Advice: Permission to use one of my photos

[themumu]

EDIT: themumu: Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but how hard is it to just ask first?

My photos contain the line Copyright DShearon 2013 All Rights Reserved. That means it's mine unless you ask. Posting doesn't make it free to take.
Dale

It may not be hard in any single case, but over the course of time an interested person spends looking at cool photos, it can become tedious. For example, when I first got a computer with an internet connection, I got into a full on hoard mode. I would scout photography and arts websites, such as deviantART, and a load of others and save stuff I liked onto my hard disk. If I were to attempt to contact every single person whose images I saved (mainly for wallpaper use, but sometimes just for staring), I would not have any time to do homework and would surely have flanked several courses at school

For me internet is like a river with a ferocious rapid flow - you cannot tame it, you cannot set your own rules in it, you have to be very aware of the risks and dangers as you get in, and in exchange you can become part of that flow and perhaps fish out the experiences you seek. Every single thing I post, I remind myself that I better be ready to stand on a podium in front of a crowd and shout it, while the crowd takes photos and videos of my doing it. Once you let your words, images, everything out - you cannot control them and cannot take them back. It's just the way this river flows, it's physics.

As for the copyright clause, you should check the fair use exemption.

 

[snberk103]

Correction: The matter of me getting access to the car for a photo shoot is a future hypothetical.
...

Fair enough. Still, it is a possibility - and it doesn't hurt to figure out how to approach this ahead of time, should the opportunity arise. It is better to have thought out all pros and cons, and thought of the questions to ask, before you are confronted with the opportunity. You will be much more comfortable with the conversation, and will make a better decision. Otherwise you will have to make a snap decision on the spur of the moment. If you like taking photos of these cars, it doesn't hurt to pursue this. I would suspect that access to the cars is primarily based on who you know. You know (sort of) that one owner. Treat him right, and you'll meet other owners. Figure out ahead of time what you will offer in exchange for that access, and you will make a much more impressive impression.

On the other hand, if these cars don't turn your crank (sorry) then there isn't really any reason to pursue the opportunity.

Luck... whichever way you go.

 

[tgara]

I'm gonna stop right there and disagree completely with this sentence.
I don't know if it was Ellison's point or your interpretation of him, but either way, I disagree with this statement completely.
At least the way it is phrased.
The notion that creators should be paid for creating paints the entire subject in a commercial, greed-driven light (which is not at all surprising for this day and age), but that I personally find terribly objectionable.
I have no problem with creators getting paid for their work, of course. But I would never state it in such a manner that seems to imply that ANY Creative work should be done entirely for the purpose of getting paid and that conversely, no work should be done if there is no money involved.

Historically, creators have created primarily because they were inspired, driven, excited. Creation is usually a labor of love, pride and joy. And framing the entire concept of creation within the boundaries of monetary compensation is an awfully demeaning and sad way to view things.

Having said all that, it does not surprise me in the least to read such points of view in this day and age. More and more, humanity seems to be about instant gratification and greed. Fewer and fewer things are "created" at all. More and more things are "produced" (the difference between "created" and "produced" should be pretty evident).

I didn't mean it that way, sorry if I was misunderstood. What I meant was that if someone is creating with the intention or desire of profiting from it, that person should be compensated. The practical reality is that the internet provides a forum for a huge amount of content by anyone and everyone, and it is therefore difficult for professionals charge for their work and make a living.

 

[Puckman]

I didn't mean it that way, sorry if I was misunderstood. What I meant was that if someone is creating with the intention or desire of profiting from it, that person should be compensated. The practical reality is that the internet provides a forum for a huge amount of content by anyone and everyone, and it is therefore difficult for professionals charge for their work and make a living.

Fair enough. This makes more sense now. The key there is "with the intention of profiting from it."

That reads entirely different than your original statement (or Ellison's).

Creating should be primarily about creating.
Wanting to run a business to make a living is an entirely different thing, IMHO, which may or may not be about creating.

With that in mind, I still disagree with the general notion (that I see a lot these days) of amateurs making it so much harder for the so-called "pros" to make a living.
That's an excuse (and a poor one at that) for not being very successful, IMO.
Business is business. If you're product is not good enough to make you a living, you cannot blame others. It's akin to Microsoft complaining about all these internet upstarts (Google, Facebook, etc.) taking away their "pro" dollars (back when Google and Facebook were upstarts in college dorms, of course). This can drag this whole conversation into the realm of economics, capitalism, and free market. And I'll spare everyone the boring details, but the point is, there can be millions of amateurs doing stuff for cheap, and at the end of the day, the quality will show that, the quality of the work, the quality of customer support and interaction, and the quality of business savvy in general. That is what will distinguish a pro from an amateur (not, I might add, the fact that they use L lenses, LOL).

How anyone chooses to market themselves is their business. If it works, great for them.
Ellison has a problem with people like Archie giving away free work for some recognition? That's dumb. People have been doing "free marketing" for years. Long before the internet was around. Where do you think "Buy one get one free" comes from? Or "Free estimates"? How about "Satisfaction guaranteed or your item is free, or return it to the store".
These marketing gimmicks have been around for decades, even centuries.
Artists in the renaissance probably painted the portrait of this or that nobleman, with the hope that their "free" work would get their foot in the proverbial door, for more (paid) work.

Anyway. I ramble... Forgive the longwindedness.

 

[Apple fanboy]

As a newbie I would just be flattered someone thought my photos were good enough to use.

I think the photographers level of experience and expectation have a lot to do with what they expect to gain.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

EDIT: themumu: Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but how hard is it to just ask first?
My photos contain the line Copyright DShearon 2013 All Rights Reserved. That means it's mine unless you ask. Posting doesn't make it free to take.

Dale

It may not be hard in any single case, but over the course of time an interested person spends looking at cool photos, it can become tedious. For example, when I first got a computer with an internet connection, I got into a full on hoard mode. I would scout photography and arts websites, such as deviantART, and a load of others and save stuff I liked onto my hard disk. If I were to attempt to contact every single person whose images I saved (mainly for wallpaper use, but sometimes just for staring), I would not have any time to do homework and would surely have flanked several courses at school

For me internet is like a river with a ferocious rapid flow - you cannot tame it, you cannot set your own rules in it, you have to be very aware of the risks and dangers as you get in, and in exchange you can become part of that flow and perhaps fish out the experiences you seek. Every single thing I post, I remind myself that I better be ready to stand on a podium in front of a crowd and shout it, while the crowd takes photos and videos of my doing it. Once you let your words, images, everything out - you cannot control them and cannot take them back. It's just the way this river flows, it's physics.

As for the copyright clause, you should check the fair use exemption.

I may be old fashioned as well because I agree 100% with Dale. Regardless of use, one should always permission unless the image is posted for the specific purpose of free downloading (deviantART possibly - I'm not sure about that).

The abundance of images on the internet doesn't justify wholesale pilfering. Sure it takes time to ask but I can guarantee that it takes far less time, effort and money to ask than it does to create a outstanding image.

 

[Shacklebolt]

I still disagree with the general notion (that I see a lot these days) of amateurs making it so much harder for the so-called "pros" to make a living.
That's an excuse (and a poor one at that) for not being very successful, IMO.
Business is business. If you're product is not good enough to make you a living, you cannot blame others.

Very much agreed. Being a pro photographer is about so much more than taking good photos -- your business is what you make of it.

That said, I'm having a little trouble reconciling

I emailed him back saying I'd be happy to share the photos I took of his car, provided a watermark and a credit line as long as there was no commercial use of the photo.

with this

I take photos for fun and have no real thought about how to monetize any of this.

If you don't want to monetize it, why do you want a photo credit and a watermark? The reason you ask for a photo credit should be business-related, even if you're an amateur and only plan to take one photo ever. If it's not business related, asking for a photo credit is just flat-out vanity. ("I don't want money -- I just like seeing my name!") Better to do your work a favor and take your watermark off it -- it'll look better that way, obviously.

In your case, I think what you're asking for is fine. And at this point I think doing a photo shoot for free in exchange for a credit and broadening your portfolio is perfectly good. But just remember, photography is actually, you know, hard -- especially if you're doing a photo shoot and someone expects you to deliver photos to them. For an amateur, a photo credit is worth absolutely nothing, unless you plan to proactively make something of it.

(Or the aforementioned vanity.)

 

[Puckman]

That's an easy answer. In 2 parts:

1) it's vanity. I have no reason to want a watermark besides seeing credit given.

2) this is new to me. I'm going by "best practices". While there's no monetary reason for credit here, this is still my photo and I'm releasing it "into the wild" as it were. I don't know where it will end up. While I have no reason to doubt this guy's intentions, what if I find my photo someday on another site? What if this guy or someone else is suddenly making money off it by selling it to a magazine?

While I have no problem sharing my admittedly amateur photo with whoever wants to use it for fun, I do have a problem with someone making money off it (however unlikely that May be) and I think putting a watermark is a simple and easy way to cover myself if something like that were to happen.

 

[tgara]

If you don't want to monetize it, why do you want a photo credit and a watermark? The reason you ask for a photo credit should be business-related, even if you're an amateur and only plan to take one photo ever. If it's not business related, asking for a photo credit is just flat-out vanity. ("I don't want money -- I just like seeing my name!") Better to do your work a favor and take your watermark off it -- it'll look better that way, obviously.

This argument is absurd. A photo credit does not have to be strictly business related. It's merely a way of associating the creator with the work, irrespective of whether it is related to a business purpose or something else (like vanity!).

 

[themumu]

I may be old fashioned as well because I agree 100% with Dale. Regardless of use, one should always permission unless the image is posted for the specific purpose of free downloading (deviantART possibly - I'm not sure about that).

The abundance of images on the internet doesn't justify wholesale pilfering. Sure it takes time to ask but I can guarantee that it takes far less time, effort and money to ask than it does to create a outstanding image.

Let's flip the issue of permission a bit. It's completely off topic to the original post here, but whatever, we have bits to burn

Do you ask for consent of every person that appears in your photos that are taken in public places? Such as that cool image that won the "Mundane into Magnificent" contest? Those people did not come there to have their photograph taken and posted online, they came there to eat and rest. Not just the subject, but people in the background too (they are out of focus, but some are still recognizable).

 

[Shacklebolt]

This argument is absurd. A photo credit does not have to be strictly business related. It's merely a way of associating the creator with the work, irrespective of whether it is related to a business purpose or something else (like vanity!).

When the photographer requests to be credited and watermarks their photo, it's either vanity or business. Duh. Even the OP doesn't have a problem admitting that. And there's no shame in being proud of your photo.

And speaking of which, OP: I appreciate the humbleness, but there's no reason to describe your photo as "admittedly amateur." It's very nice, and if it were up on Getty Images and some news outlet needed to use it to report on the event, they'd gladly pay for it.

Don't sell your work short -- it's always worth something, monetarily, depending on who wants it and what they want to use it for. Doesn't mean (of course) that it's always appropriate to ask people to pay you to use one of your photos, nor does it mean that people will pay you for it. But it's always worth something.

 

[themumu]

I could rant some more, just feel very verbal today You can use it against me later

Why does everyone have such a problem with other people making money off of something they created even when the original creator has no intention of doing it? Why so greedy and jealous? It's not like they are gonna take your photo, stick it into a magic box and money will start flying out of it. If only it was that simple, you'd do it yourself, right?

I fully agree that it takes tremendous effort to produce, I mean create a decent work of art, such as a photo. But it also takes a lot of effort to monetize that work of art, after it was created. I sold a print on Etsy once. I don't even bother any more - too much work. If you are not willing to put in the work required to make money off of something, why are you so against someone else doing that? What have you got to lose?

I put full resolution photos on my flickr page, and frankly, if someone copies some and sells them - good for them. Before I posted the first image there, I thought long and hard about how I will approach that - and realized that there will not be any less left for me if someone had full access to those images. I know that if I put it there, everyone is free to take it if they want it. It's not about ethics and legalese, it's just the way internet works. JavaScript right-click blockers don't work. Transparent images over the content don't work. You will maybe stop a 5 year old from setting that image as their iPad wallpaper, but if someone wants to "misuse" it - you ain't stopping them.

 

[Puckman]

I could rant some more, just feel very verbal today You can use it against me later

Why does everyone have such a problem with other people making money off of something they created even when the original creator has no intention of doing it? Why so greedy and jealous? It's not like they are gonna take your photo, stick it into a magic box and money will start flying out of it. If only it was that simple, you'd do it yourself, right?

In 99% of cases, you're right, it shouldn't really matter if someone is using your work, if you had no original intention to monetize it yourself.
But there's absolutely no reason not to stick your name on something, just in case, you never know.
Do you not have your name listed on the deed to your house? or car?
As vain as it may seem, us humans are possessive people. We like to "mark" what is ours. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be annoyed if someone were to set up shop in your backyard and started selling tickets to tour your house, even if you never had any intention of charging people to tour your house. The point is that it is YOURS and unless YOU either come up with the idea yourself and monetize it, or expressly allow someone else to do so, they should not be profiting of your property.
You may loan your car to a friend, free of charge, if he needs it for a quick errand. You would probably not like it very much if you found out he was charging people to drive them around in your car as a taxi service, behind your back.
There's a certain principle to it all. What is yours is yours and may be used by others with your permission, but should not be abused or taken advantage of. The latter smacks of dishonesty. And even if you never intended to make a dime of the car, or your house, the fact that someone is doing so behind your back is, frankly, offensive. That alone, should be reason enough to explain the need to affix a stamp of possession (for lack of a better term) to your stuff (be it car, house, or photo).

 

[snberk103]

That's an easy answer. In 2 parts:

1) it's vanity. I have no reason to want a watermark besides seeing credit given.

Nothing wrong with this!

2) this is new to me. I'm going by "best practices".

Nothing wrong with this either, whether professional or amateur..it makes us all look good if 'best practices' are used.

While there's no monetary reason for credit here, this is still my photo and I'm releasing it "into the wild" as it were. I don't know where it will end up.

Which is a really good reason to put your watermark on it... as long as the watermark allows someone to find you.

While I have no reason to doubt this guy's intentions, what if I find my photo someday on another site? What if this guy or someone else is suddenly making money off it by selling it to a magazine?

Make sure the quality of the photo you send to the car owner is suitable for web use only. Magazine quality images need to be quite a bit better. You will likely find your image all over the internet at some point, but if it's web quality only then it won't be printable. Providing a print quality image doesn't make the photo look better on the web since browsers will create a web quality image anyway. The exceptions are images that are supposed to be looked at with magnification.

While I have no problem sharing my admittedly amateur photo with whoever wants to use it for fun, I do have a problem with someone making money off it (however unlikely that May be) and I think putting a watermark is a simple and easy way to cover myself if something like that were to happen.

If someone is really wants to make money off it, they will whether or not it's watermarked. Your watermark makes it more difficult, that's all.

Something to keep in mind is what kind of watermark? One that covers the entire middle of the image, or one that sits quietly in the corner? I use the second one - it is simply a way for honest people to see if an image is copyrighted, and to contact me if interested.

Let's flip the issue of permission a bit. It's completely off topic to the original post here, but whatever, we have bits to burn

Do you ask for consent of every person that appears in your photos that are taken in public places?

In North America at least, you don't need permission to take photos of anyone or anything in a public place, generally speaking. There are exceptions of course ... but as a starting point, no permission is required.

Such as that cool image that won the "Mundane into Magnificent" contest?

Generally speaking, you don't need their permission either if you are using the image in a contest or as art. Where you do need permission, however, is if the image is used to advertize anything. So ... the magazine can award you a prize for best street photo without (technically) requiring model releases... but they can't use the image in any commercial sense. For instance... they can't use the image to promote the contest since that would then commercialize it. In practice, most magazines would require that the photographer be able to produce model releases for anyone who was identifiable in the photo just to cover their butts.

Anyway, this is the law as I understood it when I did my 'photography and the law course' quite a few years ago.

Those people did not come there to have their photograph taken and posted online, they came there to eat and rest. Not just the subject, but people in the background too (they are out of focus, but some are still recognizable).

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so using their images (if not used commercially) is allowable. Also, taking photos is not the same as using the photos. You are always allowed to take someone's photo in a public place (with some rare exceptions). It is what you do with the photo that is limited.

And, they have to be identifiable by an average reasonable person. If they are too small, or fuzzy, or out of focus, then the average person would not recognize them. It does not matter at all if the person photographed recognizes themselves because of certain piece of clothing, or whatever.

 

[themumu]

In 99% of cases, you're right, it shouldn't really matter if someone is using your work, if you had no original intention to monetize it yourself.
But there's absolutely no reason not to stick your name on something, just in case, you never know.
Do you not have your name listed on the deed to your house? or car?
As vain as it may seem, us humans are possessive people. We like to "mark" what is ours. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be annoyed if someone were to set up shop in your backyard and started selling tickets to tour your house, even if you never had any intention of charging people to tour your house. The point is that it is YOURS and unless YOU either come up with the idea yourself and monetize it, or expressly allow someone else to do so, they should not be profiting of your property.
You may loan your car to a friend, free of charge, if he needs it for a quick errand. You would probably not like it very much if you found out he was charging people to drive them around in your car as a taxi service, behind your back.
There's a certain principle to it all. What is yours is yours and may be used by others with your permission, but should not be abused or taken advantage of. The latter smacks of dishonesty. And even if you never intended to make a dime of the car, or your house, the fact that someone is doing so behind your back is, frankly, offensive. That alone, should be reason enough to explain the need to affix a stamp of possession (for lack of a better term) to your stuff (be it car, house, or photo).

Oh, you're one of those people that consider a digital file to be the same kind of property as a house or a car. That comparison is wrong on so many levels, that I'll just move along. Far too many words were written on that subject, and I bet you read them too, but sometimes a solidly stuck idea defies all logic and reason and will never be changed by rational thought process.

But to make the comparison work just a little bit, I'll say that I have absolutely no problem with someone making a perfect copy of my car while it's sitting in a public parking lot and doing whatever they want with it, as long as I still have my original car in perfect shape and ready for me to use any time.

In North America at least, you don't need permission to take photos of anyone or anything in a public place, generally speaking. There are exceptions of course ... but as a starting point, no permission is required.
...
Anyway, this is the law as I understood it when I did my 'photography and the law course' quite a few years ago.

I know that legally speaking you don't need that kind of permission. That was the whole point of bringing it up as a contrast.

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

My point exactly. Internet is a very public place. Just like you cannot prohibit someone from clicking a shutter button and taking a photo of you on the street, you cannot prohibit someone from clicking the right button and selecting "Save As" on an image you posted online. Expecting otherwise is just unrealistic.

 

[Designer Dale]

Oh, you're one of those people that consider a digital file to be the same kind of property as a house or a car. That comparison is wrong on so many levels, that I'll just move along. Far too many words were written on that subject, and I bet you read them too, but sometimes a solidly stuck idea defies all logic and reason and will never be changed by rational thought process.

But to make the comparison work just a little bit, I'll say that I have absolutely no problem with someone making a perfect copy of my car while it's sitting in a public parking lot and doing whatever they want with it, as long as I still have my original car in perfect shape and ready for me to use any time.



I know that legally speaking you don't need that kind of permission. That was the whole point of bringing it up as a contrast.



My point exactly. Internet is a very public place. Just like you cannot prohibit someone from clicking a shutter button and taking a photo of you on the street, you cannot prohibit someone from clicking the right button and selecting "Save As" on an image you posted online. Expecting otherwise is just unrealistic.

Kindly explain the types of property to me. To the best of my understanding there are two, public and private. Public is owned by us all and used by us all and private is owned by an individual and used by that individual.

My Copyright is like the title to my car. It's a document stating ownership. My car is mine until I sign the title over to someone (not you). My photo is mine until I grant ownership to another for agreed on use. In fact, copyright is more restrictive than the title to my car. If I sell (not you) my car, it's yours to do with as you please. If I sell you my photo, I can restrict you from reselling it without my further permission. Try that on Craig's List.

BTW: You can't prohibit someone from smoking pot in private, but that doesn't make it legal (in most states... )

Dale

 

[cupcakes2000]

Oh, you're one of those people that consider a digital file to be the same kind of property as a house or a car. That comparison is wrong on so many levels, that I'll just move along. Far too many words were written on that subject, and I bet you read them too, but sometimes a solidly stuck idea defies all logic and reason and will never be changed by rational thought process.

What does that mean?

It's what is in the digital file that is the creators property. What about if it was a print? Would that be a graspable concept for you? That if somebody spends time creating some creative work or another, it is their property?

Just because it goes online, does not mean it becomes everybody's property.

Would you mind if I went into your garden and dug up a nice rose bush you might have, to take home with me and use in my garden? Probably, yes.

If I asked would you give me a cutting? Probably, yes.

So I don't want you going on my site and taking a photograph from it.

If you asked, then it's probably fine.

 

[Puckman]

I'm not the one who came up with the idea that digital property is similar to real property (house or car). The law did. You and I may think its a ridiculous notion, but intellectual property is the law of the land and we all have to work with it.

I promise you copying a honda and then trying to sell it as a Puckmobile brand would get me in trouble with the authorities. It's called copyright law. And Honda would no doubt use me if I did that.

Companies sue each others all the time for "Copying" concepts (look no further than the Apple/Samsung spats that are constantly reported on the front page of Macrumors). Digital music is protected as well. You may buy a song on iTunes, but copying it FOR COMMERCIAL use is breaking the law.
The key here is the monetary gain aspect, the "FOR COMMERCIAL USE" portion of the sentence.

Which is exactly why photographs are just as protected as music, software algorithms, or patented ideas..All fall under the purvey of IP (Intellectual Property) in the legal system of both the USA and the international trade as a whole.

While we've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill, since none of this really matters to me and my dinky little photo, the point is that legally speaking, if some issue were to arise someday, then it is absolutely true that I do OWN that photograph. Period. That is not debatable in a court of law. And therefore, having someone else copy it for commercial use and monetary gain, without permission is, technically, breaking the law. Whether you or I think it's silly, or don't care enough to sue, or whatever, is besides the point.

 

[themumu]

Kindly explain the types of property to me. To the best of my understanding there are two, public and private. Public is owned by us all and used by us all and private is owned by an individual and used by that individual.

My Copyright is like the title to my car. It's a document stating ownership. My car is mine until I sign the title over to someone (not you). My photo is mine until I grant ownership to another for agreed on use. In fact, copyright is more restrictive than the title to my car. If I sell (not you) my car, it's yours to do with as you please. If I sell you my photo, I can restrict you from reselling it without my further permission. Try that on Craig's List.

BTW: You can't prohibit someone from smoking pot in private, but that doesn't make it legal (in most states... )

Dale

The crux of the misunderstanding here is that you talk about legal, and I talk about practical. I am not discussing any of this from the point of view of American, Canadian, or Moroccan law. Those laws were made by a small group of people for their own benefit (which often does not match with the public benefit anyway), and they change frequently depending on who's in charge.

I'm discussing it from the point of view of laws of physics. Something can be illegal, but if there is no sensible way to enforce it in practice, you should never go in thinking that people won't do it just because it's illegal, or rude, or against your religion. Moreover, if it's something that does not hurt you or anyone else, you can expect even more people to be willing to go ahead and do it if it benefits them. If I copy your photo from the internet and just keep it on my hard disk, you won't be hurt, not even in a "loss of income" kind of way.

BTW: you're not getting any points for mentioning pot like it's a bad thing. I'm from Canada, we're a progressive country that's steps away from legalizing that stuff on a federal level. Smoking pot in private is for lonely losers, we do it outside with friends (and friendly strangers).

What does that mean?

It's what is in the digital file that is the creators property. What about if it was a print? Would that be a graspable concept for you? That if somebody spends time creating some creative work or another, it is their property?

Just because it goes online, does not mean it becomes everybody's property.

Would you mind if I went into your garden and dug up a nice rose bush you might have, to take home with me and use in my garden? Probably, yes.

If I asked would you give me a cutting? Probably, yes.

So I don't want you going on my site and taking a photograph from it.

If you asked, then it's probably fine.

Great analogy with the rose bush. The difference between digging up a rose bush and copying a photo from a public website is that when you dig up a rose bush, it leaves an empty hole in the ground. If you go to the "Photo of the day" thread and save every single photo to your local disk, the originals will still be there for the next person to see. Try it if you never did before. It's an amazing experience. The possibilities are truly endless.

If you don't want me going on your site and taking a photograph from it, your only recourse is to not post any photographs on your website. It's not about ethics or copyright, it's about laws of physics.

----------

I'm not the one who came up with the idea that digital property is similar to real property (house or car). The law did. You and I may think its a ridiculous notion, but intellectual property is the law of the land.
I promise you copying a honda and then trying to sell it as a Puckmobile brand would get me in trouble with the authorities. It's called copyright law. And Honda would no doubt use me if I did that.

What's ridiculous is thinking that copyright laws are going to stop somebody from using a random photo from the internet as a desktop wallpaper.

By the way, the notion that it's Honda that will have issues with copied cars instead of me, the car's owner, really highlights how the nature of physical property is very different from the nature of intellectual property.

And another BTW: Did you know that in the world of fashion design, for example, you can copy any design you want and create an exact replica if you so desire, so long as you do not actually put any trademarked label on it? You can go ahead and recreate any fashion dress, shoe or purse (if you have the skill) and the original designer cannot sue you unless you put their label (Gucci, LV, Prada) on it. That's the main reason why designer clothes often has these garish labels all over the place - so they have a loophole to sue counterfeit makers that copy those labels.

 

[Puckman]

The crux of the misunderstanding here is that you talk about legal, and I talk about practical. I am not discussing any of this from the point of view of American, Canadian, or Moroccan law. Those laws were made by a small group of people for their own benefit (which often does not match with the public benefit anyway), and they change frequently depending on who's in charge.

I'm discussing it from the point of view of laws of physics. Something can be illegal, but if there is no sensible way to enforce it in practice, you should never go in thinking that people won't do it just because it's illegal, or rude, or against your religion. Moreover, if it's something that does not hurt you or anyone else, you can expect even more people to be willing to go ahead and do it if it benefits them. If I copy your photo from the internet and just keep it on my hard disk, you won't be hurt, not even in a "loss of income" kind of way.

BTW: you're not getting any points for mentioning pot like it's a bad thing. I'm from Canada, we're a progressive country that's steps away from legalizing that stuff on a federal level. Smoking pot in private is for lonely losers, we do it outside with friends (and friendly strangers).



Great analogy with the rose bush. The difference between digging up a rose bush and copying a photo from a public website is that when you dig up a rose bush, it leaves an empty hole in the ground. If you go to the "Photo of the day" thread and save every single photo to your local disk, the originals will still be there for the next person to see. Try it if you never did before. It's an amazing experience. The possibilities are truly endless.

If you don't want me going on your site and taking a photograph from it, your only recourse is to not post any photographs on your website. It's not about ethics or copyright, it's about laws of physics.

----------



What's ridiculous is thinking that copyright laws are going to stop somebody from using a random photo from the internet as a desktop wallpaper.

By the way, the notion that it's Honda that will have issues with copied cars instead of me, the car's owner, really highlights how the nature of physical property is very different from the nature of intellectual property.

I get what you're saying. But again, some of this stuff IS enforceable. Your using an internet pic as your wallpaper is not really enforceable. But we started off talking about someone using a photo they found on the internet, to make money (Selling to a magazine, say). That is enforceable. That stuff happens all the time. People find a photo they took being used to advertise some product, they can, and have every right to, sue the ad company, for example. And so on.

Your comment about Honda vs. You is neither here nor there. You own the car. I get that. But Honda owns the concept, design and production of the car. Trying to sell (again, there has to be financial gain here) a facsimile of a Honda would get you in trouble.
In the photography world, it's not Honda, but rather the photographer who owns the photo, so trying to sell someone else's photo would also land you in hot water. That is all I'm saying.

 

[themumu]

I get what you're saying. But again, some of this stuff IS enforceable. Your using an internet pic as your wallpaper is not really enforceable. But we started off talking about someone using a photo they found on the internet, to make money (Selling to a magazine, say). That is enforceable. That stuff happens all the time. People find a photo they took being used to advertise some product, they can, and have every right to, sue the ad company, for example. And so on.

Your comment about Honda vs. You is neither here nor there. You own the car. I get that. But Honda owns the concept, design and production of the car. Trying to sell (again, there has to be financial gain here) a facsimile of a Honda would get you in trouble.
In the photography world, it's not Honda, but rather the photographer who owns the photo, so trying to sell someone else's photo would also land you in hot water. That is all I'm saying.

The thread started from potentially commercial discussion, but then somebody voiced an opinion that it tikes them off when somebody grabs their photo to use as a wallpaper. And there was also an (implicit) suggestion that I should ask permission of the author before I archive on my laptop random things I find online. I'm just saying that to expect someone to ask for this sort of permission is beyond weird.

 

[-hh]

Correction: The matter of me getting access to the car for a photo shoot is a future hypothetical.

At this stage, it's only been the guy asking me if he can use my photo on his website (where he shows off his car). It's his car. He has a website dedicated to it. He happened to find a photo of his car on the internet (I posted it on a couple of photography forums) and asked me if he can add it to his website.

I think a fair trade would be a ride in the car


-hh

 

[Designer Dale]

This has broken into a debate between those who have something invested in copyright and someone who does not. These debates are never resolved. So I'm out.

Note: I live in Washington State. Pot is legal under state law here.

Dale

 

[snberk103]

....
But to make the comparison work just a little bit, I'll say that I have absolutely no problem with someone making a perfect copy of my car while it's sitting in a public parking lot and doing whatever they want with it, as long as I still have my original car in perfect shape and ready for me to use any time.

...

You're missing the whole point.

As merely the owner of the car, then you have nothing to gain or lose by the copying of the car. However as the designer of car, who is paid only when someone legally obtains the car, then you may think differently.

Also, ownership of intellectual property is different than tangible property. The law is very clear on this. Just as it is on having your photo taken in a public place. You don't have to agree with it... but the law is clear on these points.

 

[Gaspode67]

It's worth checking if you camera can include extra information in the EXIF data that it saves. I've made sure to add in my name as Author and reference that it is posted under Creative Commons Attribution copyright. I also make sure that when I load files onto Flickr (my sharing site of choice), it also lists it as under Creative Commons Attribution, so anyone using it has to credit me as the photographer.

Personally, I've no objection to my photos being used on other sites pre se, given that my photos are generally either travel related or Rugby related. In fact, quite a number of my photos are now used as profile photos for Harlequins players on Wikipedia

My Photos