Copyright and Picasa

[Canuck[_2_]]

Hi everyone. I'm sorry if I've caused any problems by uploading your images
to my Picasa web album. I've removed everything that isn't my own doing from
Picasa. However, I'm somewhat confused by the copyright issue. When I go to
an album and check the properties for each image, it shows that the images
are protected by copyright and not reusable (regardless of if they are my
own images or someone elses). Can anyone clarify the issue for me?

Thanks,

Nick

[mrorwell]

On 20 Oct 2008, you wrote in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:

> Once images are uploaded on a newsgroup, you are able to put them on a
> website as long as credit is shown to the orginial photographer. The
> problem usually lies in when you are trying to pass it off as your own
> work or if someone downloads and than prints or makes a print for
> themselves to sell. As long as you are not making money off the
> picture(s) or music etc, than no copyright law has been broken. This
> is pretty mcuh the way copyright is handled in Canada any way.

This is not the way US Copyright works.

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Canuck[_2_]]

<mrorwell> wrote in message
81...
> On 20 Oct 2008, you wrote in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:
>
>> Once images are uploaded on a newsgroup, you are able to put them on a
>> website as long as credit is shown to the orginial photographer. The
>> problem usually lies in when you are trying to pass it off as your own
>> work or if someone downloads and than prints or makes a print for
>> themselves to sell. As long as you are not making money off the
>> picture(s) or music etc, than no copyright law has been broken. This
>> is pretty mcuh the way copyright is handled in Canada any way.
>
> This is not the way US Copyright works.
>
> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
> copyrights.)
>
> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
> from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>
> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I can see that there is a conflict between
US and Canadian law. I'm in Canada. When I uploaded the images to Picasa, I
made sure that all of them were "protected." Any images that were
copyrighted otherwise had watermarks or a copyright note on them. I just
assumed that since they were in the public domain it was OK to post them on
Picasa because Canadian law allows it. Since there seems to be an issue
between different jurisdictions, only my own images are up on Picasa now.

Take care,

Nick

[Bill & Ange]

Once images are uploaded on a newsgroup, you are able to put them on a
website as long as credit is shown to the orginial photographer. The problem
usually lies in when you are trying to pass it off as your own work or if
someone downloads and than prints or makes a print for themselves to sell.
As long as you are not making money off the picture(s) or music etc, than no
copyright law has been broken. This is pretty mcuh the way copyright is
handled in Canada any way. You can always have a note or disclaimer stating
that if there is a picture from someone who doesn't want it posted on your
site or something along those lines, you will remove it. You would need some
sort of proof for this, as third party situations are bound to arise, friend
of a friend of a friend etc... Depending where you are, try your local
library. There should be something there about copyright in just about every
Country. Also try your provincial offices or try the Feds in Ottawa.
Hope this helps...

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> Hi everyone. I'm sorry if I've caused any problems by uploading your
> images to my Picasa web album. I've removed everything that isn't my own
> doing from Picasa. However, I'm somewhat confused by the copyright issue.
> When I go to an album and check the properties for each image, it shows
> that the images are protected by copyright and not reusable (regardless of
> if they are my own images or someone elses). Can anyone clarify the issue
> for me?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>


-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:

>On 20 Oct 2008, you wrote in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:
>
>> Once images are uploaded on a newsgroup, you are able to put them on a
>> website as long as credit is shown to the orginial photographer. The
>> problem usually lies in when you are trying to pass it off as your own
>> work or if someone downloads and than prints or makes a print for
>> themselves to sell. As long as you are not making money off the
>> picture(s) or music etc, than no copyright law has been broken. This
>> is pretty mcuh the way copyright is handled in Canada any way.
>
>This is not the way US Copyright works.
>
>Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
>Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>copyrights.)
>
>Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
>The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>
>But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
>wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A statistician took a standard deviation from his normal way home because the mean of the population was after him.

[Richard Brooks[_2_]]

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:

>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>> copyrights.)
>>
>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>>
>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.
>
> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>
> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
> with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

[mrorwell]

Peter Hucker > wrote in
:

> Then the US have it completely wrong.

The US tied its copyright laws to the Berne Convention in 1989. The
Berne Convention universally protects the rights of the person who
created the work (photo, text or whatever) and is in affect in 164
countries. The Convention is almost 50 pages of legalese and is the
minimum requirement in each of those 164 countries. The Convention
allows individual countries to "tweak" the law to their own standards,
but they can't change the basics. The US, the UK and the EU (among many
others) have done that.

So.... if the US has it wrong and it's based primarily on the Berne
Convention, then 163 other countries probably have it wrong as well.

> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
> with attributions to you?

Because maybe the person who OWNS it doesn't want you to have it on your
web page? Besides, there's nothing to say that the person who uploaded
it to the newsgroups holds the copyright. The original copyright holder
may not even know that it's appearing here.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[mrorwell]

"Canuck" > wrote in
:

> Any images that were copyrighted otherwise had watermarks or a copyright
note on them. I just assumed that since they were in the public domain it
was OK to post them on Picasa because Canadian law allows it.

You can't trust that. Copyright under the Berne Convention is automatic.
No registration or copyright notice is required. The only way that a work
is in the public domain is if the copyright holder specifically says that
it is, or it's so old that the copyright has expired. My response to the
next post has more details on the Berne Convention.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Jim Breckenridge[_3_]]

Canuck wrote:
> Hi everyone. I'm sorry if I've caused any problems by uploading your
> images to my Picasa web album. I've removed everything that isn't my own
> doing from Picasa. However, I'm somewhat confused by the copyright
> issue. When I go to an album and check the properties for each image, it
> shows that the images are protected by copyright and not reusable
> (regardless of if they are my own images or someone elses). Can anyone
> clarify the issue for me?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
Here are a couple of URLs you might find interesting:

http://www.photoattorney.com/

and a real long one:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=rJHNqWYGJtIC&dq=legal+handbook+for+photographers+by+bert+krages&pg=PP1&ots=USmfqkywZl&sig=QuGefZEdhtSmt0f-x0pUjJRbUaU&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Legal+Handbook+for+Photographers+by+Bert+Krages&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA113,M1

[mrorwell]

Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:


> See my prior post, I don't need your permission if it qualifies as
> fair use (USA) I don't know what other countries policy concerning
> fair use are.

Fair Use and parody were two of the reasons I originally said that
copyright was way to complex to explain in two paragraphs.

Regarding your first point... I thought that the copyright had to be
registered before you could sue for damages. If you can't stop someone
from using your unregistered copyright material, what's the use in having a
copyright?

The other points you made in your other post are, of course, completely
valid. But in reality, they are (probably) exceptions in this group and
(probably) not applicable to the types of photos the original poster asked
about. My impression is that most of the photos we see here are modern
(post 3-1-89)



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Joseph Testagrose]

On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:

>On 20 Oct 2008, you wrote in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:
>
>> Once images are uploaded on a newsgroup, you are able to put them on a
>> website as long as credit is shown to the orginial photographer. The
>> problem usually lies in when you are trying to pass it off as your own
>> work or if someone downloads and than prints or makes a print for
>> themselves to sell. As long as you are not making money off the
>> picture(s) or music etc, than no copyright law has been broken. This
>> is pretty mcuh the way copyright is handled in Canada any way.
>
>This is not the way US Copyright works.
>
>Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
>Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>copyrights.)
>
>Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
>The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>
>But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
>wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

f
>
>
I hate to burst anyone's bubble but being the author of a work does
not give exclusive rights to the copyrright holder once the work has
been published. (US copyright Law)
1-you must register a copy of the work with the copyright office
before you can sue to stop infringment.
2-I can infringe on your work provided I can prove that the use is
fair use and I do not need your permission.
3-An original work of art must quailfy as a work of art covered by the
copyright acts 1909, 1976 and the current copyright law. The lawsuit
depends on when the work was published for the first time.
4-Works publshed prior to 1989 without copyright notice on them are
now public domain unless works published between 1-1-78 & 3-1-89 had
the omission corrected within five years of publication. Works first
published between 1909 and 12-31-77 without notice immediatly went
into the public domain without a chance to correct the omission.
5-We all (whether trains, ships or planes over the years traded or
sold slides, negatives and prints. Anything given away, sold, lent or
traded prior to 12-31-77 without notice are now public domain.
Reminder even with the notice a copy must have been filed with the
copyright office before a lawsuit is started.
6-Worst of all, copyright lawyers charge really big fees.
>.................................................. ..............
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
>-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Joseph Testagrose]

On 20 Oct 2008 21:59:46 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:

>Peter Hucker > wrote in
:
>
>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>
>The US tied its copyright laws to the Berne Convention in 1989. The
>Berne Convention universally protects the rights of the person who
>created the work (photo, text or whatever) and is in affect in 164
>countries. The Convention is almost 50 pages of legalese and is the
>minimum requirement in each of those 164 countries. The Convention
>allows individual countries to "tweak" the law to their own standards,
>but they can't change the basics. The US, the UK and the EU (among many
>others) have done that.
>
>So.... if the US has it wrong and it's based primarily on the Berne
>Convention, then 163 other countries probably have it wrong as well.
>
>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>> with attributions to you?
>
>Because maybe the person who OWNS it doesn't want you to have it on your
>web page? Besides, there's nothing to say that the person who uploaded
>it to the newsgroups holds the copyright. The original copyright holder
>may not even know that it's appearing here.
See my prior post, I don't need your permission if it qualifies as
fair use (USA) I don't know what other countries policy concerning
fair use are.
>
>
>
>.................................................. ..............
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
>-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Glenn[_2_]]

>
> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>
> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
> with attributions to you?

I may not want it to go on another website.
Certainly, ther are some magazines I DEFINATELY do not want publishing my
shots.
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> A statistician took a standard deviation from his normal way home because
> the mean of the population was after him.

[Maple1]

Nail hit on head


Glenn wrote:

>
> I may not want it to go on another website.
> Certainly, ther are some magazines I DEFINATELY do not want publishing
> my shots.
>

>

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
> wrote:

>Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
>> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:
>
>>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
>>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>>> copyrights.)
>>>
>>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
>>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>>>
>>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
>>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.
>>
>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>
>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>> with attributions to you?
>
>They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

While taking down the vitals for a soon-to-be mom, I asked how much she weighed.
"I really don't know," she said.
"Well, more or less," I prompted.
"More, I guess," she answered sadly.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:13:56 GMT, "Glenn" >
wrote:

>
>>
>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>
>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>> with attributions to you?
>
>I may not want it to go on another website.

Why on earth not?

>Certainly, ther are some magazines I DEFINATELY do not want publishing my
>shots.

For example?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

_______
_____ |.-----.|
/.---.\ || ||
|| || ||_____||
|| /__\ |-_---_-|
|| =| |=| |=
|| !!! !!!
||
|| _..---.
_||___.---.____.-" _...__)
(______| |_____.-' /
\ |___| |
| !!!!! |
\ /
'.__ __.'
_\/``"""""""``\/_
(__( )__)

[Glenn[_2_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:13:56 GMT, "Glenn" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>
>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>> with attributions to you?
>>
>>I may not want it to go on another website.
>
> Why on earth not?
>
Not that it is of any concern to you.

But I may have allegience with one website over another
I have certain criteria that I have abided by to get permission that
involves careful usage. same applies to magazines etc.
I most certainly do not want the image used in another website that tries to
sell it.
I may think you're an areshole and don't want you to use my images to
promote yourself.


The list goes on.
Are you still going to argue why I don't want other websites to use them.





I may have
> _______
> _____ |.-----.|
> /.---.\ || ||
> || || ||_____||
> || /__\ |-_---_-|
> || =| |=| |=
> || !!! !!!
> ||
> || _..---.
> _||___.---.____.-" _...__)
> (______| |_____.-' /
> \ |___| |
> | !!!!! |
> \ /
> '.__ __.'
> _\/``"""""""``\/_
> (__( )__)

[Joseph Testagrose]

People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker >
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
>>> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:
>>
>>>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>>>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>>>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>>>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
>>>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>>>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>>>> copyrights.)
>>>>
>>>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>>>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>>>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
>>>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>>>>
>>>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
>>>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.
>>>
>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>
>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>> with attributions to you?
>>
>>They didn't ask?
>
>Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
>a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
>method they use to access the photo.

[Joseph Testagrose]

Read my prior reply, if you don't want your picture used under the
fair use doctrine then don't publish them. (Read the US copyright
acts since 1909 and learn what the hell your talking about. Whether
you like it or not once you have published your copyright picture you
DO NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL HOW IT IS USED. Read the caselaw before
you make stupid claims or warnings about the use of your pictures.
Joe

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:09:31 GMT, "Glenn" >
wrote:

>
>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:13:56 GMT, "Glenn" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>>> with attributions to you?
>>>
>>>I may not want it to go on another website.
>>
>> Why on earth not?
>>
>Not that it is of any concern to you.
>
>But I may have allegience with one website over another
>I have certain criteria that I have abided by to get permission that
>involves careful usage. same applies to magazines etc.
>I most certainly do not want the image used in another website that tries to
>sell it.
>I may think you're an areshole and don't want you to use my images to
>promote yourself.
>
>
>The list goes on.
>Are you still going to argue why I don't want other websites to use them.
>
>
>
>
>
>I may have
>> _______
>> _____ |.-----.|
>> /.---.\ || ||
>> || || ||_____||
>> || /__\ |-_---_-|
>> || =| |=| |=
>> || !!! !!!
>> ||
>> || _..---.
>> _||___.---.____.-" _...__)
>> (______| |_____.-' /
>> \ |___| |
>> | !!!!! |
>> \ /
>> '.__ __.'
>> _\/``"""""""``\/_
>> (__( )__)

[Glenn[_2_]]

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" > wrote in message
...
> People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
> read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
> absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
> fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
> CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
> PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
> WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
>>>> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>>>>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>>>>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>>>>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
>>>>> expires.
>>>>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>>>>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>>>>> copyrights.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>>>>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>>>>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
>>>>> use.
>>>>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
>>>>> Check
>>>>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
>>>>> explanation.
>>>>
>>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>>> with attributions to you?
>>>
>>>They didn't ask?
>>
>>Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
>>a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
>>method they use to access the photo.
>

[mrorwell]

Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:

> People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
> read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
> absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
> fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
> CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
> PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE

Care to cite your sources?

This is an issue that interests me and I've done quite a bit of reading...
and from what I see, you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited
use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights
holders, such as use for scholarship or review." (Wikipedia)

The Copyright act of 1976 says "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."

Is it for criticism of the photo or the plane? Maybe it qualifies. But
just saying "gee, pretty picture" wouldn't count as criticism.

Is it for comment? Again, I don't think "gee, pretty airplane" is what
they had in mind.

News reporting? Hard to say how that applies to a photo of planes that are
(sometimes) many years old. If someone is reporting on a airshow, they
MIGHT have some legitimate fair use claim, but I doubt that most websites
could legitimately call themselves "news sources," even in a world where
bloggers are getting press credentials.

Teaching? Even less likely than news reporting.

Scolarship or research? Again, it's a real stretch that most people could
make a legitimate claim.

Wikipedia also sites several misunderstandings of fair use. The following
are also from their article on that subject:

Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the
photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own.
Copyright is a matter of law. Citing sources generally prevents accusations
of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations
(otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by
citing who wrote it).

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the
profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic,
the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the
Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the
public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

> AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY
RIGHT PROTECTION.

Well, it's clear that YOU need to learn about copyright law. ALL photos
that I take are automatically copyrighted (and entitled to copyright
protection), the moment I take them. That is the law in more than 150
countries and is enforced by international treaty, the Berne Convention.

In the US you have to register the copyright to be able to sue for damages,
but that's the only "official" step you need to take.




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Maple1]

At least someone else in here has read that other then me and as an
educator I have a pretty good understanding. And yes just using a photo
on your site because you think it is nice is self promotion and is a
Violation of copyright.

[Joseph Testagrose]

Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
know what you are talking about.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn" >
wrote:

>But you don't have a fair right to it either.
>
>Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
>leg to stand on.
>Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
>on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
>copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
>organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
>it.
>
>jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
>upsetting to you than it is to me.
>
>curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
>the images before it gets into a bum fight.
>
>
>
>"Joseph Testagrose" > wrote in message
...
>> People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
>> read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
>> absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
>> fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
>> CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
>> PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
>> WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
>>>>> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>>>>>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>>>>>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>>>>>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
>>>>>> expires.
>>>>>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>>>>>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>>>>>> copyrights.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>>>>>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>>>>>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
>>>>>> use.
>>>>>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
>>>>>> Check
>>>>>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>>>> with attributions to you?
>>>>
>>>>They didn't ask?
>>>
>>>Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
>>>a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
>>>method they use to access the photo.
>>

[Joseph Testagrose]

Yes and posting pictures for educational purposes and not for profit
is fair use, once again read the case law (the decisons) from the
various Federal District Courts. Wikipedia is not the case law and
their are four fair use tests that must be decided by the Courts.
Simply put 1-Purpose & character of the use, 2-The nature of the
copyrighted work, 3-Amount & substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and 4-The effect of the
use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.
Depending on the orginal artistic merit of the photo I might win or
lose on Two. Three I probably would lose and Four I am not making
money on the infringment and you have to prove that you lost money and
the monatary value of your copyrighted work, I probably would win on
Four. Case dismissed, fair use.
Once again read the case law. Joe.

On 01 Nov 2008 05:46:46 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:

>Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:
>
>> People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
>> read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
>> absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
>> fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
>> CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
>> PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE
>
>Care to cite your sources?
>
>This is an issue that interests me and I've done quite a bit of reading...
>and from what I see, you honestly don't know what you're talking about.
>
>"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited
>use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights
>holders, such as use for scholarship or review." (Wikipedia)
>
>The Copyright act of 1976 says "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."
>
>Is it for criticism of the photo or the plane? Maybe it qualifies. But
>just saying "gee, pretty picture" wouldn't count as criticism.
>
>Is it for comment? Again, I don't think "gee, pretty airplane" is what
>they had in mind.
>
>News reporting? Hard to say how that applies to a photo of planes that are
>(sometimes) many years old. If someone is reporting on a airshow, they
>MIGHT have some legitimate fair use claim, but I doubt that most websites
>could legitimately call themselves "news sources," even in a world where
>bloggers are getting press credentials.
>
>Teaching? Even less likely than news reporting.
>
>Scolarship or research? Again, it's a real stretch that most people could
>make a legitimate claim.
>
>Wikipedia also sites several misunderstandings of fair use. The following
>are also from their article on that subject:
>
>Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the
>photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own.
>Copyright is a matter of law. Citing sources generally prevents accusations
>of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations
>(otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by
>citing who wrote it).
>
>Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the
>profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic,
>the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the
>Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the
>public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.
>
>> AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY
>RIGHT PROTECTION.
>
>Well, it's clear that YOU need to learn about copyright law. ALL photos
>that I take are automatically copyrighted (and entitled to copyright
>protection), the moment I take them. That is the law in more than 150
>countries and is enforced by international treaty, the Berne Convention.
>
>In the US you have to register the copyright to be able to sue for damages,
>but that's the only "official" step you need to take.
>
>
>
>
>.................................................. ..............
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
>-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Maple1]

So Now you are a Lawyer and Judge specializing in copyright law?

[mrorwell]

Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:

> For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
> pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.

Wait... you mean all I have to do is CLAIM that it's for educational
purposes and I'm covered? Really? So I can post photos of naked women
and call it an anatomy lesson and be covered? That's great!

Ok, sarcasm aside, I wouldn't bet the farm on you winning that first test
if all you've done is post some photos and called it education. What are
you teaching? Are you giving information in a structured manner? Are
you adding anything to help people understand the photos in the context
of the history of aviation? Posting 1,000 photos starting with the
Wright flyer and ending with the F-22 isn't education, it's a photobucket
account. You yourself said that you would probably lose on the third
test (Amount & substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole) so without that, how could you possibly
support the claim of education? And the fourth test, effect of the use
upon the potential market for the photo is only going to keep you from
being sued for damages.

I'll agree that Wikipedia isn't the law... call it legalese for dummies.
But I also cited a section of the Copyright Act of 1976. All you've done
is say "read case history." CITE your sources. Give us an actual
example. Show us how any tom, dick or harry can take photos from here,
drop them on a website and call it "education" and get away with it.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[mrorwell]

Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:

> Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
> know what you are talking about.

The irony of that statement is quite amusing.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

Profit is the key here.

Taking an image from this group and putting it on a page not for
profit - I don't see the harm in that.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn" >
wrote:

>But you don't have a fair right to it either.
>
>Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
>leg to stand on.
>Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
>on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
>copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
>organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
>it.
>
>jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
>upsetting to you than it is to me.
>
>curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
>the images before it gets into a bum fight.
>
>
>
>"Joseph Testagrose" > wrote in message
...
>> People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
>> read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
>> absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
>> fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
>> CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
>> PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
>> WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
>>>>> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
>>>>>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
>>>>>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>>>>>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
>>>>>> expires.
>>>>>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>>>>>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
>>>>>> copyrights.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
>>>>>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>>>>>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
>>>>>> use.
>>>>>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
>>>>>> Check
>>>>>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>>>> with attributions to you?
>>>>
>>>>They didn't ask?
>>>
>>>Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
>>>a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
>>>method they use to access the photo.
>>
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"Americans will always do the right thing when they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Winston Churchill

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On 02 Nov 2008 05:09:44 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:

>Joseph Testagrose > wrote in
:
>
>> For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
>> pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
>teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.
>
>Wait... you mean all I have to do is CLAIM that it's for educational
>purposes and I'm covered? Really? So I can post photos of naked women
>and call it an anatomy lesson and be covered? That's great!

You can post them anyway. Naked woman aren't illegal.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

_,=.=,_
,'=. `\___,
/ \ (0 | __ _
/ \ ___/ /| | ''--.._
| | \) || | ===|\
', _/ .--' || | ====| |
`"`; ( || | ===|/
[[[[]]_..,_ \|_|_..--;"`
/ .--""``\\ __)__|_
.' .\,,||___ | |
( .' -""`| `"";___)---'|________|__
|\ / __| [_____________________]
\| .-' `\ |.----------.|
\ _ | || ||
( .-' ) || ||
`""""""""""""` """ """

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:09:31 GMT, "Glenn" >
wrote:

>
>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:13:56 GMT, "Glenn" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>>> with attributions to you?
>>>
>>>I may not want it to go on another website.
>>
>> Why on earth not?
>>
>Not that it is of any concern to you.

You made the statement, of course you need to back it up.

>But I may have allegience with one website over another
>I have certain criteria that I have abided by to get permission that
>involves careful usage. same applies to magazines etc.
>I most certainly do not want the image used in another website that tries to
>sell it.

Then that's between the two websites, why should it concern you?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Lysdexia: a peech imspediment we live to learn with...

[Glenn[_2_]]

Mate, it boils down to this. If you think my photos are good enough to steal
for your own good self, then great for you. there only aircraft photos.

Personally I think that you would get off your arse and do it yourself but I
appreciate ther are those who can't and tehn there are those who just don't
want to. I guess you fit in teh later. I photograph a LOT of RICH peoples
toys and it is sometimes them that will do the chasing. Not me. So what ever
you reckon is fine, I am fine with. And just try and get away with something
that has the EAA logo in it without their permission.


"Joseph Testagrose" > wrote in message
...
> Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
> know what you are talking about.
>
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn" >
> wrote:
>
>>But you don't have a fair right to it either.
>>
>>Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of
>>a
>>leg to stand on.
>>Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
>>on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
>>copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
>>organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun
>>of
>>it.
>>
>>jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
>>upsetting to you than it is to me.
>>
>>curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they
>>pull
>>the images before it gets into a bum fight.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Joseph Testagrose" > wrote in message
...
>>> People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
>>> read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
>>> absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
>>> fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
>>> CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
>>> PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
>>> WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell <mrorwell> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
>>>>>>> automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
>>>>>>> expires.
>>>>>>> Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
>>>>>>> corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and
>>>>>>> longer
>>>>>>> copyrights.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
>>>>>>> permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
>>>>>>> use.
>>>>>>> The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and
>>>>>>> reviews.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
>>>>>>> Check
>>>>>>> wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the US have it completely wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
>>>>>> newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
>>>>>> with attributions to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>They didn't ask?
>>>>
>>>>Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
>>>>a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
>>>>method they use to access the photo.
>>>
>

[Glenn[_2_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> Profit is the key here.
>
> Taking an image from this group and putting it on a page not for
> profit - I don't see the harm in that.
>
There you go. that's your game. Nothing else. Freeloading off others. try
armed robbery, it's a little dicier but the benefits are better.
Get the right case law and you'll probably find it's legal too ;-)