Jason McKendricks wrote:
Review and criticism fall under fair use.

True, but posting someone elses work does not fall under that.  That falls under copyright violation.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
True, but posting someone elses work does not fall under that.  That falls under copyright violation.

As far as I know pasting images on threads is not reproducing, as it is linking to the original image.  If someone were to take the photo, post it somewhere else then yes that would be, but linking the original photo which the party willingly uploaded does not constitute a caopyright violation.

That's how I interpret it at least.  But gotta give the conventional thinkers something to do

But good luck trying to prove it was one specific person who pasted the url and hit the reply button and finding anyone to take the point seriously

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

True, but posting someone elses work does not fall under that.  That falls under copyright violation.

People post excerpts of other's work all the time on the internet with accompanying reviews/critiques. Unless the author complains, no harm no foul is the general rule of thumb.

Please, I invite all of you to critique and repost my images for non-commercial purposes. Isn't that the point of posting images here?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Da double post grinch, sorry.

I do that all the time.

What brought this to mind was a thread I saw a day or so ago about TWO MODELS.  There was a poster that put up four images of two models together.  Two of the images where not his/hers.   I don't know if the other two images where or where not theirs.  But two belonged to another photographer.  They were taken from his work and placed on the thread by the poster.
Now I don't really give a rat's ass because they were not mine.  Had they been I would have been pissed.  Very pissed.
We have fun on this site with our BEST "   ".  But we really should keep the images we place up on the threads our own work.  We seem to want to be a group that is interested in the laws and working with them.  Then we do things like that that really shoots down the whole image we have been trying to get across in other threads.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
You are free to post a link to another person's work.  You are not free to cut and paste an image into a thread of anothers.  It falls under the same as photocopying an image out of a book. 
True, you are probably not going to be hauled off to jail for doing so, but it is a violation of copyright.
True, most people on this site probably do not care.
True, most of them that do care can not spend the moeny to battle you in court for doing so.
That does not make it right.
You are breaking the law buy posting an actual image on a thread of anothers work without their permission.
Saying it is done all the time, or that this is what this site is about, or that people don't have the money to go through the legal system to fight you for doing so does not justify it.

I'll make sure I never post any of your work. No problem. Make sure you put some bold text in your port so no one else does either.

Meanwhile, can the rest of us get on with life?

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I have read several threads about copyrights on this site.  Arguements back and forth.
Then I look at the numerous threads about Which MM model has the best breasts; thighs; lips; ect.?  Which is your pick of the day?  And I see people cutting and pasting in images that other photographers have taken. 
Does no one realize that you are in fact violating copyrights when you reproduce an image on a thread of someone elses work, be it cut and paste or not? 
We seem top spend a lot of time fighting as to what is and is not copyright violations, then we go ahead and do it for our own amusement.

I think you misunderstand the laws.  By posting pictures on ModelMayhem, there is a fair use clause that allows you to post here without fear of law suit against Tyler or ModelMayhem.  If someone uses images here on the forum in an editorial manner "check out these itt bitties" etc ... it is considered to be alright.  Now if you want to sue over it, you'd have to sue the person posting your pictures AND prove that you lost money as a result ... right?

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
It's called respect and the law.
But I realize there are those here how do not care about either.

Ok, but what harm or tort is done?  What is the loss to the photographer?  You have to be able to prove this if you are going to sue someone.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I think you misunderstand the laws.  By posting pictures on ModelMayhem, there is a fair use clause that allows you to post here without fear of law suit against Tyler or ModelMayhem.  If someone uses images here on the forum in an editorial manner "check out these itt bitties" etc ... it is considered to be alright.  Now if you want to sue over it, you'd have to sue the person posting your pictures AND prove that you lost money as a result ... right?

You are saying that because I would have a hard time in court, it's alright if you violate the law.
Good!

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I think you misunderstand the laws.  By posting pictures on ModelMayhem, there is a fair use clause that allows you to post here without fear of law suit against Tyler or ModelMayhem.  If someone uses images here on the forum in an editorial manner "check out these itt bitties" etc ... it is considered to be alright.  Now if you want to sue over it, you'd have to sue the person posting your pictures AND prove that you lost money as a result ... right?

If I understand what I have read about such matters correctly, there would be a ruling on whether or not infringement took place, then a separate ruling on what damages, if any, were suffered.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Actually, I am confused by what you are saying.  When you say "cut and paste" from where?

I think what you really mean is that people on this site are hot linking images from this site and posting them in threads.  I don't think that is a copyright violation at all.  There have been cases on the issue of hotlinking, but I don't think we even need to get that far.  They are not reproducing or displaying anything.  They are simply pointing out, through an image hotlink, an image which the photographer chose to upload to this site and display.

I think you would have a real hard time arguing that simply hotlinking, in a thread, to an image on the site, is a copyright violation.

Now if you are suggesting that people are dowloading images from this site, saving it to their own server and then linking to it there, then it is another matter.

Alan, Quite clear and understood! Thanks and Merry Christmas to you!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

You are saying that because I would have a hard time in court, it's alright if you violate the law.
Good!

No, what you are expressing is not clear. Please further explain which of the copyright violations that are being committed here.  As far as I can see ... no laws are being violated.  But if you can show a tort or violation that is causing a photographer here a loss of income or status as a result of their image(s) being here on the forum ... then let's hear it!  I do NOT support violating laws.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
If I understand what I have read about such matters correctly, there would be a ruling on whether or not infringement took place, then a separate ruling on what damages, if any, were suffered.

Correct.  There would need to be two rulings. But by signing up here on ModelMayhem, I expect that Tyler had us agree to allow fair use of the images we post. Now for example, if someone attempts to set up a profile here using other photographers images without permission, that is another topic entirely different!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Not true.
You can not reproduce an image.  Period.  I can not photocopy an image or text from a copyrighted book, even if I am going to read it and then throw it in the trash.  I do not have to sell it or try and make money off of it.  I can not duplicate a CD or DVD, even though we do it all the time.  Because we can and we don't get hauled off to jail does not make it legal.
Sorry, not posting to the one above, but to two above me.

But the courts have already said that hotlinking is not copying.  For a member of this site to put a hot link to an image on this page is not copying.  It is really nothing more than a pointer.  It would be very hard for anyone to demonstrate any kind of injury or misue of an image, simply because someone on this site pointed out that the image was on this site. 

If you put something on the web, people are free to share the links to those image, e-mail them to others, send them in an e-mail to others, etc.  That is different than downloading an image and then re-using it.

Remember, the photogrpaher consented to the display of the image when he uploaded it.

Chili wrote:
ive also read articles about hotlinking and im not sure if thats considered infringement or not

By disabling the ability to hotlink, you have explicitly denied your consent.

Howeve, and more importantly, the images are not being used by a third party, they are merely being displayed for comment within the confines of this site.

That is such a huge stretch to contend that is copying and redisplay.

I can see situations where a third party use of a hotlinked image might be an unauthorized use.  Not, however, within the context of the site on which it is already displayed.

Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote:
Nobody's work is being posted without pertmission. The images are being linked directly to their MM portfolios so there is nothing illegal or "disrespectful" about the whole deal.

I wish more people would talk about me and post links to my images so I could maybe get some comments on my shots!!!

that's a wild dress...  the one with the super long arms

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Not true.
You can not reproduce an image.  Period.  I can not photocopy an image or text from a copyrighted book, even if I am going to read it and then throw it in the trash.  I do not have to sell it or try and make money off of it.  I can not duplicate a CD or DVD, even though we do it all the time.  Because we can and we don't get hauled off to jail does not make it legal.
Sorry, not posting to the one above, but to two above me.

lotusphoto wrote:
that's a wild dress...  the one with the super long arms

Jason McKendricks wrote:
Review and criticism fall under fair use.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I have read several threads about copyrights on this site.  Arguements back and forth.
Then I look at the numerous threads about Which MM model has the best breasts; thighs; lips; ect.?  Which is your pick of the day?  And I see people cutting and pasting in images that other photographers have taken. 
Does no one realize that you are in fact violating copyrights when you reproduce an image on a thread of someone elses work, be it cut and paste or not? 
We seem top spend a lot of time fighting as to what is and is not copyright violations, then we go ahead and do it for our own amusement.

I am too lazy to look, but I bet there is something in the terms of service that would allow for images uploaded to the modelmayhem servers.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
You are free to post a link to another person's work.  You are not free to cut and paste an image into a thread of anothers.  It falls under the same as photocopying an image out of a book.

I could be wrong, but I very highly doubt that is the way it is legally interpretted...and even moreso, the way anyone would try to argue it legally.

A more apropos metaphor is taking an image from a photography book and showing it to a group of people you have over for a party.