Image theft... what do you think?

[justleesa]

No, nothing wrong with it. I was just suggesting that artists such as yourself should get comfortable with the task since it is bound to come up again and again..that's all. No offense intended.

Awww....None taken .....you forgot when it comes down to it, I'm really, really shy and have little faith in me....:blush:

 

[omar]

The following is what I have on my copyright page of my website and each individual page is marked as copyrighted. I have found a couple of sites that have taken my material and used it as their own. I just sent them a copy of this and it was taken care of.

-------------

This website is an intellectual and physical property of ------- Inc. This includes: html content, graphical illustrations (gif, jpg, tiff, etc.), computer software, online or electronic documentation, associated media, and printed materials.

The free use of the scientific content in this website is granted for non commercial use only. In any case, the source (url) should always be clearly displayed. Under no circumstances are you allowed to reproduce, copy or redistribute the design, layout, or any content of this website (for commercial use) including any materials contained herein without the express written permission of ------ Inc. The burden of determining that any information, software or any other content on this site is not protected by copyright rests with the user. User acknowledges that ------ Inc. remains the owner of the posted materials, and that the user does not acquire any of those ownership rights by downloading copyrighted materials.

------------------

 

[ianw2]

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...

No. Read the agreement that the magazine hands you. It will have a statement that you are giving up all rights to the photo. In fact, if you sign such an agreement and then try to sell prints of the photo, you could be liable to the magazine for damages!

Actually my friend is a photographer and said the decendents of Monet are very active in protecting their copyrights. When you purchase art you are buying the work not the reproduction rights unless stated in the contract.
Also when you post stuff on the net you should copyright it, so it is not mistaken as being in the public domain.

You can sell the image to the user or sell the rights to use the image for a particular purpose or group of purposes.
Buying an image and all rights from a decent photographers costs tens of thousands of dollars.
It's all in the CONTRACT between the two parties.

Ed Zachary!

Sorry, I meant selling the copyright. So You are saying that buying an original painting for a huge sum, you don't have the copyright?

Ed Zachary!

My dad was a wild life artist with a few prints pulled at Mill Pond Press before he died. When he sold an original work to anyone, he handed them a bill of sale that stated that they were buying the original work for their enjoyment. They were NOT buying ANY right to use the image for any purpose.

Dad always made prints of the works he sold. He also let the buyers know that HE retained the right to use the image in whatever way he wanted…including making multiple prints for sale.

If he had prints made of any of his work, he usually sent the owner of the original a print. They were usually quite pleased to have the original knowing that others only had prints.

BTW - the statement he gave to buyers of his originals was NOT necessary. He just did it to make sure there weren’t any misunderstandings later on.

 

[Diver Dennis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...

No. Read the agreement that the magazine hands you. It will have a statement that you are giving up all rights to the photo. In fact, if you sign such an agreement and then try to sell prints of the photo, you could be liable to the magazine for damages!

That is what I said in the statement you quoted, they can use it for whatever they want if they buy the copyright and you don't own it anymore.

 

[justleesa]

ok...gotta ask. who/what is Ed Zachery? (google only came up with a disease and I'm sure you don't mean that)

 

[Diver Dennis]

He means exactly...

 

[justleesa]

:blush: Thank you Dennis

 

[Diver Dennis]

No worries Leesa.

 

[ianw2]

That is what I said in the statement you quoted, they can use it for whatever they want if they buy the copyright and you don't own it anymore.

Just because a magazine buys a photo does NOT mean that they own the copyright. However, magazines will usually require you to sign a purchase agreement that sells them ALL rights to the photo. My point was that, unless there is a specific contract that transfers rights to the purchaser of the work product, then the only right that transfers is the right to enjoy the original work.

Diver Dennis: If this is what you meant in your post, then I misinterpreted and do hereby solemnly apologize.

justleesa: I just heard the joke the other day. I must have a wrapped sense of humor because I thought it funny. If I offended you, then I apologize to you, as well!

 

[justleesa]

justleesa: I just heard the joke the other day. I must have a wrapped sense of humor because I thought it funny. If I offended you, then I apologize to you, as well!

Nope, not at all....Just embarassed because I have a wrapped sense of humor too and didn't get it ...lol