Web site pictures: Legal copyright ownership issues?

Discussion of photography and videography techniques, equipment and technology, and links to personal railroad-related photo galleries.

Moderators: nomis, keeper1616

nyandw
Posts: 3647
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:41 am
Contact:

Web site pictures: Legal copyright ownership issues?

Post by nyandw » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:05 pm

Folks:

"...if one holds the ORIGINAL negative or color slide, the ownership belongs to the holder of said piece of film. I do not see at all possible that seller "Joe" claims (and others) that they’ll sell you the original film and yet THEY retain the copyright.

I don’t think such a thing is possible. How can they? With the original film, you can make copies galore and sell them, post them, or destroy them.

If you hold the original, YOU are the owner. Case closed.

Just for fun, we should see what a lawyer says. Anybody know one personally who won’t charge a consultation fee to answer one question?..."

Folks: Any valuable legal info on this issue as it concerns of all of us as we post/borrow/loan/copy/use each others photos, etc?

Thank you.
Best,
Steve

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22205
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13
Contact:

Post by DutchRailnut » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:59 am

once you post pictures on internet or post articles on internet the word copyright has very little meaning.
look up fair use .
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

mkm4
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:14 pm

Post by mkm4 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:07 am

DutchRailnut wrote:once you post pictures on internet or post articles on internet the word copyright has very little meaning.
look up fair use
Fair use still has plenty of meaning, where ever the item is "borrowed" from. If you use a photo or a full article without permission and the owner finds out, they can sue you and they will win.

What does any of this have to do the the LIRR though?

Orgnoi1

Post by Orgnoi1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:53 am

DutchRailnut wrote:once you post pictures on internet or post articles on internet the word copyright has very little meaning.
look up fair use .
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Completely false statement...

From the site you posted:

"The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

Fair use only stands for the use for education and non-commercial purposes. If you are making a copy of an artisitic work to sell it does not constitute fair use and you will be sued if its found out about.

Laocoon seer & priest

Post by Laocoon seer & priest » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:15 am

The artist can sell the original and retain the rights, though that would have to be understood and documented with the sale.
Last edited by Laocoon seer & priest on Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tadman
Posts: 9413
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Post by Tadman » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:05 pm

To expand on the above post, think of it this way.
1. You may sell the original and put in a sale contract that the buyer cannot publish the original.
2. If the buyer publishes the original, you must claim enough damages in good faith to cover lawyer fees and court costs, then have something left over for yourself.
3. It's hard to, in good faith, claim enough damages, unless you're somebody like David Lustig or Richard Steinheimer, and expect to get decent royalties from a book with those pics.
4. If your damages claims aren't in good faith, the judge will throw your case out or give your lawyer hell for failure to do due dilligence.

I'm not a lawyer [yet], so make sure you have a contracted and paid consultation with a licensed lawyer in your state before you act on any advice like mine.

jayrmli
Posts: 1761
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Moriches, NY
Contact:

Post by jayrmli » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:41 pm

Any work, both written or photography, is the property of the owner. Placing a photo on the internet does not change the copyright rules.

If someone downloads the photo and uses it on their website, they are in violation of copyright law and the owner of the photo can ask to have it removed.

Jay

nyandw
Posts: 3647
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:41 am
Contact:

Post by nyandw » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:27 pm

[/quote]Fair use still has plenty of meaning, where ever the item is "borrowed" from. If you use a photo or a full article without permission and the owner finds out, they can sue you and they will win.What does any of this have to do the the LIRR though?[/quote]

mkm4: If you go back further in the thread: I wrote: "...Folks: Any valuable legal info on this issue as it concerns of all of us as we post/borrow/loan/copy/use each others photos, etc?..."

There are a number of folks with LIRR sites and we All have this question in mind. Rather then list all the players/sites/etc: http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrlinks.htm

To respond to your question: "...What does any of this have to do the the LIRR though?..."

1. Our ability to post photos, date, historical documents, articles, etc in a "not for profit" forum/website without getting sued is important to many here.

2. Example: http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrcontents.htm my website. Thousands of photos, hours, text, research, etc. with credits etc. as best I can to folks.

Why is this important or an issue? I don't need the 10 years of work "sued over" by some lawyer on this topic.

3. I started this thread, so that continued posting and web info, by the many folks linked above, might have some feedback. Lots of smart folks here!

4. Yes, you are correct it is not LIRR Directly releted, but if you go through the links above I provided you will find LIRR info you perhaps never knew existed.

Best,

Steve

John 61
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:37 pm
Location: Smithtown NY

Post by John 61 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:29 pm

Check this out. Today I was searching You Tube for any new LIRR videos. I see one posted and notice that the thumbnail for the video is a photo that I took. After watching the video slideshow I noticed that most and probably all photos were downloaded from rail-pictures.net including two of mine. What are your thoughts . I really wasn't too happy.
Video in question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgXqeSeiIUo

LI Loco
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:41 pm

Post by LI Loco » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:34 pm

The creator of the video admitted that he did not take the photos. Also, he is only 15 years old, so cut him a little slack. OTOH, there is nothing wrong with telling him about copyright, why it is wrong to appropriate other people's intellectual property and that it could get him in trouble in the future. You might want to refer to what "Silent Bob" (Kevin Smith) said about it in the movie Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back:
Silent Bob: "Oh, but I think it is. We had a deal with you on the comics, remember, for likeness rights. And as we're not only the artistic basis but also, obviously the character basis for your intellectual property, 'Bluntman and Chronic' when said property was optioned by Mirimax Films you were legaly obliged to secure our permission to transfer the concept to another medium. As you failed to do that, Banky, you are in breach of the original contract. Ergo, you find yourself in a very actionable position."

Bob Sandusky
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Esperance, NY

Copy Right Infringement

Post by Bob Sandusky » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:04 pm

basically applies to the use of another person's work for commercial (or profit making) purposes.

It does not extend to things like school projects or not-for-profit publications (like newsletters) as long as the work is accredited to the original author (if not it can become plagerism).

The only way someone would even have a leg to stand on is if they posted or published the photo with explicite instructions that it can not be reproduced.

Even given that a copyright infringement case is about the economic damage caused by someone else using your creation.

If they posted it here (for example) , what economic gain have they had and what economic damage has been caused to you?

At most you could legally ask the moderators to remove it.

Crabman1130
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:00 am

Post by Crabman1130 » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:59 pm

He did a very nice job. I'd be flatered to have a pic in there.

User avatar
Otto Vondrak
Posts: 20282
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Otto Vondrak » Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:27 am

[moved to Photo & Video Forum - omv]

I'd be flattered as long as someone asked my permission first.

-otto-
----------------------------------------------
Moderator: New York State Railfan :: New York Central :: Toy Trains
NYW&B Fan Site :: A Magazine I Read Often :: A Museum I Volunteer At

RailBus63
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Post by RailBus63 » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:15 pm

Otto Vondrak wrote:
I'd be flattered as long as someone asked my permission first.
My thought exactly. I don't have a problem with sharing my images if asked, but it bothers me that many young people today think nothing of downloading photos and using these without asking permission, or in many cases without even acknowledging the photographer.

jayrmli
Posts: 1761
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Moriches, NY
Contact:

Post by jayrmli » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:49 pm

What do you expect? This is the Napster generation. They have no problems with downloading copyrighted music for free without having to pay either. Why would they stop at photography or videography?

Jay

Post Reply

Return to “Photography & Video”