and then people wonder why we should not upload our good stuff to fliqr.you want fame? exposure ? thats what you get in the end.and these idiots sorry for the language but THEY ARE they didnt even give him a credit   

Quote from: shiyali on July 04, 2018, 00:56

The company . . . ."responded by immediately taking the photo down." Why did he still have to sue?

We as copyright holders shouldn't need to waste uncompensated time asking every infringer to stop infringing. I have found thousands of infringements of my work where these people should be paying for use. My single-use RM license ranges from $20 to $1,000. That's at minimum over $20,000 in ingringed revenue. Should I just ignore this? Should I spend waste months or years full time contacting all of them just requesting take-downs?

When a store finds someone has stolen from them is their response "good sir/madam, could I kindly ask you to please bring back the items you removed from our store?". No, there is usually a consequence that deters people from doing bad or illegal things. This ruling sets the tone that there is no legal consequence for infringing on our work and as a result effectively encourages infringement.  I hope this ruling causes a sh*tstorm otherwise this is just another nail in the coffin for a profession that is already on life support.

And we have whatever BS attorney decided to come up with this �fare youz� (misspelling intended) BS to thank, and every person who reads about it, then decides their use falls under it. Don�t hold your breath for a sh*tstorm...that should have happened when this BS first started. But I hope I am wrong because this is just stealing, pure and simple.

Quote from: shiyali on July 04, 2018, 00:56

The company . . . ."responded by immediately taking the photo down." Why did he still have to sue?

We as copyright holders shouldn't need to waste uncompensated time asking every infringer to stop infringing. I have found thousands of infringements of my work where these people should be paying for use. My single-use RM license ranges from $20 to $1,000. That's at minimum over $20,000 in ingringed revenue. Should I just ignore this? Should I spend waste months or years full time contacting all of them just requesting take-downs?

When a store finds someone has stolen from them is their response "good sir/madam, could I kindly ask you to please bring back the items you removed from our store?". No, there is usually a consequence that deters people from doing bad or illegal things. This ruling sets the tone that there is no legal consequence for infringing on our work and as a result effectively encourages infringement.  I hope this ruling causes a sh*tstorm otherwise this is just another nail in the coffin for a profession that is already on life support.

Thank you, as I am in complete agreement. DMCA is a toothless dog that doesn't even bark. Meaning, there's nothing to fear and to reason why crooks should worry if they are caught. It's ineffective and there's no fear of prosecution or consequences.

The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

As we all probably learned as children, "I didn't know that was illegal" is not a defense and ignorance is not a free pass to commit a crime and then say, OH I didn't know that was illegal. Sorry, but if someone claimed good faith and didn't know, that's weak and a fail.

I have a friend or two who believe, seriously, that anything on the web is free to copy. I tried to explain, but there we are. These are fairly intelligent (otherwise?) people.

Back to the other part about consequences. Someone gets caught shop lifting, they should use the same defense. "Oops, sorry you caught me, here's your goods back." And then they should be patted on the head, for returning the product and, sent away. Keys in the car, "OH I though someone left it as a gift..." 

There needs to be something, a fine, reasonable fine. When the record companies wanted to stop music piracy, there was an absurd $250,000 fine, against a kid in gradeschool, for sending files to his friends. Not a major distribution, just someone small that they could nuke and make the news. We can't even get a simple $50 fine, like a parking ticket, that's payable and enforceable? Because as soon as people started having to reach into their pockets and pay, the word about copyright would spread fast.

Yes I know, we can't get the US court to fine someone, possible anonymous, in Timbuktu Africa, or Shanghai, when China doesn't seem to care. There's no way, but if countries that care, at least there would be some possible repercussions.

What's the point if there are no laws to protect us or no legal means to at least try to stop these thieves? An accidental use, should be a lesson, but repeat offenders should get fines and that should be published so anyone who doesn't know or understand will see that they are breaking a law. Education will bring awareness of the truth.

If you find music on the radio or internet you automatically think "it's copyrighted".  Why would anyone think photos are any different.  The mind set needs to be everything is copyrighted by someone somewhere.  Even creative commons has a (foolish) copyright holder... who may demand attribute if nothing else.

The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

Watermarks aren't the answer. First, they can easily be removed. Second, once your image is legally licensed and put on the web without the watermark by your client, it is wide open to infringement. I have one image that was sold in microstock a couple dozen times but is used on hundreds of websites. Which ones are clients vs infringers? Thanks to RF, I have no idea.

And yes ignorance is no excuse. Imagine if ignorance applied to everything. "Oh well the keys were in the ignition so I figured I could take the car.". "The bike was on the sidewalk so I figured they didn't want it anymore". "The door on the house was unlocked so I figured I could take everything". Ohhhh, well in that case if you were ignorant then the court feels you were totally right in taking these things..

Santa 

Now that I read the quoted parts of the decision, I can see that one judge doesn't understand copyrights or photography and creative images. I can understand that the image was not displayed with any copyright notice on various sites over time. Still, and a great point...

Because Apple and other companies have implemented copy protection that prevents misuse. Plus high profile Napster and other situations made the general public aware that copying music is illegal. Getty tried doing this and they had infringers take to social media with widespread shaming campaigns about "Getty blackmail letters". Getty backed off when they should have stood their ground.

Even without the outrageous "blackmail" letters and the mistakes, like writing to the original authors in some cases, they could have kept up the program with a little less of a storm trooper attitude.

The DMCA was written by lobbyists for the big internet providers, with the intention of shielding them from responsibility and, naturally, liability for copyright infringement.  It works well.

Yes, correct, but does nothing for us. 

I used to put a � on photos, simple enough there's notice, but also as pointed out here, once used, purchased, anyone can right click and copy from a paid use and steal them. In fact if you can see an image in your browser, it's already in the cache on your computer, or a thief's computer. There's no protection except law. That works for music and other works, I don't know why drawings or photos aren't protected the same?

ps the judge also saw this as a non-commercial use.

Quote from: memakephoto on July 04, 2018, 10:14

The article claims it was used in "good faith" and that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. I can take a photo of my big toe and it's immediately copyrighted and a judge should know that copyright automatically applies to all photos. Just because it doesn't say in large letters "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" doesn't mean it isn't and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Google puts in small print under the images in an image search: Images may be subject to copyright, which should be enough but if even judges are going to overlook this little fact then I guess big ugly watermarks are the future of photos on the web.

Watermarks aren't the answer. First, they can easily be removed. Second, once your image is legally licensed and put on the web without the watermark by your client, it is wide open to infringement. I have one image that was sold in microstock a couple dozen times but is used on hundreds of websites. Which ones are clients vs infringers? Thanks to RF, I have no idea.

And yes ignorance is no excuse. Imagine if ignorance applied to everything. "Oh well the keys were in the ignition so I figured I could take the car.". "The bike was on the sidewalk so I figured they didn't want it anymore". "The door on the house was unlocked so I figured I could take everything". Ohhhh, well in that case if you were ignorant then the court feels you were totally right in taking these things..

Ignorance is no excuse, but in this case there's no ignorance whatsoever. Their ugly logos are trademarked. They have a copyright line at the bottom of their website. They knew what they were doing.

heres the truth 80% of all Images used are stolen....80%!... who do you guys think Makes a fortune? 90 Billion Just last year on Images,Movies and Music alone.......The Wireless carriers Thats who. theft on stock sites is small potatoes compared.

Huh? 
Wireless carriers are stealing your photos, now?
Wow! That's a new one for this forum, indeed!

Brush up on your reading skills. He didn�t say the wireless carriers were stealing photos, he said they are the ones making all the money.

Wow, so much hate. Or jealousy. Let it go dude. He shared his opinion, something everyone here has a right to do. Why you gotta call him out on every single thing he says? It is just a discussion. If you don�t understand what he means, or you just don�t like what he says, why don�t you put him on ignore. Geez.