Forums > General Industry > Violating copyrights here

Photographer

Tim Vieyra

Posts: 23

Clarksville, Tennessee, US

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.

Here this will help you find what you can and cannot do with copyrighted work.
http://www.copyright.gov/  This would be the US Copyright Office. Oh and chapter 1 subsection 107 Limitations on exclusive rights; Fair use, was posted above.

Dec 25 06 09:52 pm Link

Photographer

Nihilus

Posts: 10888

Nashville, Tennessee, US

41

Dec 25 06 09:54 pm Link

Photographer

Sienna Hambleton

Posts: 10352

Toledo, Ohio, US

ok, so who wants to test the theory by linking to one of the OP's images and reviewing it? Would it start a silly MM forum war?

Dec 25 06 09:58 pm Link

Photographer

Nihilus

Posts: 10888

Nashville, Tennessee, US

Visions Of Excess Studi wrote:
ok, so who wants to test the theory by linking to one of the OP's images and reviewing it? Would it start a silly MM forum war?

Naughty Boyd! big_smile

Dec 25 06 10:00 pm Link

Photographer

Sienna Hambleton

Posts: 10352

Toledo, Ohio, US

Nihilus wrote:

Naughty Boyd! big_smile

Hehe. tongue

Dec 25 06 10:06 pm Link

Photographer

fstopdreams

Posts: 4300

Chattanooga, Tennessee, US

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.

I find your whole line of reasoning unpalatable.

Dec 25 06 10:30 pm Link

Photographer

Geo Silva

Posts: 533

Whittier, California, US

This has got to be right up there with the sillyest posts yet!

Dec 25 06 10:35 pm Link

Photographer

fstopdreams

Posts: 4300

Chattanooga, Tennessee, US

Geo Silva wrote:
This has got to be right up there with the sillyest posts yet!

It is a terrible post that goes against everything I stand for tongue

Dec 25 06 10:36 pm Link

Photographer

Nihilus

Posts: 10888

Nashville, Tennessee, US

Trevor Snyder wrote:
It is a terrible post that goes against everything I stand for tongue

So how do you feel when you're sitting down?

*waits for the groans...*

Dec 25 06 10:40 pm Link

Photographer

Jason McKendricks

Posts: 6025

Chico, California, US

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

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

Yes, it does.

And as others have noted, posting the link to a photo that the photographer uploaded is not reproducing the image.

Now if somebody downloaded the photo, added their own watermark to the photo, uploaded it to their own server and displayed that, you'd be on to something.

Dec 27 06 05:33 am Link