Breach of copyright of images posted online - a warning (BBC News)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
M-M wrote:
In article ,
"cmyk" wrote:

There is indeed a requirement to register copyright -- before you can
prosecute for violations. There's no requirement for *notice* on the
published works.

Citation, please.
I always thought copyright was implied as long as you are the legal
owner of the original.
There is no requirement for a notice on, or even for
the
work to be published. And you are not required to
register before a violation can be prosecuted either.

That second bit is wrong; see the message I just posted. It's bullet
point #2 in the "Copyright Registration" section of Circular #1 from the
US Copyright Office.

No, it isn't wrong. What you are quoting refers only to
civil suits, not to criminal prosecution.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd Davidson wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
M-M wrote:
In article ,
"cmyk" wrote:

There is indeed a requirement to register copyright -- before you can
prosecute for violations. There's no requirement for *notice* on the
published works.
Citation, please.
I always thought copyright was implied as long as you are the legal
owner of the original.
There is no requirement for a notice on, or even for
the
work to be published. And you are not required to
register before a violation can be prosecuted either.
That second bit is wrong; see the message I just posted. It's bullet
point #2 in the "Copyright Registration" section of Circular #1 from the
US Copyright Office.

No, it isn't wrong. What you are quoting refers only to
civil suits, not to criminal prosecution.

I said "before you can prosecute for violations". Are you a district
attorney? If not, the only way you can prosecute for violations is by
filing a civil suit.

M-M wrote:
In article ,
"cmyk" wrote:


There is indeed a requirement to register copyright -- before you can
prosecute for violations. There's no requirement for *notice* on the
published works.


Citation, please.



I always thought copyright was implied as long as you are the legal
owner of the original.

That's a basic start, but it's not absolute.

It depends on the country. For example (very simplistic):

If you hire a photog in the US to take your portrait, he then sells you
prints or finished digital images and keeps the original film or RAWs.
It is his copyright and you cannot even make copies of the prints he
sells to you. (Unless otherwise agreed in writing).

If you hire a photog in Canada for the same purpose then the copyright
belongs to the person who hired the photog. So CDN photo service
contracts (PO's) have a clause granting the copyright to the
photographer. (Unless otherwise agreed in writing).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:56:39 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote in :

That second bit is wrong; see the message I just posted. It's bullet
point #2 in the "Copyright Registration" section of Circular #1 from the
US Copyright Office.

Could you explain the relevance of US copyright law to the case of
images owned by an Icelandic photographer used without permission by a
British company?

A big part of the problem is that the owner and the unauthorised user
are in different jurisdictions.

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html

Floyd Davidson wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Draco wrote:
The Flickr web base showcase of photography has a statement that the
copyright belongs to the photographer of the work shown. They can not
be held libel for another stealling an image to sell. T
Libel - An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or
through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or
standing in the community.

Liable - Legally responsible.

Spelling flames are *laim*.


It's not a spelling flame numb-nuts, it's a homonym flame.

In article , dd-b@dd-
b.net says...

The one book sale (photo for use in book) that I've made to somebody I
don't know (I've had a number of friends and acquaintances want to use
my portraits of them as author photos, and I took several photos to
illustrate another friend's book on wine making) I made because they
found my photo *on Wikipedia* and contacted me for permission to use it
in their book. (And in fact given the license on that photo, she didn't
need my permission; but I think she wanted a higher-res version than the
screen-resolution shot I'd put up on Wikipedia, or perhaps she just
thought it should be paid for if possible.) There are, apparently, some
ethical and well-behaved people shopping for photos on the Internet.

Including on Flickr -- the photos used for the Washington State Tourism
web site, www.experiencewa.com, for example, come mostly from Flickr.
They look for good Washington State photos, contact photographers,
verify rights, sign contracts, and pay for licenses.

The other discussions I've seen of this particular case suggest that
some third party really did steal photos from Flickr and sell them
claiming to be the photographer, and not just from the one photographer
who's been in the news.

Also, some of the stolen works reportedly *were* posted at low
resolution by photographic standards, then resampled larger and printed
on canvas where the low resolution was not as apparent.


--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html

In article , David Dyer-
Bennet
says...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
M-M wrote:
In article ,
"cmyk" wrote:

There is indeed a requirement to register copyright -- before you can
prosecute for violations. There's no requirement for *notice* on the
published works.

Citation, please.
I always thought copyright was implied as long as you are the legal
owner of the original.

There is no requirement for a notice on, or even for the
work to be published. And you are not required to
register before a violation can be prosecuted either.

That second bit is wrong; see the message I just posted. It's bullet
point #2 in the "Copyright Registration" section of Circular #1 from the
US Copyright Office.

That's really not relevant when the photographer is an Icelandic
national living and working in Iceland. Under the terms of the Berne
Convention the copyright holder only has to fulfill the requirements of
her own country to be afforded protection in all participating
countries. As the gallery that ripped her off is UK based it's hard to
see where US law gets a look in.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
M-M wrote:
In article ,
"cmyk" wrote:

There is indeed a requirement to register copyright -- before you can
prosecute for violations. There's no requirement for *notice* on the
published works.
Citation, please.
I always thought copyright was implied as long as you are the legal
owner of the original.
There is no requirement for a notice on, or even for
the
work to be published. And you are not required to
register before a violation can be prosecuted either.
That second bit is wrong; see the message I just posted. It's bullet
point #2 in the "Copyright Registration" section of Circular #1 from the
US Copyright Office.
No, it isn't wrong. What you are quoting refers only
to
civil suits, not to criminal prosecution.

I said "before you can prosecute for violations". Are you a district
attorney? If not, the only way you can prosecute for violations is by
filing a civil suit.

Stop being absurd. Anyone can file a criminal
complaint. At that point *you* are part of the
prosecution team.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Pudentame wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Draco wrote:
The Flickr web base showcase of photography has a statement that the
copyright belongs to the photographer of the work shown. They can not
be held libel for another stealling an image to sell. T
Libel - An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or
through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or
standing in the community.

Liable - Legally responsible.
Spelling flames are *laim*.


It's not a spelling flame numb-nuts, it's a homonym flame.

Which is a spelling flame by definition.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:01:28 -0800 The ever tiresome Floyd "Never
Back Down" Davidson, on another of his rolls, wrote:

I said "before you can prosecute for violations". Are you a district
attorney? If not, the only way you can prosecute for violations is by
filing a civil suit.

Stop being absurd. Anyone can file a criminal
complaint. At that point *you* are part of the
prosecution team.

At this point *you* are part of the problem. You need to argue
like a vampire needs blood. At least you could argue with someone
else that deserves the entanglement and you might choose a better
topic such as, oh, tripod heads and gimbals. No resolution with
that one, just as there won't be one here.