Jim Gilley wrote: > and it is, in fact, a crime to render > a legal opinion unless you are licensed to practice law. Rendering and discussing are two different things. Discussing with a lawyer is best. Then he can render, which is where my 'opinions' come from. BTW, I don't have to pay my primary lawyer when I call him on the phone here. We go way back in business.
> Geez, people get away with murder in > this country and go scott free - what makes you think a petty thief > is going to get in any trouble? Nothing as long as we think like that. > The copyright discussion DOES raise some very interesting questions. > As Bill Nye would say, consider the following. Many of you have > seen pictures in books or magazines which are credited like this: > "Joe Schmoe photo, Bob Slob collection". This is VERY common in our > hobby. What I want to know is, given that Joe took the photo, don't > the usage rights belong to him? Now you are getting into my business area: No, not necessarily, usage rights have to be defined in writing (and exist) to be enforceable, and you obviously don't need to outline or provide any usage rights when you lend out, give away or sell an image, which I believe is what has happened with most of those images that you are referring to. As far as ownership of the actual image goes, unless in writing otherwise, it belongs to the person or entity which has their copyright notice and name on it, unless you own that entity. If it has no notice or name on it, and there was no bill of sale stating the exchange of the specific image(s), then it belongs to the person who possesses it, unless someone else (owner) can prove otherwise. This is the problem with Rick Gardner's web site. If you don't say anything when you find one of your images there, they might as well be his. THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS. > That being the case, how the hell > can a publisher use Joe's image which was sent in by Bob, without > Joe's consent or knowledge? I just explained that above. Unless it's your copyright notice on it when it's in someone else's possession, and unless they have PAID or BARTERED with you for it (enforceable only in writing BTW, if you have the original), and you do not dispute otherwise, your (former) image is as good as theirs. You CAN SELL an image to another party. In that event, you then loose all rights to it, and you no longer own it. Period. This is not the same thing as having it STOLEN from you however. And if someone steals your image, and you didn't have a copyright notice with your name on it, then you STILL own that image if you can prove it. That's the law, not and opinion. > It would be quite difficult to prove there have been any monetary > damages which resulted from some loser stealing images off one web > site and posting them on another, especially if neither site charges > money for access to said images. Incorrect. You can argue that the life of the image and its potential for sale during that time has been altered. In any event, the settlement for copyright infringement usually far outweighs any possible value that you can be awarded for the actual image by the courts. The courts are cracking down on copyright violations in an effort to control the situation before it gets any more 'out of hand'. I don't read my industry news magazines and my membership newsletters for nothing. And during the last ASMP business seminar here, I discussed a similar situation with another photographer suing for copyright infringement. I would wait two years for $10,000 settlement on a $1000 (or $10) image. And don't forget, more importantly than the money involved, it's the principal and the ethics behind it all that has a far larger impact. Most amateurs should try to learn from the industry and the professional's experiences, not question authority because they fail to fully understand the issues at stake. This is one reason organizations representing photographers have so many members. Collective input is better than an individual's, but collective experience is even better. Professional advice: If you don't understand the copyright issue as it applies to photography, then it is best that you either become educated on it, or you leave the matter to people who are familiar and involved with it on a daily basis. > Even more interesting, what if said > loser posts a link to your photo, instead of actually copying the > photo to his site? Actually there is nothing wrong with that (as long as the individual doesn't use your registered logo without permission in his link). The problem starts with a download, and hightens with unauthorized use of that image. > I think it might be easier to argue that a picture in a book caused > damage to the photographer, in that he/she was NOT compensated for a > work that clearly added value to the publication which was sold for > profit. Especially if the collective work in which it was illegally used in doesn't portray it or the photographer in a positive way, but if an image is displaying a copyright symbol on your web site, and it is stolen, where it was stolen from becomes much less of a factor (or no factor at all). > Still, since standard payment in this 'industry' is only > about $10 per shot, it's damned hard to make a case that just because > someone stole one of your train pictures, they owe you thousands of > dollars. This comment is simply so overstated that it is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is illegal. It has nothing to do with the value of your image in that regard. >>I<< don't set the prices in this HOBBY, but I'm not > dumb enough to believe that anyone will ever make $500 a shot from > the likes of RailNews, CTC Board, etc. I don't think we should try to twist the copyright infringement issue into an opinion of how well the railfan publication pay (again). > I can also guarantee you that no lawyer on the face of this earth is > going to be interested in this nickel and dime stuff. Copyright infringement cases are big money in the right hands. Do you know what this Rick Gardner does for a living? He runs an Internet Provider which offers E-mail and server services. Looks like the tools for the crime were right in his hands. He has enough copyright infringement problems in his lap right now to put him out of business, buddy. > a couple of > grand would be the minimum most would require before they would be > willing to pursue a case. Please state the source of these figures. Let's not mislead people here. However, since a copyright infringement conviction is a felony, small claims court is out of the question. > Of course, if YOU want to shell out > several grand from your own pocket, to win a potential $10 > settlement, that's a different story. Sorry, you must surely be exaggerating to make a point here. > Frankly, I wish I would win the lottery so I could quit my job, go to > law school, become a lawyer, and spend my entire life filing > frivolous suits against people, just for my own personal > amusement, but that's another story... Actually I don't, I don't even want his money, I just want him to spot stealing our images. And I think most of us agree on this one. He must be stopped. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot trying. Thanks for the contrasting opinions though. Regards, Dave Dave Cohen Photographer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog -> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects -> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs
