Image theft... what do you think?

[vondo]

I can give someone a print (or sell it to them) - they cannot then go make other prints and sell them or display them as their own. I ask about it because the original artist may or may not allow that kind of thing, I don't know. But it's important to know - not only from a legal standpoint, but from a right and wrong standpoint.

There is also the concept of "fair use." While this is a gray area, I think Catherine's use in her avatar is well within that. It is very low resolution and no one is going to use that image in leiu of the original. That doesn't mean the artwork is "hers." But, under fair use, it may not be up to the artist to decide what constitutes fair use.

A 200x200 image of the Mona Lisa used in a blog describing your trip to the Louvre is fine. Taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa and creating high quality prints for sale is not.

 

[daniel f aleman]

Copyright and ownership are neat ideas, but they have nothing to do with the interet - if you post it, it belongs to everyone...

 

[vondo]

Copyright and ownership are neat ideas, but they have nothing to do with the interet - if you post it, it belongs to everyone...

If you post it you can reasonably expect that someone will mis-use it, but that is very different from "belongs."

If I leave my car parked overnight in a bad neighborhood with the keys in it, I can reasonably expect that someone will steal it. That does not mean "it belongs to everyone."

 

[Diver Dennis]

There is also the concept of "fair use." While this is a gray area, I think Catherine's use in her avatar is well within that. It is very low resolution and no one is going to use that image in leiu of the original. That doesn't mean the artwork is "hers." But, under fair use, it may not be up to the artist to decide what constitutes fair use.

A 200x200 image of the Mona Lisa used in a blog describing your trip to the Louvre is fine. Taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa and creating high quality prints for sale is not.

If you own an image I believe you can use it almost any way you want. If I owned the Mona Lisa I could use the image of it for any purpose I please.

 

[daniel f aleman]

By the normal expectation of the use of the internet, all information depicted on it IS in the public domain.

 

[Cacia]

Do what I do. I try to over- or under-expose each shot, or sometimes flub the focus or composition. This has shown itself to be a huge disincentive to copyright infringement.

you had me going there for a few seconds. :no not nice to fool the blonde girls.

There is also the concept of "fair use." While this is a gray area, I think Catherine's use in her avatar is well within that. It is very low resolution and no one is going to use that image in leiu of the original.

see...that "feels" right....which is where I was going with "entitlement". Otherwise, you couldn't have Archt. Digest feature your living room, if a painting was on the wall. (not that I have that problem)

 

[JahJahwarrior]

if posting a picture of mine on the 'net makes it public property, then parking my car in a public parking lot makes it up for grabs. Right? right? great, now I can go steal a car and use the money for dive equiment instead!


As it is, I'd love it if someone would steal some of my pictures and use them somewhere, it would make me feel much better about my abilities as a photographer (a landlubber photographer, but a photog at that!) but if they used a few of them or were making money in any way (say, through advertising or something) then I'd contact them and ask for a small cut and offer to let them use more of my images for a similar fee.

Because I'm a teen and want money, I looked at selling photos online the other night. Most places will pay you less than a buck each time your photo is downloaded. And they want lots of stock photography. And if you have any people in it, you can't sellitunless you have them all sign things, and any minors need parent sigs. And if it's got any brand logo thing in it, you can't sell it unless the company gives you permission.

 

[vondo]

If you own an image I believe you can use it almost any way you want. If I owned the Mona Lisa I could use the image of it for any purpose I please.

While I'm sure that's true with the Mona Lisa or (maybe) a Monet, I bet that if you owned a Jackson Pollack or a Thomas Kincaide original, you would own the physical painting but not the rights to do as you wished with the image. You probably could not sell prints of it, for instance.

 

[friscuba]

Copyright and ownership are neat ideas, but they have nothing to do with the interet - if you post it, it belongs to everyone...

Not true. However, owners of images that have not been registered will have a tough time ever collecting a judgement.

Here's a good link...

7 myths of internet copyright

 

[Diver Dennis]

If you sell an image to a magazine, they own all the rights and can print posters or anything else they want to.

Why would this not be the same with a painting? Unless there is some contract with the artist...