Photographer sues over stolen photo

[BPO]

Originally Posted by Kunama

I am a little bemused by your reaction, why attack the thread author...?

Where did I do that? I attacked the headline.

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by BPO

What an idiotic headline. Nothing has been stolen. She still has her photo. If it's anything it's copyright infringement, not theft. I wish people would be prosecuted for what amount to false accusations and misrepresenting charges.

Copyright infringement is formally defined in law, and it's not defined as theft. And no, I'm not condoning or supporting copyright infringement, even though copyright law is now insanely out of control. I'm merely pointing out the incontrovertible facts.

Maybe I just got the wrong impression and your post was friendly. You have my sincerest apologies bro.

[Octane (Humayun)]

BPO was attacking the article's headline/title. Not the original poster's.

I can see why he's not amused.

H

[dmizen]

what incontrovertible facts are they BPO ? there is plenty of academic discussion regarding copyright infringement as theft as its the appropriation of the labours of another, whether the police see it that way is another matter as they retain discretion to prosecute, theft defined as the taking or conversion of the property of an other whether tangible or intangible, the link posted by naskies follows what the IP academics have been saying for the last 10 years

Morton H turning it into a saleable image may result in a new image that is the copyright of the new creator - its a grey area and depends in the eyes of the court on the nature and degree of what is taken

[alan meehan (Alan)]

Iam sorry copyright means nothing if the said tshirt print was done overseas ,china ,we spent $10,000. paying for copyright of a logo and it was copied in BRASIL unless you you have a world copyright worth heaps ,it not worth the paper its written on,good luck to the girl if she
gets anything from it.
AL

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Originally Posted by Octane

Carlos,

Adding a watermark may have made them approach the photographer and discuss use of the image.

But, there's no need for copyright logos; copyright and ownership is implied.

H

Agreed that's a good point H.

[BPO]

Originally Posted by dmizen

what incontrovertible facts are they BPO ? there is plenty of academic discussion regarding copyright infringement as theft as its the appropriation of the labours of another, whether the police see it that way is another matter as they retain discretion to prosecute, theft defined as the taking or conversion of the property of an other whether tangible or intangible, the link posted by naskies follows what the IP academics have been saying for the last 10 years

Morton H turning it into a saleable image may result in a new image that is the copyright of the new creator - its a grey area and depends in the eyes of the court on the nature and degree of what is taken

It's not a grey area at all. Reproducing a copyrighted image without the permission of the copyright owner is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is not theft. I'm not a practicing lawyer, but the first one of those you ask will confirm it, even an IP attorney. As much as the latter would dearly love to tell you it's theft, (s)he won't, because it would be false to say it.

People get purple faced and steam comes out of their ears and they rant and rave about "Bloody thieves and pirates". The kneejerk irrationality is borderline insane and much of the reason this idiotic copyright issue still exists.

Had the likes of slimy Disney executives (born after Walt was already in the ground) been prevented from copyrighting everything in sight until the end of time via bribes and threats and pet politicians, the world would be a lot better off.

That said, if copyright violation can be proven in this case, I hope the complainant is satisfied with the resolution.

[MrB (Simon)]

Originally Posted by BPO

The kneejerk irrationality is borderline insane

Could your harping on the issue not bee seen the same way?

[TrevorW]

All I can say is thank goodness for the pirates

Example Windows 8

I downloaded the preview edition to test it on my PC, knowing it was a touch screen tablet passed OS thinking if I didn't like it I could just un-install it and go back to Win7

No big flashing warnings to say:

You cannot un-install it once installed

It will self destruct on a this date and you will be forced to buy the product\

companies like Microsoft are the pirates in this case

IMO she's making a mountain out of a molehill especially 4 years down the track

[bojan]

Originally Posted by MrB

Could your harping on the issue not bee seen the same way?

I think not.

Law says it is not a theft.

But some people here still insist it is, despite repeated demonstration that it isn't.

He is just stating the facts (citing the law), and others don't (they insist it's the theft despite the facts).

[Paul Haese]

I was a practicing solicitor many moons ago and I studied intellectual property at uni during my bachelor. It is more complicated than both sides are arguing but that is to be expected, non of you are trained lawyers. Everything depends on which Act you are talking about. I'll leave it at that.

I do not use water marks at all. I don't see the point. Photography is for showing people things, emotions and history. If you want pretend my images are yours. I don't care, I know who has the originals and I can prove it if necessary. If you want to use my images for commercial purposes do so. If you make a contract with my to use them and don't pay up as per contract then I will take it up with my dogs of law. I find making a deal better than trying to sue. You get things you might want and so does the person using your image. Besides it is free advertising.

Anyway, copyright is just there to protect the wealth of people, not to protect the interests of the person who first made the property.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

.... Photography is for showing people things, emotions and history. If you want pretend my images are yours. I don't care, I know who has the originals and I can prove it if necessary. .......

Totally agree !

[1987A]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Anyway, copyright is just there to protect the wealth of people, not to protect the interests of the person who first made the property.

Sums it up nicely.

[CJ (Chris)]

My 2 cents worth.
Copyright is a very big deal if you're a songwriter/composer.
And in many other "ideas" industries.

[LewisM]

I reckon BPO works for Lowes

Just kidding.

So long as the photog doesn't get hit with a gazillion dollar legal bill (likely), then I say she TRY at least.

[Colin_Fraser]

Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing.
Call it copyright infringement if you like, but it still is stealing.
Because she still has the photo does not mean it's not theft.
You may not be charged with 'stealing' but it is what it is, theft.
Just like a victim of identity theft. They still have their identity and it's still theft.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

Too frequently, the word of the law ignores basic morals, ethics and plain common sense............unfortunate as it is.

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing.
Call it copyright infringement if you like, but it still is stealing.
Because she still has the photo does not mean it's not theft.
You may not be charged with 'stealing' but it is what it is, theft.
Just like a victim of identity theft. They still have their identity and it's still theft.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

T...
Just like a victim of identity theft. They still have their identity and it's still theft.

I disagree.

Identity theft can do you a lot of harm (this is why people are stealing identity - to ultimately steal your money, or to hide their own).
However, copyright infringement will not necessarily result in any harm - it may theoretically cause a loss of income (but then again, who knows if she would ever make any money out of that photo herself.. ).

Obviously, your definition of theft is different from legal definition we are talking about.. and while you have every right to think whatever you want, this right would not help you in the court, me thinks.
Moral is one thing, law is another one, like it or not.

[MrB (Simon)]

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.

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I do not use water marks at all. I don't see the point. Photography is for showing people things, emotions and history. If you want pretend my images are yours. I don't care, I know who has the originals and I can prove it if necessary. If you want to use my images for commercial purposes do so. If you make a contract with my to use them and don't pay up as per contract then I will take it up with my dogs of law. I find making a deal better than trying to sue. You get things you might want and so does the person using your image. Besides it is free advertising.

What a great outlook Thanks for sharing Paul!