?Photos for the MAINSTREAM?

[phkrause]

It says its moved but have not been able to find it? Richard do you have any idea? and also the one that used to be in the other thread. It was there one minute and gone the next.

I even tried posting to that thread and it told me I couldn't than it disappeared?

[John317]

pk, I think one of the admin moved it.

[phkrause]

pk, I think one of the admin moved it.

I got that, but where is the question? :)

[SivartM]

I think to somewhere where we can't be sued for copyright infringement.

[Guest]

Both threads are put in storage for now. Until we can find out more about copyright laws. Whats permisible and what's not. Please don't put that name in the header again pk. Just let it die for now.

[GreatLakesGramma]

If everyone had just stuck with posting their own photos, there would be no copyright issues.

[Guest]

I'm not sure there are any real issues, but I think it is best for all concerned to be on the safe side until we know for sure.

[John317]

The creator of a work automatically owns the rights without having to register the work in any special way. I need to do some research to find out exactly how this affects the photographs posted on the Forum.

Until I do, I hope this helps a little bit:

There are two parts:

A. Using photographs.

B. Taking photographs.

A) Using Photographs And The Law

Legal And Ethical Considerations When Using Images

Apr 10, 2008 Philip Northeast

While there are few restrictions on taking photographs and viewing them as part of a private collection there are many legal and moral restrictions on their public use.

This is a general overview of some of the legal issues involved in modern democratic societies. There are differences between legal jurisdictions so you should seek qualified legal advice for specific problems and issues. Local laws and interpretations may differ from the basic principles outlined here please seek competent local advice.

There are some restrictions over inappropriate subject matter exploiting vulnerable subjects limiting photographer’s rights to display and view their images in private. Generally, the restrictions come when photographers seek to publish or sell their images. There are two broad classifications of image use, editorial or commercial.

Editorial

This is realm of the photojournalist and art photographers using their photographers to convey information, tell a story or to use their images as a comment on some aspect of society. Here the notion of freedom of expression, as part of free speech, enables the publishing photographs as part of written work or as a photo essay. This includes publishing them as part of collections or display on the Internet. The main legal restriction in this case comes from laws regarding defamation or any other form of denigration of individuals or groups. There are also ethical considerations of publishing photographs of people in distress, and hence profiting from their suffering. The possible public good of highlighting the cause of their suffering counterbalances the possible negative effects on the individual.

Fine Art

As works of art, including photographs, are often considered editorial because they are a statement by the artist, or photographer, on some aspect of life. As such, photographers usually do not need model releases to publish or sell their images.

Read more at Suite101: Using Photographs And The Law: Legal And Ethical Considerations When Using Images http://photography.suite101.com/article.cfm/using_photographs_and_the_law#ixzz0r5LWhQSF

This is about taking pictures:

Apr 10, 2008 Philip Northeast

This is a general overview of some of the legal issues involved in modern democratic societies. There are differences between legal jurisdictions so you should seek qualified legal advice for specific problems and issues. Local laws and interpretations may differ from the basic principles outlined here please seek competent local advice.

Anything or anyone in public view from public place is fair game for photographers. There are no absolute laws of privacy restricting the photographers from recording anything or anyone in clear public view. This goes to the heart of democratic principles where freedom of expression is often guaranteed, either explicitly, or implied in the constitutions of democratic countries.

One practical restriction on photographing in public places is disruption to other members of the public. For this reason, some cities restrict the use of tripods and other bulky photographic equipment likely to obstruct pedestrian traffic

Model Releases

Model releases, property releases, or any other forms of permission are not required to photograph subjects in public view. If people choose to display themselves or their property to the public then they have given up some notion of privacy. This applies to public views of private property. Children are not legally competent to make these decisions, so sometimes it is better to ask a parent first before taking any photographs.

As in any modern democracy, the rights of others temper these basic rights. There are a number of legal and moral restrictions on any unreasonable or invasive photography. A judge in the law courts usually makes the final decision on what is unreasonable. If people do not want their photo taken, do not persist and respect attempts to create areas of privacy.

Read more at Suite101: Taking Photographs And The Law: Basic Legal Freedoms And Restrictions for Photographers http://photography.suite101.com/article.cfm/taking_photographs_and_the_law#ixzz0r5KuncwO

Source:

http://photography.suite101.com/article.cfm/using_photographs_and_the_law

[John317]

The following links have thousands of very beautiful photographs that are in the public domain and thus may be posted or even freely used commercially without any problems:

http://www.bestphotos.us/

http://www.freephotos.lu/

http://www.4freephotos.com/

http://www.freestockphotos.biz/

http://www.republicdomain.com/

http://www.easystockphotos.com/

From wikipedia:

Fair use on the Internet

In August 2008 U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy and posted the video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, not two weeks as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair-use of the song.

Common misunderstandings:

Fair use is commonly misunderstood because of its deliberate ambiguity. Here are some of the more common misunderstandings with explanations of why they are wrong:

Any use that seems fair is fair use. In the law, the term fair use has a specific meaning that only partly overlaps the plain-English meaning of the words. While judges have much leeway in deciding how to apply fair use guidelines, not every use that is commonly considered "fair" counts as fair use under the law.

Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.

If it's not fair use, it's copyright infringement. Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.

It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can be used for any purpose without violating copyright law.

Note: In some countries (including the United States of America), the mere creation of a work establishes copyright over it, and there is no legal requirement to register or declare copyright ownership.

Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own. While plagiarism and copyright violation are related matters—-both can, at times, involve failure to properly credit sources—-they are not identical. Plagiarism—using someone's words, ideas, images, etc. without acknowledgment—is a matter of professional ethics.

Copyright is a matter of law, and protects exact expression, not ideas. One can plagiarize even a work that is not protected by copyright, such as trying to pass off a line from Shakespeare as one's own. On the other hand, citing sources generally prevents accusations of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations. For example, reprinting a copyrighted book without permission, while citing the original author, would be copyright infringement but not plagiarism.

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued. Fair use is a defense against an infringement suit; it does not restrain anyone from suing. The copyright holder may legitimately disagree that a given use is fair, and they have the right to have the matter decided by a court. Thus, fair use is not a deterrent to a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The lack of a copyright notice means the work is public domain. Not usually true. United States law in effect since March 1, 1989, has made copyright the default for newly created works. For a recent work to be in the public domain the author must specifically opt-out of copyright. For works produced between January 1, 1923 and March 1, 1989, copyright notice is required; however, registration was not required[29] and between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 lack of notice is not necessarily determinative, if attempts were made immediately to correct the lack of notice. Any American works that did not have formal registration or notice fell into the Public Domain if registration was not made in a timely fashion. For international works, the situation is even more complex. International authors who failed to provide copyright notice or register with the U.S. copyright office are given additional contemporary remedies that may restore American copyright protection given certain conditions. International authors/corporations who fail to meet these remedies forfeit their copyright. An example of a company who failed to prove copyright was Roland Corporation and their claimed copyright on the sounds contained in their MT-32 synthesizer.

It's okay to quote up to 300 words. The 300-word limit is reported to be an unofficial agreement, now long obsolete, among permissions editors in the New York publishing houses: "I'll let you copy 300 words from our books if you let us copy 300 words from yours." It runs counter to the substantiality standard. As explained above, the substantiality of the copying is more important than the actual amount. For instance, copying a complete short poem is more substantial than copying a random paragraph of a novel; copying an 8.5×11-inch photo is more substantial than copying a square foot of an 8×10-foot painting. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of approximately 300 words from former President Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir was sufficient to constitute an infringement of the exclusive publication right in the work.

You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer. Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use.

If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use.

[Outta Here]

Can I just ask why this is suddenly an issue now? It's something I'd been trying to get people to address here for years, but NO ONE has ever taken it seriously.

So...what gives? Who's making an issue out of it? Has it finally caught the watchful eye of someone IMPORTANT? A man, perhaps?

[SivartM]

No, a woman. A photographer, to be specific.

[Guest]

So...what gives? Who's making an issue out of it? Has it finally caught the watchful eye of someone IMPORTANT? A man, perhaps?

What kind of a question is this? "A man perhaps". Does somebody hate men perhaps?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

-deleted-

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

-deleted-

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

No, a woman. A photographer, to be specific.

How do you know that? Are you privy to everything in the Mod/Admin hidden threads?

The photographer identified herself in the thread.

[Gail]

The photographer requested that her photo be removed, which I did. I then thought it prudent to move the two threads in question until we got a clearer picture of copyright infringement.

Regardless of the definition of fair usage, I would out of common courtesy remove a work if its owner requests it. Why make an issue out of it? There are many other subjects for discussion.

[Outta Here]

My apologies for "making an issue out of it". I merely wanted to know why all of a sudden it's a problem...when I'd mentioned copyright infringement many times here at Club Adventist--both in the images used and the quoted text materials.

And as to why I thought perhaps a man? Well, historically here, when I've made rational suggestions, they get set aside and ignored until and unless a man "comes up" with the idea after me.

Carry on. I'm done with the discussion.

[Gail]

I wasn't addressing you in particular, Aubrey.

[phkrause]

I wasn't addressing you in particular, Aubrey.

Actually I was thinking the same as Aubrey, why after all this time. So it seems someone just must said something.

[Gail]

As far as I am concerned, I haven't been in a discussion regarding copyrights before, probably because I don't know anything about them. I missed whatever was mentioned about it previously.

The owner of the photo posted a comment asking for it to be removed and I removed it. I also moved the two photo threads until further decision could be made on the subject.

[John317]

Quote:

Gail:....The owner of the photo posted a comment asking for it to be removed and I removed it. I also moved the two photo threads until further decision could be made on the subject.

I think you did the courteous and right thing, Gail.

The most important thing is to use pictures which are in the public domain or which are not copyrighted and being used elsewhere for commecial purposes. For instance, if you have to have a password or pay money in order to see someone's pictures, you can't copy them and post them for public viewing.

[Guest]

I honestly don't believe any copyright laws were being broken. But it is better to be on the safe side until more is known, and some absolutes are decided upon.

[Guest]

The most important thing is to use pictures which are in the public domain or which are not copyrighted and being used elsewhere for commecial purposes. For instance, if you have to have a password or pay money in order to see someone's pictures, you can't copy them and post them for public viewing.

If this is the case then everything I posted is fine for sure. But there may be a little more to it than that.

[Guest]

HEY ALL

so were are all the pictures

dgrimm60

Dgrimm try reading the thread. It will answer all your questions. This is not the photo thread.

[John317]

Yes, I think you are OK as far as the law goes, Richard. It sounds like what you were doing comes under the "fair use" principle of law. You weren't using the pictures for the purpose of making money and you weren't using pictures in a way that would have caused anyone to lose money, either. But could I ask where you were getting the pictures from? You can tell me or send the links to me by PM if you want to.