Thread subject: Advice please -Tiger?
||07/30/10 12:26 pm
||I read the threads about the Audrey Diadium saga and heartily endorse what everyone else has said. I did view the link at the time but I did not download any photos from the site. Frankly it was the story that interested me not the pictures ,which were not that special in my opinion.
But I have to confess that I have copied Osprey pictures from time to time to a file on my computer. Not because I want to sell them or use them for commercial gain, but because I think they are so wonderful that I want to make sure I can still see them if the link is taken down. If ever I want to put a photo on our Bird Club web site I always ask permission and I have been known to send off and pay for prints of professional's photographs. I am looking at one on my wall as I type.
But now I am wondering if I have broken the law in saving random photos to my computer. I have never given it a thought that saving pictures is 'stealing'. What do you think Tiger - or anyone.
||07/30/10 01:22 pm
||Oh a very complicated question to answer Anne. The reality is that most people who do not want their pictures copied take some measures to prevent it.
When I get a chance I will point you in the direction of Glen Ashman on Delphi. He is a high court judge and has been writing on this subject for years.
I would say that even looking at a picture is technically downloading it as there has to be a temporary file created on your computer.
Also one could either use a screen grab or simple photography to take a copy of a picture.
If it was a huge issue it would come up often and the reality is that it doesn't.
||07/30/10 01:37 pm
||You know, I have been thinking these exact thoughts as Anne has expressed. In fact, I have a file on my computer for misc bird pictures and another for misc animal pictures. Just for the joy of looking at them. For my own self, I always try to caption them so I remember where I got them; citing source, as it were. You all know how computer-challenged I am. I wouldn't even have a clue as to how to sell them, even I had wanted to, which I don't. I just like looking at birds and animals. That's all. For the record, I did not download anything from Audrey's site. I enjoyed the story, but like Anne, didn't think I needed to have the pics to remember it.
I agree that this has to be a very complicated issue. I also agree (and said so in my other post on this topic) that if one truly doesn't want photos to be copied, then having one's name printed (or watermarked, whatever the terminology is) across the photo is probably an easy enough way to prevent that. Short of not posting pics in the first place, of course.
||07/30/10 01:52 pm
||I just noticed that the Hailuoto site says using pics from 2010 is okay but not from earlier years. I think I may have some on Photoshop picked up to share with you all, so I'm going to go back and delete them to comply. I never noticed a warning before this. The whole issue obviously requires a fair amount of vigilance, and I'll admit I've been pretty sloppy in the past. But I have never intentionally "stolen" photos.
||07/30/10 02:18 pm
||Yes Marty there were copyright issues on the Hailuoto site in former years.
However there is the thorny question with webcams as to who own the copyright, the owner of the camera or the person doing the capture!
||07/30/10 02:34 pm
||Well, I'm not going to get into a chicken or the egg question with the lovely providers of that cam, Tiger, so I will go back and delete any photos I find, as soon as I take care of eating lunch, etc., etc.:-).
||07/30/10 02:43 pm
||I can speak to what it is in the States. Downloading off the Internet is a given and understood that by putting the photo/text on the internet you are making it available with the understanding that it is downloaded strictly for personal use and that includes "copyrighted" photos and text. Personal Use is the key word so if you haven't deleted those photos yet, Marty, you are in the clear. You may not publish, use or modify the image again without written permission.
Of course, realistically how the hell do you enforce it? Who has time to monitor the millions of websites to see if their photos are put on what web site? Generally you place low resolution JPG's on a website which is not publishable in print, so is a low resolution jpg really worth the legal time & money to prosecute? I mean, how many pictures of Brittany Spears or Lindsay Lohan have been downloaded? No one is going after them. People Magazine or Us or any of the other glossy rags sure doesn't do anything to prevent you from downloading.
Another issue is that if you are going to be that anal about it, you need to make a copyright comment on EVERY webpage if not inbed it in the picture itself. BTW, all you have to do is say "copyright" and you have made it so. While the US Patent Office would no doubt love to see the $10/image, the words somewhere on the picture or the website is sufficient.
||07/30/10 03:44 pm
||I'm glad to see this thread started....for educating ones self is the key here. Here is an excerpt from the US Federal Copyright Law....
"All photographic images are protected from copying, scanning or reproduction under Federal Law."
Look it up, do the research....that way you truly know the rules of copyrighted material for youself.
||07/30/10 05:26 pm
||Still no apology for the false accusations?
||07/30/10 05:49 pm
||I work in the publishing business, lady. You can quote excerpts of the law as much as you want. If you are so sure of yourself, then go ahead and prosecute.
||07/30/10 06:34 pm
||Shelley I wanted to say the same thing!
MsAudrey, I was hoping you would have noticed that we treat one another with respect on this message board and have done so for many years. I think it would have been much nicer to say something in the way of an apology or something nice before giving us a lesson on US Federal Copyright Law. Obviously you have been lurking and knew that we were hoping to hear from you, and once again, you just type away without any tactfulness on your part.
||07/30/10 06:48 pm
||I just feel sorry for Lowry. With friends like MsAudrey ....
Thanks for the info Melanie. All perfectly logical and any reasonable person would have no trouble at all seeing that.
||07/30/10 06:55 pm
||Google "doctrine of Fair Use" which is part of the US copyright laws and if you wade through it all you will discover Ms Audrey doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. There is no profit; there is no diminishment of the financial value of the image. There are people who have provided links from their commercial site using the image from another site as a link to that site have been found not guilty of copyright infringement.
||07/31/10 01:43 pm
||I've been having an identity crisis since all this erupted. You all do know that I'm just an old woman chiming in here with my two cents worth, don't you? Should I change my group name to Ms Marty? After all, the Viagra merchants keep sending me ads addressed to Mr Marty. I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about just who I am.
||08/02/10 07:22 am
||Thank you all. Thats why I love this site, we are a 'performing' group and a perfect example of group dynamics.
I am going to find out what the UK situation is, but I have already established that no-one has ever been prosecuted for saving an image on the WWW.