Just for info, Loz has joined my black list before I posted my previous post.

As it turned out for a good reason as "people in the know" posting in this thread know squad and there's a legal entity such as automatic fair use license under UK Copyright Laws - just found it!

From the horse's mouth

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use

Very informative reading, follow different links there. Lamentably it is still formulated in such a way that no matter what lawyers will have a scope for involvement and even if everything here is still within fair use etc you can be done for unintentional irreparable damage to copyrights owner's rights...

nobody wins except fee charging people :(.

So If you do not want anybody to use your published images unless you specifically agree you need to mark them as such/ be able to track their digital movements.

KBPhoto, did you get any answer from your friend dealing with photography world copyrights?

And that one illustrates in a very simple way how crap the workings of the system are...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/23061520498/all-fair-use-no-license-fees-makes-room-237-interesting-test-case.shtml

So If you do not want anybody to use your published images unless you specifically agree you need to mark them as such/ be able to track their digital movements.

Show me ANYTHING on that page or somewhere else that states that?

You confuse me. You throw links and 'evidence' around. But you don't seem to understand them yourself. You linked to a piece saying there's a 'fair use of copyrighted material' clause and then say that you have to mark work as copyrighted if you don't want people to use it – well guess what, your fair use clause still applies to work with a copyright symbol on it. So you've just contradicted yourself.

The fair use clause seems to cover: educational study, news and event reporting, incidental inclusion and review/critique. Nothing more. Using my image on your blog would not be deemed fair use unless you were reviewing it or reporting that I have made it.

As the site explicitly states:

If you are making/distributing copies of work that you find on the Internet you should check that the licence for the work (or instructions on the site) allow this and that the site you obtained the work from is itself acting legally. If there is no such licence, do not use the work until you have the permission of the copyright owner.

It seems pretty black and white to me.

You are right, there isn't. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion too quickly, sorry

So what you are saying is that even if you put a specific copyright info revoking fair use it would not work as fair use overrides it? Would make sense.

That internet bit is pretty straight forward. I think it still provides fair use capacity in a situation where you put a photo taken from internet on your blog or a forum post provided you state the source, lets say to discuss it or as an illustration of a point. A single use and "making copies". If you couldn't then everybody would be breaking copyrights law? What do you think?

Fact is there is an automatic fair use license granted to everybody as described on that website as soon as you make any original work public. It is very limited and still leaves it open for interpretation, doesn't revoke any author's rights etc but is there. Not that I am particularly happy about it and I must admit I didn't know about, just had a hunch at the beginning of this discussion.

I am really happy I managed to get a lot of info on the subject, especially from pro & semi/pro photographers!

That internet bit is pretty straight forward. I think it still provides fair use capacity in a situation where you put a photo taken from internet on your blog or a forum post provided you state the source, lets say to discuss it or as an illustration of a point.

The only things you could justify (via fair use) using a found image without permission for is reviewing the image, studying (writing an essay, say), or reporting that the author has made/published/exhibiting the work. All three would be about the image rather than using the image to accompany your own article/content. So I'd say it's a very niche exemption that fair use will cover you for. Even the studying/educational one wouldn't be possible on a blog really as it's not private study. I suppose you could publicly crit the work. But that's still writing about the image rather than using the image for your own content.

I agree that many people are already breaking copyright. But I think that evens out a little as many people who publish on the net publish in order to get their work out and therefore don't want to sue people who use their images. But it still makes it a breach of copyright to share/distribute the image without permission. Even if that's what the author wants (again, good reason to drop a license on a pic - to tell people it's fair game).

Fact is there is an automatic fair use license granted to everybody as described on that website as soon as you make any original work public. It is very limited and still leaves it open for interpretation, doesn't revoke any author's rights etc but is there.

It's alongside the Urban Legend that you can photocopy 10% of a book without breaking copyright that you always heard back at Uni. I think the fair use policy mainly relates to education and freedom of press areas - so you can reference a work in context rather than a clause to allow you to use copyrighted material for your own aims (unless you're a reviewer/reporter/student, then I suppose it is your own aims).

Here is my image. All rights reserved.

Now if you quote me, including the image - are you violating my copyright or is it under fair use? If you quote the whole post and don't mention the image then technically you've used copyrighted material and not met the "The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment" requirement for it to be covered by fair use.

Technically you're in the wrong, but would it be of benefit for me to sue you? Can I prove damages? At best I'd pay a lot of legal fees to force you to remove the image from your post (which I could probably get simply by asking) - so I probably wouldn't bother. But that doesn't make it fair use, that makes it 'more trouble than it's worth'. And that's why (I think) so many people get away with breaking copyright law.

OK, that's good.

From what you are saying ALL images posted on briskie unless actually taken by the poster are used illegally? I doubt anybody bothered to get license...

Further on, I took photos of my car, posted it here in review thread. Lets say somebody quotes that post, including all the images in it and says my photos are crap I am full of crap (and stronger all for the sake of argument) etc - derogatory, defamatory statements. Then under copyright I am entitled to demand removal of my photos from his post and can sue him for irreversible damage to my copyrights?

If this is how copyright law is working then it is simply not worth the paper it is written on...

Any image posted here (or anywhere) without the author's permission is breaching copyright, yes. That's the definition and purpose of copyright. It doesn't necessarily mean all of them are though. Some may have open licenses from where they were originally taken.

I took photos of my car, posted it here in review thread. Lets say somebody quotes that post, including all the images in it and says my photos are crap I am full of crap (and stronger all for the sake of argument) etc - derogatory, defamatory statements.

If this happened, they could argue fair use in that they are critiquing (reviewing) your photographs. However, unless it was in the Photography forum or a thread about photographs (rather than cars) that may be considered tenuous. Plus you'd probably be more successful trying to sue for libel and defamation of character rather than breach of copyright. Either way I think you'd lose - either the case or a lot of money - probably both.

Also, by posting and allowing Briski to publish your photographs you may be releasing some rights to them for use on the forum by other members (embarrassingly I've not read the full T&Cs so can't say for sure) similar to Facebook's T&Cs. Even if not, I would assume the court would decide that you posting them on a forum thread would be an implied license for people to quote them in a reply.

In either case, the first port of call would be issuing a cease and desist - asking them to remove the photos. If they refuse then you could ask the Moderation team to remove the images (as technically the site is publishing them). If both refuse then you could try to sue either or both parties, yes.

If you did sue, then you would likely gain no money unless you could prove damages anyway.

Interesting discussion!

You mentioned assumed license - I remember being flamed here for that

Following your exercise in role play the sad conclusion is that I'd get nowhere in any case and would loose a lot of money in legal fees...

It's this bit about interpreting what is actually not allowed is getting me here. If it was said what is allowed and all the rest was not allowed than it would be much clearer.

At the moment nothing is allowed but there are some shady exceptions, fair use licenses, free licenses - a right maze or license to print money for lawyers ...

I personally do not like that.

fortunately my work is either fully confidential or plastered with all copyrights reserved with specific description that NOTHING is allowed as it is never publicly available . I do not have that problem in my line of work but as amateur photographer (just started this summer) and keen user of digital media it scares me that there is a possibility for being sued wile doing absolutely nothing wrong. then being dragged for Legal InJustice System for no reason, loosing health, money and the case in the end due to technicality lol. It is like playing poker with multimillionaire having only a tenner and no rules!

there is a possibility for being sued wile doing absolutely nothing wrong.

That's really the crux.

Don't use any images you haven't gained permission to use from the author and you will never be sued for copyright violation (image-wise anyway).

Start thinking "well, they probably wont notice", "It's only for one teeny thing and I'm not selling it" or "I can't find the author but I did try, so that's ok" or anything like that and you're walking a wire.

it scares me that there is a possibility for being sued wile doing absolutely nothing wrong.

If you only post your own images on the net or only use your own pictures in publicity for your own purposes, then why do you worry about being sued?

It's only when you use someone else's images without expressed permission that you may need to worry.

Should my students worry because the quote people's written work in their assignments? Are they infringing copyright if they use someone else's pictures in their assignment (no permission sought or granted but fully referenced by the student)?

Assessment and personal study come under the fair use policy. And referencing systems and Academic Offence (Plagiarism) issues cover that all non-unique work should be accredited with author and source. So in theory it's not a breach of copyright unless they publish the assignment which is where it can get a bit grey...

But don't you think this is a little bit stifling?

One of my points, as well as that report and changes to legislation proposed I quoted here earlier said exactly that...

It reminds of a communist police state, where nobody knew the rules really, and unless you were doing absolutely nothing you were always at risk of getting done for whatever more or less fake reason being quoted.

It is not possible to live in such an insular world where you are not able to use anything produced by anybody, despite it being published for all to see...

It is just insane :(

It is not possible to obtain such licenses within any reasonable time framework and such licenses would have to be water tight or you will still get sued despite having such license - see that case of Warner and Tolkien estate.

My work is never published and licenses are ridiculously detailed in wording and non-transferable. Nobody can even look at my work unless specifically empowered to do so. This is were copyrights as they are work perfectly.

When you decide to make it public then in my eyes it changes it all...

Assessment and personal study come under the fair use policy. And referencing systems and Academic Offence (Plagiarism) issues cover that all non-unique work should be accredited with author and source. So in theory it's not a breach of copyright unless they publish the assignment which is where it can get a bit grey...

And there you go, even when you think you are in the clear ....

I don't see where you draw the line between using somebody else's cartoon fish you found on Google to create a logo for your aquarium business and copying the first chapter of Harry Potter, changing the names, for your new book 'Bobbin Thatcher' the wizard at Hogmydia.

Either artworks are protected, or they're not. Protected 'unless it'd be useful for me to use it' would create much more grey area.

Putting (publishing) my image on the internet is no different than Bloomsbury publishing Rowling's Harry Potter book to paper. But you think you should be able to have limited use of my image for your own purposes and that Harry Potter is 100% protected by it's ink and paper publishing? What's the difference in your eyes? Both are original works and both have been published to the public?

The difference is what are you using it for and this is already covered in copyright laws to some extent. As soon as it is for any kind of publicity for your own business, "public name" etc, any commercial use, anything providing you with any gain be it monetary or competitive advantage then it is not allowed unless license granted. Author's info should always be on an image so you can ask for that license. Anything else should be allowed and then people should not have ANY incentive to remove copyright info and authors details from pictures, books etc, no reason, quite the contrary. All would be happy as authors would get lots of publicity and would provide an easy route for additional license fee income. From piratical point of view when I find a picture, anything original and I am not able to trace the author then I cannot use it so I am loosing out and author is loosing out. This is how it is at the moment. If I do I can be sued in 20 years when then very successful enterprise created using some untraceable image suddenly crawls out of the woodwork. hence people are scared witless now and prefer not to touch it. I do not think this is right. Instances of theft and then illegal release to the world are a different matter and are simply treated as theft. This could operate by means of a simple government run register. You want to release something to the public get it registered. marked and off it goes. Wait for those phone calls .

That is how I see it really.

Photos, books, art, that's easy. Look at consumption products and counterfeit market for them, when you think about it you loose the will to live!

The difference is what are you using it for and this is already covered in copyright laws to some extent. As soon as it is for any kind of publicity for your own business, "public name" etc, any commercial use, anything providing you with any gain be it monetary or competitive advantage then it is not allowed unless license granted. Author's info should always be on an image so you can ask for that license. Anything else should be allowed and then people should not have ANY incentive to remove copyright info and authors details from pictures, books etc, no reason, quite the contrary. All would be happy as authors would get lots of publicity and would provide an easy route for additional license fee income.

I'm still very confused as to your viewpoint.

If I was running a Harry Potter fansite and I put my Kindle copy of Goblet of Fire on the site so people knew what I was talking about (as all Harry Potter talk is basically mumbo jumbo anyway). Then that's not ok, because the book is protected by copyright?

But putting my photograph of a group of Harry Potter cosplayers as the header image on the site is fine, because you found it on my Flickr page and it would go really well with the fansite.

I still don't see a difference? But you seem to. And maybe I'm just dense, but I can't figure out what it is? Both are released to the public. Both are original works by an author, and you have neither author's permission to use the work. The site is the same (probably non-profit and community driven, so not commercial per se).

C'mon, we are just having a chat here and playing out different scenarios to see if they work or not

I am not trying to play oneupmanship game here or prove to everybody who cares to waste their time reading here that I know it all, really! I am just interested in the subject as I am professionally involved with it and I heavily participate in the digital world. I learned a lot and I have some ideas I wish to discuss.

I started by saying that I think there is a deemed license to use original work when it was published. I was badly shot down. I did my own research (previously I heve not read about it at all in terms of public domain copyright issues) and it turned out that there is such a license, very limited but there is one. Then I learned a lot about how the copyrights operate and now I have some more or less looney ideas I would like to discuss . As it is an open forum everybody can just ignore it and not look here, that's the beauty of this media

In my eyes the difference is that in the first case, by putting the whole book out there you'd be depriving the publishing house and author of their income as people would not have to buy the book any more - no different from downloading a copy from a pirate torrent site. So there is a very clear connection there with money and actions of such fan would cause potential financial lose.

With that image being released into the public domain (assumed here it was not stolen) it having all the author's info still there and clearly marked as such and the fan site does not operate any kind of commercial activities (advertising banners etc) generating income then in my eyes it would be OK. If such an image was used on a website and it would contribute to its popularity increasing numbers of visitors and the site was running some commercial activity like advertising banners etc then it could be deemed that said image was used to generate income and it would be illegal. I think it is quite clear cut in my eyes and is still covered by current copyrights laws.

And I do get your point about libel etc, perhaps this would be a better road. Would it still cover use of your photos on internet sites (assume fitting perfectly within fair use class) with offensive/explicit/hard core political content you would like not be associated with? Could you not claim that it caused you distress, psychological damage and destroyed your reputation despite being removed at your request after you spotted it? The above hypothetical use would not refer to you in any way, just show photos with your details on them.

Now, I have a different example. Imagine somebody is doing research. According to fair use such person can use all sorts of materials for research purposes as I understand it. The research is very successful and leads to a very lucrative patent. Would the original materials used for the research upon the research becoming commercialised change their status and loose fair use eligibility leading to demands of their copyright holders for royalties?

So you're saying that a photograph has no value compared to a book because it has no RRP? Putting a copy of Goblet of Fire out there deprives the publishers of £5.99 but using an image is ok as it holds no lost income to the author?

What if the artist sells copies of the photo for £5.99 from his own website? Does it suddenly become unacceptable to use on the fan site because it's openly for sale elsewhere?

__

If your image was used in association with offensive/explicit/political content that you do not want to be associated with, then you would need to pursue legal action for breach of copyright as they can't use your image without your permission - if you gave permission your license should exclude these topics. If it's on a forum or similar you would, again, issue a cease and desist first. If that doesn't work you would likely be screwed as by posting them on a 3rd party site it's likely you're granting licensing terms to that site (I read Briski's terms and you do grant them license to use the images you post).

If it's the actual content you're in disagreement with and they have associated your name to it, then you need a lawyer as I have no idea of the path best to choose. If you want to claim damages from the incident up to the point of removal you could also talk to a lawyer, but at that point it's not copyright infringement in my eyes - it's compensation. And I don't know enough about the law to say how that part works (just that I assume you'd need to win the claim of infringement in order to get any compensation).

I'd say the educational study you speak of would not need to be disclosed or published in order to gain the patient. So the copyrighted material therein would not be relevant and still be exempt under a personal study clause. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

__

We may be playing out different scenarios, but we still seem to be at opposite ends of 'what works'. I think unless you're an artist who puts effort and time into creating original works then you're never going to get copyright and IP law on an emotional level. A photograph may just be a great picture to the person who finds it on Google and wants to stick it on the blog they just wrote, but to the artist it could have been the culmination of months of prep, £1,000s of equipment, dozens of hours of shooting and post-processing and a shining example of the vision they were trying to execute. To that artist the photo is worth a lot of money (and to a pro, is literally is worth food, light, heat and more). Copyright law is there so that the blogger can't just take that away for free without the artists consent. I think it works. I would hate to live in a country where the law serves to allow Joe Bloggs to use that image for whatever he wants without the permission of the person who gave up time, money and effort to create it from nothing. Regardless of whether Joe gains monetary benefit from it or not.

It's not about lawyers and suing the crap out of people. It's about protecting something that you have invested in creating.

So you're saying that a photograph has no value compared to a book because it has no RRP? Putting a copy of Goblet of Fire out there deprives the publishers of £5.99 but using an image is ok as it holds no lost income to the author?

What if the artist sells copies of the photo for £5.99 from his own website? Does it suddenly become unacceptable to use on the fan site because it's openly for sale elsewhere?

We may be playing out different scenarios, but we still seem to be at opposite ends of 'what works'. I think unless you're an artist who puts effort and time into creating original works then you're never going to get copyright and IP law on an emotional level. A photograph may just be a great picture to the person who finds it on Google and wants to stick it on the blog they just wrote, but to the artist it could have been the culmination of months of prep, £1,000s of equipment, dozens of hours of shooting and post-processing and a shining example of the vision they were trying to execute. To that artist the photo is worth a lot of money (and to a pro, is literally is worth food, light, heat and more). Copyright law is there so that the blogger can't just take that away for free without the artists consent. I think it works. I would hate to live in a country where the law serves to allow Joe Bloggs to use that image for whatever he wants without the permission of the person who gave up time, money and effort to create it from nothing. Regardless of whether Joe gains monetary benefit from it or not.

It's not about lawyers and suing the crap out of people. It's about protecting something that you have invested in creating.

Looks like we are .

I agree with your sentiment regarding time, money and effort spent producing original work as I do the same thing for a living and many a time I am being asked to literary give up my copyrights for nothing as people do not understand how it works at all and are incensed when I want money for it! On the other hand I would love to release images of my work with my info on it and copyright info etc as I described for as wide dissemination and use as possible without people who use it without me giving them explicit permission shying away from it because at the moment there is a potential for them being sued as not having such license etc.

So if you are not selling such image at all would'n you like to have a facility for such free advertising? I would! At the moment it is not possible as you need a license to do so, irrespectively of whether you will be inclined to take legal action or not if it is used without such license. Serious organisations/ blogs/periodicals will stay away if they are not able to quickly obtain such license from you seeing your photo without any contact details, copyrights info, registration scheme etc. Your earning potential would increase dramatically imho if the changes I suggest would be implemented. You still have all your copyrights and nobody can use your images for any money spinning activity but conversely nobody van be sued for just showing you image (low quality internet one) so there is no fear of publishing it leading to wide proliferation and exposure increasing your chances of high quality copies being bought from you for a lot of money - I think it is sensible.

As it is everybody is using any image on line without any licensing breaking the law without realising and opening themselves up to all sorts of unpleasantries.

I do not think it is optimal situation and can be easily improved while dramatically reducing spurious legal costs. Authors and users are winners and legal industry are losers here. That is why I think it will not change :(. Protecting revenue stream will be more important.

Don't get me wrong, I all for protecting ALL the rights of of authors of ANY original work! I just do not think it works to their advantage as it is and it looks like we disagree here

If I want free advertising and I don't want people to make money from using my image for free I can stick a CC BY-NC on it and post it anywhere I want. It's only small:

Then people can only use it when they credit me, and they can't use it to make money.

Why is that hard?

Here you go: http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads drop whatever license you see fit on your work and you can post it anywhere you want.

Still talking about scamming wedding photographers.

My Cats blacker than your cat! but then the dmax can always be altered in photoshop so then it won't be any more!

I have been a commercial /advertising photographer for over 30 years, having trained @ what is arguably the best Photographic College in the country, worked as assistant for 3 years , then worked as a photographer for a top Northern based studio , then had my own studio for 21 years ! i have never had any other occupation, so i am not a 2nd time chancer!! i am a qualified professional photographer being an associate member of the BIPP.

I have never heard such a load of convoluted drivel in all my life, if you use another person's copyrighted image without a licence you are breaking the law. Full stop period whatever you want to say and i have successfully had images removed from other peoples websites etc with payment for infringement of my copyright. So it could be said i have the T shirt!

Edited 27 November, 201213 yr by Toddie

Toddie, thanks for your contribution.

Personally, having read your one post here I'd firstly never use you or your photographs and will make sure I will never recommend you for anybody I know with this kind of attitude. If I wanted to show your image (i.e. use it) to anybody to show how good you are but without obtaining a license from you to do so I am now sure you would sue me. So I wont.

I am sure you are extremely successful in your 21 year career suing everybody left right and centre and I am perfectly sure that they all deserved it, wanted to rob you blind and destroy your livelihood. There is plenty of image pinching scum bags just waiting to steal that low res photos from some obscure web page and make a fortune out of them . Really no need to respond either. As you can see I didn't even quote your text for the fear you might issue "Cease and Desist Notice" and then upon my compliance suing me for infringement of your copyrights (I have not ask for copyrights license for using your original work of journalism on this forum) and demanding damages and payment. That was a close one!

I think I said what I wanted, floated my ideas here, got the responses and I am happy with it.

What I now gather from this thread is that Legal and (some) Professional "representatives" of the original content creators have no desire to change the exiting system, don't see any need for it, think it works perfectly well as it is and any talk about any potential change, shortcomings or perceived potential improvements is treated as annoyance and labelled at best as "load of convoluted drivel". Which is fine as everybody is entitled to their own opinions.

To me it is simply arrogant entrenchment ignoring the changing outside world and the realities of digital age driven by proliferation of wideband internet.

I am bowing out of this thread as I do not see any further point in pi55ing into a hurricane .

EDIT: I used a Pro Photographer for a family photo shoot session in different locations. I paid circa £2k. I bought framed prints, was given CD with max resolution photos as well as low res ones. She had absolutely no problems with me using the photos all over the internet, giving it to my family and friends. Guess what, I will be using her again!

Edited 27 November, 201213 yr by Jabozuma

If I want free advertising and I don't want people to make money from using my image for free I can stick a CC BY-NC on it and post it anywhere I want. It's only small:

Then people can only use it when they credit me, and they can't use it to make money.

Why is that hard?

Here you go: http://creativecommo...about/downloads drop whatever license you see fit on your work and you can post it anywhere you want.

Mort, sorry for being a bit thick here but how do you put on the whole thing on a forum page like shown on that Creative Commons webpage?

I tried copying that HTML code into a post here buy it just showed the HTML code and not how it looked on the webpage

http://creativecommons.org/choose/

Cheers

EDIT:

BTW, I like that Creative commons and this is exactly what I meant all the way! Sadly I never ever seen those marks on any photo anywhere... Also, it doesn't work when somebody removes the markings and posts somewhere, but then I guess by removing the markings it would be breaching the license and the same as stealing an image.

Edited 27 November, 201213 yr by Jabozuma

EDIT: I used a Pro Photographer for a family photo shoot session in different locations. I paid circa £2k. I bought framed prints, was given CD with max resolution photos as well as low res ones. She had absolutely no problems with me using the photos all over the internet, giving it to my family and friends. Guess what, I will be using her again!

Part of the £2k would have included 'rights' to use the pictures. I would hazard a guess that the photographer retained 'copyright' though!

Any 'loss of income' from 'giving' you the CD would have been off-set by the high price you paid initially.

Of course she wouldn't have a problem. She's got your money and also a happy customer who will recommend her and advertise for her by showing the pictures around.

How would you (or your photographer) feel if I 'borrowed' the pictures off the net and pretended they were mine?

What if you post the pictures online and say 'look at my family pictures' but DON'T mention who actually took them? Is that breaking the 'rules'?

Part of the £2k would have included 'rights' to use the pictures. I would hazard a guess that the photographer retained 'copyright' though!

Any 'loss of income' from 'giving' you the CD would have been off-set by the high price you paid initially.

Of course she wouldn't have a problem. She's got your money and also a happy customer who will recommend her and advertise for her by showing the pictures around.

I do not think the price I paid 4 years ago was high for the results I got. How did she manage to take ANY photos with all of us (especially my then 1 year old) I do not know and just for that she deserves all the money . I do not want keep going about this any more really, fed up to the gills... Especially that all my work, ANYTHING I do is copyrighted to the hilt and never for public release. If it is released by me to be shown in the press or on the internet then I am very happy to the suff being used as per the way I described and cannot really see why other professionals would object to that as it can only bring benefits to them :(

How would you (or your photographer) feel if I 'borrowed' the pictures off the net and pretended they were mine?

What if you post the pictures online and say 'look at my family pictures' but DON'T mention who actually took them? Is that breaking the 'rules'?

The examples you mentioned are all in breach of the licensing scheme I am TRYING to DISCUSS Yes, it is breaking the rules big time!

Edited 27 November, 201213 yr by Jabozuma