Followup: Stolen pictures on SmugMug

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

06/14/2006 11:28:56 PM · #26

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by me:
WRONG! You posted them, so people can view them. Don't like it? Don't post stuff online.

Would you apply that thinking to the commercially published works that were stolen? I doubt if Time, Nat Geo or the estate of Norman Rockwell would accept that line of thought.

Seems that they haven't done anything much about the issue, so I guess there's your answer... The reason they haven't done anything about it is simple. Cost/benefit ratio...

Would Time Magazine tell me it is illegal for me to bring a Time Magazine to class to discuss? Hardly. Would they consider it 'egregiously' illegal for me to bring a Time Magazine to class, and photocopy the cover for kids to color? Yeah right.

How about if I had the kids DRAW a Time Magazine cover?

These are all variants of the same thing... reproducing and using material without asking the publisher... why wouldn't they get their panties in a bunch? Because they are comfortable with the fact that they put their magazine out FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT.

The bottom line is that I am not making any money directly from those, but it does represent some lost income, specifically if I photocopy the cover...

The point remains the same though... no money made, no foul. Indeed if the money made is minimal, then even the giants will ignore it... Can you imagine Time Magazine or the Estate of Norman Rockwell taking this guy to court over 57 cents of revenue (albeit not profit) in small claims court?

Further, last I checked, devbobo's timeline showed response time to be roughly within the hour... Arnit did not post a timeline.

Deapee.
Your copyrighted photos entitles you to control how people make money from your photos. Your posting them on the net entitles others to view them.

If the law allows that people can use or share these photos with their friends where money is not being made WITHOUT your permission, then that is still within the bounds of copyright law.

In what way would I be breaking copyright law if I were to close my eyes and imagine your photo in my mind? How about if I drew it in the air with my finger?

Am I using them in 'any way whatsoever'? You bet your booties!

Would you like to sue me if I introduce my friend to DPC and tell him to check out the wicked awesome photos in this 'DeaPee' guy's profile?

What if he had no internet access and I saved the HTML onto my SD card to show with my Pocket Internet Explorer on my PDA OFFLINE?

How about if I then decided to show the picture in full-screen (640x480) and just viewed the .jpg in my PIE cache?

Is it outside of copyright law to maintain a cache on my computer of websites I have visited?

How about proxy servers?

Stupid questions aren't they?

It all boils down to whether money was made or not. We have been told that money was not made.

That is what the law cares about. Maybe you should watch your blood pressure and do the same thing.

coolhar

06/14/2006 11:30:24 PM · #27

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Just differentiate between what may be impolite and what's illegal. This situation may certainly be a case of the former, but if you classify it as the latter, then YOU are out of line, or at least legally wrong.

Paul, are you trying to say that the teacher's use of images now that they are password protected and no longer for sale is entirely within the law because of the educational issue? If so, I think you may be wrong. Especially when the immediate use need, as alluded to by karmat, is excluded. Putting up images on the internet for educational purposes, even in a password protected gallery, for anything other than immediate use is, IMHO, the equivilent to publishing them in a textbook. Wouldn't a textbook publisher have to get permission before they could print a book containing an image owned by National Geographic?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/14/2006 11:31:32 PM · #28

Textbooks are purchased.

Webpages are viewed.

Common sense?

deapee

Kodak V803

06/14/2006 11:31:40 PM · #29

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

Originally posted by deapee:
See whether something's legally wrong or not, I have no idea...I would use common sense and say that you can't just do what the guy is doing...you should have to legally ask for permission to use the photos...or at least be able to prove that you tried to contact the photographer.

I never pretended that I know the law...and anyone here that is saying they know the law and isn't a lawyer is doing just that, pretending. As mentioned, I can only apply common sense to the situation and base my reasoning off of that.

You don't know the law, but you're calling this guy a "thief" without knowing for sure whether that's true. That is actually against the law (libel - a false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation), unlike the way that this person was using these photos in his class. That is actually protected by copyright law, and I support that law 100%.

I don't like to make personal statements on the forums, but I do wish that you would try to be less insulting in your posts. It would make this environment a lot nicer for everyone. We can discuss any topic here without resorting to accusations and unsubstantiated hyperbole.

I was called names LOOOONG before I made mention of how this guy's a thief...why didn't you run to my aid and tell rex that he shouldn't call me an ass if you're such an advocate for sticking up for people who are called names?

Seriously...whatever...I'm done with this thread.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

06/14/2006 11:32:56 PM · #30

Originally posted by awilliamsny:

Printing is off :)

Printing is off for the teacher's galleries, or has the default for selling prints been changed for all of smugmug?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/14/2006 11:35:01 PM · #31

That was the question that I was wondering too.

I think that the site policy is not going to change.

As has been proven by this situation, it's pretty unlikely that even if the person has snaffled a whackload of really excellent pictures that aren't his, it's pretty unlikely that he's going to be layering another coat of 24 karat gold paint on his mansion in Palm Springs from the sales generated by a bunch of small prints before it is discovered.

awilliamsny

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

06/14/2006 11:48:48 PM · #32

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by awilliamsny:
Printing is off :)

Printing is off for the teacher's galleries, or has the default for selling prints been changed for all of smugmug?

Printing is off for that subscriber's galleries. No prints were sold. None.

It's up to individual gallery owners to disable, enable printing of their photos on SmugMug.

We track down and deal with any violations, alleged and/or fully proven, and have yet to fail in coming to reasonable outcome for gallery owner and photographer. I'll add that this happens so infrequently that I can't recall another such instance like this one.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/15/2006 12:07:00 AM · #33

Originally posted by deapee:

I never pretended that I know the law...and anyone here that is saying they know the law and isn't a lawyer is doing just that, pretending. As mentioned, I can only apply common sense to the situation and base my reasoning off of that.

The US legal system allows people to serve in pro per -- that is to represent themselves -- in a variety of legal matters; copyright law is among the most common. The US Copyright Office makes virtually all of the necessary laws, rules, instructions, and forms available for free download. Additional information targeted specifically at the "layperson" doing their own legal work is available from Nolo Press.

Here is the relevant section of Title 17, the US Copyright Act (emphasis added):

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use(38)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include �

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.