Copyright Infringement Reports (Review guidelines in post #1 before posting here)

[David Drummond]

On the note of copyright, I had a thought yesterday reading this thread I wanted to post (and getting back on topic).

There is a common misconception floating around people these days that "if I didn't make any money off it" it's still ok to use other people's stuff. This is completely incorrect.

The essence of copyright law, is the "RIGHT TO COPY" (thus copy-right {not copywrite as some people type it}). The whole idea of it is that the person that created a material has the exclusive rights to control how that work is used, in any form or fashion. Period. That's all it boils down to.

Certainly there are some financial and even criminal penalties afforded in the laws, but that is the very basics of it.

All you have to do is ask yourself two questions:

1) Did I create this thing I am about to use?
2) If the answer to #1 is no, did I ask (and obtain) permission to use it from the person that did create it?
3) If the answer to #1 and#2 is NO then do not use it.

Following that simple formula you can be sure you are never stealing anyone's work.

 

[Steve Miller]

I want to back up here and ask the question: why is an "authoritative" guide being written by individual who does not have access to their own photography regarding the guide's subject? Just curious.

 

[Robert Dewey]

All you have to do is ask yourself two questions:

1) Did I create this thing I am about to use?
2) If the answer to #1 is no, did I ask (and obtain) permission to use it from the person that did create it?
3) If the answer to #1 and#2 is NO then do not use it.

Following that simple formula you can be sure you are never stealing anyone's work.

The problem I have - as a user of stock photography myself - is that what if someone else uploads your work to a stock photo company, and then I purchase it thinking it's legal? Of course I'd have to take the photo down once it's been found to be an illegal copy, but the true criminal is the one who uploaded it in the first place.

I think if Lanny and Jeremy worked together instead of bickering and accusing, they might actually be able to track down the source of the image (provided someone did actually upload the file illegally).

 

[Rich Long]

I want to back up here and ask the question: why is an "authoritative" guide being written by individual who does not have access to their own photography regarding the guide's subject? Just curious.

In my case I'm writing procedural guides for a non profit who has a storm spotting division.

 

[David Drummond]

The problem I have - as a user of stock photography myself - is that what if someone else uploads your work to a stock photo company, and then I purchase it thinking it's legal? Of course I'd have to take the photo down once it's been found to be an illegal copy, but the true criminal is the one who uploaded it in the first place.

I think if Lanny and Jeremy worked together instead of bickering and accusing, they might actually be able to track down the source of the image (provided someone did actually upload the file illegally).

Yes, that certainly can complicate things. If you go to a stock agency and purchase an item, you are acting responsibly and with proper intentions and full faith that what you are getting is fully licensed for you to use.

The burden then falls on the stock agency for quality control and ultimately on the person that stole the images and uploaded them there in the first place.

A similar thing has been happening (with storm stuff especially) over the last 2 or 3 years when it comes to these places the media has set up for viewers to upload images. I know a few times it's popped up where a storm chasers images has been uploaded to the TWC site, or various TV station sites by someone other than the photographer.

 

[David Drummond]

Also, in regards the thought "there is no point in suing someone anyway, they don't have much to get". In many cases of the individual, the second half of that statement is often true.

However (there is always however), should you piss off someone bad enough they are willing to pay the lawyer fees to get a judgment against you, which really isn't as hard as you think it is, after all, if your short on cash, you are not going to pay thousands for a lawyer to defend you 5 states away), they can certainly do that.

While you may not have the money to pay such a judgment, it will go on your credit record, and liens can be attached in your county of residence on any and all property you own, any money you may get in the future and just about anything else they want to go after. In short, they could financially cripple you for many, many years.

Of course, most people won't, but I know a few members right here on this forum that would take it that far if they got pissed enough, and have the means to do so.

Bottom line, don't think you are judgment proof just because you don't have much.

I'm mostly putting this stuff in to address some misconceptions for any future readers that might come across this thread. We really need a stickied copyright guide on this forum.

 

[Brandon Sullivan]

Infringement Thread Rules

Thread Rules

Stormtrack promotes the lawful use of photographs and videos by its members. If a user discoveres copyright infringement of any member's work, we ask that you please PM that user directly. If the pirated work encompasses multiple users, you may either PM every user seperately, or make a copyright infringement report within this thread. In the case that copyright infringement is suspected, but the work is unidentified, a post may also be made.

We ask that discussion in this thread be limited to identifying the copyrighted work.That means keep it on topic. No snark remarks or colorful comments. The subject matter in the thread is serious, and the discussions should be treated as such.

 

[Shane Adams]

And to say well, if you don't want your pictures stolen than don't post them is like saying if you don't want your car stolen than don't park it outside your garage. That is stupid. You should be able to post your work without having to worry about a thief coming along stealing your work.

That's apples and oranges. Maybe "parking your car outside your garage unlocked with the keys in it" is comparable. The whole attitude of Joey's quote above is a big part of this weekend's show.

There's nothing stupid about it. It's real simple: Take the extra minute and put a damn watermark on your images. I can't count how many good images I see online without watermarks. Hey, I'm all for people protecting their images, but if you submit material online without a watermark ON THE IMAGE ITSELF, you get what you have coming.

See kids? It's so easy.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

There's nothing stupid about it. It's real simple: Take the extra minute and put a damn watermark on your images. I can't count how many good images I see online without watermarks. Hey, I'm all for people protecting their images, but if you submit material online without a watermark ON THE IMAGE ITSELF, you get what you have coming.

See kids? It's so easy.

Agreed. I was just saying it is stupid to suggest people shouldn't post their pictures online if they don't want them ripped off. The risk is always there, but like you said watermarking it is important. I see a lot of amazing pictures with no watermarking or anything else on the picture.

 

[Steve Miller]

DD wrote:

I'm mostly putting this stuff in to address some misconceptions for any future readers that might come across this thread. We really need a stickied copyright guide on this forum.

I would be more than willing to assist with the creation of such a thread. If formatted like Dan Robinson's video sales thread, it could be a huge help to those needing / wanting guidance.
DD and I have experience with copyright, who else does that would be interested in collaborating on a doc?

 

[Scott Weberpal]

Agreed. I was just saying it is stupid to suggest people shouldn't post their pictures online if they don't want them ripped off. The risk is always there, but like you said watermarking it is important. I see a lot of amazing pictures with no watermarking or anything else on the picture.

I think a good analogy to go along with copyright infringement and watermarks is leaving your can unlock when its parked on the street. It's illegal to steal from the car whether its locked or not, but you're just asking to get robbed if it's not locked. I liken the watermark to a lock and key, it's not perfect and won't stop all robberies, but it will prevent many. Simple as that.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

Interesting Paragraph in BigStockPhoto's User Agreement:

10. Assumption of risk.
You expressly agree that use of all images, files, or software distributed by BigStockPhoto is at your sole risk. BigStockPhoto does not warrant or guarantee that images are free from copyright or other intellectual property concerns. Likewise, you agree that you are responsible to ensure that the publication at your direction of an image obtained from BigStockPhoto does not violate any rights with respect to privacy, defamation, or publicity. You further agree to indemnify BigStockPhoto in the event a claim is made with respect to the rights described in this section.

 

[Shane Adams]

Hey, what happened to Shane's post? He had an interesting story about some things that happened to him in this area, but now it's all gone. Was it/he muzzled???? Strange.

Quickly, before this one disappears...

My original reply to the above quote stated that "I myself took down my original remarks on this thread"...however that post was in fact "muzzled". I find it odd that my reply was taken down, yet the question I was responding to remains.(since both were "off-topic")

 

[Shane Adams]

Interesting Paragraph in BigStockPhoto's User Agreement:

10. Assumption of risk.
You expressly agree that use of all images, files, or software distributed by BigStockPhoto is at your sole risk. BigStockPhoto does not warrant or guarantee that images are free from copyright or other intellectual property concerns. Likewise, you agree that you are responsible to ensure that the publication at your direction of an image obtained from BigStockPhoto does not violate any rights with respect to privacy, defamation, or publicity. You further agree to indemnify BigStockPhoto in the event a claim is made with respect to the rights described in this section.

Corporate speil for "you assume all responsibility for our shady dealings because our legal dept spent 20 seconds inserting this fine print."

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

Corporate speil for "you assume all responsibility for our shady dealings because our legal dept spent 20 seconds inserting this fine print."

That pretty much spells it out exactly. It does make it look like it is them saying: We just may have some stolen and /or unauthorized pictures for sale. We will make some money, but you may have to pay much more than what we charge.