 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / June 2005photo-of-the-day - Copyright issue.
I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, these photos are by amatures. As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer) plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the photo was found. This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too. QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal? Any information would be greatly appreciated. TIA > This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would > accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too. Well, you could just make a link instead. > QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal? No, you have to get permission for each picture. > I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal? No, but you could link the image tag & display it on your site that way. If you are making money from your site, even that might be risky. If you were a legitimate news agency you might get away with it but not in the format you describe. > Any information would be greatly appreciated. > > TIA  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 san francisco native plants > I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TIA Copyright law differs from country to country. It might be OK in some placess to do what you suggest, and not in another country. Getting a copyright release from the owner of the photo is your best bet. >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. Besides the possible legal issues here, to me this is a common since issue. Ask yourself if you'd want someone using your pictures on their website with out you knowledge or permission. You may have innocent intents, but other don't. In general, I'd assume that the answer from the photog would be "no" and NOT link or copy the image on my site. If you really want to use the image contact the photog and get their permission first. It's the right thing to do regardless of the law. -- Rob >>I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional >> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >don't. In general, I'd assume that the answer from the photog would be "no" >and NOT link or copy the image on my site. If you don't want it linked to, you have wo choices -- don;t publish it or have your server check the Referer: field in the HTTP request information and refuse to serve the image if it's not from one of your pages. If your standards were to be applied, publishers will be able to prevent people from saying things like, "A good explanation of ISO can be found on page 423 of Diddly About Phoography by John Smith". > If you really want to use the >image contact the photog and get their permission first. It's the right >thing to do regardless of the law. >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TIA You MIGHT be okay if you include all the info as to where you got it, AND include the link to the original site. If your site carries any advertising or is for profit you should definitely get permission. I'm not a copyright attorney, so I'm guessing here, but I would think the owner of the photo would have a lot of trouble collecting any money if you are not making any money off the photo, and you've given the public a link to original photo. In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you are not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit and a link back to the original. Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth exactly what you are paying for it. Look at it this way -- If I search for an image on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give me the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this. > >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You MIGHT be okay if you include all the info as to where you got it, AND > include the link to the original site. Absolutely not. Attribution is not a defense to infringement, at least in the U.S. > If your site carries any advertising > or is for profit you should definitely get permission. I'm not a copyright > attorney, so I'm guessing here, but I would think the owner of the photo > would have a lot of trouble collecting any money if you are not making any > money off the photo, and you've given the public a link to original photo. Wrong again. Statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as high as $150,000 per infringement, no proof of actual damages needed. > In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you are > not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit and a > link back to the original. And, again, completely wrong, at least under U.S. law. Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning that a copyright owner has the absolute right (subj ect to fair use doctrine and other statutory exceptions) to exclude anyone from copying, distributing, or preparing derivative works. > Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth exactly > what you are paying for it. Then why are you giving advice? Copyright law, at least in the U.S., can be quite arcane. > Look at it this way -- If I search for an image > on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give me > the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this. At least not that you know of. >> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image >> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't >> give me the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this. > >At least not that you know of. At least one U.S. court (the 9th circuit) has held that a "thumbnail" in one search engine was fair use. The display of the entire image was remanded back to the trial court level. The Kelly v. Arriba case is a mess on all levels, but at least on that point it's clear. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > >> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image > >> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The Kelly v. Arriba case is a mess on all levels, but at least > on that point it's clear. I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite? > I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite? www.google.com: kelly v. arriba Various hits. Probably the most relevant is: http://netcopyrightlaw.com/kellyvarribasoft.asp Where Kelly prevails. > > I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite? Sorry, by "cite" I meant reference to the official reporter, e.g. Smith v. Jones, 35 F2d 245 (9th Cir. 2000). I like to read the official opinion, rather than reprints on the internet. That's okay -- I'll just do a search for it. Thanks. > www.google.com: kelly v. arriba > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where Kelly prevails. > Sorry, by "cite" I meant reference to the official reporter, e.g. Smith v. > Jones, 35 F2d 245 (9th Cir. 2000). The URL posted was one of many (why post google dumps?). Had you clicked a few more times, you would have found: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/KelllyvArriba(9C2003).htm which gives a full citation and, for your convenience only, apparently a copy of the opinion re: thumbnails. Click a few more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use ... and you find that Arriba/Ditto defaulted because Arriba basically doesn't exist anymore. Kelly's victory is probably pyrrhic, though apparently subsidized by "higher powers" for a desired result (see original URL). > > Sorry, by "cite" I meant reference to the official reporter, e.g. Smith v. > > Jones, 35 F2d 245 (9th Cir. 2000). [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > apparently subsidized by "higher powers" for a desired result (see > original URL). The internet, generally, and wikipedia, specifically are very poor sources for legal information (there are exceptions -- one of the universities, I don't recall which at the moment, has limited, but free, case searching on-line). I use Lexis and Westlaw, both of which provide the official reports, so I'll get it from there. Thanks, though. I appreciate the trouble you've taken. >I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite? _Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation_ 336 F.3d 811 (2003). Link to case at www.ca9.uscourts.gov: http://snipurl.com/fpt0 SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >>I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite? > > _Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation_ 336 F.3d 811 (2003). > > Link to case at www.ca9.uscourts.gov: > http://snipurl.com/fpt0 Thanks muchly! I stand corrected. This field of law is so new, and sometimes common sense doesn't always work within the law. What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on your web site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. Here's a link to his, or her site." How is this harming the photographer? Yes, I know you should ask permission, but... You don't become an artist, writer or photographer to make a living suing other people. I've got articles all over the Net, and when the contract was signed Internet use was strictly prohibited. I'd be spending all my time in court instead of working if I pursued every one. And, I'd have to go to courts all over the country. >> >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional >> > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > At least not that you know of. >I stand corrected. This field of law is so new, and sometimes common sense >doesn't always work within the law. Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict outcomes -- the problem is, the outcomes appear to be unfair. > What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on your web > site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. Here's a > link to his, or her site." How is this harming the photographer? Yes, I > know you should ask permission, but... It's not a question of harm, but of rights. Copyright grants the copyright owner exclusive control over the protected expression. It's no different than saying, "how are you harmed if I sneak into your living room at night and sack out on your couch?" Copyright is a property right like any other. > You don't become an artist, writer or photographer to make a living suing > other people. No. You become an artist, writer or photographer to make a living selling your original works of authorship, in which you are granted exclusive rights pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the US constitution. Those exclusive rights include the right so say, "no," to unauthorized copies, derivative works and distribution. > I've got articles all over the Net, and when the contract was signed > Internet use was strictly prohibited. I'd be spending all my time in > court instead of working if I pursued every one. And, I'd have to go to > courts all over the country. Yes, but I'm not sure of your point. One of the problems of the judicial system is cost of access -- only the very poor (who receive subsidized legal assistance) and well-heeled corporations (my clients) can afford to pursue actions. However, this flaw in the system doesn't justify disregard for the law, unless anarchy is something you find appealling. >>> >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional >>> > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> >> At least not that you know of. > Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law > hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict > outcomes -- the problem is, the outcomes appear to be unfair. If you can easily predict the outcome of a section 107 fair use case, you're a better person than I. Care to make your guess on the Grokster case? SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > > Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law > > hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you're a better person than I. Care to make your guess on the Grokster > case? Note use of the word "usually." >> Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law >> hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you're a better person than I. Care to make your guess on the Grokster >case? I'm not a lawyer, but I certainly hope the Supremes consider the Betamax decision to be valid. Siding with the RIAA/MPAA and not defining in hard terms exactly what level of "illegal" sharing would be sufficient to shut down a technology is not possible, and any such definition they did make will be seen as wrong. In my opinion, of course. Is GM being sued because some yahoo decides to use a Cutlass as a getaway car? Or Ford, because some mental midget decides to drive drunk in a Crown Vic? Lawsuits against gun manufafturers are being thrown out right and left when the claim is that they "knew" their products would be used illegally. (No, let's NOT get into a gun rights argument, please.) What level of illegal use can be made cause for shutting down Windows, for providing the wherewithall for Grokster to operate? Or Apple, or Linux? Or, for that matter, Intel or AMD? On that matter, I wonder why the RIAA and MPAA consider it to be a good business plan to piss off the very people they want as customers. It would seem to make so much more sense to look at Apple (Ipod, Itunes), and see that sales can be made in today's environment. But what do I know? SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >> Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law > >> hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not a lawyer, but I certainly hope the Supremes consider the > Betamax decision to be valid. That is a very, very interesting question. The Supreme Court is usually very reluctant to overturn prior high court decisions. Sony v. Universal is interesting, though. As you know, Sony was sued for contributory infringement by Universal, based on the ability of the Betamax to record off-the-air copyright-protected broadcasts. The Supreme Court held that (1) the Betamax had substantial non-infringing uses because, (2) it could time-shift broadcast material, which the court identified as a fair use that obviated infringement liability. However, the court's opinion was based on it's view that (1) such recordings would be essentially, ephemeral, i.e. no one would save them after viewing, and (2) there was no danger of people amassing large libraries of protected expression by recording witha Betamax. Of course, both of these factual assumptions proved wrong. Sony v. Universal wouldn't be overturned because the _legal_ reasoning is correct. For that reason, PVRs, Tivos, etc., remain lawful and there's little concern that will change. However, if a challenge is again brought against vcrs, or their stand-alone-dvd recorder modern counterparts, I'm curious how the court would rule. > Siding with the RIAA/MPAA and not defining in hard terms exactly what > level of "illegal" sharing would be sufficient to shut down a > technology is not possible, and any such definition they did make will > be seen as wrong. The test isn't the level of illegal sharing that is tolerated, but whether the device or technology has a substantial non-infringing use. > In my opinion, of course. > > Is GM being sued because some yahoo decides to use a Cutlass as a > getaway car? Well, yes in a manner of speaking. The developers of the video game Grand Theft Audio are being sued by the survivors of the victims of some lunatic kid who decided that shooting cops was something fun to do in real life. The chances for liability, however, are nil. > Or Ford, because some mental midget decides to drive drunk in a Crown > Vic? > Lawsuits against gun manufafturers are being thrown out right and left > when the claim is that they "knew" their products would be used > illegally. Exactly. > (No, let's NOT get into a gun rights argument, please.) > What level of illegal use can be made cause for shutting down Windows, > for providing the wherewithall for Grokster to operate? Or Apple, or > Linux? Or, for that matter, Intel or AMD? Again, the test (with respect to infringement) is whether there is a substantial non-infringing use. > On that matter, I wonder why the RIAA and MPAA consider it to be a > good business plan to piss off the very people they want as customers. I assume their goal was to intimidate users into avoiding illegal downloads. People like music, and will not avoid listening solely because of the RIAA's actions. > It would seem to make so much more sense to look at Apple (Ipod, > Itunes), and see that sales can be made in today's environment. > But what do I know? I have a computer game client that has successfully side-stepped the copy protection/piracy issue by designing a business model that actually benefits from having more copies, legal or otherwise, in circulation. The record companies and studios are trying to legislate buggy-whip ownership -- they need to look closely at their business model and modify it to coincide with technology. >> >> Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property >law [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >The test isn't the level of illegal sharing that is tolerated, but whether >the device or technology has a substantial non-infringing use. But that would need to be defined; any such decision would, of necessity, be used in the future to determine exactly what constitutes "non-infringing use." A level of illegal use must be defined, or the decision is useless in the future. The purpose of the SC isn't to decide one case, but to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the case, and, by extension, all similar cases. If there's no definition of "non-infringing use", how can that decision be applied? >> In my opinion, of course. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >kid who decided that shooting cops was something fun to do in real life. >The chances for liability, however, are nil. Maybe I should replace "being sued" to "likely to be sued successfully". Anyone can sue anyone in the US for just about any reason. That doesn't make stupid suits likely to be successful. >> Or Ford, because some mental midget decides to drive drunk in a Crown >> Vic? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Again, the test (with respect to infringement) is whether there is a >substantial non-infringing use. Defibne that, as I said above. >> On that matter, I wonder why the RIAA and MPAA consider it to be a >> good business plan to piss off the very people they want as customers. > >I assume their goal was to intimidate users into avoiding illegal downloads. >People like music, and will not avoid listening solely because of the RIAA's >actions. Does that make it a good business practice? I've owned my own business, and managed others. I have not seen any normal business that actually gained business, or turned around a loss of business, by pissing off those the business wanted as customers. >> It would seem to make so much more sense to look at Apple (Ipod, >> Itunes), and see that sales can be made in today's environment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >need to look closely at their business model and modify it to coincide with >technology. Exactly. It's being done now, but the RIAA/MPAA aren't willing to change their business practices yet; they still have too much money. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" Suppose another picture on the web page is a tasteless nude, or has religious overtones, or depicts a racial group in an unflattering way. Do you think that every photographer would be anxious to have his work displayed with those, even if the web page claims he's the bestest photographer ever? > What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on your web > site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. Here's a > link to his, or her site." How is this harming the photographer? Yes, I > know you should ask permission, but... >> What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on >> your >> web site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. >> Here's a link to his, or her site." How is this harming the >> photographer? Yes, I know you should ask permission, but... > Suppose another picture on the web page is a tasteless nude, or has > religious overtones, or depicts a racial group in an unflattering > way. Do you think that every photographer would be anxious to > have his work displayed with those, even if the web page claims > he's the bestest photographer ever? If his work (or mine ! ) is displayed on a cheap or radical page, wouldn't it be contaminated by association? Worse, a significant viewer might infer something inappropriate about the photographer's needs, career-wise or attitude, personal-wise. If I am going to be labeled "desperate" or "kooky" or "inadequately advised by his handlers", let it be because of my own shortcomings rather than those of a thitless twought. Thoughtless twit. Whatever. SignatureFrank S "Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump." -William Claude Dukenfeld However, the copyright owner might not want his work associated with whatever else you have on your web page, or your domain name, or you in particular for that matter. He may not consider your unauthorized use of his work to be a benefit. > In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you are > not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit and a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give me > the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this. storm@liquidsky.org probably trolls: > Any information would be greatly appreciated. Asking random strangers for legal advice is stupid. > storm@liquidsky.org probably trolls: > >> Any information would be greatly appreciated. > Asking random strangers for legal advice is stupid. Nothing worse than getting advice on the Internet for legal issues. Never knew a lawyer who gave anything away for free. > > storm@liquidsky.org probably trolls: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nothing worse than getting advice on the Internet for legal issues. > Never knew a lawyer who gave anything away for free. Lawyers cannot give legal advice to non-clients. Doing so risks significant malpractice liability. Moreover, I've yet to see a post to a newsgroup that comes remotely close to providing enough information to enable providing an opinion, even if I was inclined to risk the liability and provide one. As for lawyers not giving anything away for free, the ABA sets a target for pro bono hours that virtually all firms, including mine, meet or exceed. I don't know any other profession which routinely competes to see who can provide more free service. What pro bono activities do you do as part of your profession? > Lawyers cannot give legal advice to non-clients. Doing so risks > significant malpractice liability. Moreover, I've yet to see a post > to a newsgroup that comes remotely close to providing enough > information to enable providing an opinion, even if I was inclined to > risk the liability and provide one. I'm not sure what country you're from but in Canada they can. > What pro bono activities do you do as part of your profession? None > > Lawyers cannot give legal advice to non-clients. Doing so risks > > significant malpractice liability. Moreover, I've yet to see a post [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not sure what country you're from but in Canada they can. I'm in the United States. > > What pro bono activities do you do as part of your profession? > None Which makes your gratuitous slam against attorneys (and me) not only inaccurate, but hypocritical. Thank You! to everyone that responded, you have helped me make a decision. I will abandon my idea - sadly, since I thought it would help promote talent. I have to wonder about sites like google that use EVERYONES photos without permission -- seems like there are two sets of rules, one for the big guys and another for us little folk. Thanks Again > Thank You! to everyone that responded, you have helped me make a > decision. I will abandon my idea - sadly, since I thought it would help > promote talent. I have to wonder about sites like google that use > EVERYONES photos without permission -- seems like there are two sets of > rules, one for the big guys and another for us little folk. Why not just ask permission? A quick email - "I really like your photo, I'd like to link to it from my site at www.foo.com" - get permission from the owner - Done. If I was an amateur photographer (er.. well, I am!) and posted my photos online, I'd be pleased to have someone highlight my pictures from a site like that. > I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. As other as responded: No, the default rule is that you need permission from the author/copyright owner. However, some authors grant permission up front. If you look at the following photo: http://flickr.com/photos/gisleh/20326739/ (which is one of mine), you'll notice that it has the "Creative Commons" (cc) symbol under "Additional information". If you click that, you'll find a license which in this case tells you I, as copyright holder, grants you the right to copy the work to your website - as long as you attribute the work to me. There is even a search engine that you can search the web for works (including photographs) available under a Creative Commons license: http://commoncontent.org/ As long as you restrict your site to works made thusly available by their authors, you should be alright. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal? As other have responded: The default rule is that you need permission from the author/copyright owner. However, some authors grant this permission up front. If you look at the following photo: http://flickr.com/photos/gisleh/20326739/ (which is one of mine), you'll notice that it has the "Creative Commons" (cc) symbol under "Additional information". If you click that, you'll find a license which in this case tells you that I, as copyright holder, grants you the right to copy the work to your website - as long as you attribute the work to me. There is even a search engine that you can search the web for works (including photographs) available under a Creative Commons license: http://commoncontent.org/ As long as you restrict your site to works made thusly available by their authors, you should be alright. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then it's cut and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. If it is just posted out there without any claim of rights or ownership, then it is public domain. But in our wonderfully screwed up litigious society, any idiot can sue for anything, so govern your decisions accordingly. Kind of like a birth mother suing to get her baby back from adoptive parents. Even though the contract was legal and enforced, the idiot can sue to void it. The right thing would be to email the photographer if possible and give the courtesy of asking permission to use a link to their photo. >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TIA > If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then > it's cut and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. > If it is just posted out there without any claim of rights or > ownership, then it is public domain. No, it is not. It used to be the case in the USA until 1980ies. After the USA signed the Berne Convention, and implemented it as statutory law through the Berne Implementation Act of 1988, works of art automatically gets copyright protection has soon as they are created - no copyright mark or claims of ownership is necessary to assert copyright. In Europe, things has been like that since 1886. It may still be helpful to put a copyright notice on your photograph, to remind the public that it is a copyrighted work, but legally, there is no requirement to use a copyright notice to avoid placing your work in the public domain. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Couldn't be more wrong! SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/21/05 8:25 AM, in article zCTte.112481$8S5.77892@bignews3.bellsouth.net > "Steve Larson" <r@NOSPAM.com> wrote: > If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then it's cut > and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. If it is just > posted out there without any claim of rights or ownership, then it is public > domain. That's a very bad assumption. People frequently post copyrighted pictures without attribute or permission. That doesn't automatically put it in the public domain. > If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then it's cut > and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. If it is just > posted out there without any claim of rights or ownership, then it is public > domain. > I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TIA Can you just put in a LINK to the photo? That would eliminate the copyright question, which I believe indeed says you need permission to actually put the photo on your site. SNIP > Can you just put in a LINK to the photo? Although better, it may still not be enough. But there are still a lot of "it depends" involved (do a search for "Deep linking"). In general the answer is no, although a link to a home page with some guidance how to reach the picture may be allowable, if adequate credit is given. What one does with such a web image is another topic yet. Bart |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.