On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:45 -0800, "Larry Colen" <[email protected]> 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 duplicate and use copyrighted material. Yet, in > practice, people who would never walk out of a store with a CD that they > didn't pay for have no compunction with making a copy of a friend's CD. > There is perception of value of a tangible object, or even of someone's > time, but for many people, there is no perception of monetary value of > copying a file. > > I suspect that the most practical compromise is text at the bottom that > says something like: > Copyright Barbie Mohs. For commercial use contact > [email protected] > > Honest and moral people will contact and chip in a few bucks, the others > would steal it anyways.
Yes, I think you're right. I maintain a website for the Australian Native Plants Society which has 700-800 plant images on line. I regularly get requests for permission to use the images elsewhere. Mostly they're from non-profit organisations so we allow use provided an acknowledgement is given. A few commercial publishers have requested high-res versions and are happy to pay a fee. I'm sure other sites just take the images without asking or acknowledging the source. On a couple of occasions we've been informed about it and have had the images taken down from the infringing sites, but I'm also sure there are other copyright-infringing sites that we aren't aware of and who would ignore any cease and desist order anyway. Cheers Brian ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > I do see one potential related business model for a company like google. > If they can come up with a way of encoding/hashing images that they scan > off the net, they could allow copyright holders to register images for a > minor fee ($0.50 each) and if the search engine comes up with something > that seems like a match, they'll notify you. > > On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:21 PM, David Parsons wrote: > > > 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 of > > actually winning. > > > > I'll see if I can find a blog post by an established photographer that > > has been fighting for a couple years, and has spent upwards of $30,000 > > and his case is nowhere near completion. > > On the flip side, my friend Joe Decker found that one of his photos was > being used without permission on an album cover. He eventually did get > some money out of the deal. > > > > > > -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
