copyright?

[jon12345]

How do you know if a picture is copyrighted?  I have a CD full of pictures from a workshop thing I helped with, northeastern logger came to the college when I went there and had a bunch of us do a practice run I guess you could call it of one of their workshops, and I recieved a copy of some pictures taken during it.  I think they are from another student that was helping with it, and she gave them to the woman who was helping coordinate the actual workshop.  Who owns the pictures, the one who took them, or the one who gave us the plans to make what we were building?  Should I just stay away from it ???  Or get in touch with the people from NELA that were there?

I'd love to share some of the pictures of what we were doing, if I can't find a way to share here publicly, maybe I could share them with individual members?

[Jeff]

If they were not photos taken by you, and since you have enough concern to ask, then I would think you should really get permission from the source of the photos before posting them.

[isawlogs]

  This might be a dumb question ... but seeing as copywrights came up .. What I got a real cute Christmas card and wanted to share it  letsay on the net .. would I be in trouble of some kind .  ???

[Jeff]

You certainly could be if the wrong (or right in thier view) people saw it.

[isawlogs]

  Short of getting there permision .. is there a way to go about it .. like mentioning the sourse .. Maybe I,ll just leave it up on the wall and take a pic of the wall .  ;D

[Jeff]

It's a published work because its in a card. Any intentional showing of it has the potential to open you up to an infringment.

[Kirk_Allen]

If the person has the intent to enforce copyrights the photo should have "copyright" on them with the year, however not having that statement doesnt mean they have abanden their copyrights.  

Legally the owner of the photos is the person who took them.  A person does not give up copyrights because they share them in any venue.  

[isawlogs]

 Thanks , I really dont need to show it that much .. But it is good to know what can and cannot be posted .
 I guess you wont see my polar bear resting on its back with its head up against an ice pack  ;D ;D

[Jeff]

That depends on the circumstances of the sharing. In some cases they extend the copyright as when posted here, but thats not the question.  If the owner was to for example post the photos here, then the Forestry Forum has the right to use them. We have that outlined for all to see on our Forestry Forum Rules and Disclaimer page, which there is a link to from every page on the forestry forum.

As for me, its my responsibility to the best of my ability to make sure that copyright images are not used here. If it turns out that I am contacted by someone that says their images are being used without permission, it is also my responsibility to remove them if I believe the request has any validity.


The same goes for copying any content and posting it here from other websites outside of thier usage policies.

[Kirk_Allen]

Acutally it becomes a non exclusive right to use the material they share.  Now if they have entered into an exclusive licensing arrangement with an entity then only that entity may use the material. 

Copyright is a designation given to the OWNER of the material.  How or where it is duplicated becomes another issue. 

Patents for example:  Some folks think if you have a patent then no one can make what you have legally.  WRONG.  Any patent can be duplicated for personal use format and you cant do a thing about it.  Its when a person tries to sell what they copied that makes it illegal.  Copyrights have very similar legal loopholes. 

[jon12345]

Thanks for the info Jeff, I'll save you some trouble and abstain from posting the pictures.


Maybe I'll share what the pictures were about in another episode  ??? :D

[Kirk_Allen]

In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a "copy" of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the "work" – is distinct from the "work" itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the "work" is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer's will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

[Kirk_Allen]

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I would have to say a lot falls into fair use for this site as it is the most educational format on the internet!  Just my two cents................that aint enough to hire a lawyer!   ;D

[Bill]

I hate to muddy the waters but I was under the impression that the subject of the picture(s) also had rights.

For example

If you take a picture of a model ( or friend or ... ) and they are in the privacy of their own house ( whatever ) then you need their permission to display/exploit it
However
If the model is on a public beach then they ( who by chosing their line of work have assumed public scrutiny )  have willingly conceded to public viewing and their picture may be used ( is this how some of the cheap tabloids get their pics ? ) .

Seemed that alot also depended on whether the subject was identifiable - such as if I take your picture from a mile away - with my camera you'd be just a blur and so not identifiable. I think I could be in trouble if you're not a public personality and you could be identified. Then maybe I've invaded your privacy if I publish those pictures.

I think I remember this all from the rules to a photography contest I once entered which is admittedly not a good source and my memory has a way of playing tricks on me so don't rely on this for legal advice !

[Brian_Bailey]

Here's a link to all ya need to know about US copyright law and etc. and etc.

http://www.copyright.gov/