1bads4 - your sig is ready...
04-22-2004, 02:31 PM
#112
AudiWorld Expert
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that argument doesn't work
go ahead. take anything of mine and distribute it. just don't copyright it as your own and prevent ME from using MY copy or charging me for my own content.
THAT is REAL theft, the only theft, imo, that matters.
The other stuff is just common courtesy; and btw. stuff IP law, its a clusterfck.
THAT is REAL theft, the only theft, imo, that matters.
The other stuff is just common courtesy; and btw. stuff IP law, its a clusterfck.
04-22-2004, 02:32 PM
#113
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOOK - IT DOES NOT MATTER - SHE CAN SOD OFF NOW!! - allright mate...
I GET IT - I KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON - SHE IS BEING SILLY - YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW - stop being a dick about this - jesus - this is silly - "how would you like it" - I don't bloody care - allright !!!
04-22-2004, 02:36 PM
#115
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are inserting lots of things into my post...
that I didn't actually say. Let's go through these one by one.
On the first point, I didn't realize you were in the habit of registering your "batches" of photographs monthly. Most photographers I know don't do this so pat yourself on the back. As you well know, there can be pitfalls in doing that, but assuming you jumped through all the appropriate hoops, I will admit that you have the statutory damages angle.
On the second point, I didn't say that there were no damages, I just said that they would be very difficult to prove. In a non-commercial setting, it is very difficult to prove damages (thus the point of having statutory damages in the first place). I stand by this point.
On the third point, I didn't say I believed that he was an innocent infringer. I just said that the fact that the picture did not have a notice of copyright on it allows him to claim he was an innocent infringer. If the notice had been on the picture, the argument would be completely foreclosed. I stand by this statement (read the statute if you don't believe me).
Fourthly, I believe this to be true but I don't believe that it is your motivation for being upset.
Mike, I don't have any problem with you or Leslie or your position. You are certainly in the right under the law. I also recognize that you actually know what you are talking about when it comes to copyright infringement.
Yes, toes were stepped on and bad blood was created (I can even sympathize why you guys might be so upset). But it appears to have been an "innocent" (in the non-legal sense) mistake. It is your picture and you can do whatever you want, but I would think that in the spirit of these types of forums, you could let it go if you wanted to.
John in Cincy
On the first point, I didn't realize you were in the habit of registering your "batches" of photographs monthly. Most photographers I know don't do this so pat yourself on the back. As you well know, there can be pitfalls in doing that, but assuming you jumped through all the appropriate hoops, I will admit that you have the statutory damages angle.
On the second point, I didn't say that there were no damages, I just said that they would be very difficult to prove. In a non-commercial setting, it is very difficult to prove damages (thus the point of having statutory damages in the first place). I stand by this point.
On the third point, I didn't say I believed that he was an innocent infringer. I just said that the fact that the picture did not have a notice of copyright on it allows him to claim he was an innocent infringer. If the notice had been on the picture, the argument would be completely foreclosed. I stand by this statement (read the statute if you don't believe me).
Fourthly, I believe this to be true but I don't believe that it is your motivation for being upset.
Mike, I don't have any problem with you or Leslie or your position. You are certainly in the right under the law. I also recognize that you actually know what you are talking about when it comes to copyright infringement.
Yes, toes were stepped on and bad blood was created (I can even sympathize why you guys might be so upset). But it appears to have been an "innocent" (in the non-legal sense) mistake. It is your picture and you can do whatever you want, but I would think that in the spirit of these types of forums, you could let it go if you wanted to.
John in Cincy
04-22-2004, 02:45 PM
#117
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Leslie has had photos of her own in Sports Illustrated, Time, on Frito-Lay, Gatorade,
and countless other boxes and packaging, as well as in many top level books, she is far from flattered with your sig usage.
On the contrary, she's frustrated at your response. You say she is ridiculous for getting bent out of shape by asking you to not use the photo. She likely thinks it's ridiculous for illegally using the photo and refusing to apologize.
Did you just expect a professional phographer (Leslie)to sit back and enjoy your sig usage and let you get away with using the image without persmission or credit? Then you have the arrogance to say she should be flattered by your use? Please, it's what she does for a living and you took her federally protected property without permission and instead of apologizing, chastized her in the process for asking you stop using it.
You then go on to say that you spent more time on the photo than the photographer did and likely more money. Please, top level photographers have $50,000 plus in computers, $50,000 + in cameras, pay insurance, copyright lawyers, fees to register images, etc. A one day photo shoots often run in excess of $30,000 by the time you count travel, rental of equipment, talent, highway rental, liability umbrellas, trucks, etc. Regardless, how much time or money you put into your sig means nothing legally. I can hear you now:
"But your honor, after I stole the car I had it painted and put new wheels and tires on it. With all the time and money I put into it, can I just keep it?"
Mike S
On the contrary, she's frustrated at your response. You say she is ridiculous for getting bent out of shape by asking you to not use the photo. She likely thinks it's ridiculous for illegally using the photo and refusing to apologize.
Did you just expect a professional phographer (Leslie)to sit back and enjoy your sig usage and let you get away with using the image without persmission or credit? Then you have the arrogance to say she should be flattered by your use? Please, it's what she does for a living and you took her federally protected property without permission and instead of apologizing, chastized her in the process for asking you stop using it.
You then go on to say that you spent more time on the photo than the photographer did and likely more money. Please, top level photographers have $50,000 plus in computers, $50,000 + in cameras, pay insurance, copyright lawyers, fees to register images, etc. A one day photo shoots often run in excess of $30,000 by the time you count travel, rental of equipment, talent, highway rental, liability umbrellas, trucks, etc. Regardless, how much time or money you put into your sig means nothing legally. I can hear you now:
"But your honor, after I stole the car I had it painted and put new wheels and tires on it. With all the time and money I put into it, can I just keep it?"
Mike S
04-22-2004, 02:45 PM
#118
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is getting old. And I know you know this, BUT...
you are not technically accurate as there are "fair use" exceptions. Yes, they are not as broad as 99% of the people think they are but they do exist.
How do I know you know of them?? Because you yourself said that using a photograph for editorial use (criticism or comment I presume) doesn't need permission. Of course, even that exception has rules (can't take more than is reasonably necessary, etc.).
Is this getting ridiculous yet?? (vbg)
John in Cincy
How do I know you know of them?? Because you yourself said that using a photograph for editorial use (criticism or comment I presume) doesn't need permission. Of course, even that exception has rules (can't take more than is reasonably necessary, etc.).
Is this getting ridiculous yet?? (vbg)
John in Cincy
04-22-2004, 02:49 PM
#120
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IndyS4, you are 100% wrong. Time to read up. Eric's 100% correct.
Where do you get off? You keep screaming "Look at me, I'm ignorant and easily proven so!"
Mike<ul><li><a href="http://www.copyrightcontracts.com/copyright101.htm#when">http://www.copyrightcontracts.com/copyright101.htm#when</a</li></ul>
Mike<ul><li><a href="http://www.copyrightcontracts.com/copyright101.htm#when">http://www.copyrightcontracts.com/copyright101.htm#when</a</li></ul>