Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Hey thats my photo???


Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2012 3:16PM

Quote:
Very simple lesson - if you don't want your images to be slathered around in the Public Domain, don't put them there in the first place.

Forget about getting all uppity about possible breaches of copyright or any other legalistic concepts; just use a bit of common sense.



The point was THEY WERE USING IT AS ADVERTISING IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY.
quite different from having a look.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2012 4:03PM
I too take issue with LeftForum's post in this thread.

It's never okay for someone to steal your images. LeftForum, using your logic, at what point is it okay to steal stuff from your car? If you leave the stuff on public display perhaps, or if you don't lock the door?
Sooty_1 e2
4 1.3k 203 United Kingdom
10 Oct 2012 6:13PM
My point though, was that as long as companies are allowed to get away with it, they will continue to steal pictures and use them for free, rather than paying the photographer for usage. This is what freelance photographers do for a living, so if all companies did this, freelances would be out of a job.

Whatever anyone does with an image, if it is used without permission, it is still theft.

To continue the car analogy...if someone stole your car and drove it around for a while, then brought it back when you caught them, then disappeared without compensating you for the theft, you would be upset/annoyed/furious. If while they had it, they used it as a taxi, would that make a difference just because they made money from it?

True, you have to be a bit circumspect when posting stuff online, but that is no reason for anyone to steal your work.

Nick
answersonapostcard e2
10 12.7k 15 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 9:47AM
I dont think some people know any better, the days of 'photo sharing' is rife, helped along by Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter etc. someone has even made art out of it.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 10:27AM
That is part cool and part scary.
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 2:49PM

Quote:They quite deliberately stick their photographs into the Public Domain
Photos uploaded to Facebook would not usually be in the Public Domain. In this particular case, and in most cases, the photographer has the copyright, and the images are uploaded with the licence outlined in the Facebook terms of service. An example of images in the public domain on Facebook would be some very old family photos I uploaded myself, where the copyright has expired. I did do the copying and repair work on these, but I don't think that would entitle me to copyright on uploaded images, as it is purely technical work with no creative input worth mentioning. Just putting something where it is visible on the Internet does not make it public domain.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 3:36PM

Quote:Just putting something where it is visible on the Internet does not make it public domain.


Technically no, but I think you know what he meant in common parlance....
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
12 Oct 2012 3:38PM
You totally misunderstand the term "public domain". It is not the opposite of "copyright". If you place anything where the public has free (as opposed to paid) access to it, it is in the public domain.

Unless you invoke specific restrictions, anything you put on any social network site such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Google+ or whatever is, de facto, in the public domain as it can be seen by anyone who either searches for it or chances across it. That is not to say that they have a legal right to use it for commercial purposes but, as the obvious purpose of anyone putting an image into the public domain is to allow other people to view it, it seems crassly stupid for them then to complain if someone else merely increases the exposure of it to public view.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
12 Oct 2012 4:47PM
Were these images really those taken by the OP? There's generally a crowd at an events and most snappers will get much the same pix.

Is there something unusual about the OP's pix that makes him certain that they're his? The transgressor may well claim that they came from another source.

Whenever pix are published there's a danger of piracy and that danger seems to become a certainty when they're put on Facebook.

When images are stolen, they don't leave an empty space on the shelf so many folk don't believe that they've done anything wrong.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 4:59PM

Quote:You totally misunderstand the term "public domain". It is not the opposite of "copyright". If you place anything where the public has free (as opposed to paid) access to it, it is in the public domain.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Quote:Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired,[1] been forfeited,[2] or are inapplicable. Examples include the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven, most of the early silent films, the formulae of Newtonian physics, and the patents on powered flight.[1]

In informal usage, the public domain consists of works that are publicly available; while according to the formal definition it consists of works that are unavailable for private ownership or are available for public use.

User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 5:29PM

Quote:it seems crassly stupid for them then to complain if someone else merely increases the exposure of it to public view.

Wrong. When someone uploads a photo they took to Facebook, their website, ePz etc that person can remove that image later. That person can display their copyright and make sure the image is credited to them.

If someone steals it and puts a copy somewhere else that person has every right to complain.

Would you think the same if you publish an image in one of your books and someone else "increases the exposure" by publishing it in their book without your permission?
12 Oct 2012 6:24PM
-mg-1909.jpg



and said site
http://www.brmday.co.uk/gallery.html

Go compare
12 Oct 2012 6:27PM
BRM day set 4 2nd pic
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 6:39PM

Quote:If you place anything where the public has free (as opposed to paid) access to it, it is in the public domain.
That is actually a bit misleading. Problem being, if people are told that work published on the internet is in the public domain, and they know they can freely use public domain material, they will think they can have what they like from the Internet and do as they please with it. Which is what is happening, and is a big problem, which can have expensive legal consequences.
In fact, if it is copyright free it is in the public domain. Just making it publicly available doesn't place it in the public domain.

From the UK copyright service at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p10_duration

What happens when copyright expires?

When the term of copyright protection has expired, the work falls into the public domain. This means that the work, has effectively become public property and may be used freely.


And in their Top Ten Myths at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths

4. Everything on the Internet ‘public domain’ and free to use
This highlights a common misunderstanding about what is meant by ‘public domain’ when referring to copyright work.
A work will fall into the public domain once copyright expires, this will typically be many years after the author’s death.
While work published on the Internet may be publicly accessible, it is certainly not in the public domain.



Some more background on this topic:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/index.html
awphot e2
2 14 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 6:40PM

Quote:You totally misunderstand the term "public domain". It is not the opposite of "copyright". If you place anything where the public has free (as opposed to paid) access to it, it is in the public domain.

Unless you invoke specific restrictions, anything you put on any social network site such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Google+ or whatever is, de facto, in the public domain as it can be seen by anyone who either searches for it or chances across it. That is not to say that they have a legal right to use it for commercial purposes but, as the obvious purpose of anyone putting an image into the public domain is to allow other people to view it, it seems crassly stupid for them then to complain if someone else merely increases the exposure of it to public view.


#
WOW. How wrong can you be.

You need to look up the meaning of "public domain" with regards to photographs and other works.
Also look up the copyright law, specifically the part where it states that the copyright holder is the only one who has the right to publicly display their work. Anyone else must have specific permission.

Just because I might post my images on an internet site it does NOT mean that I am giving permission for others to then STEAL them and display them elsewhere.

I guess when you go into the British Museum you think you have the "de facto" right to take the works there and show them off elsewhere.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.