Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
We often have threads about people nicking photos. I just wonder when nicking a photo becomes acceptable? I see on Facebook that someone started an idea to switch your profile face for a famous doppelganger . Several of my friends in the industry, who regularly write about copyright protection, and a few members of ePHOTOzine have jumped on this, because it's a fun idea. But the copyright of the image belongs to someone else.
I'm not having a go, I just thought it would be an interesting point to discuss.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
It crossed my mind when I changed my facebook image. I got the image from a site that provides images for myspace, facebook, fan sites. It only crossed my mind because of the photographic background.
I'm sure for the majority of people using celebrity images that they don't give it a second thought.
When you use google image search and see the same image repeated over and over again on many sites, it's easy to think it's free for you to use.
Quote: When you use google image search and see the same image repeated over and over again on many sites, it's easy to think it's free for you to use.
Another thought...my kids, when doing home work, are told by the teachers to use the internet as research and use pictures they find to illustrate the work. They are being brought up to not give not a second thought.
er, guilty as charged. I have to say it never even crossed my mind.
For me it all depends on what the picture is to be used for.
If the picture is purely for fun and is not going outside of your family circle and friends and you are honest about the origins of the image then it is probably OK. But if the picture is for serious consumption by a much wider audience such as epz or is to be used in competitions or exhibitions then it is totally unacceptable to use even a part of another persons picture. Even if you are honest in these situations it is not your work that you are presenting and it should and will be judged accordingly.
I wonder, however, where we stand with the borders, backgrounds and tints etc. that are given away by the photo mags.
It is becoming commonplace but hey we have all been doing similar things for years. I used to be one of those people who taped songs from the Top 40 on Radio 1 as a kid.
I use flickr but have recently become concerned about the abuse my images could be open to on their site. The internet is great for exposure but also a risk as well but then look at how many pro photographers have web sites. Just have to live with it I guess.
Yeah but there is a problem with images in the news - there is a 'fair use' clause in the copyright law certainly in the USA and Canada - not sure what the situation is in the UK but it' s probably the same where you can re-use images and content from the news for education, for the purposes of review and well to just repeat the news. Which is why you get the same news and photos repeated on 10 0000 sites. So in the instance of school reports so long as the source is attributed it is not regarded as copyright theft.
Quote: I wonder, however, where we stand with the borders, backgrounds and tints etc. that are given away by the photo mags.
Usually they have been created by the team who work for the magazine so copyright belongs to the publisher, who usually state their terms on the CD or web site when the freebies are made available.
Quote: Quote: Usually they have been created by the team who work for the magazine so copyright belongs to the publisher, who usually state their terms on the CD or web site when the freebies are made available.
Yes, I accept that, but they are still not your own work, so is it acceptable to use them in one of your own images that is going into a competition, for instance?
Quote: At what point does image theft become ok?
When you have got away with it
hehe Mike - I thought that applied to digital manipulation ..
I use pics for some of my online articles if I don't have images of my own. I only use pics that have been released for all commercial use or are in the public domain or that have licenses for commercial use. I also credit the photographer with their name and the link, and send them a note of thanks with a link to the article. Anything else would be presumptuous, and at worst, theft.
I don't think it's OK to just take.
It's unsettling to hear so many people say they'll just go and get a pic from the net; I met someone who was happy to take pics off the net because it was for educational or private use, but the end product was going on line and this person didn't think it should matter. I think it does, even if only to respect the work of the photographer or the copyright owner.
Quote: /drone drone
ha...do you mind if I pinch this...I often think that when I'm reaching the end of one of my forum posts lol
Hmmm ... whose need is greater. I can license it if you like .. snigger
Re: the kids - I thought copyright rules were relaxed for educational purposes ?
I don't see a problem with school homework.
Its educational non profit not being published.
However I'd hope the curriculum includes explaining what they're allowed to do with content and what not.
I'm really not sure of the legality in educational use, but in any case there are probably going to be changes as the digital economy bill is trudging through parliament.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar