1. Welcome to Photography Forum. Our photography community!

    Photography-forum is dedicated to those who have passion, desire and love of photography and want to improve their photographic technique. It doesn't matter what you photograph, landscapes, weddings, portraits or your photographic experience, it's about learning and loving what we do. Photography!

    If you want learn and expand your photography skills then there is one place to do it Photography Forum !!!

    You are viewing photography-forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most forums and enjoy other features. By joining our free community you will be able to post photographs for critique, join in the monthly photography competitions, respond to polls, upload content and enjoy many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join Photography Forum.

    If you have any problems please contact us.

    The Photography-Forum Team
    Dismiss Notice
  2. PLEASE SEE RULES BEFORE POSTING LINKS
    Click here to see Forum Rules

Here's One To Make Photographers Mad

Discussion in 'Photography News Forum' started by Roger S, Jul 3, 2018.

  1. Roger S

    Roger S Crazy Canuck Administrator

    Messages:
    60,627
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
  2. beersurgeon

    beersurgeon Here a lot

    Messages:
    498
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    This does not make sense to me....
     
  3. DonS

    DonS Stuck in Toronto Moderator

    Messages:
    11,064
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Oh hell no. <-- what I tweeted about it.
     
    Roger S likes this.
  4. MikeB

    MikeB Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,899
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    hmm. The actual issue and ruling is a bit different than the headline, but then Petapixel is a clickbait site interested only in promoting traffic.

    The court found that the use of the complainant's photo was fair use, but not simply because it was found on the web.

    The facts are that the photo was taken down from the web immediately when the photographer demanded that it be removed. The photo had appeared on several websites previously and on one website in particular without any copyright info. A portion of the copyrighted photo (about 1/3) was used in a composite image promoting a location in a non-commercial manner - it was ruled informational and not promotional.

    In the United States, whether or not a use of copyrighted material without permission can be considered fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107) depends on four main factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use (including whether it’s “transformative” and commercial vs. non-commercial), (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) how much of the work is used, and (4) how much the use affects the market and/or value of the work.

    The court addressed each of these four points

    Here is the original photo:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/rbrammer/8263245574/in/datetaken/

    While I have reservations about the ruling, it is a weak case to move to the next Appeals Court level.
     
    Roger S likes this.
  5. Phill104

    Phill104 Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    On one hand we have the above, on the other this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44729770

    So for some reason it is theft to use an image made from a photograph of a statue that is a copy of an iconic original. Has the world gone totally bonkers?
     
  6. MikeB

    MikeB Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,899
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Lol. Saw this and laughed. The issue is that the Nevada statue is a derivative that is different enough that it can stand on its own merits. What is laughable is that the US gov has plenty of photos of the actual statue and they selected the copy to place on a stamp, or they could easily have rendered their own original drawing that represented the original.
     

Share This Page