cares about posting on a forum of discussion?

I mean, are you going to really clog up the WIX with he said, she said stuff on this or move on with your life and talk about airplanes?

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

On a slightly smaller scale; and this is for real! Internal and external weapons storage!

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... index.html

[k5083]

What part of fair use do you people not understand. He is not at any time making the statement that he took the picture, nor is he using it for monetary uses.

It is clear that you do not understand fair use at all. If I copy MS Windows or Madagascar 2 and give them away for free, I'm not claiming I authored them and I'm not making any money. Think Microsoft and DreamWorks will feel it's okay?

Using the argument of several in this thread no picture of anykind should be posted by anyone unless they took it or made it themselves.

By George, I think he's got it! Or unless that person gives permission. Fair use is a narrow exception, it is rare when it applies with any certainty.

And with that logic I ask you who made those smilies that you folks are using and why are you using them... copyright copyright dmca copyright.... where is your personal letter of permission???

It doesn't have to be a personal letter. People who make smileys usually give blanket permission for their use. People who post photos usually don't.

[skydaddy61]

I am not an intellectual-property lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I do work with college faculty who deal with this issue all the time.

17 USC § 107 wrote:
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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The Fair Use clause is a defense against a copyright infringement suit. Based on the bolded terms above and the purpose and users of this site, the poster might well have a reasonable chance of a successful defense if sued:

Many members here are members of 501(3)c educational organizations. Many members here post the results of their scholarship.
This is clearly not a commerical site - Membership is free; and required only to post, not view, the content. It's even got a .org domain.
I also doubt that the market or value of the image is seriously diminshed by its being hotlinked here. One could argue that the market fot the photographer's work is actually *increased* by the additional exposure.
One could also make the argument that the image itself has not been posted here; only a link which displays the image without requiring the user to click to view it.

Now, none of these arguments are dispositive, but they could be made. And as I understand it, there's a legal procedure to have a case thrown out simply because the defense stands a good chance of winning.

That aside, I agree with the general sentiment that, "Hey, y'all, I found this cool picture!" doesn't add a great deal of value to the conversation.


On a related note, folks might be interested in Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/ It's rather popular among photographers on Flickr.

[CAPFlyer]

Also, despite all claims to the contrary, this is still a *PRIVATE* forum since guests can't post on it. As such, all who post must agree to the rules of the forum. So, no matter what "fair use" claims to protect, if you violate the rules of the forum, you are guilty of the rule infractions and the penalties that may ensue (i.e. suspension or banning).

Looking back, the first time the legality of posting the pictures was brought up was Mr. Spivey. Prior to that, the issue had been contained to what the forum rules stated very clearly and the actions of a single user in violation of those rules.

Also, Fair Use doesn't cover bandwidth theft (aka "hot linking"). This is illegal in all instances unless permitted by the host, so hot linking off of someone else's site without permission is just as much or more of an issue than just using other people's works without permission in violation of forum rules.

Last edited by CAPFlyer on Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.