Stealing photos is LEGAL? Fair Use Law in Action
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2018
- squarespace.com/tony, coupon code 'portfolio'.
We explain Fair Use which allows people to use pictures for free under some conditions. Specifically, it provides exemptions for commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news, research, and scholarship. While it's never black-and-white, courts make fair use judgment calls based on four criteria:
1) Purpose of use (such as commercial, nonprofit, or educational). Uses can be more than one of these, such as both commercial and educational. Being commercial doesn't prevent fair use, and being educational or nonprofit doesn't give you fair use under all conditions.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work. The more creative it is, the harder it is to claim it under fair use. For example, a strictly informational picture of a skyline would be easier to claim under fair use than a creative model photoshoot or light painting.
3) The amount of the copyrighted work that's used. If you only show a small portion of a video, for example, odds are you can claim Fair Use. If you show an entire movie, you probably can't claim Fair Use.
4) The effect on the market for the copyrighted work. If you publish a movie for free and that stops people from paying to see that movie, it's almost certainly not fair use. However, if using a copyrighted work doesn't reduce the value of the work commercially, then it's more likely to be fair use.
![[TH] 2024 PMWC x EWC Main Tournament Day 2 | PUBG MOBILE WORLD CUP x ESPORTS WORLD CUP](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TgEFw285vXA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm pretty safe..... My photos are way too crappy to be stolen. I can't even give them away 😭😭😂😂😂😂
lmao..mine too 😊😂 but I still enjoy taking them.
You won't be laughing if a "modern art" creator uses them and makes millions. The crappier they are, the better for that use :-)
I've said it a dozen times, I'll say it a million - try not to upload high res copies on the internet. If you want to show high res, crop 5% of the image as "sample of high res", and put it next to the low (very low) res copy of the entire image.
Straight Out of Camera If one day, by some sort of miracle I manage to actually take a brilliant photo I will cherish it and allow no one in the world to ever see it 🤓 It will become my precious 😂🤣😂
Susanne I Keep taking them 📷 90% of the fun is taking them and pretending you know what your doing 😂🤣😂
*I hate when people steal someone's else's photos that's why I always crop out the watermark when I do it*
I always steal photoes, it is great XD
Dont even need an expensive camera
Thats why i put my mark in the actual focal point of the photo. Go ahead and crop it, you lose the whole fucking picture. 👍
@@Tbonyandsteak there are copyright free images i recommend that it makes things less stressful in my opinion
Hey! Somebody asked me a question about using pictures in there article, but the comments gone now. I decided to respond like this maybe they'll see it... From my understanding when it comes to articles and such things one must always ask for permission, however I haven't looked that far into it AND we can't forget people act like the second you use copyrighted content your done for... When it comes to videos you can use images, videos and all that as long as your adding to it and it is that simple, however with articles and websites I've seen people make the claim you can't use any, but they also say that about TH-cam videos which isn't true... And I do find it odd that you always have to ask for permission, especially when you look at these smaller websites that aren't IGN and so on. For now stay on the safe side and do research... Classic Boring answer I know.
LoL Good Words Of Advice Uncle Fester.
I think this photographer was a bit over zealous about his photo given that the website took it down when asked.
the website probably won because they took the photo down
This is my exact thought.
I agree. It was vindictive, and that probably affected the outcome.
I met a guy in advertising who told me they routinely steal photos. The penalty of getting caught ( having to pay photographer ) is built in to their bid price. If they don’t get caught, it’s just more money they make. So they play the odds. I was shocked
That's sad....The reality is that for a lot of photographers (especially the small independent ones), they simply decide that it's not worth the hassle of dealing with legal battles 😕
What are those on Tony's shirt, pretend pocket buttons and a pretend pen holder opening?
What if you're using the photo of a model or celebrity in a for-profit documentary and interviewees are commenting about the designer who designed the clothes they are wearing?
Is there a good way to find the Original copyright owner of a image? I have a image I want to use on a EP cover photo for a music release- I have been looking everywhere on google for the owner but I can’t find anything. The image is just on google and various websites on the web! Any assistance would be greatly appreciated
I just need to know can you use images that you merge and take pieces til you make a completely unrecognizable image. I'm finding a lot of "kinda no's" while looking for one yes. I'm a photographer and realistic artist that both uses Photoshop to make any image I want but being able to use pieces would make work a lot quicker easier. Or I will just build my image and then draw it lol. That's my final way around it all.
I love Chelsea's setup and delivery sooooo much at 25:11 - 25:23.
What is the name and court of this case? (A proper citation would be good if you have it.) I would like to read the case. Please advise. Thanks.
I have a question for you, I know of a photograph that was used worldwide a number of years ago, (22 nearly) which was taken by a member of a studio of photographers that I used to work for, I didn't take the picture but it is iconic in the UK as part of an awful event at a primary school. The fact that this picture was used without the consent of the studio in the aftermath of the event caused the studio a lot of bad feeling in the locality, how would you view that?
Can I use images that I altered in Photoshop? By altered I mean, I assembled several images, therefore creating a new image with several layers of those pictures.
I am sorry if this is confusing. I am just not that familiarized with this type of vocabulary in English.
Finally a picture this episode! Instant like before I watch! Also you guys are almost at that 1 million mark!
I am a digital artist, I am wondering if I do a painting of a copyrighted piece but The painting is not an exact representation of the copyrighted photo. Is this legal?
The person who Chelsea was referring to who had a gallery show using other people's photos from Instagram was Richard Prince. The person they were already talking about.
What happens if. Use a photo for my real estate listing and other business USE the photos I have professionally taken?
I have a question for you.
If I were to take photos of people at a public event is it legal to use/sell them?
I've hear two side so far an am not sure what's right.
Dan Swan generally if there is “no expectation of privacy” you can use/sell the photos. Hence why vloggers walking down the street showing people dont have to compensate those people nor get a release. But check your local laws as well as only REALLY take legal advice from a lawyer
A stock photo company won't buy them without a model release from each identifiable person.
I want to make a business page for painting. Can I find a picture of a house that I painted on say the contractors webpage and use it? What if I say on my page that some photos are jobs that I did while working for other companies?
Any chance you guys can provide the citation to the case you discuss here in which the court found that the fair use doctrine was applicable?
What's the osprey/orca storey??
I think I have to sue Chelsea because she stole my heart.
The most creative guy in the story was the judge!
what rights does the (rasta) subject have in regards to prince(photog) use ? was there a models release signed with the 1st photographer that did not extend to Prince ?
Where does creativity starts and ends? what about the architects and designers that design the structures that are in the photograph, do the photographer has a right to sell that creativity?
What about if you post a picture for the purpose of selling products or driving traffic?
HellO! I want to start a new Art Channel, and I really want to know: If I use already existing images as reference and I make my own drawings based mostly on those reference images, but I have no intention to sell or commercialize whatsoever:
Can I Upload a Video on TH-cam of the process of me making the drawing as well as showing the final result? (Sped-up time lapse / "Speedpainting" of me making the drawing based on the reference, and final product shares High resemblance with the original photo, except for the fact that it is a Drawing I made).
Is that Okay?
I also plan to mention where I found the images and mention the owner if I can find who they belong to.
(Example: I find an Image of an Athlete taken at a Sports Event, and I make a Portrait of that Athlete mentioning where the Reference Photo comes from and by whom it was taken. I film the process of me making the Portrait, and then Upload the video on TH-cam as a sped-up time lapse with some music.)
Good video thanks. What if I use a photo that I found on the internet ,then, I take that
image and modify it slightly, like e.g. changing the background.
Wouldn't that be a new image that I have copyright ownership of?
the copyright?
Good question would love to know the answer
By putting together images (let's say from google) to make a bigger piece of art, is that fair use? I know it's not cut and dry. Also, I'd be selling it so I know that doesn't' help. Any advice?
Can some use the Facebook public photo for TH-cam channel ?
Good info. One question: I'm an artist; can I paint (in oil or acrylic etc.) a copyrighted photo, exactly the way it is, and post the painting (not the photo) on Facebook as a background, just for display--no money or profit involved whatsoever?
Interesting conversation. I've had many of my images stolen over the years. I have also had other photographers use them and claim them as their own!
Which means that your photos are awesome. Therefore, you should probably not publish high-res copies. To give you an idea, I scanned an artistic creation (fantasy are photo painting) from a 6x8 inch page of a book I bought, and metal-printed it to 28x36 to use on my wall. Most people would not go into such trouble, but if that copy had been high-res on the internet, it would have been even easier. The artist would have made a lot of money selling posters of the specific artwork (which I would have bought, for the better quality, instead of trying the whole thing myself).
I am watching this for that reason. Mine however is because I was with a major agency that sold the company to another major agency, which went out of business and sold to another who claim not to have my work. Saw one of mine last week with guess what, their water mark. Have found mine in mags, newspapers, and several tv (MTV, VH-1, etc) docs. I was in this stuff before and getting paid till they changed owners the first time. By the way mine are of rockstars and celebrities. And no I am not a paparazzi. Hell I'm poor those guys make money..lol
Could someone implement a system that implants the invoice number and seller's info into the photo file to help track purchases of photo/ video who actually purchased it and to stop people from stealing it
A topic I've been researching for some time is, how does copyright apply if I duplicate another photographer's work? For example Mapplethorpe's skull cane self portrait. If I took a self portrait, holding a different skull cane, have I violated his copyright? I would be very interested in a video by you guys on that topic.
I would say 'no' (I'm not a lawyer though), because you are copying the 'idea' not the work, and you can't copyright an idea.
What if your name is in the Metadata of the photo file? And some company is making money off it? Would it be better just to post extremely low resolution photos, if your worried about it being stolen? Or better yet not post photos you feel is of high quality from your time and work?
Am I allowed to pause a movie and use screenshots captured from it in my monetized youtube videos? Will that infringe youtube’s copyright regulations?
are the pictures from google safe to use??
LOVE your videos, question your use of the breaking bad still shows a logo and is part of a work that had to spend money to clear the use of that brand's logo; so as a photographer and a video producer when is ok to use a brand in your work?
I have a question is there a set of pictures that you never publish or post to the web because they are to meaningfull to you.
how to do reverse image search
Thank you! It was an excellent discussion of some really confusing, inconsistent situations. Some of my photos have been ''stolen'' or ''used'' without my consent but I cannot really do anything about it since I don't have the resources to pay a lawyer, so my attitude has to be to just let it go.
What if you use it as a non commercial purposes
Guys great video as always. wildly educational..as always. however i just wanted to call to your attention an issue wih the audio, it could be the cutoff filter but its super rough ..when you guys speak its fine but theres some background "noise" which would be fine ish but when you pause even for a second the audio completely mutes and then when you start again it just calls attention to it that much more. hope it helps for next videos. i just found it odd since your quality is always outstanding. keep up the good work ;)
Chelsea and Tony,
here's an interesting little anecdote for you: in 2010 i had to go to Washington D.C. for a job interview and during my free time i went out on a photo safari on the capitol mall and smithsonian. as i was setting up my camera on the tripod to get a selfie of me in front of the capitol building, the capitol police came over and told me to pack up and leave as such pictures were not allowed due to copyrights of the capitol building.
what's the real skinny on this?? i've been told there are no copyrights on the public features of the nations capitol and they can be photographed by anyone. anyone out there in youtubeland got a different take on this question?
cheers
mike
I know that Facebook is a completely different animal but I had posted a picture recently from an album and then someone then used the picture. They said they found the picture on google images, I looked and could not find it.
In Soviet Russia photo steals you.
Juan Quispe Soviet Russia?
Hahaha!
In the USSR all intellectual property rights belonged to all of the people. So there was no private copyright ownership.
@@lyfandeth Its a family guy reference and thus a joke
If you have camera NKVD comes to you.
Best lines :
“Sorry artist but I win”
“I wake up in the morning and I start from a place of satire”
Smiling “Just to give you a peak into the artist's mind “
“I don’t explain my work I just put it out there “
Chelsea you (and Tony) always make me smile. I love your videos.
I am so glad you addressed this case. This story was in one of my Facebook groups and I was livid!
I'm from Australia, so I really enjoyed your last video on IP, I was surprised you had to argue the case in Australia. Based on this video, you could go into an Old building or concert even though they say no photography and take a photo claiming fair use to make comment on the architecture or concert performance?
Great discussion! I love the fact that the only purchased use in Chelsea's eagle-osprey-pizza image was of the pizza! I am an attorney (nearing retirement and hoping to spend much more time on photography--all copyrighted, of course) and can only tell you what I say to all of my clients who are deciding whether to settle their cases: Once you go to a jury trial, there is no telling what the outcome will be. Yes, court trials are different, at least in the sense that the courts sometimes state the basis for their rulings in enough detail that the cases can be distinguished, or easily reversed, but there is still an aspect of rolling the dice. In my opinion (not copyrighted), individual courts often get it wrong, both in their understanding of the facts and in their application of the law to the facts. Also, I wouldn't feel entirely safe relying on precedent--for example, publishing photos of people in their apartments (through the windows) even though one photographer won in court on that issue. As you noted, anyone can sue, or be sued. Finally, keep in mind that many, if not most, court rulings are not precedent in the sense that other courts must follow them. That generally applies to published decisions by courts superior to the subsequent courts. Courts of the same level often reach different results, which then can only be ultimately decided by the highest courts in that system (state or federal). And, as we are reminded constantly, even the highest court can toss out precedent, especially if there is a change in the makeup of the court. I wonder what would happen if an artist changed Warhol's Campbell's Soup image to another brand of soup and then published it. Fair use? Commentary?
I have spent 30 years on both sides of this equation. For the first 20 years I was a graphic designer that licensed tons of images for composites sold to my clients for their use in advertising and on products they were selling, and the past 10 years I have "also" been creating my own photographs that I sell to clients.
Most of the clients (and people in general) I deal with believe that if they find an electronic image on the Internet, they can just use it (fair use) - right or wrong, that is what they think. Their viewpoint is, if someone wants to protect an image, why would they put it on the Worldwide Web where anyone in any Country around the world can just copy it with a click? I have even seen some major stock photo houses put images out there which show up in Google Searches without a watermark, in hopes that they WILL get stolen (legal bait) - I have had two clients that were already served papers from one stock photo house asking for thousands of dollars in settlement fees with no warning just for images my clients posted on their websites! At $10,000 per settlement that is more lucrative than a $10 stock image license!
I know in my own photography that if I post anything on the web, it will most likely be copied without my permission and in most cases I will never know about it. Therefore I never post any images I have created on the web that I would sue for. In my case I only post low-resolution versions of everything on the web - to me the only enforceable copyright is for actual high-res prints which they can only get from me - so to me the only enforceable value is attached to "prints".
I usually only take photos I am contracted in advance to take for a particular client and I transfer the rights of use and reproduction to them - that way if the client then posts those images and they get stolen, then I will let my client try to sue (good luck)! Of course, in my case I feel like I am charging my client a fair price up front to yield me an acceptable profit. If I were just roaming around taking random images without a client contract in advance then I am not sure how I would expect any financial rewards without selling them for stock?
I have one small business client (not a photographer) that took a photo of his son using a product he sells to the public and it appears on his website. Two of his competitors liked that photo so much that they simply copied his photo and put it on the home page of their competing websites implying that it was their product. My client called me and said, "They can't do that can they?" I said, "You mean legally, No. But do you want to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and your time in a effort to prove they once displayed your photo on their website with little chance of success?" My advice to him is "Don't post anything on the web you want to retain rights to - just not worth pursuing". It would be like taking nude photos of your wife and posting them for the whole world to view and getting mad when someone copies them! Just don't post things you value highly!
"Fair use" should go both ways. How about "fair practice"? ... meaning that in my opinion, the very least that any publication should do is to credit the photographer, and perhaps provide a link to their site. Even without payment, that at least shows a little simple human consideration. People write to me fairly often, and ask if they can use my images for publications, presentations, etc.. If they've taken that considerate step, then I'll either allow them to use them for free, or very inexpensively. People today should know that whether they're judged right or wrong in court, they still have a little common courtesy.
Great info. Have you, or can you do a video about US copyright laws, etc in regards to selling pic you take in public? Ex. Street photography, car shows, etc.
Awesome insights!
What if the owner (big company) has a legal page that lays out what they allow. Would that affect fair use or just set an expectation of what they'll go to court over?
Nope. I don't think it would. Fair use is fair use, regardless of what the copyright owner says.
I'm generally a pretty strong believer in fair use, and there are lots of cases where it's totally legit. For example here on YT there are a lot of response videos - often in the realm of political discourse - where someone will show clips of another person's commentary, and then alternates those with their counterarguments, etc.
I think the main issue here is simply that the judge's ruling was *way* off base, given that the case wasn't *even remotely* a legit fair use case. I don't know if there was corruption/bribery, if the judge had an undisclosed conflict of interest, or if he was simply completely uninformed and/or an ideologue extremist who didn't think copyright should be a thing at all. I'm 99.999% certain that his ruling would be overturned on appeal, but of course doing an appeal costs even more money, so it's understandable that the photographer ultimately decided to simply give up 😕
Hey. Just wanted to say thanks for making this ! I'm always looking to educate myself more on this topic and this was really insightful.
If you copyright a photo that you consider a work of art can you stipulate that the work can not edited or cropped without permission of the artist?
Jim Mauch by default under regular copyright. Contact your lawyer for details
Curious, was the photographer set up in a public area (or perhaps jumped a fence) to take his long exposure shot? Or did he acquire a property release with proof of insurance, etc... Do those factors aid the argument either way?
Tony, Chelsea, how about a video / podcast related to what one should do to restrict access or unfair use of an image by "protecting" it online.What are best practices for Instagram, Web Portfolio, Photo sharing sites which might discourage images being copied or used? Given that your audience is international, US registration of copyright isn't relevant, so my question is, how do you get your work "out there" while retaining control of an image - prevention vs cure?
Can we publish a TH-cam movie from someone's photo,?
That's because most people assume that all you need to do to capture a great photo is to get the best camera phone you can and press the snap button.
It’s so much fun just listening to your banter.
So the one thing I don't get is this, if you you if you use another person's picture that is copyright sure that is copyright but the person who takes the picture can't get in trouble sure can't get in trouble for taking the picture,
But if you're streaming a video and music is playing in the background you could get a copy right in infringement against you.. But if you have copyrighted your image no one can take a picture of you due to the copyright correct
a porche automobile. my understanding is they own all design .. even photos. is that correct?
DId I kind of inspire you to make this video with my copyright comments? :D
13:00 I'm having the exact same issue. It's so hard for me to discern the legitimate from the illegitimate usage of my images on websites. For example, I recently found out that a ton of retailers like Walmart, Target and Wayfair have been selling one of my images as an 8x12ft "wall mural" for $600. However, I don't have a stock sale for that image worth more than $4. I've tried contacting my stock agency about it and they have been dead silent. Guess the next step is contacting those huge companies myself...
It's like a case of who regulates the regulators. Those companies including your stock company should really have a paper trail here. Maybe someone in China is providing those images to these corporations so the likes of Walmart can claim no "knowledge of Infringement" (which could most likely be a lie). They could just say, "my provider did it, not us". Crappy stuff.
Love your videos so helpful and informative for all photographers. 👍👍👍
How can I make sure my Logo that I use on my website to make sure nobody can use in their website and/or some other way? I am not a professional so get it copyrighted will cost me £££ at least to £K. Where do I stand matey?
I love your (sarcastic) “bending of rules” Chelsea! The sarcastic tone is exactly how I am! This is BS.
I see a lot of movie and TV reaction videos pop up on You Tube by amateur users. As far as commentary goes, I can see where fair use comes into play. But they watch and comment on the majority of a particular movie from beginning to end (with some scenes edited out for time) Is that still considered "Fair Use"?
"Can't afford to defend myself in court" sums it up. Rich, richer, richest ... Much less to do with photos and more to do with elitism and power tripping. We truly cannot win at anything unless we amass wealth on a grand scale.
While getting my BA in Art Studio we talked about Fair Use on and off. It's so frustrating as a grey area, that it is easily one of the most contentious subjects in the art world. I feel their should have been a mandatory course in this subject for every art major.
many soc meds and other internet entities have a copyright complaint and removal process but once it's on the internet it's forever but it would be worth a try
Hypothetical scenario... I'm in Australia, and they're in (I'm guessing) the US. If I stole their photo, or they mine, in which court would that need to be addressed?
Chelsea was as cute and smart as ever -- and nailed the humor!
I have a friend who took a picture of a sunset in Michigan on Lake Michigan, which ended up in the “sample photos quoteon Microsoft windows 95. He could not do anything about it even though he had the original image still on his memory card he had posted it on a forum and it got snatched.
I bought a picture that consist of 4 pictures and a background. Those 4 pictures are probably copyrighted. Can I use it?
“I bought the picture”
Wouldn’t the designer that I bought get in trouble instead of me? He is well known and has his initials on the picture. He is in Serbia I am in America. Does that matter?
Your best work on your portfolio and not on Instagram you say!? Have you read your own captions, it elevates the work!
Re: The statue in the park or a building on the street. I haven't heard too much about the term used where objects are in the "pubic domain". I've had a hard time finding an attorney who has a good knowledge of copyright law. Amongst attorneys in the area I knew more than they. Go to ASMP or APA for a referral to a specialist.
At one time a picture of mine for a famous Las Vegas landmark that itself never was copyrighted ranked #1 in Google Images. When I've found this stolen photo on other websites either filing a DCMA with Google would get it deindexed on Google and/or contacting their web hosting provider would get their host to send them a copyright notice. All but one time was this approach effective immediately. In the case that it wasn't it took me some back and forth to get it eventually taken down.
So, if I accidentally leave my grandmother's monetarily near worthless (and non-commercial) hand mirror (yet irreplaceable to me) at a mall kiosk, and someone takes it, that person is not a thief? Wrong! If you report it and that mirror is found on some punk thief, they will be charged with stealing. This whole issue is because the legal system cannot imagine how to get it's arms around the scale of ownership of photos.
I have a question hoping you guys can answer. I am a carpenter. And create Beautiful Finish carpentry for my employer and his clients a multimillion-dollar homes. For the last three months I've recording time lapse videos and takeing photos off my carpentry creation and posting it on TH-cam. The question is where does the law protect me from posting someone's design and me doing the craftsmanship off the design?
that is whats wrong with your judicial system. because you have to pay your lawyer no meter if you win or lose people are afraid to go to court. in slovenia the person that loses the case has to pay the opposite attorney (its calculated with base hourly wage, so if you get really expensive attorney you will still have to pay some of it) and legal fees
Can you guys make a video about the legal side of photography when starting your business such as what documents do you need to start, contracts, filing with the state as a business, what insurance do you need to cover gear, how you deliver your photos to clients, etc.? That would be grand! Thank you
Kind of surreal to see H3H3 mentioned here. They've got a great channel, I remember them talking about the lawsuit and giving updates every so often. They'd mention how it was taking a huge emotional toll on them. Other than the financial costs, the stress of these kinds of lawsuits seems to be huge. As an aside, Tony, if you're concerned about this type of thing you may want to consider umbrella insurance, which will protect you if you get sued. Lots of different companies offer it.
- "So Bob, how do we convince millions of people to create content for us, for free, no salary or fees, so that our pages are frequently visited to increase ad revenues?"
- "How about we call them social media sir?"
- "Good idea Bob".
The Judge got it right. A picture of a public street seen isn't really art. I mean the beauty of the image was created by the people who designed the buildings and put up the lights. I see this a very different to stealing Chelsea's image and using her to sell phone cases without consent.
Actually, the cropping thing, there are many anime/tv shows on youtube, the full episodes, and all they do is crop/shrink the video
TH-cam is horrible with "fair use". I talk about movies and TV shows on my channel and TH-cam flags me for copyright all the time.
Sometimes I can get away with using 30sec clips, sometimes 10sec, sometimes any use gets flagged. It's quite irritating. And this is regardless of cropping or altering the image in some way.
what happens, if some body steals my picture (artistic nude) and put it to a pornsite ?
Definitely not fair use.
thanks a lot. I don't know if it's worth to call a lawyer.....
27:52 - More specifically; The judge said something to the effect of their video being a prime example of being fair use. - Like it was a perfect way of using someone's video without straight up ripping their complete work unedited. - It was an important case for TH-cam and videos, and also the entire definition of fair use and copyright. It probably cleared up some of that grey area.
Cropping or transforming the watermark alone would probably not be transformative; on the other hand cropping an image to fit your image along side other images (horizontal bars in this case) or to accentuate a particular feature would probably weigh heavily towards being transformative. (The same would go for re-adjusting the color balance to make a picture fit better with the surrounding web page.) Without seeing the original images it is difficult to tell what the judge was thinking in this particular case.
Is fair use of a drone picture from someone who literally hates me legal if I could a) hire a photographer to take the same drone picture or b) use Google Earth even though picture quality is lower than drone picture.
Questions:
1.) Is my photo better than the guitar Rasta guys?
2.) should I visit Tony in jail?
Chelsea Northrup just leave him there so he will appreciate your company later on
Interesting subject so you can take anyone's picture or you could take anyone's picture and mess with it and like say it's yours that's kind of sad I like the old-fashioned way film
1) Yes, clearly you were more committed to your art than Rasta. Who buys stock for satire?!??! 2) Gonna miss Tony. Hope he maintains his chill.
Chelsea good try...but you clipped the wing ;) And yes you need to visit Tony..who else will smuggle tech into the jail for him?
love that shirt Chelsea! pretty
Love the Dog! I don't mind the dog or Noise from it! I have a Fluffy as well!
An enlightening video, to say the least.
If someone "cartoonized" your image (via pixelate or some other filter) in Photoshop and used the resulting image commercially, would that be considered "fair use?"
Is that a crystal head skull on the table ?
One does have to be careful with photos. Kim Komando talked about her experience with posting what seemed to be an innocent puppy photo only to be contacted later about infringement to the tune of an $800 charge. Her legal team verified it was a real notification and she had to pay the $800. Be careful what you copy/post.
In the UK Fair use is a defence for copyright infringement, and not a law as Chelsea stated, which echoes what the Northrups' said about the subject matter being more complicated than black and white.
How much did the photographer lose in the festival case? Depends on the photographer and their usage rates. Not everyone sells via Microstock and only makes a few bucks. The photographer would have to show a history of their sales for similar licensing. Photographer should have sent them an invoice. And the worth is for the limited usage not the worth of the photograph which can be licensed over its lifetime many times and sold as prints.
Where a photographer could call it a loss is if the image in question was if the photographer used that image in a limited edition print series. Then if the image got spread all over the internet, it could effect the value of those limited editions. Also another issue would be if the use of an image misrepresents the photographer. Say if an image stolen was use to promote a religion, or political belief that might be diametrically opposed to the photographers business persona.
This was a Bad Ruling, by a District Court, and in my Opinion will be Overturned, in a Higher Court.. The Photo was posed and made sure it had correct Lighting, Framing, wasn't crooked, ETC.. If it was a Snapshot, then there is No Artistry Involved, then you could say it's a General Photo..
but for arguments sake what if the snapshot had all the same components of the posed shot? Also what about street photography? there is no posing there as such. Would you class that as a general photo? I'm sure the likes of Joel Meyerowitz might disagree
I some what disagree, Even street shots are thought out, for Composition, and Background..
Not even sure why the quality of the photo is even a question. The person that took the photo is the copyright owner, period, no matter how good or crappy it is. In my case it is usually pretty crappy, so I am screwed if anyone wants to fair use my photos, though I am not sure why they would want such crappy photos. LOL