Using ACTUAL photographs

[LewisM]

I was perusing an Australian telescope retailer's site today, and came across what I consider rather unusual and somewhat deceptive.

2 particular telescopes were shown, each with their own respective sales page. Both identified as second hand items. No problem with that, but then examining the photographs, it became clear that besides showing a manufacturer advertising photo (of which this retailer is not an approved dealer), each subsequent photo showed SOMEONE else's scope - one I know to be a member here (who has resold the scope, and I seriously doubt the new owner has again resold it, considering we discussed it only a few days ago), and the other is a US owner who showed his on Cloudy Nights. Not a single photograph of the actual scope, even though the scope is claimed to be a one-of, second hand item.

The second scope I have not tracked down the origins of yet, but it SEEMS again to be Cloudy Nights.

I am troubled by this on a few levels. One point is since the ACTUAL telescope for sale is NOT shown, but rather OTHER'S scopes and manufacturer representative images, what recourse does one have apart from demanding actual photographs of the item in question? The second point is, is the use of non-approved images intellectual property theft? I know it is a serious issue in the USA, and display of someone else's images WITHOUT consent is an enforceable violation of copyright (implicit or implied) - I was recently asked by a Cloudy Nights admin to show consent of ownership of an image (which I duly did), and when I ran 2 US based internet forums, we had similar issues. Under Australian Law, does the posting of an image become "Public Domain"? Or is it still entirely enforceable copyright? Not even a reference to the original owner/photographer was annotated on the photos or description.

To me, it definitely calls into question the integrity of a dealer/retailer.

[beren]

Yes I was perusing the same website last night

[Kunama]

Maybe I will claim a % of the profits for the use of my photographs, so far there are 3 retailers using my pictures without so much as a "please or thank you"

[LewisM]

4 actually Matt

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

A picture of anything that Premiumly Exotic is public domain. Unfortunately any image you publish online becomes fair game unless you take steps to protect it. Whether it's ethical or not is a question for the individual.

[hobbit]

Originally Posted by alocky

A picture of anything that Premiumly Exotic is public domain.

Only if the owner release it to the public domain. Otherwise it's protected by copyright.

[RB (Andrew)]

Well I've given Claude permission to use the photo of my setup, as long as he cut me out of the photo.

[MrB (Simon)]

Originally Posted by alocky

...
Unfortunately any image you publish online becomes fair game unless you take steps to protect it.

Not according to the Australian Copyright Council:
The below excerpts are taken from the ACC Photographers & Copyright Info Sheet G011v17 (Jan 2014) located at the following page:
http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-...photographers/

The mere act of uploading your photos to a website or blog does not mean that you lose copyright protection. However, given that it is easy for people to reproduce photos they find on the internet, it is a good idea* to take some practical measures to help protect against this, in addition to relying on your legal rights. For example, you should consider watermarking your photos with your name and the copyright notice....

*It is a good idea, but it is not mandatory:

Protection is free and automatic

There is no system of registration for copyright protection in Australia. Copyright protection does not depend upon registration, publication, a copyright notice or any other procedure - the protection is free and automatic.

A photo is protected by copyright automatically from the moment it is taken

By 'taken' I would assume they mean shot, not stolen

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

Thanks - that's good to know! Although I was thinking from a more pragmatic perspective given the relatively limited jurisdiction of the ACC with respect the the 'net. I suspect it's about as effective as fighting the oppressors for Loretta's right to have babies...
Cheers,
Andrew.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by RB

Well I've given Claude permission to use the photo of my setup, as long as he cut me out of the photo.

Proof there is mercy in this merciless world

[MrB (Simon)]

True, but usually Cease and Desist letter and a threat of further legal action if non-compliant is enough to scare most.

I saw a recent example on Facebook, where one 'Pro' photographer had taken another photographers image that was already circulating heavily on FB.
He cropped out the watermark then re-posted it as his own work on his own Facebook photograhy (not personal) page.
Insane, how anyone thinks they could get away with doing that on such a large social media site defies comprehension.

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

I receintly had a photo of my 6 inch refractor that my nephew in NZ is using posted on CN's in the classifieds as the scope for sale , a few PM;s to the Mods there sorted it out but like Lewis I had to prove it was my photo , easy enough to do , but when I first spotted it I was flabbergasted at the cheek , as said previously it 'Defies comprehension'
is this ok to say ? not 'property theft' off MrB .

But seriously some people just don't care about anyone but themselves in todays world anymore , it's so sad .

Brian.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Proof there is mercy in this merciless world

Well, you know how merciful I am Lewis.

[LewisM]

Bromance

You get that Christmas vodka afterall.