From:
Digital Image Studio
On 13/07/07, John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I have the copyright holders expressed permission; a written
release; under the DMCA, I must not allow copyrighted material to be
reproduced on my equipment.
That's all fair enough given the laws however how
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
John Sessoms
...
I'm *required by law*, and by my employer, to stop them from using our
equipment to reproduce copyrighted material, *UNLESS*.
the person attempting to print the photo has a signed copyright
release
from the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
John Sessoms
...
It's not that hard to recognize professional work. Especially if it's
stamped with copyright notices on the back.
And doubly especially if it's a regular customer who brings in
under-exposed disposable cameras
- Original Message -
From: Sandy Harris
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
That ONLY covers circumventing technical protection measures.
..snip
My point here is that that part of the DMCA says nothing at all
about just printing a file the customer brings
OK, consider it ignored.
Cheers
Dave
On 7/13/07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just a test of my e-mail client and our company server regarding
some settings I have changed. Please ignore this.
Thank you,
Antti-Pekka
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
William Robb
Nope. You're still missing the point.
No John, I'm not missing the point. I was a photofinisher for some 25 years,
I dealt with this all the time.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
At which point I would hand them my business card and ask, Am I supposed
to produce crappy photos when I do them for myself? And anyone with a
computer can print up business cards. Also, lousy
This is just a test of my e-mail client and our company server regarding
some settings I have changed. Please ignore this.
Thank you,
Antti-Pekka
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John Sessoms
...
I'm *required by law*, and by my employer, to stop them from
by U.S.
citizens, and all of them are liable to the FBI for $250,000 and x years in
prison?
Tom C.
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22
That's where I'm coming from exactly. Better not do any reprints at all
then. How can one know whether the written permission is authentic? Does one
call the photographer? What if *I* took the photos and want reprints? How
do I prove that I'm the photographer? Do I write myself a note?
Tom
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
That's where I'm coming from exactly. Better not do any reprints at all
then. How can one know whether the written permission is authentic? Does
one
call the photographer? What if *I* took the photos
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But once again I ask, who gave you law enforcement authority? You are just
like those security guards that like to pretend they are cops.
Yep. Supposed responsibility with no authority.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Internal Revenue requirement paraphrase:
'If any portion of your income was obtained by illegal means such as
betting, illegal gambling, or other criminal activity, it still must be
claimed and the source of income must be listed'.
Tom C.
If the picture looks too good to be an amateur
Respectfully Tom, you are wrong. It is illegal to copy copywritten work
except in fairly limited circumstances, and there is nothing in copyright
law that puts any onus on the copyright owner to mark the work as copyright
protected.
The person who owns the equipment used is liable for the work
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
That's where I'm coming from exactly. Better not do any reprints at all
then. How can one know whether the written permission is authentic? Does
one
call the photographer? What if *I* took the photos
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Respectfully Tom, you are wrong. It is illegal to copy copywritten work
except in fairly limited circumstances, and there is nothing in copyright
law that puts any onus on the copyright owner to mark
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
As the photographer I customarialy remove EXIF's from material or I use
film. ;-)
Save for web will strip the exif data, but if the file is large enough to
print, you are bypassing a warning
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Until the goverment would pay me for doing their law enforcement I
wouldn't
worry about it. It's a different matter for selling tobacco or alcohol to
minors.
How is refusing to sell tobacco
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:47:24 -0600
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
I'm not suggesting that a lab owner or worker should not be aware of the
issue or somewhat concerned. I'm more or less suggesting (if I know what
I'm trying to say) that *strict and rigid* adherence
: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:57:48 -0600
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen
On 7/13/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had gotten
paid for my services, and I delivered the photos, negs, or digital image
files to the newlyweds, I wouldn't care less what they did with them after
that. It's their wedding,
I can understand wanting to retain copyright in just about every situation
except wedding and portrait photography.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen
Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900
On 7/13/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had
gotten
paid for my services, and I delivered the photos, negs, or digital image
files to the newlyweds, I wouldn't
Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900
When I was in that game, that is exactly what I did. I gave em an
album of proofs, and the negatives and wished them all the best.
The problem is that a lot of photographers want to hold onto residual
rights, and specify
like to cover their bases in order to avoid legal entanglements.
Probable a little of both.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Fri, 13
photography.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900
On 7/13/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To tell
C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900
On 7/13/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To tell you the truth, if I
From:
Tom C
To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had
gotten paid for my services, and I delivered the photos, negs, or
digital image files to the newlyweds, I wouldn't care less what they
did with them after that. It's their wedding, their photos, their life.
It
Maybe photographers need to start stamping Not property of Photographer on
the back of their proofs GRIN.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
John Sessoms wrote:
From:
Tom C
To tell you
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
I can understand wanting to retain copyright in just about every situation
except wedding and portrait photography.
It seems rather pointless when the failure rate is close to 50% for
marriages.
William
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
I ain't going to risk my freedom and my future financial security
because you're too lazy to do right by your customers.
On the other hand, one could say that your presumption of wrongdoing
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Unless your only source of income is that of a declared Wedding
Photographer. Re-do's would likely be retained as a further income
possibility.
That used to be the case, but now anyone with a cheap
- Original Message -
From: Paul Sorenson
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
I suspect you're right about displays at your place of business,
although in today's world it's not a bad idea to CYA. If you have the
model release you can extend the images to other forms
On 13/07/07, John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From:
graywolf
Actually, retaining the rights in cases like that is a relic of the
old days. Used to be that no one had much personal credit. House, car,
and maybe a 90 day account at the Department store downtown. Newly
weds usually did
From:
graywolf
Actually, retaining the rights in cases like that is a relic of the
old days. Used to be that no one had much personal credit. House, car,
and maybe a 90 day account at the Department store downtown. Newly
weds usually did not have much money so they usually opted for the
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Unless I have the copyright holders expressed permission; a written
release; under the DMCA, I must not allow copyrighted material to be
reproduced on my equipment.
Is the copyright owner under
No your are not. Since when is law enforcement your job?
What has happened is some jerkwater organization has sent around a threatening
legal looking letter. You might as well say you can not sell some one a gallon
of paint without him providing proof he has permission to redecorate.
If
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
No your are not. Since when is law enforcement your job?
What has happened is some jerkwater organization has sent around a
threatening legal looking letter. You might as well say you can not sell
- Original Message -
From: Digital Image Studio
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
That's all fair enough given the laws however how do you determine
what images the customer owns copyright to? Obviously only images
produced when the particular individual pushed
On 13/07/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the picture looks too good to be an amateur snapshot, then the lab needs
proof of ownership.
LOL, there's nothing like a robust definition ;-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/13/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What has happened is some jerkwater organization has sent around a
threatening legal looking letter. ...
That jerkwater organization would be your federal government.
The DMCA pute the onus on the lab operator to ensure there is no
- Original Message -
From: Digital Image Studio
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
If the picture looks too good to be an amateur snapshot, then the lab
needs
proof of ownership.
LOL, there's nothing like a robust definition ;-)
Driftnet fishing for crooks.
William
From:
William Robb
- Original Message - From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
I ain't going to risk my freedom and my future financial security
because you're too lazy to do right by your customers.
On the other hand, one could say that your presumption
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Digital Image Studio
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
That's all fair enough given the laws however how do you
On 13/07/07, John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not presuming anything. I'm following my employer's policies
regarding reproduction of copyrighted material. If it has anything on it
indicating it's copyrighted, I've no choice in the matter; if common
sense indicates it's subject to
From:
William Robb
- Original Message - From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Unless I have the copyright holders expressed permission; a written
release; under the DMCA, I must not allow copyrighted material to be
reproduced on my equipment
: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Subject: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:07:34 -0700
Scott:
There are certain provisions of the DMCA with which I strongly disagree.
The takedown provision
From:
Scott Loveless
The DMCA probably ranks right up there with the IRS, Homeland
Security, and victimless crimes in sliminess. It was definitely
written to benefit them and not us. If you can use it to
legitimately enforce copyright, go for it.
Good luck with dealing with this
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
*IF* you are a wedding photographer and are giving your customers a CD
so they can print their own photos, you need to include a written
copyright release. If they come to my lab and don't have
If the offending content is on a website, one avenue you can pursue is to
send a DMCA Takedown notice to the company that hosts the website. The
hosting company is required by law to remove the offending material when
they receive a takedown notice. To get the website back up, the website
Thanks Mark.
Tom C.
From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: pdml pdml@pdml.net
Subject: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:46:57 -0400
If the offending content is on a website, one avenue you can pursue is to
send
, it will be
resolved quickly and easily.
Tom C wrote:
Thanks Mark.
Tom C.
From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: pdml pdml@pdml.net
Subject: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:46:57 -0400
If the offending content
Scott:
There are certain provisions of the DMCA with which I strongly disagree.
The takedown provision is certainly open to abuse, but it does get the job
done quite fast and can be invoked by the little guy, not just big
corporations. So in this case maybe it's not so bad.
Tom:
You've gotten
54 matches
Mail list logo
