Image Copyright Violation Query

Canadel

Can you avoid image copyright by taking a photo of an image on your computer screen with your crappy ipod, and then use your terrible quality ipod photo in a blog or on a website etc.?

Thanks,
Canadel

Also, how likely is a newspaper going to sue a someone for using their image on a blog or a website? Would they simply ask them to take the image down instead?

L1011

Canadel wrote: »

Can you avoid image copyright by taking a photo of an image on your computer screen with your crappy ipod, and then use your terrible quality ipod photo in a blog or on a website etc.?

Thanks,
Canadel

Also, how likely is a newspaper going to sue a someone for using their image on a blog or a website? Would they simply ask them to take the image down instead?

No, and that massively depends on the source. Often the image isn't the newspapers to decide over to begin with; as it belongs to an agency.

Canadel

L1011 wrote: »

No, and that massively depends on the source. Often the image isn't the newspapers to decide over to begin with; as it belongs to an agency.

Thanks. I do find that a bit strange given though given the photo used can only be physically traced back to my own ipod?

If it's a fairly generic or common photo though, and you only capture part of it with your ipod, would it not be true to say that someone wouldn't realistically come after you for copyright? Considering the terrible quality as well?

Grolschevik

I remember reading somewhere that manipulating an existing image with, for example, Photoshop, depending on how extensive the manipulation is, can count as a new creation. I'd need to dig up the reference on Monday, though.

Canadel

Grolschevik wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that manipulating an existing image with, for example, Photoshop, depending on how extensive the manipulation is, can count as a new creation. I'd need to dig up the reference on Monday, though.

Sure, I understand that.

This situation here though is that the actual physical photo has been taken with my ipod. I clicked the button on the device and the photo was taken. I then proceeded to use my photo taken on my ipod on a blog. I also made sure not to capture the entirety of the image I was taking the photo of. It seems to me that there is no realistic way that someone could attempt to sue me for copyright law or image rights all things considered. Nor would they probably even bother given the awful quality of my photo..

L1011

What you're proposing works out no differently to photocopying a book and claiming you wrote it.

Canadel

L1011 wrote: »

What you're proposing works out no differently to photocopying a book and claiming you wrote it.

I disagree. You're saying there is no intrinsic difference between a book and an image. When you photocopy a book and claim you wrote it, the words in the book are still the same, regardless of the quality of the photocopy. What I have done by taking a partial photo of an already existing photo is very different. The quality of the "copied" image is significantly worse and the imagery is not exactly the same as the original.

Steve

The copyright / IPR resides in the original content.

If you record a movie on your phone in a cinema and publish it, however grainy or shaky or cropped the result is, you are till guilty of copyright theft.

What you are advocating is no different.

If you sample another song when releasing your own music track, even though it's not the same, you still stole someone else's work. Similar thing here.

Canadel

Steve wrote: »

The copyright / IPR resides in the original content.

If you record a movie on your phone in a cinema and publish it, however grainy or shaky or cropped the result is, you are till guilty of copyright theft.

What you are advocating is no different.

Is that not similar to people recording a music performer on their phone at a concert and publishing it?

Anyway, you're right. You're all right. But I just want to tease it out a small bit more if it's ok with you.

What I am doing is simply taking a physical photo of my own computer screen with my own camera. Surely any image which is on the web and can be viewed legally on a computer screen for free, can then be photographed without touching the screen with your own camera device, and then that photo which is taken belongs to you and can be then published by you?

The physical photo is definitely yours. But the problem is, as you said, the copyright / IPR resides in the original content.

I suppose it would be similar to copying a piece of writing whereby you write the words in a different font and size, but the words are still the same?

Anyway, you're right. I'm wrong. I'm off to paint to whip up something and I'll head out with my camera tomorrow.

Thank you everyone for your advice.

rock22

Canadel wrote: »

....

Surely any image which is on the web and can be viewed legally on a computer screen for free, can then be photographed without touching the screen with your own camera device, and then that photo which is taken belongs to you and can be then published by you?
......

The internet is full of images you can view for free, but for which the photographer still owns the copyright. And they can pursue those who steal their images. For an example see here http://www.epuk.org/news/aerial-photographer-s-damages-claim-achieves-record-height

If you really want to use the photo why not contact the photographer and agree licencing arrangement . Depending on use, It might not cost too much

Canadel

rock22 wrote: »

The internet is full of images you can view for free, but for which the photographer still owns the copyright. And they can pursue those who steal their images. For an example see here http://www.epuk.org/news/aerial-photographer-s-damages-claim-achieves-record-height

If you really want to use the photo why not contact the photographer and agree licencing arrangement . Depending on use, It might not cost too much

Sure. But if you take a photo of a part of a more generic photo e.g. the sea, a bridge etc. Then surely there is little chance of the original photographer being able to sue as it would be very difficult to say without question that the new photo is simply a photo of an existing photo?

Obviously it would be different for photographs of people and specific events where it would be easier to prove copyright.

K.Flyer

I imagine that if the image is an intrinsic and deliberate part of the content and, more importantly, that you are using it for gain, then you would certainly be in breach of copyright.
Notice in movies where a tv may be used in a scene, if the content showing on the tv is not the original work of the film maker they have to have permission from the original source to use the segment.
Similar situation I would think.

mackerski

Canadel wrote: »

Then surely there is little chance of the original photographer being able to sue as it would be very difficult to say without question that the new photo is simply a photo of an existing photo?

I find that paraphrasing can be a useful way to tease out a complex issue, so here goes:

There's a photograph I'd like to use, but the owner asserts copyright over it. I care enough about the photograph to want to use it, but the owner's rights make it awkward or expensive to do so and I'd prefer this was as simple as just taking it and using it.

So maybe I can degrade the quality. Clearly, if I decide to do that, the degraded version is still useful to me, the owner would probably still expect me to pay. But maybe it's less likely that he will notice.

So what do you reckon guys - can I get away with exploiting a portion of the value of another person's property without paying him a penny and without him noticing?

That seems to be your situation, right?

Canadel

K.Flyer wrote: »

I imagine that if the image is an intrinsic and deliberate part of the content and, more importantly, that you are using it for gain, then you would certainly be in breach of copyright.
Notice in movies where a tv may be used in a scene, if the content showing on the tv is not the original work of the film maker they have to have permission from the original source to use the segment.
Similar situation I would think.

But if it's a generic image like I said, then a partial photo of an original photo would be very hard to prove as copyright.

It would be different if it was a partial photo of a very well known photograph e.g. Vietnamese monk self immolation image.

mackerski

Canadel wrote: »

But if it's a generic image like I said, then a partial photo of an original photo would be very hard to prove as copyright.

Paraphrased: I know damn well it's a breach of copyright, but will I get caught?

Canadel

mackerski wrote: »

I find that paraphrasing can be a useful way to tease out a complex issue, so here goes:

There's a photograph I'd like to use, but the owner asserts copyright over it. I care enough about the photograph to want to use it, but the owner's rights make it awkward or expensive to do so and I'd prefer this was as simple as just taking it and using it.

So maybe I can degrade the quality. Clearly, if I decide to do that, the degraded version is still useful to me, the owner would probably still expect me to pay. But maybe it's less likely that he will notice.

So what do you reckon guys - can I get away with exploiting a portion of the value of another person's property without paying him a penny and without him noticing?

That seems to be your situation, right?

Well, firstly it's very difficult to even ascertain as to whether an image is subject to copyright. I suppose you just have to assume all images are.

As for the simplification, you're right. I just think the whole system is very messy and unclear. The safest thing is to just take your own photos. It just seems so easy to copy and paste a photo from the web though because it is. But as you've said, it's copyright. And you could possibly be sued.

K.Flyer

Canadel wrote: »

But if it's a generic image like I said, then a partial photo of an original photo would be very hard to prove as copyright.

It would be different if it was a partial photo of a very well known photograph e.g. Vietnamese monk self immolation image.

If your partial image was super imposed onto the original picture it would show the it was cropped from the same image, which could be proven as copyright infringement.

As an example take a look at the case of The Rolling Stones vs. The Verve to see how this can work out.

Canadel

K.Flyer wrote: »

If your partial image was super imposed onto the original picture it would show the it was cropped from the same image, which could be proven as copyright infringement.

As an example take a look at the case of The Rolling Stones vs. The Verve to see how this can work out.

Ah, interesting. Fair enough. I do think the copyright holder would want to be especially vindictive to pursue it as a criminal matter against someone using the photo for a face book account or a blog in that case though.

mordeith

Aside from legalities, you'd be surprised how accommodating people can be if they are asked first.

Canadel

mordeith wrote: »

Aside from legalities, you'd be surprised how accommodating people can be if they are asked first.

Really? I've mostly heard horror stories online when researching it.

I'm using images from google now under the "licensed for reuse" filter which I'm pretty sure means I can use the images for free. Think they're from wikipedia. And I'm just going to take my own photos from now on too for anything I publish.

Kenny Logins

Canadel wrote: »

Really? I've mostly heard horror stories online when researching it.

I'm using images from google now under the "licensed for reuse" filter which I'm pretty sure means I can use the images for free. Think they're from wikipedia. And I'm just going to take my own photos from now on too for anything I publish.

This may help -

https://search.creativecommons.org/

Canadel

Kenny Logins wrote: »

This may help -

https://search.creativecommons.org/

It's a nightmare to negotiate the creative commons process! I'm under the impression that the images are free to use but you must give attribution? Do I need to pay for a license or download it? And how or where is best to leave the attribution?

Any advice is appreciated. I definitely need to just take my own photos I think!

If you're publishing anything, taking your own photos, or getting a photographer to take the photos specifically for you are the best way forward.

Using other peoples photos can be tricky. A lot of people might see it and not care. Some may see their photo being used without permission and even get a kick out of it, and take it as a compliment.

Others are professionals, who will have a hefty invoice winging its way to you without a second's thought. These are the people that make a living from photography and who will be very annoyed to see people taking their photos and using them without payment. These are the ones that'll make you regret doing it, and it only takes one of these to really fcuk you over, unfortunately.

It is generally an open and shut case in courts and the likes so rarely worth fighting if caught, I believe (but could well be wrong).

Kenny Logins

Canadel wrote: »

It's a nightmare to negotiate the creative commons process! I'm under the impression that the images are free to use but you must give attribution? Do I need to pay for a license or download it? And how or where is best to leave the attribution?

Any advice is appreciated. I definitely need to just take my own photos I think!

There are different licences within Creative Commons, some prohibit alteration and commercial use, others allow both with attribution. Public Domain means you can do what you like with the image.

Have a look here - https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons

This is a safer source than Google images, which may find images that have been pinched from somewhere else and reposted with CC licence.

Canadel

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're publishing anything, taking your own photos, or getting a photographer to take the photos specifically for you are the best way forward.

Using other peoples photos can be tricky. A lot of people might see it and not care. Some may see their photo being used without permission and even get a kick out of it, and take it as a compliment.

Others are professionals, who will have a hefty invoice winging its way to you without a second's thought. These are the people that make a living from photography and who will be very annoyed to see people taking their photos and using them without payment. These are the ones that'll make you regret doing it, and it only takes one of these to really fcuk you over, unfortunately.

It is generally an open and shut case in courts and the likes so rarely worth fighting if caught, I believe (but could well be wrong).

Firstly, I just want to say that I admit I was wrong on pretty much everything in this thread, and all the advice I have received has been accurate and entirely fair and informative. Greatly appreciated.

Yeah, that's what I would have been worried about! Of course I would have removed an image immediately if the original owner asked me to, but it's my understanding that they can skip that and go straight to legal proceedings. Anyway, I also know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse either. And I also know now from this thread that it is copyright and effectively stealing to use someone else's image. So I've removed and deleted all the images from my blog/facebook/twitter for a start. I only started the blog this week and I genuinely was ignorant of this law initially (my blog is more focused on the writing), and even though I did attempt to find a way around it temporarily with this thread, the replies here have thankfully told me that I would still be in breach of copyright law. And I understand that totally now too by the way. I was wrong.

My only worry at this stage is if say someone has already sent that invoice, however unlikely given I only started the blog this week. Also, the blog would have been shared a few hundred times on facebook and the image will still remain in those thumbnails so there's nothing I can do about those? I just have to hope I'm ok?

Would you advise going ahead and trying to contact the original owner of the image now and explaining everything? Or wait it out and hope that by deleting everything I can tonight I'll be ok?

Thanks again everyone who replied here. Genuinely grateful.

L1011

Canadel wrote: »

Really? I've mostly heard horror stories online when researching it.

I'm using images from google now under the "licensed for reuse" filter which I'm pretty sure means I can use the images for free. Think they're from wikipedia. And I'm just going to take my own photos from now on too for anything I publish.

Trusting Google's guesswork is not a good idea

Unless you know for certain that an image is allowed for reuse - don't use it. Don't trust a third party to tell you.

Indricotherium

Canadel wrote: »

But if it's a generic image like I said, then a partial photo of an original photo would be very hard to prove as copyright.

It would be different if it was a partial photo of a very well known photograph e.g. Vietnamese monk self immolation image.

What is a generic image?

I take it to mean a stock image which means the image was created for the very purpose of charging money to people to licence it's use to illustrate articles in publications?

Canadel

Indricotherium wrote: »

What is a generic image?

I take it to mean a stock image which means the image was created for the very purpose of charging money to people to licence it's use to illustrate articles in publications?

By generic I meant say a picture of which there are thousands similar e.g. of the sky, the sea etc.

Anyway, I realise I was wrong on this. All of the replies to my posts have been correct. Lesson learnt.

Canadel

Canadel wrote: »

Firstly, I just want to say that I admit I was wrong on pretty much everything in this thread, and all the advice I have received has been accurate and entirely fair and informative. Greatly appreciated.

Yeah, that's what I would have been worried about! Of course I would have removed an image immediately if the original owner asked me to, but it's my understanding that they can skip that and go straight to legal proceedings. Anyway, I also know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse either. And I also know now from this thread that it is copyright and effectively stealing to use someone else's image. So I've removed and deleted all the images from my blog/facebook/twitter for a start. I only started the blog this week and I genuinely was ignorant of this law initially (my blog is more focused on the writing), and even though I did attempt to find a way around it temporarily with this thread, the replies here have thankfully told me that I would still be in breach of copyright law. And I understand that totally now too by the way. I was wrong.

My only worry at this stage is if say someone has already sent that invoice, however unlikely given I only started the blog this week. Also, the blog would have been shared a few hundred times on facebook and the image will still remain in those thumbnails so there's nothing I can do about those? I just have to hope I'm ok?

Would you advise going ahead and trying to contact the original owner of the image now and explaining everything? Or wait it out and hope that by deleting everything I can tonight I'll be ok?

Thanks again everyone who replied here. Genuinely grateful.

Don't contact anyone about it. The chances of you getting nailed for it are fairly slim, so by bringing it to the photographer's attention you're not doing yourself much good.

Photographer will have to give an example of where his/her work was used without permission and as you've already removed all examples, then I wouldn't be stressing too much.

People get away with this kinda thing for years on end. There are lots of photographers out there that have other photographers photos on their own website, for example (trying to make their ability out to be greater than it actually is).

If you google something like 'photographer using my photos' etc. you'll get examples.


One thing I would advise is that if you're going to steal images, make sure you take them from small time photographers that may never notice. You keep mentioning 'generic' images, and if that means you're taking them from stock sites (iphoto, etc.) then you're much more likely to get caught, a lot quicker, as these sites make their money solely from licensing/selling photos, they're constantly trawling the net looking for their photos being used without permission, so would catch you a lot faster.



Photographers generally don't mind too much if someone asks for their photos (for example, I gave a handful of photos to a blog owner once, cos he liked one of my photos, my only request was that I can watermark it (my name/logo small in the corner). He got a bunch of random photos he could use for free, and i got my logo on someone else's site (i never actually expect to get any work from it, but its something).


I think (could be wrong) but do Flickr have a section where people upload photos that they don't mind other people using? I think you just do a search and can refine the search to only include 'creative commons' photos? I think once you write 'image by xxx' then you're okay? Maybe Im wrong.

Canadel

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't contact anyone about it. The chances of you getting nailed for it are fairly slim, so by bringing it to the photographer's attention you're not doing yourself much good.

Photographer will have to give an example of where his/her work was used without permission and as you've already removed all examples, then I wouldn't be stressing too much.

People get away with this kinda thing for years on end. There are lots of photographers out there that have other photographers photos on their own website, for example (trying to make their ability out to be greater than it actually is).

If you google something like 'photographer using my photos' etc. you'll get examples.


One thing I would advise is that if you're going to steal images, make sure you take them from small time photographers that may never notice. You keep mentioning 'generic' images, and if that means you're taking them from stock sites (iphoto, etc.) then you're much more likely to get caught, a lot quicker, as these sites make their money solely from licensing/selling photos, they're constantly trawling the net looking for their photos being used without permission, so would catch you a lot faster.



Photographers generally don't mind too much if someone asks for their photos (for example, I gave a handful of photos to a blog owner once, cos he liked one of my photos, my only request was that I can watermark it (my name/logo small in the corner). He got a bunch of random photos he could use for free, and i got my logo on someone else's site (i never actually expect to get any work from it, but its something).


I think (could be wrong) but do Flickr have a section where people upload photos that they don't mind other people using? I think you just do a search and can refine the search to only include 'creative commons' photos? I think once you write 'image by xxx' then you're okay? Maybe Im wrong.

Thanks again for your input. Everything is removed. All that is left are the original thumbnails dotted around facebook shares which I don't have access to. Hopefully I'll be ok. I only had the images up for five days.

Oh I'll never steal an image again. I have an ipod and an imagination, so that will have to do. I will look into creative commons/flickr/contacting the photographer in the future.

When I said generic images it was in relation to taking a partial photo of a generic image like of a bridge or the sea or the street as a way to avoid copyright. But obviously that was still copyright. And I was wrong.

Thanks again for your advice. And the other posters on this thread.