Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

photo-of-the-day - Copyright issue.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
June 20, 2005 2:13:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
these photos are by amatures.

As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
photo was found.

This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.

QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

TIA
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 2:29:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org writes:
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.

Well, you could just make a link instead.

> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?

No, you have to get permission for each picture.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 2:41:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org wrote:

> I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?


No, but you could link the image tag & display it on your site that way.
If you are making money from your site, even that might be risky. If you
were a legitimate news agency you might get away with it but not in the
format you describe.


>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Related resources
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 4:46:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org probably trolls:

> Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Asking random strangers for legal advice is stupid.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 5:01:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA

You MIGHT be okay if you include all the info as to where you got it, AND
include the link to the original site. If your site carries any advertising
or is for profit you should definitely get permission. I'm not a copyright
attorney, so I'm guessing here, but I would think the owner of the photo
would have a lot of trouble collecting any money if you are not making any
money off the photo, and you've given the public a link to original photo.

In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you are
not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit and a
link back to the original.

Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth exactly
what you are paying for it. Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give me
the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 5:01:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:65edndMvfuHGjyrfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>
> <storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
> news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> > these photos are by amatures.
> >
> > As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> > feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> > explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> > plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> > photo was found.
> >
> > This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> > accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
> >
> > QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
> >
> > Any information would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > TIA
>
> You MIGHT be okay if you include all the info as to where you got it, AND
> include the link to the original site.

Absolutely not. Attribution is not a defense to infringement, at least in
the U.S.

> If your site carries any advertising
> or is for profit you should definitely get permission. I'm not a
copyright
> attorney, so I'm guessing here, but I would think the owner of the photo
> would have a lot of trouble collecting any money if you are not making any
> money off the photo, and you've given the public a link to original photo.

Wrong again. Statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as high as
$150,000 per infringement, no proof of actual damages needed.

>
> In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you
are
> not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit and
a
> link back to the original.

And, again, completely wrong, at least under U.S. law. Copyright is an
exclusive right, meaning that a copyright owner has the absolute right (subj
ect to fair use doctrine and other statutory exceptions) to exclude anyone
from copying, distributing, or preparing derivative works.

>
> Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth
exactly
> what you are paying for it.

Then why are you giving advice? Copyright law, at least in the U.S., can be
quite arcane.

> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give me
> the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.

At least not that you know of.

>
>
June 20, 2005 6:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org wrote:
> I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
Copyright law differs from country to country. It might be OK in some placess to do what
you suggest, and not in another country. Getting a copyright release from the owner of
the photo is your best bet.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 6:52:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>


Besides the possible legal issues here, to me this is a common since issue.
Ask yourself if you'd want someone using your pictures on their website with
out you knowledge or permission. You may have innocent intents, but other
don't. In general, I'd assume that the answer from the photog would be "no"
and NOT link or copy the image on my site. If you really want to use the
image contact the photog and get their permission first. It's the right
thing to do regardless of the law.

--

Rob
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:00:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> storm@liquidsky.org probably trolls:
>
>> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
> Asking random strangers for legal advice is stupid.

Nothing worse than getting advice on the Internet for legal issues.
Never knew a lawyer who gave anything away for free.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:00:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gaderian" <nospam@anisp.com> wrote in message
news:wdFte.31938$Kk4.279125@news20.bellglobal.com...
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> > storm@liquidsky.org probably trolls:
> >
> >> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
> > Asking random strangers for legal advice is stupid.
>
> Nothing worse than getting advice on the Internet for legal issues.
> Never knew a lawyer who gave anything away for free.

Lawyers cannot give legal advice to non-clients. Doing so risks significant
malpractice liability. Moreover, I've yet to see a post to a newsgroup that
comes remotely close to providing enough information to enable providing an
opinion, even if I was inclined to risk the liability and provide one.

As for lawyers not giving anything away for free, the ABA sets a target for
pro bono hours that virtually all firms, including mine, meet or exceed. I
don't know any other profession which routinely competes to see who can
provide more free service.

What pro bono activities do you do as part of your profession?




>
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:18:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:37:05 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
wrote:
>> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
>> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't
>> give me the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.
>
>At least not that you know of.

At least one U.S. court (the 9th circuit) has held that a "thumbnail"
in one search engine was fair use. The display of the entire image
was remanded back to the trial court level.

The Kelly v. Arriba case is a mess on all levels, but at least
on that point it's clear.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:ca8eb1luo85mc2th3scb1rv03jp54ejlj7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:37:05 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
> >> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
> >> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't
> >> give me the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.
> >
> >At least not that you know of.
>
> At least one U.S. court (the 9th circuit) has held that a "thumbnail"
> in one search engine was fair use. The display of the entire image
> was remanded back to the trial court level.
>
> The Kelly v. Arriba case is a mess on all levels, but at least
> on that point it's clear.

I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite?

>
> --
> Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
> Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
> address only to submit mail for evaluation.
>
June 20, 2005 8:21:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank You! to everyone that responded, you have helped me make a
decision. I will abandon my idea - sadly, since I thought it would help
promote talent. I have to wonder about sites like google that use
EVERYONES photos without permission -- seems like there are two sets of
rules, one for the big guys and another for us little folk.

Thanks Again
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:33:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119303995.611873.224570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> PTravel wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite?

Sorry, by "cite" I meant reference to the official reporter, e.g. Smith v.
Jones, 35 F2d 245 (9th Cir. 2000). I like to read the official opinion,
rather than reprints on the internet. That's okay -- I'll just do a search
for it.

Thanks.


>
> www.google.com: kelly v. arriba
>
> Various hits. Probably the most relevant is:
>
> http://netcopyrightlaw.com/kellyvarribasoft.asp
>
> Where Kelly prevails.
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:58:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PTravel wrote:

> Sorry, by "cite" I meant reference to the official reporter, e.g. Smith v.
> Jones, 35 F2d 245 (9th Cir. 2000).

The URL posted was one of many (why post google dumps?). Had you
clicked a few more times, you would have found:

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/Kelllyv...(9C2003).htm

which gives a full citation and, for your convenience only, apparently
a copy of the opinion re: thumbnails. Click a few more ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

.... and you find that Arriba/Ditto defaulted because Arriba basically
doesn't exist anymore. Kelly's victory is probably pyrrhic, though
apparently subsidized by "higher powers" for a desired result (see
original URL).
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 9:27:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119311929.997433.130800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> PTravel wrote:
>
> > Sorry, by "cite" I meant reference to the official reporter, e.g. Smith
v.
> > Jones, 35 F2d 245 (9th Cir. 2000).
>
> The URL posted was one of many (why post google dumps?). Had you
> clicked a few more times, you would have found:
>
> http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/Kelllyv...(9C2003).htm
>
> which gives a full citation and, for your convenience only, apparently
> a copy of the opinion re: thumbnails. Click a few more ...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
> ... and you find that Arriba/Ditto defaulted because Arriba basically
> doesn't exist anymore. Kelly's victory is probably pyrrhic, though
> apparently subsidized by "higher powers" for a desired result (see
> original URL).

The internet, generally, and wikipedia, specifically are very poor sources
for legal information (there are exceptions -- one of the universities, I
don't recall which at the moment, has limited, but free, case searching
on-line). I use Lexis and Westlaw, both of which provide the official
reports, so I'll get it from there.

Thanks, though. I appreciate the trouble you've taken.


>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:30:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I stand corrected. This field of law is so new, and sometimes common sense
doesn't always work within the law.

What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on your web
site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. Here's a
link to his, or her site." How is this harming the photographer? Yes, I
know you should ask permission, but...

You don't become an artist, writer or photographer to make a living suing
other people.

I've got articles all over the Net, and when the contract was signed
Internet use was strictly prohibited. I'd be spending all my time in court
instead of working if I pursued every one. And, I'd have to go to courts
all over the country.


"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:3hok72Fi6re0U1@individual.net...
>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:65edndMvfuHGjyrfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>>
>> <storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
>> news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
>> > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
>> > these photos are by amatures.
>> >
>> > As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
>> > feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
>> > explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
>> > plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
>> > photo was found.
>> >
>> > This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
>> > accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>> >
>> > QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>> >
>> > Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> > TIA
>>
>> You MIGHT be okay if you include all the info as to where you got it, AND
>> include the link to the original site.
>
> Absolutely not. Attribution is not a defense to infringement, at least in
> the U.S.
>
>> If your site carries any advertising
>> or is for profit you should definitely get permission. I'm not a
> copyright
>> attorney, so I'm guessing here, but I would think the owner of the photo
>> would have a lot of trouble collecting any money if you are not making
>> any
>> money off the photo, and you've given the public a link to original
>> photo.
>
> Wrong again. Statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as high
> as
> $150,000 per infringement, no proof of actual damages needed.
>
>>
>> In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you
> are
>> not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit
>> and
> a
>> link back to the original.
>
> And, again, completely wrong, at least under U.S. law. Copyright is an
> exclusive right, meaning that a copyright owner has the absolute right
> (subj
> ect to fair use doctrine and other statutory exceptions) to exclude anyone
> from copying, distributing, or preparing derivative works.
>
>>
>> Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth
> exactly
>> what you are paying for it.
>
> Then why are you giving advice? Copyright law, at least in the U.S., can
> be
> quite arcane.
>
>> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
>> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give
>> me
>> the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.
>
> At least not that you know of.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:27:08 -0700, "PTravel"
<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:

>I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite?

_Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation_ 336 F.3d 811 (2003).

Link to case at www.ca9.uscourts.gov:
http://snipurl.com/fpt0

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 2:19:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:g6oeb19fa38b2po325b0d6kfdd8hs9bgs2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:27:08 -0700, "PTravel"
> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a cite?
>
> _Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation_ 336 F.3d 811 (2003).
>
> Link to case at www.ca9.uscourts.gov:
> http://snipurl.com/fpt0
>

Thanks muchly!

> --
> Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
> Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
> address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 2:26:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:Y8-dne9RaM_7HyrfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>I stand corrected. This field of law is so new, and sometimes common sense
>doesn't always work within the law.

Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law
hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict
outcomes -- the problem is, the outcomes appear to be unfair.

>
> What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on your web
> site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. Here's a
> link to his, or her site." How is this harming the photographer? Yes, I
> know you should ask permission, but...

It's not a question of harm, but of rights. Copyright grants the copyright
owner exclusive control over the protected expression. It's no different
than saying, "how are you harmed if I sneak into your living room at night
and sack out on your couch?" Copyright is a property right like any other.

>
> You don't become an artist, writer or photographer to make a living suing
> other people.

No. You become an artist, writer or photographer to make a living selling
your original works of authorship, in which you are granted exclusive rights
pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the US constitution. Those exclusive
rights include the right so say, "no," to unauthorized copies, derivative
works and distribution.


>
> I've got articles all over the Net, and when the contract was signed
> Internet use was strictly prohibited. I'd be spending all my time in
> court instead of working if I pursued every one. And, I'd have to go to
> courts all over the country.

Yes, but I'm not sure of your point. One of the problems of the judicial
system is cost of access -- only the very poor (who receive subsidized legal
assistance) and well-heeled corporations (my clients) can afford to pursue
actions. However, this flaw in the system doesn't justify disregard for the
law, unless anarchy is something you find appealling.

>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:3hok72Fi6re0U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> news:65edndMvfuHGjyrfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> <storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
>>> news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> >I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
>>> > interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
>>> > these photos are by amatures.
>>> >
>>> > As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
>>> > feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
>>> > explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
>>> > plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where
>>> > the
>>> > photo was found.
>>> >
>>> > This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
>>> > accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>>> >
>>> > QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>>> >
>>> > Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>>> >
>>> > TIA
>>>
>>> You MIGHT be okay if you include all the info as to where you got it,
>>> AND
>>> include the link to the original site.
>>
>> Absolutely not. Attribution is not a defense to infringement, at least
>> in
>> the U.S.
>>
>>> If your site carries any advertising
>>> or is for profit you should definitely get permission. I'm not a
>> copyright
>>> attorney, so I'm guessing here, but I would think the owner of the photo
>>> would have a lot of trouble collecting any money if you are not making
>>> any
>>> money off the photo, and you've given the public a link to original
>>> photo.
>>
>> Wrong again. Statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as high
>> as
>> $150,000 per infringement, no proof of actual damages needed.
>>
>>>
>>> In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you
>> are
>>> not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit
>>> and
>> a
>>> link back to the original.
>>
>> And, again, completely wrong, at least under U.S. law. Copyright is an
>> exclusive right, meaning that a copyright owner has the absolute right
>> (subj
>> ect to fair use doctrine and other statutory exceptions) to exclude
>> anyone
>> from copying, distributing, or preparing derivative works.
>>
>>>
>>> Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth
>> exactly
>>> what you are paying for it.
>>
>> Then why are you giving advice? Copyright law, at least in the U.S., can
>> be
>> quite arcane.
>>
>>> Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
>>> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give
>>> me
>>> the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.
>>
>> At least not that you know of.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 8:57:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org writes:

> I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.

As other as responded: No, the default rule is that you need
permission from the author/copyright owner.

However, some authors grant permission up front.
If you look at the following photo:
http://flickr.com/photos/gisleh/20326739/
(which is one of mine), you'll notice that it has the "Creative
Commons" (cc) symbol under "Additional information". If you
click that, you'll find a license which in this case tells you
I, as copyright holder, grants you the right to copy the work
to your website - as long as you attribute the work to me.

There is even a search engine that you can search the web for
works (including photographs) available under a Creative Commons
license:
http://commoncontent.org/

As long as you restrict your site to works made thusly available
by their authors, you should be alright.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:05:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org writes:

> I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?

As other have responded: The default rule is that you need permission
from the author/copyright owner.

However, some authors grant this permission up front.

If you look at the following photo:
http://flickr.com/photos/gisleh/20326739/
(which is one of mine), you'll notice that it has the "Creative
Commons" (cc) symbol under "Additional information". If you
click that, you'll find a license which in this case tells you
that I, as copyright holder, grants you the right to copy the work to
your website - as long as you attribute the work to me.

There is even a search engine that you can search the web for
works (including photographs) available under a Creative Commons
license:
http://commoncontent.org/

As long as you restrict your site to works made thusly available
by their authors, you should be alright.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then it's cut
and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. If it is just
posted out there without any claim of rights or ownership, then it is public
domain. But in our wonderfully screwed up litigious society, any idiot can
sue for anything, so govern your decisions accordingly. Kind of like a
birth mother suing to get her baby back from adoptive parents. Even though
the contract was legal and enforced, the idiot can sue to void it. The
right thing would be to email the photographer if possible and give the
courtesy of asking permission to use a link to their photo.


<storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:57:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org wrote:
> I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
> these photos are by amatures.
>
> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
> photo was found.
>
> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>
> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
Can you just put in a LINK to the photo? That would eliminate the
copyright question, which I believe indeed says you need permission to
actually put the photo on your site.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:59:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law
> hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict
> outcomes -- the problem is, the outcomes appear to be unfair.

If you can easily predict the outcome of a section 107 fair use case,
you're a better person than I. Care to make your guess on the Grokster
case?

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:3hqh8rFhe87gU1@individual.net...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, not really. Part of the problem is that intellectual property law
> > hasn't caught up with technology, so it's usually fairly easy to predict
> > outcomes -- the problem is, the outcomes appear to be unfair.
>
> If you can easily predict the outcome of a section 107 fair use case,
> you're a better person than I. Care to make your guess on the Grokster
> case?

Note use of the word "usually."


>
> --
> Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
> Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
> address only to submit mail for evaluation.
>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 5:27:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Couldn't be more wrong!

--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


> On 6/21/05 8:25 AM, in article zCTte.112481$8S5.77892@bignews3.bellsouth.net
> "Steve Larson" <r@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then it's cut
> and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. If it is just
> posted out there without any claim of rights or ownership, then it is public
> domain.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:52:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Larson" <r@NOSPAM.com> writes:
> If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then
> it's cut and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you.
> If it is just posted out there without any claim of rights or
> ownership, then it is public domain.

No, it is not. It used to be the case in the USA until 1980ies.

After the USA signed the Berne Convention, and implemented it as
statutory law through the Berne Implementation Act of 1988, works of
art automatically gets copyright protection has soon as they are
created - no copyright mark or claims of ownership is necessary to
assert copyright.

In Europe, things has been like that since 1886.

It may still be helpful to put a copyright notice on your photograph,
to remind the public that it is a copyrighted work, but legally, there
is no requirement to use a copyright notice to avoid placing your
work in the public domain.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PTravel wrote:
>
> Lawyers cannot give legal advice to non-clients. Doing so risks
> significant malpractice liability. Moreover, I've yet to see a post
> to a newsgroup that comes remotely close to providing enough
> information to enable providing an opinion, even if I was inclined to
> risk the liability and provide one.

I'm not sure what country you're from but in Canada they can.

> What pro bono activities do you do as part of your profession?
None
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:43:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gaderian" <nospam@anisp.com> wrote in message
news:T3_te.35022$Kk4.510512@news20.bellglobal.com...
> PTravel wrote:
> >
> > Lawyers cannot give legal advice to non-clients. Doing so risks
> > significant malpractice liability. Moreover, I've yet to see a post
> > to a newsgroup that comes remotely close to providing enough
> > information to enable providing an opinion, even if I was inclined to
> > risk the liability and provide one.
>
> I'm not sure what country you're from but in Canada they can.

I'm in the United States.

>
> > What pro bono activities do you do as part of your profession?
> None

Which makes your gratuitous slam against attorneys (and me) not only
inaccurate, but hypocritical.

>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 8:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:t1Vte.333$Hb6.671@news.uswest.net...
SNIP
> Can you just put in a LINK to the photo?

Although better, it may still not be enough. But there are still a lot
of "it depends" involved (do a search for "Deep linking").

In general the answer is no, although a link to a home page with some
guidance how to reach the picture may be allowable, if adequate credit
is given.

What one does with such a web image is another topic yet.

Bart
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 12:56:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:52:19 -0400, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

><storm@liquidsky.org> wrote in message
>news:1119287621.363488.247680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>I do a lot of research on the web, during which I find the occassional
>> interesting photo which I would like to bring attention to. Usually,
>> these photos are by amatures.
>>
>> As a result I wanted to create a "photo of the day" web site where I
>> feature one of these great images per day. Perhaps add some commentary
>> explaining why I think the photo is good (I am a hobby photographer)
>> plus specify who the photographer is (if known) and a link to where the
>> photo was found.
>>
>> This involves coping the photo to my web site, plus an archive would
>> accumulate (1 per day) and visitors could browse these too.
>>
>> QUESTION: can I do this? Is this legal?
>>
>> Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>
>
>Besides the possible legal issues here, to me this is a common since issue.
>Ask yourself if you'd want someone using your pictures on their website with
>out you knowledge or permission. You may have innocent intents, but other
>don't. In general, I'd assume that the answer from the photog would be "no"
>and NOT link or copy the image on my site.

If you don't want it linked to, you have wo choices -- don;t
publish it or have your server check the Referer: field in the HTTP
request information and refuse to serve the image if it's not from one
of your pages. If your standards were to be applied, publishers will
be able to prevent people from saying things like, "A good explanation
of ISO can be found on page 423 of Diddly About Phoography by John
Smith".

> If you really want to use the
>image contact the photog and get their permission first. It's the right
>thing to do regardless of the law.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 4:35:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:27:04 GMT, PWW <pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com>
wrote:

>Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
>
>Couldn't be more wrong!

Wow -- potent refutation there.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 5:48:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

storm@liquidsky.org wrote:
> Thank You! to everyone that responded, you have helped me make a
> decision. I will abandon my idea - sadly, since I thought it would help
> promote talent. I have to wonder about sites like google that use
> EVERYONES photos without permission -- seems like there are two sets of
> rules, one for the big guys and another for us little folk.

Why not just ask permission?

A quick email - "I really like your photo, I'd like to link to it from my
site at www.foo.com" - get permission from the owner - Done.

If I was an amateur photographer (er.. well, I am!) and posted my photos
online, I'd be pleased to have someone highlight my pictures from a site
like that.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:00:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

However, the copyright owner might not want his work associated with
whatever else you have on your web page, or your domain name, or you
in particular for that matter. He may not consider your unauthorized
use of his work to be a benefit.

Sheldon wrote:

> In your case it seems to me you are helping this person, as long as you are
> not using the photo for your own gain and give this person full credit and a
> link back to the original.
>
> Again, however, I'm not a copyright attorney, so my advice is worth exactly
> what you are paying for it. Look at it this way -- If I search for an image
> on Google, Google shows me the image with a link. They just don't give me
> the link. I don't think Google has ever been sued for this.
>
>
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:03:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Suppose another picture on the web page is a tasteless nude, or has
religious overtones, or depicts a racial group in an unflattering
way. Do you think that every photographer would be anxious to
have his work displayed with those, even if the web page claims
he's the bestest photographer ever?

Sheldon wrote:

> What I don't understand is what if you put a copy of a photo on your web
> site and stated, "This is the best photographer I've ever seen. Here's a
> link to his, or her site." How is this harming the photographer? Yes, I
> know you should ask permission, but...
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:06:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That's a very bad assumption. People frequently post copyrighted
pictures without attribute or permission. That doesn't automatically
put it in the public domain.

Steve Larson wrote:
> If the originating website claims any copyright to the photo, then it's cut
> and dry and you need the owner to license its use to you. If it is just
> posted out there without any claim of rights or ownership, then it is public
> domain.
!