Admin: WARNING: Protection of Copyrights!

[Tony Rowlett]

In the history of our forum, we have not had to touch on this area

very often, but I felt it is important that this policy be made very

clear:

<blockquote>

<i><b>No person should EVER place ANY downloaded copyrighted

material back up to ANY OTHER COMPUTER/HOST/SERVER without the

explicit and documentable permission of the copyright holder.</i></b>

</blockquote>

<p>

Occasionally in the past, here and in other forums, participants

sometimes make modifications to images for the purpose of

demonstrating how an image can be "improved." Most of the time this

has been OK with the original creator because of the academic nature

of this practice. A recent incident teaches that this is not always

the case. When it is not, the various rights of the creator need to

be strongly guarded.

<p>

THEREFORE, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED...(ha ha ha)... that evidence of

improper image uploading is grounds for immediate and permanent

banning, at least from the Leica Forum, if not from photo.net

entirely.

<p>

Thank you for your understanding and adherence to this important

policy.

[sandy.]

<P>Hi Tony,

<P>Sorry for being so dumb, but can you explain further? These days I don't frequent the site very often, therefore I don't know which "recent incident" you are referring to. Does it mean that from now on I should refrain from teaching any newbie who tries to learn how to upload their picture(s) on line?

<P>Thanks in advance - Sandy

[EricM]

Sandy, you're safe, it's in regards to the recent 'TV as a subject' thread,

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Qju

[andy_piper2]

While I agree with Brad, Tony, Josh, and forum policy, I find it ironic that all of this "copyright" issue blew up on a thread whose whole point is swiping images, belonging to others, off the "boob tube".

 

Presumably some film-maker, network, ad agency/client or studio OWNS any image appearing on TV. What particular right do you/we have to "incorporate" them into our own artwork uncredited and without permission?

 

How is this different from what Andrew did: messing with someone else's images?

 

TMHO

[charles barcellona www.bl]

It may be policy - but the law about copyright does give exceptions, a partial quote as follows:

 

"... Yes, there are a number of exceptions to copyright that allow limited use of copyright works without the permission of the copyright owner. For example, limited use of works may be possible for non-commercial research and private study, --->criticism or review<---, reporting current events, judicial proceedings, teaching in schools and other educational establishments, not for profit playing of sound recordings and to help visually impaired people...."

 

That taken from the intellectual-property.gov page.

[EricM]

Andy, I had to laugh with you because I saw and read into this as well. But a huge grey area, without multi national cross over laws, is that in some cases in some countries, it�s legal to make art containing others art. This has caused huge problems as it has been awarded legally in a few particular cases that a photo containing other photos or art, is a new piece of art, and hence stands on its own. This of course opened a flood gate for people to start �reproducing� at will. It�s still huge legally and morally.

[preston_merchant]

Tony, you should frame this as a photo.net policy, not an intellectual property issue (which can be debated). If PN doesn't want members messing with other members' photos and then re-posting them in a thread, then that should be the end of the story. It has less to do with copyright and more to do with user behavior.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Yeah, and it ought to be clearly CLEARLY stated as such -

 

The wording now, would leave open a knowledgable person, thinking they were not doing ill, actually violating the cannon of PN

[todd frederick]

I haven't been reading the forum for a few days, so I took a look at the thread in question. Since the altered image was removed I don't know what was done to it. However, I agree with the policy regarding the need for permission to alter images is necessary. On the other hand I find it helpful to me if another memeber suggests a useful alteration to an image I might post and shows the result through an alteration.

 

Perhaps the poster of the image should simply ask, "Does anyone have any suggestions how this image an be improved? Feel free to alter it and show me the results," or a viewer of an image could ask permission, "I have some ideas. May I try to make some changes and post the results?"

 

I don't consider any of my photos to be sacred icons, so I don't object to helpful alteration. However, I do understand that for many, their images are deeply personal expressions of their artistic vision, and may also be used for serious display or sales. Such members have every right to be upset, and then such becomes a serious copyright issue, in my opinion.

[todd frederick]

Other issue:

 

I recall that a member of photo.net, long ago, when PN was just one forum, posted a little known image by Ansel Adams and asked for a critique, just to see what the rating would be. I think it was rated very low!

 

I once copied and posted an image from a copy of View Camera magazine to show how the photography of Sally Mann had changed over the years. The purpose of the posting these images, in both these examples, was educational, but I wondered about the legality of making the copy and posting it at the time.

 

I too thought about the legality of photographing and posting a TV image, especially if such is a copyrighted program or commercial image, and also thought it to be ironic.

 

Andy Warhol (I think I spelled that wrong!), made extensive use of trademarked and copyrighted material regularly (I think particularly of his series of altered images of Coke and Marylin Monroe's photos (and he did that for profit, not education!). I sometimes wonder about the legality of that unless he obtain permission.

 

This copyright issue can be very complex and vague.

[jay_.]

Tony, does this apply to dimwitted forum users wasting bandwidth reposting multiple times images from long-deleted For Sale posts, in pitiful attempts at mean-spirited sarcasm directed at someone whom they can't spar with on a higher intellectual plane, hmmmm?

[andy_piper2]

Todd: I think your two examples (or at least the 2nd) fall well within the "criticism or review" exemption of the law. I uploaded 2 pictures last fall (H-CB and Nat. Geographic - carefully credited) to demonstrate an 'interesting' similarity.

 

----

 

What is ethical, what is legal, and what is Photo.net(Leica forum subsector) policy are 3 different things. And Tony can set policy to be far more restrictive than the law if he chooses.

 

Re-post someone else's image modified without their permission - and you're outta here. Not a criminal (necessarily); not unethical - but outta here just the same. Seems fine with me.

[jeff_rivera5]

Tony,

 

If you upload a picture from the message confirm page, do you no longer have any control over that image? When I go to my workspace, I don't see any way to control those images. Can you comment?

[Tony Rowlett]

Jeff, I don't know. And I'm not completely sure what happens to an attached image when it's parent post is deleted.

[sandy.]

<P>Thanks Eric. I am, as usual, rather clueless as you know.

 

<P>Thanks again.;-))))

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Andy... well its being touted as protection of copyright.

 

Seems more like crowd crontrol to me.

[m_.]

Just curious: by quoting the copyright laws (refering to Charles's quote), does that violate copyright itself?

[sprouty]

<I>"Re-post someone else's image modified without their permission - and you're outta here. Not a criminal (necessarily); not unethical - but outta here just the same. Seems fine with me."</I>

<P>

This wasn't a case of someone posting something for gain or claiming false ownership. This was a game of tit-for-tat.

<P>Andrew posted Brad's image.

<P>Brad said don't do that.

<P>Andrew apologized.

<P>Brad brought the subject up again in a different thread.

<P>Andrew re-posted another image.

<P>

<P>Suddenly the moderator steps in and claims copyright concerns. This isn't about copyright protection it's about common courtesy respect for each other.

[stephen_w.]

I've posted some photos and did not specify whether it was OK to modify. Modifications were done, and they were generally much better than my secretary's original flat bed scan. I did not take it as the SLIGHTEST insult. What is the problem? Permanent banning? Give me a break.

[bob soltis]

Ladies and Gentlmen:

 

IMHO as a patent, trademark and copyright attorney, and with all due respect to

Charles' expertise, trying to use the review and criticism exceptions in this situation is

pushing the envelope a little too far. Those exceptions generally apply to genuine

review of a published work by a publication, and IMHO posting to a forum isn't within

what the statute intended.

 

Tony is right.

 

Regards,

[Brad_]

Stephen, I don't think you understand...<P>

 

1) I do not want someone taking my posted photographs, and then putting them on a

server (whether modified or not) where I have no control or ability to remove them in the

future. 2) I'm guessing that Photonet as a business does not want to be on the wrong side

of copyright law.<P>

 

Anything about points 1 or 2 not clear?

[sprouty]

As for point #1, I respect your right not to want people to repost your images without your permission, but the fact is it happens all the time around here. People offer cropping suggestions, and all manner of PS alterations. And this practice is quite obviously accepted. Andrew did this, you objected, and he apologized. You poked back again and so did he.

<P>

As for point #2, The moderator stepped in trying to settle things. I see it as Charles does, more "crowd control" than copywrite control. Because as I said above, the act of posting other peoples images goes on here all the time.

<P>

And all I'm saying is that since it was obvious that you were both going back and forth, your comment should have been deleted as well.

[skeeter]

nothing unclear about either points, brad (brad and i exchanged emails about this subject yesterday). but it still seems to me that since any image posted on the forum can be downloaded by anyone in the world and stored permanently, that you in this sense are giving up (total) control of the photo as soon as you click the submit button.

 

tony, does this mean that photos need to be identified as copyrighted (a la mike dixon's photos, and others) to qualify for this new administrative order? i don't remember seeing any such markings on brad's photos.

[Brad_]

Stephen, people verbally poke back and forth all the time here - on just about every thread

posted. Those are WORDS.

 

Tony stepped in cuz I asked him in an email to remove my photo from the photonet

server. And because, I suspect, of the threats made by the guy who uploaded my pic. That

is MY PROPERTY and is not available for the taking to put on someone's server, out of my

control. You may feel different about your photos, but please respect mine.

 

Let's be clear, words are NOT property, photos ARE. Just because you think it is acceptable

to take someone's property and do with it as you suggest does not mean that it is OK. The

policy is clear - either abide or be gone.

 

BTW, I just want to thank Tony for handling this issue in a timely and professional manor!

[travis1]

Upcoming rules aside..

 

personally I think Brad and Andrew should just shake hands or via email and just move on.

 

I understand Brad's points and Andrew's actions nonetheless.

 

I just feel this issue can be settled with a firm handshake. ASk yourself truthfully what this issue is about.

 

Rules are static, but friendships that may come must be done proactively.

 

Handshake or not, let's hear it.

 

 

(go fondle now)