Photographer sues over stolen photo

[hotspur (Chris)]

Originally Posted by MrB

I've just been trying to figure out since when has the legal fraternity dictated how we use the english language?
Sure, some words and phrases come from the legal profession, but not how we actually USE the language.

So let me get this right... at one time you could say that something intangible was 'stolen', but since case 'blah blah' where the judge said it wasn't stealing, nooooo you can't say it is stolen anymore? Bugger that!

The Oxford English Dictionary says intellectual property is property, it also says taking property is stealing, the act of which is theft. There is no mention of tangible or intangible.

It was a news article not a legal document! So for everyday common english usage, taking something that is not yours without the owner's permission, tangible or intangible, is stealing.

+1

I think this thread should be an eye opener to all here,not a legal debate.
There was one poor IIS member here-in NZ I think that takes photos of racing cars,a car team at the races used one of his images in their business-he even approached them about it-and never got any acknowledgement.So just makes one think a bit more about their images,and how they might handle them,I know I think about this NZ members' story when handling certain images.

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes this thread has degenerated into a legal v moral argument. The real point is that the courts deliver the law not justice. Although both are often served at the same time, the law will always take precedence.

In regard to photo copyright at one time all photos were taken and stored on film. If you had the original negatives you had a pretty air tight case for copyright ownership. However with digital photography ownership will be much harder to prove and when it gets to the courts the person with the most money to interpret the law will win.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by MrB

I've just been trying to figure out since when has the legal fraternity dictated how we use the english language?
Sure, some words and phrases come from the legal profession, but not how we actually USE the language.

This is an interesting point for example you will see a sign on the gates and fences of schools that refers to being on "inclosed" land whereas the accepted spelling is "enclosed". If you get charged with this offence the case will use "inclosed" with the legal meaning of "inclosed" and if any of the documents spell it as "enclosed" the case will be dismissed.

Barry

[Octane (Humayun)]

This is why we shoot RAW.

The likelihood of a RAW file making its way into someone else's hands is very remote, unless a contract stipulates that a RAW is to be handed over to a client (typically in cases where they wish to process the image themselves). Much like handing over your negative to someone to enlarge.

H

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Yes this thread has degenerated into a legal v moral argument. The real point is that the courts deliver the law not justice. Although both are often served at the same time, the law will always take precedence.

In regard to photo copyright at one time all photos were taken and stored on film. If you had the original negatives you had a pretty air tight case for copyright ownership. However with digital photography ownership will be much harder to prove and when it gets to the courts the person with the most money to interpret the law will win.

Barry

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Octane

This is why we shoot RAW.

The likelihood of a RAW file making its way into someone else's hands is very remote, unless a contract stipulates that a RAW is to be handed over to a client (typically in cases where they wish to process the image themselves). Much like handing over your negative to someone to enlarge.

H

Good idea. You would achieve the same with a jpeg if you cropped the original before posting. I also imagine rescaling the original and keeping the hi-res version would prove that you took the shot.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Precisely, David.

There's all manner of things you could do the file that's posted online -- such as rotating the full frame by a degree, or less, or by posting a crop, as you suggested. Not always, possible, I know, but, another safeguard.

But, as long as the RAW is in your possession, you should be OK.

I understand there's caveats to every rule, though.

H

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Good idea. You would achieve the same with a jpeg if you cropped the original before posting. I also imagine rescaling the original and keeping the hi-res version would prove that you took the shot.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by bojan

Obviously, your definition of theft is different from legal definition we are talking about.

How have you came to that conclusion?
If a person steals from someone else, that is theft. I see little difference from the legal definition.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

This thread clearly shows that pedants are alive and well in our community .

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Octane

Precisely, David.

There's all manner of things you could do the file that's posted online -- such as rotating the full frame by a degree, or less, or by posting a crop, as you suggested. Not always, possible, I know, but, another safeguard.

But, as long as the RAW is in your possession, you should be OK.

I understand there's caveats to every rule, though.

H

I said about authors keeping RAW's on file indefinitely in post #19

[Octane (Humayun)]

I know, mate.

My earlier post was to address what Barry was saying.

H

[BPO]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

How have you came to that conclusion?

By knowing the law.

If a person steals from someone else, that is theft.

Absolutely. But what matters is the legal definition of theft, not your definition, and the legal definition of theft is clear that reproducing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, not theft, or stealing, or the ridiculously named "piracy".

I see little difference from the legal definition.

It doesn't matter what you see. It matters what the law states, and, as above, this is copyright infringement, not theft.

Jumping up and down and calling it theft just because you don't like it, doesn't make it theft. The law trumps emotion.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by BPO

Jumping up and down and calling it theft just because you don't like it, doesn't make it theft. The law trumps emotion.

The law has nothing to do with common sense or morality.

[OzEclipse (Joe Cali)]

In the months leading up to the last eclipse, I found people borrowing very liberally from my solar eclipse web site. By that I mean they borrowed and republished my eclipse description on their web site in whole without permission. In general, professional publishers always write and ask permission. For example David Reneke, the Port Douglas eclipse festival site, and Cairns Japanese language magazine etc all wrote and obtained permission from me before using material. I gave permission and I even proofed the republished material for them.

Major infringements I discovered included

A Cairns based booking engine who republished my entire 2012 eclipse article complete with photos with my copyright watermark as a hook for their booking engine.

A religious whack job in the USA bible belt used the eclipse article of my site with my name clearly visible to add credibility to her theory that the eclipse marked the beginning of the "Great Tribulation," the return of the anti-Christ. She posted a 14 min YouTube video with her voice over her scrolling around my site pulling bits out of context. I couldn't get her video pulled because I didn't agree with it or because it was untruthful but I got her on the copyright infringement.

The day after I got her video shut down, she posted another using someone else's eclipse site. I wrote to the owner and he too put in a copyright infringement complaint. Game over.

Another religious whack job here in Australia - another end of the world guru cashing in on peoples fears published some of my material then had the audacity to write to me afterwards to tell me he'd done that and hoped I didn't mind.

There were numerous other violations I discovered. I quickly evaluated each one and decided how much I wanted to pursue each one.

It is theft but theft of intellectual property as has been pointed out. There are a series of articles on the Australian Copyright Council Site that are very informative.

http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/

Joe Cali

[JethroB76 (Jeff)]

Bet the OP will think twice about starting a similar thread next time.
Fancy getting uptight about a standard poor journo/subed whatever

[badabing82]

theft / stolen / copyright infringement who gives a poo about the semantics it is what it is, hardly worth a whole page of arguing about the semantics or law of it!

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Originally Posted by hotspur

+1

I think this thread should be an eye opener to all here,not a legal debate.
There was one poor IIS member here-in NZ I think that takes photos of racing cars,a car team at the races used one of his images in their business-he even approached them about it-and never got any acknowledgement.So just makes one think a bit more about their images,and how they might handle them,I know I think about this NZ members' story when handling certain images.

T'was me, I shut down the business, Rallyshotz, not long after, no money to be made. If people are just going to 'borrow' your pix without paying whats the point of a business. basically it was stealing my income and justification for being there. Not to mention expenses, I flew Auckland > Dunedin for one event plus rental car and accommodation and drove thousands of kilometers covering various Rally stages, even interview pics with Petter Solberg and Marcus Gronholme.

I still take motorsports pix but for my own pleasure now. If someone asks they can have a copy. If they want to pay for better then I am happy to oblige but if my livelihood depended on photography under some of the stated reasons against copyright on here then I would starve to death.

Legal or moral definition, I regard it as theft.

[Barrykgerdes]

I am not a photographer although out of thousands of snaps that I have taken over the years I have got the odd publishable picture and one or too that could have been used in court as evidence of negligence.

I suppose that any of the photos I display on web sites will only be used to show how not to do it. I do collect astronomical photos for stellarium, Some from IIS but in all cases I have approached the owners for permission and duly acknowledged them.

There are many amateur (professional) photographers charging astronomical prices for wedding photos. They all expect the money before you get to see them.

If you take pictures professionally The only way to avoid problems is to sell them before you publish them. Once they are published they will be fair game to the "bad guys". As Brent found out I expect that many of the spectacular rally shots that are published in magazines are in fact technically copyright infringements using enthusiast's material that is gleaned from many places without acknowledgement.

Barry

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

There are many amateur (professional) photographers charging astronomical prices for wedding photos. They all expect the money before you get to see them.

Many, but not all. I charge $500 for my weddings. That includes as many photos as I take, all on CD/DVD, with 20 edited versions. If I have to travel more than 50km for the wedding, I require fuel costs and food.

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

If you take pictures professionally The only way to avoid problems is to sell them before you publish them. Once they are published they will be fair game to the "bad guys".

Barry

Nope - I give previews. The customer comes to me, or I to them, and I show them on my laptop.They chose which they want. If we cannot meet, I send a set of personal choice ones in email or host on my site, with a HEAVY, uneditable watermark over the centre of the picture, with a cross through the whole thing in 35% grey. Only ever had ONE person TRY to edit and publish the photo, and I quickly saw end to that - they did not get their images. Cheapskates!

Had another model who I shot her wedding TRY to tell me she had paid me by modelling for me. I beg your pardon Little Miss Up Yourself? I had done 3 photo shoots with her before, as she wanted to see MY pictures to see if I was good enough for her wedding. I gave her every single shot. When it came to the wedding, she did NOT provide food or even drink, but expected I shoot everything. And then when it came time to select which she wanted edited, she expected EVERYTHING on an external HDD, so "she could choose at home with her husband". Yes, I came down in the last shower...

It took a LOT of arguing to get the $500

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by Octane

I know, mate.

My earlier post was to address what Barry was saying.

H

Yes Octane

You are so right If you take digital photos you must keep the original raw data and only publish a processed version if you want to establish ownership. Any one doing professional work will. However there are so many people these days taking spectacular shots with iphones and pads who publish the pictures straight off the camera and don't keep originals. These are the ones who so often have their work abused. I hope this thread helps these people to take better care of their work.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by Octane

I know, mate.

My earlier post was to address what Barry was saying.

H

Yes Octane

You are so right If you take digital photos you must keep the original raw data and only publish a processed version if you want to establish ownership. Any one doing professional work will. However there so many people these days taking spectacular shots with iphones and pads who publish the pictures straight off the camera and don't keep originals. These are the ones who so often have their work abused. I hope this thread helps these people to see through the hype on legal v moral and take better care of their work.

Barry