Significant income from those who choose to violate?
Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as
providing a reliable revenue stream from photography.
But, it would be poetic.
Perhaps, if one wants to lower themselves to the same level as the thief.
I guess it's the
On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote:
Significant income from those who choose to violate?
Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as
providing a reliable revenue stream from photography.
But, it would be poetic.
Perhaps, if one wants to lower themselves to
From: P. J. Alling
On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote:
Significant income from those who choose to violate?
Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as
providing a reliable revenue stream from photography.
But, it would be poetic.
Perhaps, if one wants
On 11/25/2010 12:03 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote:
Significant income from those who choose to violate?
Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright
infringers as
providing a reliable revenue stream from photography.
From: P. J. Alling
How is copyrighting a picture like daring someone to hit you? How is
seeking redress for damages entrapment as you seem to be suggesting? I
suggested that while it might not be a good source of reliable source of
income it would be poetic if you /could/ derive income from
From: CheekyGeek
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
wrote:
Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you
ranting about the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are
you ranting about the fact that people are clueless about
copyright?
All of
On 11/24/2010 9:02 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: CheekyGeek
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
wrote:
Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you
ranting about the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are
you ranting about the fact that
From: Mark Roberts
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office,
you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court.
That's not my understanding.
If you don't register the
From: Rob Studdert
On 20 November 2010 09:44, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
it may well come down to this ridiculous idea of registering your copyright.
Jones-Griffiths was a member of UK Magnum and to the best of my knowledge
there is no need to register copyright over here. The
Den 20. nov. 2010 kl. 22.51 skrev Jaume Lahuerta:
- Mensaje original
De: Miserere miser...@gmail.com
Wow Darren, I never thought my (c) would annoy you so much :-(
I've just finished reading through the thread and am surprised at how
angry you sound.
I'll comment later
And Dag,
Are you a rich man collecting from all those who have infringed on
your copywrite?
I'll bet you don't even work any more because of all the income... :-)
Regards, Bob S.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, DagT li...@thrane.name wrote:
Den 20. nov. 2010 kl. 22.51 skrev Jaume Lahuerta:
I have got some money in a couple of cases and it was a lot of work arguing,
but the relevant question is different: would I get any richer if I had my name
all over the photographs? I don´t think so.
I do think less people would look at them if the signature annoyed them.
DagT
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you ranting about
the copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are you ranting about the fact
that people are clueless about copyright?
All of the above. The
mboi
http://www.photographybb.com/photography-stuff/watermarking-your-photos-
part-1-why/
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
CheekyGeek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Darren, I am not certain I grok your rant rightly... Are you ranting about the
copyright notices obscuring your view? Or are you ranting about the fact that
people are clueless about copyright?
[...]
gabby annie is back!
Welcome back!
Take my advice:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1023203.stm
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
Bob W wrote:
[...]
gabby annie is back!
Welcome back!
Take my advice:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1023203.stm
B
thank you!...
but .. but.. not sure what the link means vis-a-vis this stuff ... oh
wait.. the getty (c) -- too bright.. but
the
gabby annie is back!
Welcome back!
Take my advice:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1023203.stm
B
thank you!...
but .. but.. not sure what the link means vis-a-vis this stuff
the link means Gab On !!
... oh wait.. the
getty (c) -- too bright..
On 19 November 2010 13:11, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a big 'ol
copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even
more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I
see the C to stand for
Bob W wrote:
gabby annie is back!
Welcome back!
Take my advice:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1023203.stm
B
thank you!...
but .. but.. not sure what the link means vis-a-vis this stuff
the link means Gab On !!
oh no - I have been
- Mensaje original
De: Miserere miser...@gmail.com
On 19 November 2010 13:11, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a big 'ol
copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even
more impossible to
A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a big 'ol
copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even
more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I
see the C to stand for Clueless rather than Copyright.
I would suggest that people who do
I used to put a big 'ol copyright statement on my thumbs to deter
theft, but all they did was take the 640x480 thumbs, blow them up to
8x10 and print them out, with the copyright.
Used to see them all over the horse show venues at the stalls.
Dave
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM, CheekyGeek
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest that people who do this do not truly understand the
concept of copyright. Only the smallest and most unobtrusive copyright
mark is needed to fulfill the legal obligation of notification/claim
as seen on
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote:
While you are technically correct, filing a copyright lawsuit is
ridiculously expensive and takes years in court to pursue. And while
you can get statutory damages if you promptly file for registration,
if someone
Darren,
That all sounds good in theory,
I trust what Dave Brooks has to say about it in practice.
Collecting is very impractical...
Don't put anything on the WWW you aren't willing to give away.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov
Okay, say Microsoft (for whatever reason) decides to infringe on your
copyright and use it.
Who is going to last longer, you or Microsoft? It's all about paying
for your legal fees. Just because you are in the clear and everything
is on your side does not mean that you have any chance in hell
Well, I can assure you it goes well beyond theory, and that it is
anything but impractical, but I see no benefit to myself in doing
any further convincing on the subject. Closed minds are a powerful
thing. Suffice it to say that this thread is (empirically) the most
financially invaluable (and
There's an old saying that locks only keep out honest people.
At the risk of turning the greasy spot that used to be a horse into a smoking
hole, I'll weigh in with some thoughts.
First of all, in theory, theory and practice are the same. It is legally and
morally wrong to duplicate and use
Infringers enrich Copyright-smart Photographers. Google Flickr
(along with the rest of the internet) make infringing simple. That's
good for Copyright-smart Photographers. They also make catching
infringers pretty simple, because most of them are clueless. While it
may be counter-intuitive,
On 2010-11-19 13:11, CheekyGeek wrote:
Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I
see the C to stand for Clueless rather than Copyright.
I would suggest that people who do this do not truly understand the
concept of copyright. Only the smallest and most unobtrusive copyright
mark is needed
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:45 -0800, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
There's an old saying that locks only keep out honest people.
At the risk of turning the greasy spot that used to be a horse into a
smoking hole, I'll weigh in with some thoughts.
First of all, in theory, theory and
Okay, say Microsoft (for whatever reason) decides to infringe on your
copyright and use it.
Who is going to last longer, you or Microsoft? It's all about paying for
your
legal fees. Just because you are in the clear and everything is on your
side
does not mean that you have any chance in
On 2010-11-19 15:21, David Parsons wrote:
Who is going to last longer, you or Microsoft? It's all about paying
for your legal fees. Just because you are in the clear and everything
is on your side does not mean that you have any chance in hell of
actually winning.
And even if you win, the
Larry Colen wrote:
There's an old saying that locks only keep out honest people.
At the risk of turning the greasy spot that used to be a horse into a smoking
hole, I'll weigh in with some thoughts.
First of all, in theory, theory and practice are the same. It is legally and
morally wrong to
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
That's pretty much how I work things.
A few weeks ago I attended a seminar on copyright held by the American
Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), so let's clear up a few
misconceptions about copyright that have been
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office,
you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court.
That's not my understanding.
If you don't register the copyright, you can't have an action brought
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office,
you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court.
That's not my understanding.
If you don't register the copyright, you can't have
Bob W wrote:
I went to a talk once by Philip Jones-Griffiths, Magnum photographer famous
for his book Vietnam, Inc. The film Apocalypse Now! ripped the book of quite
comprehensively. In particular, there is a scene where a VC soldier is dying
in the arms of some GI, having fought on with his guts
CheekyGeek wrote:
there are specific ADDITIONAL penalties that
the infringer puts themself in line for if they (for example) remove
or crop out your copyright notice on their use of the infringed image.
More leverage for your side.
Oh yes indeed. Adding a copyright mark isn't necessary or
On 20 November 2010 08:31, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps now that Mark has said it some will stop their inadequate arguments.
: )
Whatever the legal arguments I'd bet that very few stock image library
sites would prosper if they didn't apply obscuring copyright
watermarks
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
CheekyGeek wrote:
there are specific ADDITIONAL penalties that
the infringer puts themself in line for if they (for example) remove
or crop out your copyright notice on their use of the infringed image.
More leverage for
So tell us how much you've collected and from who... :-)
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I can assure you it goes well beyond theory, and that it is
anything but impractical, but I see no benefit to myself in doing
any further
On 2010-11-19 14:45 , Rob Studdert wrote:
Realistically you have to assume that if you place an image in the
public domain it will be copied regardless of the laws governing
copyright and the cost of utilizing the laws protecting copyright
might well negate their worth.
i suspect you didn't
Rob Studdert wrote:
Whatever the legal arguments I'd bet that very few stock image library
sites would prosper if they didn't apply obscuring copyright
watermarks (which nearly all do).
Funny, but I disagree; I think they would have no fewer paying
customers if they didn't watermark their images
It is a close relative that educated me on this subject. He's
out-earning my annual salary with this revenue stream alone. I'm just
getting started...but I wouldn't share figures or names, regardless
(his or mine).
: )
Darren Addy
Kearney, Nebraska
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Bob Sullivan
On 20 November 2010 08:58, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
On 2010-11-19 14:45 , Rob Studdert wrote:
Realistically you have to assume that if you place an image in the
public domain it will be copied regardless of the laws governing
copyright and the cost of utilizing the laws
I just found the SAMP Copyright tutorial is online *and* viewable by
non-members:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/copyright-overview.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
I make all my images available under Creative Commons
Attribution/Non-Commercial/No-Derivatives license. Anyone is free to
use them for non-profit purposes. I think this is just an
acknowledgement of the reality you
On 2010-11-19 14:05 , CheekyGeek wrote:
While it
may be counter-intuitive, Copyright-smart Photographers' feeling
aren't hurt when people steal their work because they are going to
nail a good percentage of them. A good enough percentage that they
don't have to catch them all.
okay, please
On 20 November 2010 08:59, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
Funny, but I disagree; I think they would have no fewer paying
customers if they didn't watermark their images (the people who *do*
pay are commercial users who understand the law and are in business
partly because of the
I went to a talk once by Philip Jones-Griffiths, Magnum photographer
famous for his book Vietnam, Inc. The film Apocalypse Now! ripped the
book of quite comprehensively. In particular, there is a scene where a
VC soldier is dying in the arms of some GI, having fought on with his
guts hanging
Ya, I'm on double secret probation too! So I can't say any more. :-)
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a close relative that educated me on this subject. He's
out-earning my annual salary with this revenue stream alone. I'm just
On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Ya, I'm on double secret probation too! So I can't say any more. :-)
I've seen your work, I'm sure that your figure's plenty large.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a close
On 20 November 2010 09:44, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
it may well come down to this ridiculous idea of registering your copyright.
Jones-Griffiths was a member of UK Magnum and to the best of my knowledge
there is no need to register copyright over here. The original author of the
work
On 20 November 2010 09:44, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
it may well come down to this ridiculous idea of registering your copyright.
Jones-Griffiths was a member of UK Magnum and to the best of my knowledge
there is no need to register copyright over here. The original author of the
work
Subject: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.
A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a big 'ol
copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even more
impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I see the C
to stand for Clueless rather than
the
owner.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
CheekyGeek
Sent: Saturday, 20 November 2010 4:11 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: A small rant on obtrusive copyright marks.
A conversation
CheekyGeek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
I make all my images available under Creative Commons
Attribution/Non-Commercial/No-Derivatives license. Anyone is free to
use them for non-profit purposes. I think this is just an
acknowledgement of
On 11/19/2010 11:19 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
But if you don't *register* your copyright with the copyright office,
you can't (in the U.S. anyway) take an infringer to court.
An interesting, yet probably tangential though here. What if I, being a
non-American, borrow your work (though I know
On 11/19/2010 8:11 PM, CheekyGeek wrote:
A conversation in another thread brought to my attention a big 'ol
copyright image, designed to be nearly impossible to remove and even
more impossible to miss. Frankly, when I see this sort of behavior, I
see the C to stand for Clueless rather than
61 matches
Mail list logo
