Copyright and Picasa

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=-

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=-

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.