Copyright?

Anouilh

Early in 2008 I had reason to look carefully at copyright issues in relation to photos uploaded to the Web.

One of my photos on Blogger developed an eerie "c" in a circle that had nothing to do with me. I then discovered that all photos searched in Google Image Search have a message explaining that they may be resized and subject to copyright. Logically this would mean that photographers could end up paying to use their own photos.

The people managing Miro's estate have been in conflict with this ruling and I don't know if it has been resolved.

The fact that photos have a nice long copyright life should make us all careful about how they are used. I like to think that my grandchildren might benefit from the months I have just spent crawling through undergrowth after pesky bees and butterflies or setting up flower subjects to photograph with a diopter at midnight in the middle of Winter.

This might help:

http://www.shutterpoint.com/Learn-Selling.cfm

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

One of my photos on Blogger developed an eerie "c" in a circle that had nothing to do with me. I then discovered that all photos searched in Google Image Search have a message explaining that they may be resized and subject to copyright. Logically this would mean that photographers could end up paying to use their own photos.

I would assume that when they state that the image may be subject to copyright, they mean that the image is copyright to the photographer, since Google would only own the copyright if it is assigned to them by the photographer.

Sometimes websites phrase things in a way that can confuse.

Anouilh

That's what I thought, optimistically, at first.

However, search engines have the ability to hoover up images from every possible source and, for the unwary, this can lead to trouble, especially in the U.S. where copyright and "fair use" are interpreted differently than in Europe.

Some Asian countries do not actually recognise the existence of "intellectual property", so uploading to the World Wide Web is bound to lead to mis-use of writing and images in some cases.

I have taken some time to look at this and there are links on my Moderntwist2 blog, if you are interested to look at posts made earlier in 2008. There is also a poster in Scotland who is very interested in storage systems on the Internet and he has posted some good information on the blog.

This is probably the best explanation of what can happen:

http://www.out-law.com/page-6660

I think that amateur photographers should be told of the pitfalls involved in offering their work for free. Most people have not been exposed to the extraordinary speed with which newspapers and television editors work and take offence when somebody grabs their work to fill a space.

Rather than get upset, they should perhaps join the freelance branch of the NUJ and organise their work to provide a little income in these crunchy days?

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

Rather than get upset, they should perhaps join the freelance branch of the NUJ and organise their work to provide a little income in these crunchy days?

To join the NUJ, you need to prove that you earn a minimum of 40% of your revenue from media/press. Or there is some clause about how much you have to earn. Also, the cost for the NUJ (freelance) is quite high.

melekalikimaka

Paulw wrote: »

To join the NUJ, you need to prove that you earn a minimum of 40% of your revenue from media/press. Or there is some clause about how much you have to earn. Also, the cost for the NUJ (freelance) is quite high.

If your a student in the field of journalism or photography you can join for like 40 euro