Go Back   FormKaos: Board > General Discussion > Coffee Lounge > Punching Bag

Punching Bag Bitch, cry and whine your way into oblivion.

Reply
 
LinkBack Topic Tools Rate Topic
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
O.G. Sammy
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Sammy Skillz is an unknown quantity at this point
People who LIE and pass off your photography as their own.

Those photographs aren't yours.
So don't pretend like they are.

Some chump was using MY photography on another site....telling people it was her in the photographs (which it obviously wasnt) and telling people that her "girl friend" took the photos.

after threatening to pursue the issue legally, all photos were removed.

It's really fucking annoying and frustrating knowing that people blatently lie about things like that.

-s.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
flick ma bean
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Kelster is an unknown quantity at this point
that's funny..what site was this on?

sammy, you're such a leet photographer
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
O.G. Sammy
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Sammy Skillz is an unknown quantity at this point
not that it matters anymore cuz all photos have been removed....but it was on ontariojungle.com


-s.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
>o.0<
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
cerah is an unknown quantity at this point
That's happened with some of my pictures before. It fucking sucks! This one guy on deviant art ripped a TON of photos off of people (me included) and was a total ass about it until I mentioned legal action and he turned into a snivelling little toad.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
.dirtbag
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
shorerider is an unknown quantity at this point
watermark 'em :)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
Hot Rod Ho
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
MistressSpankME is an unknown quantity at this point
Sammy, you should look into copyright issues on photographs now that you are beginning to "publish" them on the internet.

The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright
by Attorney David L. Amkraut

WARNING: The following is a summary of important information
regarding the use and misuse of photos on the Internet. It is not
specific legal advice. Copyright is a specialized field of law, and
there are sometimes exceptions to the rules. If you have a specific
copyright concern, you should consult a lawyer with expertise in
copyright issues concerning the use and misuse of photos on the
Internet.

AN EXCELLENT RULE OF THUMB: If you do not have specific permission
(preferably written!) from the owner of a photo, you cannot legally
display it on a website, post it to the Usenet, copy it, send it
around by Email or other means, make photos derived from it, sell it,
or otherwise exploit it.


MYTH # 1.
"I do not need to register my photos with the copyright office,
because I 'automatically' have copyright at the instant I snap the
shutter."

This is a serious misunderstanding of the law. Yes, you do own
copyright without registration. BUT if you want to protect your
photos from theft, you should register them with the Copyright
Office, before you publish or distribute them. If you register your
photos, you gain powerful remedies against infringers. These can
include:

* Civil penalties ("damages"). The pirate is on the hook for up to
$150,000 for each misused photo;
* Attorney's fees: the infringer has to pay your attorney's hourly
fees and all costs such as copies, postage, filing fees, etc.
* Restraining orders, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions against
the infringer, and even seizure of the pirate's computer equipment in
some cases.

An important practical point is that if the photos are registered,
you might find an attorney to take the case on "contingency," which
means he takes the risk of gambling on a win, rather than you paying
him by the hour. Faced with a lawsuit over registered images-and an
injunction which would likely mean being put out of business forever-
many pirates will quickly settle up and pay.

By contrast, if you did not register your photos, it is almost
impossible, as a practical matter, to nail an infringer. To get any
damages at all, you have to prove how much the pirate made off your
particular photos, or exactly how much money the theft cost you.
Either is almost impossible to prove. And you do not recover
attorney's fees, so the cost of the lawsuit would far outweigh your
possible recovery.

So-if you have registered your work, you are in good shape
to "convince" an infringer to stop, or to successfully sue him. If
you have not registered, you probably cannot do anything about
pirates.


MYTH # 2.
"I got the photo off the Usenet (newsgroups) so it is in the 'Public
Domain'."


The above shows a misunderstanding of the term "Public Domain." The
term has the specific legal meaning that no one controls the photo;
anyone can use it as he wishes. There are two ways for a photo to
fall into in the public domain.

* the owner clearly gives up his rights, such as by signing a
document saying, "I now give up my copyright and irrevocably place
this work in the public domain." OR
* 75 Years have passed since the owner died.

When an owner posts a photo to Usenet, he does not lose his rights,
any more than publishing the photo in a magazine or on his own
website would. When an owner posts to Usenet, the only license he
gives is for replication and transmission within the Usenet system.
There have been many copyright cases involving websites which got
their content from the Usenet-and courts have awarded fines in the
millions of dollars against the pirates.

In addition, photos are often posted to Usenet against the owner's
wishes. Eg., the many infringing copies of work owned by Playboy,
Penthouse, and top photographers. Such posts are themselves
violations of copyright. Obviously if the original post to Usenet was
illegal-as many are-subsequent copying and misuse is equally illegal.

In short, taking photos from Usenet and using them elsewhere such as
on a website is copyright infringement, and you risk the severe
penalties of piracy.


MYTH # 3.
"My [website use, posting, whatever] is 'Fair Use' so I haven't
violated copyright"

"Fair use" is a legal "defense" to copyright. It was created to allow
use of copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as
commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without
permission of the copyright holder. A typical instance would be a
brief quotation from a book as part of a book review. Uses allowed
by "Fair Use" are normally a small part of a work and include an
author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit
purposes. Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly
with the work or harms its commercial value.

Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any
situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could
claim the fair use defense.

In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to
Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy
magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine
does not apply. Because the pirate is taking 100% of the work, not
acknowledging the creator, hurting the work's market value, competing
directly with the creator or licensed users of the work, and for
other reasons.

So if you are a photo pirate, do not even think about the fair use
doctrine. In your context it is a myth. Your lawyer will laugh at
you, and the judge might not have a sense of humor where thievery is
concerned.


MYTH # 4.
"If it does not have a copyright notice on it, it is not copyrighted-
so I can use it freely."

This myth results from past law, and misunderstandings of past law
being passed along. In virtually all cases, photo copyright is valid
whether or not there is a copyright notice.

A copyright notice has two main functions. First, it warns off at
least a few would-be pirates that the work is not to be stolen.
Second, it has some useful legal effects, because it prevents the
infringer from claiming he was making an "innocent" mistake.

The copyright notice may be omitted because the owner or legitimate
user does not want to deface the photo, or even because an
intermediary infringer has deliberately removed the notice. (Removing
a copyright notice is itself a serious legal violation.) And of
course, if someone has illegally scanned and posted Playboy pictures
or the like, there will not be a notice. However, the absence of a
copyright notice does not change the fact that a work is copyrighted.

We are reminded of an anecdote about a thief who stole a bicycle from
a public place. When caught by the owner, the thief protested, "I
didn't know that it was your bike." Replied the owner, "You sure as
blazes knew that it wasn't yours!"

A proper notice has the © mark, or word "Copyright" or
abbreviation "Copr."; the year, and the name of the owner. For
example, if this author took and published a photo in 2000, it might
be marked "© 2000 David L. Amkraut" or "Copyright 2000 David L.
Amkraut" or "Copr. 2000 David L. Amkraut." You can add "All Rights
Reserved" if you want-it has no real significance in the U.S. and
most countries but has a bit in several 3rd world countries. The
commonly-seen parenthesis "(c)" instead of the proper copyright
mark "©" has no legal significance and may invalidate the notice.

So, if you do not see a copyright notice, do not assume the photo is
yours to use; someone owns copyright and you have to get his
permission before using it.


MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating
copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some
reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion
that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share."
These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of
Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat
you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get
punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of
the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly"
or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a
warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love,
competitive advantage, malice, or any other reason.


MYTH # 6.
"I'll win. I have a lot of rights in court. And they can not do much
to me anyhow."

Very wrong. A pirate is far more likely to be sued in civil court
than to be arrested and criminally charged. As a civil defendant you
have far fewer rights than in a criminal case. The Plaintiff only has
to convince the judge that he is more right than you. He does not
have the heavy burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in a criminal
case.

A copyright Plaintiff does not have to prove much to win. He just
needs to show two things: (1) Ownership of the copied work; and (2)
Copying or other misuse by the Defendant. He proves the first by
showing his Certificate of Registration from the copyright office. He
proves the second by showing his photos and your infringing copy side-
by-side. End of story.

And a copyright suit, in federal court, moves surprisingly quickly.
You could be slapped with a restraining order immediately after the
suit is filed, meaning an end to your infringements under threat of
arrest for contempt of court. For technical reasons having to do with
the copyright law and federal rules of procedure, final judgments may
be reached within a few months.

Perhaps you think you can charm or fool a jury? If the facts and
issues are clear-and they generally are in such cases-the judge will
decide the case. You will never see a jury.

Think you can fight it? Talk to a copyright specialist attorney and
think of paying by the hour for what will probably be a hopeless
defense. And do not forget, Mr. Pirate, that when you lose you will
also be stuck for the Plaintiff's legal fees.

Can they "do much" to you? Copyright penalties have been
called "nuclear." Penalties of up to $150,000 per photo are
permitted. And an injunction which, depending on your business
method, may put you out of business forever, is likely.

Do not assume you can successfully defend a legitimate copyright
case, especially when registered photos are concerned. As a rule of
thumb, if you get caught, better try to settle cheap and quickly.


MYTH # 7.
"Copyright violation is not a crime-it is just a quarrel between two
businessmen."

Wrong. Copyright violation is a crime as well as a civil wrong. Read
the splash screen disclaimer at the start of any video you rent if
you think otherwise. Or talk with an FBI agent. Most of the copyright
cases we see are federal felonies, as well as civil law violations.

In addition to the severe civil and criminal penalties of copyright
violations, the same acts leave the pirate open to additional civil
and criminal charges, for wrongdoing like "unfair competition," and
violation of the "No Electronic Theft" law and other statutes.

We are not saying that a pirate can expect to be arrested by FBI
agents for his theft of photos. But it is a possibility, especially
if the FBI responds to demands for action against Internet pirates
and begins pursuing such cases more actively. And especially if the
pirate is infringing on a large scale or infringing work owned by a
large corporation.

------

SUMMARY

Unless you have specific permission, you can not distribute, copy,
publicly display, sell, or otherwise exploit or commercially use
someone else's photos.

Photos posted on newsgroups are not yours to use. They are not in
the "public domain." In fact, with extremely rare exceptions, no
recently-created photo is in the public domain.

The "Fair Use" doctrine almost never excuses infringement of a
photograph, particularly where the infringing use is commercial or
where it hurts the market for the photo.

Copyright is normally valid with or without a copyright notice.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of the
infringer's motive.

People who infringe photographs are likely to be crushed in Court,
and even have their businesses closed down.

Copyright violation may be treated as a serious crime, as well as a
civil wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
Barstar.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
e_BoY is an unknown quantity at this point
can this be the same as underage peopel using their friends id as theirs?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
.High Maintenance.
 
Join Date: May 2001
*KeLLnEsS* is an unknown quantity at this point
lol thats funnay
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
Living In The Schisms
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
cheebus420 is an unknown quantity at this point
along the lines of mistressspankme, I thought it was illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mar 27, 04
Antenna_Boy's Avatar
*Nazzy-look-alike*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Antenna_Boy is on a distinguished road
those assholes!!! :finger:
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools
Rate This Topic
Rate This Topic:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Forum software by vBulletin
2000-2018 FNK.CA