Random Photo thread XIX - DO NOT QUOTE PHOTOS 800PX SIZE LIMIT.

wersal gummage

[IMG][/img]

homerun_homer

homer simpson

charybdis

Xiney wrote: »

ffs

a bit of a copy & paste job for fun = fair use, no doubt about it.

and I doubt keps is going to try and sell that image - no offence intended keps, it's just not something that anyone would buy really since it's just a bit of fun!

Fair Use is a principle in American intellectual property law. It does not apply here.

The_Joker wrote: »

Strictly speaking a lot of photographs posted on threads could possibly have copyright or other infringement issues e.g Places, buildings, people, animals or items some people could take the high moral ground on and pursue ownership rights from a legal point of view.

For example a calf in a field or a dog on a beach that doesn't belong to the photographer and has not received permission by the owner to reproduce an image of well these could all fall into the Gollum category.

Nope. This is completely different. You couldn't be more wrong.

I hope you all remember your positions the next time someone posts a thread in here about someone "stealing" their work.

Anyway, the solution is clearly to watermark all frames of The Lord of the Rings containing Gollum with the words "© copy-right Peter Jackson" in curved translucent Comic Sans.

Xiney

well, let me put it this way:

keps is not looking to benefit professionally or monetarily from the image. Therefore they would have difficulty in proving that he owed them anything.

In addition, sites like cracked use photoshopped images of pop culture icons with impunity... so I think our man keps is alright.

Borderfox

Great minds, trooney!!

charybdis

Xiney wrote: »

well, let me put it this way:

keps is not looking to benefit professionally or monetarily from the image. Therefore they would have difficulty in proving that he owed them anything.

In addition, sites like cracked use photoshopped images of pop culture icons with impunity... so I think our man keps is alright.

That doesn't matter. It is defined as theft.

Copyright is not about owing people money, it is about being able to control the use of works. How, for example, would someone owe a recording artist money for listening to their songs if they're not benefiting professionally or monetarily? Or how would someone who prints out another photographer's photograph and hangs it in their home? Or someone who copies another photographer's photograph and uses it on their own website, not for professional or monetary benefit?

Cracked.com is based in the Unites States and as such is subject to different intellectual property legislation and is probably definable as journalistic in nature (barely, although maybe not compared to the newspapers in the this country) and as such, have different restrictions on how they use material for illustrative purposes.

homer simpson

Right folks i really am getting frustrated with all this stuff going about and kept quiet but seriously read the rules of the random photo thread in the first post please.....

"* No arguments. Self explanatory really.

* If you have a disagreement with a photo, use the report post feature - don't go abusing the poster."

And for my 2 cents keps done nothing wrong at all...

humberklog

breadbin wrote: »

is this stitched?

Nope, one exposure.

Melion

Just wanted to put this up. I took it last week, my first time using my Nikon D3000 properly. C&C very much welcome.

charybdis

homer_simpson wrote: »

Right folks i really am getting frustrated with all this stuff going about and kept quiet but seriously read the rules of the random photo thread in the first post please.....

"* No arguments. Self explanatory really.

* If you have a disagreement with a photo, use the report post feature - don't go abusing the poster."

And for my 2 cents keps done nothing wrong at all...

So, instead of reporting the offending posts, you quoted the section of the rules about not arguing and reporting posts instead, then offered your opinion and position on the argument?

Also, your opinion on his actions is probably irrelevant, this is a discussion of a legal matter.

hbr

zerohamster

pixbyjohn wrote: »

hey pixbyjohn is that between Greystones and Bray over looking kilruddery?

Ghost Train

AnimalRights

Corrosive Machine

zerohamster

charybdis wrote: »

So, instead of reporting the offending posts, you quoted the section of the rules about not arguing and reporting posts instead, then offered your opinion and position on the argument?

Also, your opinion on his actions is probably irrelevant, this is a discussion of a legal matter.

Ive been reading all the post about this "legal" matter and I have to say it seems over the top to be worrying about copyright infringement.

If someone of authority on the matter did accuse him of copyright theft then he would be requested to remove the offending image and unless he didnt comply they would hardly take action againt the millionth person to make an art piece for amusement.

it's not like he is using it for commercial gain.

charybdis

zerohamster wrote: »

Ive been reading all the post about this "legal" matter and I have to say it seems over the top to be worrying about copyright infringement.

If someone of authority on the matter did accuse him of copyright theft then he would be requested to remove the offending image and unless he didnt comply they would hardly take action againt the millionth person to make an art piece for amusement.

There was a question over potential copyright infringement and many people were spouting misinformation. I really don't care about pasting Gollum into a photograph for amusement, but I do care about people proliferating ignorance and contrived double standards as they see fit.

zerohamster wrote: »

it's not like he is using it for commercial gain.

As I said above, it doesn't matter; not in the eyes of the law anyway. Similarly, someone can appropriate one of your photographs and republish it themselves but it's still copyright infringement even if it's not for commercial gain.