Web site pictures: Legal copyright ownership issues?

[nyandw]

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]

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

[mkm4]

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]

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]

The artist can sell the original and retain the rights, though that would have to be understood and documented with the sale.

[Tadman]

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]

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]

[/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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Otto Vondrak]

[moved to Photo & Video Forum - omv]

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

-otto-

[RailBus63]

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]

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