Images

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Dr. Shades/Mods,

This is what you do when you post an image:

image hosted on flickr

See? That's all anyone has to do.

Here's another example:

credit Mike Stobe/Getty Images

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Joseph]

If you post with a credit line it means nothing if you do not have permission of the legal copyright owner or their assignee.

If you link to the page so the viewer can go and see it at its original viewing page that is just fine.

Get permission to use copyrighted images just for posting.

"Fair Use" is narrowly defined and as such should be easy to figure out for the purposes of these forums.
**************************************

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html
"A certificate of registration (or a rejection of an application for copyright) is a prerequisite for U.S. authors seeking to initiate a suit for copyright infringement in federal district court."

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#410
...no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made...

********************************

What Is Infringement?
Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights. Section 106 of the copyright law provides the owner of copyright in a work the exclusive right:

To reproduce the work in copies;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly;
To display the copyrighted work publicly
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Section 501 of the copyright law states that “anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ...is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author.”

Generally, under the law, one who engages in any of these activities without obtaining the copyright owner's permission may be liable for infringement. Nevertheless, there are several limitations of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. The copyright law provides exemptions from infringement liability by authorizing certain uses under particularized circumstances. These exemptions are enumerated generally in sections 107-122 of the copyright law.
**********************************

Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
*******************************

Two main FBI divisions investigate intellectual property crimes:

Cyber Division
-investigates intellectual property crimes involving all digital and electronic works (including Internet, CDs, DVDs, etc) http://www.fbi.gov/ipr
Financial Institution Fraud Unit
-all other intellectual property crimes
There are three ways a complaint made be filed:

Complainants may contact their local FBI field office, and the complaint will be properly referred.
A complaint may be filed online at the Internet Crime Complaint Center http://www.ic3.gov and, again, it will be properly routed.
Suspected criminal activity of any nature may be reported online at https://tips.fbi.gov and will be routed accordingly.
The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice is the federal entity that prosecutes intellectual property crimes. Parts III and VI of the Department of Justice primer provide further information on the prima facie elements of criminal copyright violations, both misdemeanor and felony, and the factors considered in determining when to charge. However, all criminal complaints should be directed only to the FBI
******************************************

Timely registration according to statutes is
1) within 90 days of pulishing "or"
2) Before a copyright infringement occurs

If you have not done timely registration relative to a copyright infringement, you are limited to your actual losses and any profits of the infringer due to the copyright infringement. This can be an issue because proving their profits can be difficult and you have to also show your actual losses. Considering attorneys can be easily in the $200 a hour range to go after the infringer, having this come out as a positive dollar proposition is problematic.

If you have done timely registration, there are major benefits in persuing a copyright infringement.
a) you can recover attorney fees
b) you can recover court costs
c) and most importantly, you can be awarded what is called statutory damages instead of actual damages. Statutory damages can go up to the $150,000 range as determined by the judge based on how deliberate/harmful/egregious the copyright violation i.e sock it to them

Timely registration has real benefits and much better protection and provides the ability to go after someone effectively.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Joseph,

Then how does a site like this stay in business?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthrea ... &page=1143

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I'm thinking Mr. Joseph is an agent saboteur.

Dr. Shades, I wouldn't believe a thing this cat is saying since there's about a billion sites out there that aren't shut down IAW Mr. Joseph's odd notions of fair use.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Bond James Bond]

I want a return of images, smilies, and the introduction of flash.

[_Joseph]

Dr. Cam, not everyone worries about theft of their images. Most photos are mediocre at best if they even rise to that level. Same with most paintings, drawings, sculpture and attempts at 'art'.

Many folks post images and don't mind if you post or use them.

Those who do mind and take the time and expense to register copyright so they can enforce their rights have some enforcement methods thanks to copyright laws. They are able to protect their intellectual property.

Only fools post on some of the free sites which may have conditions granting them all rights to everything and anything posted, for any reason and in perpetuity. A case in point is the shuttle launch photo from an amateur photographer: http://tinyurl.com/42h8fcs

Read what happens when a fool puts their work out for anyone to steal.

She lost more than $50,000 in licensing rights to this image by putting it on a site like that.

Many, probably most would never file suit or a DMCA takedown notice. But, steal the work of the wrong person and you find out how serious the consequences may be.

Is it really that difficult to ask to use an image?

[_Dr. Shades]

This is what you do when you post an image:

image hosted on flickr

See? That's all anyone has to do.

Here's another example:

credit Mike Stobe/Getty Images

Right, but I know human nature well enough to realize that nobody will actually do it.

[_asbestosman]

and the introduction of flash.

Flash is evil. It's one of the biggest vectors of viruses nowadays--mostly because it is powerful and ubiquitous. If we allow flash, why not allow embedding javascript too? It's another great vector for viruses and besides it can do much of what flash can when paired with html 5.

[Guest]

Hello Dr. Shades,

Here's why websites like this one and about a billion others aren't getting their asses handed to unlike Mr. Copyright/Agent Saboteur wants you to believe:

1) If the material is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection.

2) The producer of said material can ideally sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and maybe court costs.

3) Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. If the material has no commercial value, such as some idiot's picture of a cow in a field, the actual damages will be zero.

4) Only the most insane asshole would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on insane assholes who sue for idiotic reasons.

In other words, the author of Stupid Cow in a Field would have to see/be notified that his or her picture has been linked on this website. Then the auther would have to go through the bother of suing this site/server/whatever for actual damages. Then the author would lose in court.

For all practical purposes this just isn't going to happen, and even if it did it's such a pain in the ass for the author to pay for an inevitable decision against him or her that he or she ain't gonna do it.

V/R
Dr. Cameron "Links to cows for contextual commentary on threads" NC for Me

[_Ceeboo]

I want a return of images, smilies, and the introduction of flash.

I want smilies too!

Also, I think Shades should consider a "smack a poster in the left earlobe" feature/button. (I would burn that one out)


Peace,
Ceeboo