Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Nice find... I emailed them... we all should. From: James Jackson
Subject: Top 5ive Most Obnoxious School Costs -- No. 2 - AOL Money
Date: November 15, 2006 2:41:22 PM EST
To: [email protected]
http://money.aol.com/top5/general/most- … ol-costs-2
"Worried you won't have a spare to send to Grandma? Consider scanning your copy..."
Interesting... so you advocate violating copyright?
Nice of you to give everyone "permission" to blatantly disregard copyright on photographs.
-James Jackson
Photographer
http://www.raveneyes.com
609 504 6762
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 23162
San Diego, California, US
They make a point about how school photos are often fundraisers for the school - like that's a bad thing! It's not like parents are required to buy the pics. I'm sure they're just fine with copyright infringement, unless of course it's Time Warner property you're copying and then they'll happily sue you.
"email a cute digital shot you took yourself"...wow I bet most parents never would have thought of that one on their own.
Photographer
Lee_D
Posts: 191
Florence, South Carolina, US
Nice!!! My reply to AOL... To whom it may concern, "Worried you won't have a spare to send to Grandma? Consider scanning your copy..." You do of course realize that this violates ALL copyright laws and you are advocating that the average consumer break laws they may not be aware of. Of course a company like AOL should be VERY aware of copyright law and should NOT condone such illegal activities. Does this ultimately make you liable? That should be a good one for your lawyers to chew on! -Lee Dowse Photographer www.dowsedesigns.com
Photographer
wishingtree photography
Posts: 1042
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
knowing inducement of copyright infringement!
Photographer
Lee_D
Posts: 191
Florence, South Carolina, US
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Here's my letter Stacy,
In your article, Top 5ive Annoying School Costs (http://www.smartmoney.com/top5/index.cfm?story=20061108 & http://money.aol.com/top5/general/most- … hool-costs), you advocate making copies of professional photographs for distribution. What you are advising people to do is to break the law and steal from hard working photographers like myself. The average Joe has no idea how copyright law works and we have a hard enough time protecting our interests without having AOL and Smart Money advise people to "consider scanning their copy."
I know that you and the editors of AOL and Smart Money are very familiar with copyright laws, but am amazed that you would publicly advise people to break them. When you addressed the magazine subscription fundraiser in section one, why didn't you advise parents to make photocopies of the magazines instead of buying subscriptions for gifts. It's no different.
Please revise your article to address the need for permission to copy portraits. You could easily say something like, "Consider scanning your copy (with permission from the photographer) or email a cute digital shot you took yourself." At least let your readers know that copying photographs without permission is illegal.
People rely on you, AOL, and Smart Money for accurate information. Advising people to break the law and steal from creative professionals is wrong. You have a journalistic duty to educate your readers on what is right to make up for giving them reason to believe it's ok to do something wrong.
Sincerely,
Michael Newbern Feel free to use in verbatim when emailing the offending parties.
Photographer
Madcrow Photographics
Posts: 7805
Boston, Massachusetts, US
This is just lame. When people pay to have their picture taken, they really ought to be able to share it with relatives without being accused of copyright infringement. Is is technically infringement, yes. Is it worth getting bent out of shape over, no. People have paid for these photos and they should be able to share pictures of THEIR OWN FRIGGIN KIDS without getting thrown in jail or sued or something.
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Madcrow Studios wrote:
This is just lame. When people pay to have their picture taken, they really ought to be able to share it with relatives without being accused of copyright infringement. Is is technically infringement, yes. Is it worth getting bent out of shape over, no. People have paid for these photos and they should be able to share pictures of THEIR OWN FRIGGIN KIDS without getting thrown in jail or sued or something. How about you start earning your living as a photographer and we'll see if you feel different.
Photographer
picturephoto
Posts: 8687
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Madcrow Studios wrote:
This is just lame. When people pay to have their picture taken, they really ought to be able to share it with relatives without being accused of copyright infringement. Is is technically infringement, yes. Is it worth getting bent out of shape over, no. People have paid for these photos and they should be able to share pictures of THEIR OWN FRIGGIN KIDS without getting thrown in jail or sued or something. Not that I agree with you, but the issue here is that AOL, a large corporation that deals in online content, recommends you break basic copyright laws. You better believe that they would get bent out of shape if someone was copying from them without consent.
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
Six months ago I paid for my daughter's senior pictures. The package included a CD of the pictures "for sharing with relatives or on the family web site."
It appears most of the school photo companies do this now.
It is a simple recognition of the truth of the marketplace. If you can't stop it, charge for it up front and then it is a non-issue (as you have at lease seen some profit from it.)
I used the files the company provided to create a photomontage of all of the poses, then printed it and framed it.
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 23162
San Diego, California, US
Madcrow Studios wrote:
This is just lame. When people pay to have their picture taken, they really ought to be able to share it with relatives without being accused of copyright infringement. Is is technically infringement, yes. Is it worth getting bent out of shape over, no. People have paid for these photos and they should be able to share pictures of THEIR OWN FRIGGIN KIDS without getting thrown in jail or sued or something. No one in this thread has suggested sueing someone or throwing them in jail for copying pictures of their kids. The issue is that the article promotes copyright infringement. It's that simple.
It's particularly hypocritical for a large media company that is against people sharing music to promote copyright infringement of photos.
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Luminos wrote:
Six months ago I paid for my daughter's senior pictures. The package included a CD of the pictures "for sharing with relatives or on the family web site."
I used the files the company provided to create a photomontage of all of the poses, then printed it and framed it. And you to are violating copyright laws.
I explain to all of my clients how the copyright law works. My portrait clients see a notice on their invoice and my brides sign to it in their contract.
There's a fine line between protecting your interests and being an asshole. I try to encourage them to do the right thing, but sometimes it's better to swallow the loss of a few bucks than throw lots of good money away chasing it. There's loads of good info out there on how we can protect ourselves and I even have a lawyer on retainer. However drawing attention to myself by suing Suzy's mom for making a couple of copies for Grandma out of her home may hurt me more than its worth.
With Wal-Mart, CVS, etc, it's way easier. The general public will side with me if I sue them for allowing customers to reprint my photos. I am after all smaller than they are and can easily make it look like I was victimized
JT Smith (http://www.supershoots.com) gave me some sound advice when I mentored with him before I opened my studio. He said to price every job and package where I didn't have to rely on print resales. I set my time at a certain rate and figure how long it will take me to produce certain products. I add that to my costs, so that if I get some resales (and I get a decent amount), then it's gravy.
It's very hard to police Suzy's mom in her house. And you're never going to stop it. Your best bet is set your rates so that you make what you need to off that initial sale.
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Instinct Images wrote:
No one in this thread has suggested sueing someone or throwing them in jail for copying pictures of their kids. The issue is that the article promotes copyright infringement. It's that simple.
It's particularly hypocritical for a large media company that is against people sharing music to promote copyright infringement of photos. You get it.
Photographer
none of the above
Posts: 3528
Marina del Rey, California, US
Luminos wrote:
Six months ago I paid for my daughter's senior pictures. The package included a CD of the pictures "for sharing with relatives or on the family web site." Michael Newbern wrote:
And you to are violating copyright laws. wrong. in fact most of what has been written in this thread is wrong pertaining to providing pictures to dear old grandad.
for the purpose of copying a keepsake with no intent to commercially exploit the copyright work, it will fall under fair use:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
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 â
(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.
now that everyone has their panties twisted into a bunch, imagine what the court will say for wasting their time by attempting to squeeze a family from sending copies of pictures off to relatives, where as stated under fair use #4...well, read it again.
good grief, people. taking family pictures for clients isn't the end of the world in sole ownership. you certainly shouldn't treat them that way to those who feel they are some of their most cherished possessions. get some damn business sense.
if a photographer gave me some of those outlandish guidelines of copyright for creating purely family mementos, i would say fuck you in a heartbeat. then i'd tell all my friends to get a quote from you and have them do the same.
--face reality
Photographer
wishingtree photography
Posts: 1042
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
FaceReality wrote:
Luminos wrote:
Six months ago I paid for my daughter's senior pictures. The package included a CD of the pictures "for sharing with relatives or on the family web site." wrong. in fact most of what has been written in this thread is wrong pertaining to providing pictures to dear old grandad.
for the purpose of copying a keepsake with no intent to commercially exploit the copyright work, it will fall under fair use:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
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 â
(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.
now that everyone has their panties twisted into a bunch, imagine what the court will say for wasting their time by attempting to squeeze a family from sending copies of pictures off to relatives, where as stated under fair use #4...well, read it again.
good grief, people. taking family pictures for clients isn't the end of the world in sole ownership. you certainly shouldn't treat them that way to those who feel they are some of their most cherished possessions. get some damn business sense.
if a photographer gave me some of those outlandish guidelines of copyright for creating purely family mementos, i would say fuck you in a heartbeat. then i'd tell all my friends to get a quote from you and have them do the same.
--face reality although the purpose is not commerical in a narrow sense, it is very much like file sharing -- taking what one normally must pay for. second, the work is creative. third, the entire work is being reproduced (the whole photo). and most importantly, there is harm to the photographer's potential market for the sale of additional prints. it is by no means a clear case of fair use, and is likely not fair use. just as file-sharing was found not to be fair use. it is hypocritical for aol to take encourage copyright infringement.
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
Michael Newbern wrote:
And you to are violating copyright laws. No, I'm not. The studio sold me the images to be used via web, net, and to share. So I violated no copyright - as I paid for the right to use the electronic images and received release for their use. Were I not free to do so, then the fee I paid for the CD would have constituted fraud.
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
wishingtreephotography wrote:
although the purpose is not commerical in a narrow sense, it is very much like file sharing -- taking what one normally must pay for. second, the work is creative. third, the entire work is being reproduced (the whole photo). and most importantly, there is harm to the photographer's potential market for the sale of additional prints. it is by no means a clear case of fair use, and is likely not fair use. just as file-sharing was found not to be fair use. it is hypocritical for aol to take encourage copyright infringement. You must not be able to read. The studio sold the CD with the written, stated intent that the files on the CD were for sharing.
There is no violation of copyright when a release has been given.
Photographer
none of the above
Posts: 3528
Marina del Rey, California, US
wishingtreephotography wrote:
although the purpose is not commerical in a narrow sense, it is very much like file sharing -- taking what one normally must pay for. bullshit. you're grasping at meager straws and it wouldn't hold the weight of a flea in any proceeding. the difference between file sharing and a copy of the yearbook or sr. prom photo goes to an entirely different form of protecting intellectual property.
there is far greater commercial value to the protected property with software and music. those creations have a value well beyond just the individual standing pretty with their date. the entire premise of protection for those areas goes to intent for whom the intended recipient is, and whether that intent has potential to do damage. photos to grandma don't even closely relate, unless of course grandma seeks thousands of similar photos for creating a book with commercial value. Otherwise, it's just a picture for her to view with a tear of pride in her eye and nothing more.
put it this way. ya know that swinging the fist as hard you want is within your right as long as it doesn't hit anyone's chin? well, it's much the same, commercial exploitation is the chin. don't hit it and it's no harm, no foul. that, in essence is what copyright protection is all about.
--face reality
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Luminous,
You said that the studio sold you the disc "for sharing with relatives or on the family web site." The studio did not grant you reprint rights. I'm sure that the studio offers a montage as well and would have loved to sold you one. I'm guessing the intent of the studio was to give you digital files that you could send to relatives via email and share on the web.
Now, if you're thinking is that they should've told you explicitly that you did not have reprint rights, then there you are wrong again. Unless they convey that to you, you are not granted those rights. The owner of the photograph has to explicity spell out what rights you have to grant them to you. Not telling you that you have certain rights is telling you that you don't have them.
face reality,
I'm glad you reprinted the copyright law for us all to read. I have read it and can tell you that the use in question is not fair use. Fair use does not usurp the potential sales from the image in question. Reprinting photos or scanning them to share with Grandma is usurping the potential sales of the image.
Fair use allows for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. How is reproducing a picture by any means for Grandma any of those things?
You also didn't read my post where I suggest to price your work so that reprint sales are no a concern. The point to this whole thread is not that we should be chasing down our clients over $20, but that AOL is telling people that breaking the law and stealing from creatifves is ok.
Photographer
Vito
Posts: 4582
Brooklyn, New York, US
Michael Newbern wrote:
Fair use allows for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. How is reproducing a picture by any means for Grandma any of those things? Don't you think that Grandma will criticize what little Suzie is wearing (or not wearing) or comment on how cute little Bobby has become? The fact she is not publishing her comments or criticism is irrelevant.
Photographer
none of the above
Posts: 3528
Marina del Rey, California, US
Michael Newbern wrote:
Fair use allows for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. How is reproducing a picture by any means for Grandma any of those things? you forgot an additional overriding point viewed for consideration; "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
again, the chin example. the violation will always be viewed toward commercial exploitation.
--face reality
Photographer
A. H A M I L T O N
Posts: 325
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
No one in this thread actually bothered to read the article did they?
They are NOT advocating copyright infringement.
They say to scan or copy a picture YOU TOOK YOURSELF.
Move along people, move along. This is why the media in the US is completely and totally FUBAR...because someone can make a statement that is blatently false and rely on the fact that no one will actually bother to read anything other than the first two sentences.
They didn't change it, even the screenshot says "YOU TOOK YOURSELF."
Andy
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
You're entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that the Professional Photographers of America sued K-Mart over this exact issue a few years ago, and K-Mart settled out of court and agreed to do their best to enforce copyright? Kmart, Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, and others have some pretty good lawyers, and they're not afraid to push the envelope when they think they're right. It's curious to me that they would just walk away from all that potential revenue and accept responsibility for enforcing copyright on pictures like you describe -- if it's as cut and dried as you claim it is. FaceReality wrote:
bullshit. you're grasping at meager straws and it wouldn't hold the weight of a flea in any proceeding. the difference between file sharing and a copy of the yearbook or sr. prom photo goes to an entirely different form of protecting intellectual property.
there is far greater commercial value to the protected property with software and music. those creations have a value well beyond just the individual standing pretty with their date. the entire premise of protection for those areas goes to intent for whom the intended recipient is, and whether that intent has potential to do damage. photos to grandma don't even closely relate, unless of course grandma seeks thousands of similar photos for creating a book with commercial value. Otherwise, it's just a picture for her to view with a tear of pride in her eye and nothing more.
put it this way. ya know that swinging the fist as hard you want is within your right as long as it doesn't hit anyone's chin? well, it's much the same, commercial exploitation is the chin. don't hit it and it's no harm, no foul. that, in essence is what copyright protection is all about.
--face reality
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
Please, please tell me that you tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you said this. Vito wrote:
Don't you think that Grandma will criticize what little Suzie is wearing (or not wearing) or comment on how cute little Bobby has become? The fact she is not publishing her comments or criticism is irrelevant.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
With all due respect, BULLSHIT! Here's the quote directly from the article which is still up for all to see. Bold emphasis added to rub it in your face: "Money-Saving Tips: Just buy the class picture. And don't even consider placing an order during the spring session, when many schools host a secondary picture day. If you just can't resist, purchase the smallest package possible. At the Clark School in Swampscott, Mass., parents can spend as little as $24 for a few wallet-size photos and one of the class. The bill rises to more than $50 if parents splurge for a package that includes a couple of 5-by-7s. Worried you won't have a spare to send to Grandma? Consider scanning your copy or email a cute digital shot you took yourself." Please read the dictionary to learn what the word "or" means. Clearly, they are presenting two options -- scanning the picture you bought and sending it to grandma, OR, sending her one you took yourself. A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
No one in this thread actually bothered to read the article did they?
They are NOT advocating copyright infringement.
They say to scan or copy a picture YOU TOOK YOURSELF.
Move along people, move along. This is why the media in the US is completely and totally FUBAR...because someone can make a statement that is blatently false and rely on the fact that no one will actually bother to read anything other than the first two sentences.
They didn't change it, even the screenshot says "YOU TOOK YOURSELF."
Andy
Photographer
A Traveler
Posts: 5506
San Francisco, California, US
A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
No one in this thread actually bothered to read the article did they?
They are NOT advocating copyright infringement.
They say to scan or copy a picture YOU TOOK YOURSELF.
Move along people, move along. This is why the media in the US is completely and totally FUBAR...because someone can make a statement that is blatently false and rely on the fact that no one will actually bother to read anything other than the first two sentences.
They didn't change it, even the screenshot says "YOU TOOK YOURSELF."
Andy "Worried you won't have a spare to send to Grandma? Consider scanning your copy"
"OR email a cute digital shot you took yourself."
these are two seperate statements. they are NOT saying scan a copy of the one YOU take. they are saying scan a copy of the one you bought OR take your own. so yes, they are in fact encouraging people to scan and reproduce copyrighted material. is it a huge big deal? not really - but it is about principle. AOL Time Warner would have a shit fit if anyone decided to reprint any of their images.
Photographer
A Traveler
Posts: 5506
San Francisco, California, US
heh. i see i was a few seconds too late!
Photographer
A. H A M I L T O N
Posts: 325
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
Scanning your copy isn't illegal, sending an email you took yourself to grandma isn't either.
Sending the scanned copy to grandma is...at least, maybe, but even still it's very marginal.
Maybe it's implied, that certainly seems to be the way people are taking it, but they don't actually tell you specifically to send the scanned copy to grandma.
However, looking at the sheer volume of photographers who will take up their pitchfork protecting a law meant to protect a business they only hope to be in but aren't really yet, I'll just hop aside and let the mob have it's field day.
I found long ago arguing with people who have too much free time on their hands is pointless, even if you're right.
Andy
Photographer
A. H A M I L T O N
Posts: 325
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
Couture Imagery wrote:
they are in fact encouraging people to scan and reproduce copyrighted material. is it a huge big deal? not really - but it is about principle. I have no problem being upset over the principle, but I don't feel it's as blatant as some of the previous posters in this thread want you to believe.
Andy
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
although I think Face Reality's reason is slightly wrong, He is correct in the grand scheme of things.
Is it fair use?
Maybe, Maybe not.
Understand that in order to be fair use, you do not need ALL four prongs of the test, you need a majority to point in favor of fair use.
The biggest test is the Economical ramifications of the commercial value being depleted by the infringement of the copyright.
If I scan an image to send to grandma I am depriving the photographer / studio of maybe $.50 profit.
Yes, there is a commercial loss, but it is so minimal that it would not even apply to the Fair Use test.
Read the complete copyright law, along with most of the major case law associated with it (modern cases) and you will find that this use would never even make it to trial.
They really are not advocating Copyright infringment, they are advocating skimping on paying the studio.
The Studio has made their money long before they sold any prints. Prints are gravy.
Additional prints are even more gravy.
I beleive the term here is di minimis.....
Photographer
A Traveler
Posts: 5506
San Francisco, California, US
A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
I have no problem being upset over the principle, but I don't feel it's as blatant as some of the previous posters in this thread want you to believe.
Andy sure, no one is going to lose millions, thousands, or probably even tens or hundreds, if even a single dollar over this. But I think it is at least worth it to stick one to a company that supports suing kids over downloading crappy music and who would create a big stink if someone decided to print out some pictures from their site and send them to their friends.
So yeah - some people may be reacting strongly to this... but i think it is necessary to inform a company who strongly enforces copyright infringement of their own images, music, and printed material that perhaps they shouldn't encourage even small infringements of others copyrighted work.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
Well, the exact quote from the article suggests you should buy the cheapest package, instead of the next one up, which is nearly twice as much money in their example. So if every client of that studio followed this advice, their revenue would be cut in half. That's not minimal. I disagree with your assertion that the studio makes all it's money long before they sell the prints. It's usually just the opposite with the school photography mills. Typically, they shoot for free. Whether or not you buy a package, little Johnny or Jill get shot. They make no money UNTIL you buy a package. The bottom line is -- the article tells people to buy fewer prints and then just scan the ones they buy. I don't see how that's not stealing. Your argument is akin to suggesting that there's nothing wrong with stealing gum or other items less than say, a dollar from the corner store. I just don't see the justice in this argument. Now from a practical point of view, I would agree with you that companies who depend on the age-old business model of giving away sittings and charging a lot for the prints are just asking for trouble -- technology is rendering that model obsolete and untenable. But that doesn't make it right to steal from the studio. Ty Simone wrote:
although I think Face Reality's reason is slightly wrong, He is correct in the grand scheme of things.
Is it fair use?
Maybe, Maybe not.
Understand that in order to be fair use, you do not need ALL four prongs of the test, you need a majority to point in favor of fair use.
The biggest test is the Economical ramifications of the commercial value being depleted by the infringement of the copyright.
If I scan an image to send to grandma I am depriving the photographer / studio of maybe $.50 profit.
Yes, there is a commercial loss, but it is so minimal that it would not even apply to the Fair Use test.
Read the complete copyright law, along with most of the major case law associated with it (modern cases) and you will find that this use would never even make it to trial.
They really are not advocating Copyright infringment, they are advocating skimping on paying the studio.
The Studio has made their money long before they sold any prints. Prints are gravy.
Additional prints are even more gravy.
I beleive the term here is di minimis.....
Photographer
Scribe of Souls
Posts: 564
Bonner Springs, Kansas, US
I was just wondering how people obtained Stacey Bradford's or AOL's permission to copy his article and distribute it online? Isn't that intellectual property (if you could call the stupid article he wrote supporting copyright infringement intellectual) safegaurded under similar copright laws. Two wrongs don't make a right, but in todays sophisticated electronic immediate gratification world it is unfortunately a fact of life. If we don't want to be eaten, chewed up, and spit out we will adapt to the new "ways of doing business" in our modern society. If you feel the need, protect your photos with electronic copyrights, change the ways you distribute photos, do whatever you deem resonable to protect your livelyhood.
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
I am disturbed by the how many people who either are, try, or someday desire to make a living as a photographer have no clue what their rights are and how the law works to protect them. Really, I know no better way to say it. Some of you people should really read the law and seek the counsel of a trained professional.
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Scribe of Souls wrote:
I was just wondering how people obtained Stacey Bradford's or AOL's permission to copy his article and distribute it online? Isn't that intellectual property (if you could call the stupid article he wrote supporting copyright infringement intellectual) safegaurded under similar copright laws. That's exaclty what fair use is.
Scribe of Souls wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right, but in todays sophisticated electronic immediate gratification world it is unfortunately a fact of life. If we don't want to be eaten, chewed up, and spit out we will adapt to the new "ways of doing business" in our modern society. If you feel the need, protect your photos with electronic copyrights, change the ways you distribute photos, do whatever you deem resonable to protect your livelyhood. Exactly! But we should still be vigilant in protecting our creative work even in this new age!
Photographer
Michael Newbern
Posts: 80
Columbus, Ohio, US
Vito wrote:
Don't you think that Grandma will criticize what little Suzie is wearing (or not wearing) or comment on how cute little Bobby has become? The fact she is not publishing her comments or criticism is irrelevant. You're joking right?
|
