OK To Post Another Photographer's Pictures?

I've been looking at this thread, where images of Egypt etc shot in 1937 have been scanned and posted direct on photo.net:

 

Egypt & Istanbul vacation on 35mm nitrate, 1937 Kodak Panatomic

 

Now I recall that photo.net has for many years not allowed us to post another photographer's image. Is this still the policy?

 

The reason for the question is that I've got a series of very interesting images shot in the late 1930's on 35mm Agfa colour slides, by an unknown photographer. I'd like to post them as I think they would be of interest to members. So am I OK to do this?

As far as I know the policy is that a photographer may only post their own photos to Photonet - others photos may only be posted here as / by links. I had not noticed the thread you mentioned, and will advise the Member. I can recall having seen output from "found" film in the past, but do not recall the context of the posts.

 

Here is the relevant portion from terms of use.

 

Photo.net includes information, images, photos, commentary, content, opinions and material that our users upload ("User Content"). You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself. Photo.net is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to User Content. We don't test or verify any User Content on the Site. While we do not knowingly accept User Content that violates another's rights, we are not responsible if it happens.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

The site has been tolerant (perhaps by accident) of images that are more 'documents' than somebody else's photographs. Lens diagrams, for example,with proper attribution.

Here’s my delimma. I have a “snapshot” taken of my son and his family, at the beach , and not by me. When they sent it to me, there was another story altogether of life at the beach. It was like a Rockwell painting- a colorful snack bar with a picknic table and several people standing and sitting, all in bathing suits and hats, and the surrounding beach and ocean. I will not post it but you can see it here: Beach by David Rosen

I agree that PN's policy is indeed the safest and simplest "corporate policy" to maintain. FWIW, I do think that there are a few exceptions to the "rules" that still adhere to the general PN policy. A few examples:

- a photo that has been explicitly (and easily verifiably) declared to be "in the public domain" (free of any copyrights) or re-useable under stated (and verifiable) conditions; I have used 3rd party photos (including references and adherence to any conditions) in the 'digital darkroom' challenges. Composite photo's often use photos/textures/etc. created by someone else. These days, it's less about "who depressed the shutter?" than whether you have the rights to publish an image composed of - potentially - many elements.

- a photo was taken by someone else ( living/dead) who nominally owns the photographic rights and you (as a subject in the photo) own the "portrait rights" and may have inherited (or received permission to excercise) all or limited photographic rights.

- you're the sole inheritor of a photo that you did not take

- a family member or friend gives you permission to publish a photo that they took

 

In practice, there's very little way of checking whether the poster for each and every photo on PN (or 500px or Flickr) was the person who depressed the shutter. And even if that was the case, the final image (photo) may have been developed and post-processed by someone else (for example, the owner of the camera).

 

So though the PN policy is generally a good one and the PN "rule" applies in most cases, adherence to the policy and "the rule" depends largely on PN's confidence and trust in its members not to abuse it. IMHO, any member who explicitly states that he/he understands the policy and explictlity (and verifiably) justifies why a posted photo is an exception to "the rule" deserves to be trusted!

 

Yes, there are perhaps less than 1% of members who (as in any organization) may potentially abuse this discretion but IMHO PN's policy - and its application - should be focused on the 99%+ of members who are are trustworthy.

 

Policies and rules are great and I have no problem with them. But applying them too rigidly (when commen sense tells you that this one exception is perfectly acceptatable) is not good. Bureacreacy (following the rules, whatever the consequences) does not inspire or motivate members.

 

Just my personal rant,

 

Mike

I agree that PN's policy

Check Terms of Use - quite clear and specific. I do not believe in general that things have been treated inflexibly.

I'll be sorry if my question prompts the removal of the interesting "Egypt" thread, but I think it needed to be asked.

 

I've got the old pictures I'd hoped to post on Flickr. I'm not sure if I can post a link to that site though.

I'll be sorry if my question prompts the removal of the interesting "Egypt" thread, but I think it needed to be asked.

I agree that the subject needed to be refreshed.

I don't know about Flickr - possibly a knowledgeable Member can advise you.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

Thanks Sandy.

. . . I've got the old pictures I'd hoped to post on Flickr. I'm not sure if I can post a link to that site though.

 

You could reply to the "Egypt" thread and include a LINK to those photos.

 

WW

Just a test, can someone let me know if they can see these pictures?

 

Front Garden

Yup!

I was a member of Photo.net many years ago, around 2003-2006 and I remember "found film" threads, though I think those were often posted on Gene M's site and linked here?

 

My opinion is that if you scanned it yourself, then it's at least partly "your work".

 

I certainly enjoy seeing these old images.