Photo Posting Clarification Needed

[Green_Elite_Cab]

Yeah, this is the internet, Unless you specifically guard your photos, its implied that it is out there for use. The laws are lax on the internet because you can't really control the internet. People more in tune with the internet call it "anonymous", the overall collective personality of the internet. (When you hear the news call "anonymous" a hacker group, they are actually missing the point).

The majority of the internet doesn't care about image tags, and only because this forum is full of the more polite and respectful variety of internet types is this even a question. Not saying things are right or wrong, but to many people post things all over the place using image tags, and there is no way to truly enforce it legitimately, and if anyone tried they'd be wasting their time.

As long as you say where you found the image (for example, i found such and such on the Conrail cyclopedia, or RRpicturearchives), you should be just fine. As nice as permission is, once its on the internet, its out there.

Imagaine i'm trying to ask permission from the person who didn't originally take the photo. they say sure, but it wasn't there photo, but i don't know that. this isn't even counting that it can possibly be more than an inconvenience to find the "real" owner of a photo.


Bottom line, use photo places like FlickR or something to keep you pictures owned by you. you can't easily save photos from sites like that, since they way it posts prevents most ways of saving or sharing the photo.

[faraway]

If we follow the intention of the fair use clause there should be no problem at all. What puzzles me is the distinction of the outer and inner link/framing. This document http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31423.pdf makes some interesting comments about that technical fact (page 8ff). It is not a good match of our situation but the existence of that difference rings my alarm bell.

We should also understand that the "fair use" clause is strictly limited to UK/US law. Such kind of general disclaimer needs the fundamentals of the British law system and can not be applied under other law systems (mostly derived from the French "Code Napoleon"). It does therefor not protect most of the international users of the forum if the owner of the rights elects not to sue the forum owner but the poster.

I suggest the forum owner should seek for professional legal advise.

[tomustang]

Still though, a lawyer would say it's point and shoot for everything and would advise not to. But then again so Is marriage because there could be a chance your wife might divorce you and take everything

[Charlie B]

People are stealing songs off the Internet...Just because they can do it doesn't make it right. Just because you can use someones photo legally without permission does not make it right. I know folks that have some great pictures that will never be seen because they will not post them anywhere.

Also, to make something clear. If you can see something on private property you can photograph it without permission (with a very few exceptions) as long as you are not trespassing. This is from a lawyer and he wants it distributed so once again:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm</a><!-- m -->
Charlie

[Gary S]

Charlie, your opinion is important, but I'm not sure where you stand on the original situation. In another thread, we were discussing a Soo Line boxcar which I had photographed in Houston. Then we started discussing modeling the boxcar, and we got around to seeing if there were any appropriate models on the market to match the prototype. I looked on the web and found a website which had a similar car, not an exact match. I posted an [img] link of the boxcar to show what was available and so we could discuss the mods needed to get a closer match. I also gave credit for the photo to the website. Do you consider that as stealing?

What about saving a photo from the net on your computer for future reference?

[tomustang]

Regardless if it's stealing or not, computers cache the photo you view anyway

[scubadude]

In my opinion, if you put anything on the internet, you are indirectly giving permission for anyone else to click "Save Picture As" and use it however they want. This internet beast is out of control and is impossible to police. If you want control of your material, keep it off the net....Now if you use the picture for profit, ie it ends up in a published book or something like that, then the lawyers can probably get involved....
I've been tellin' people from day one when I got my first grasp of what the internet is all about....the web will eventually be the downfall of civilization!!! People have too much access to too much information about too many people, places and things.

[ezdays]

This may not be the answer anyone is looking for, but this subject has been debated over and over here and on other forums. The real point of copyright protection is to keep someone from making a profit from your efforts without compensation or permission, or at the least, using you material without due credit or recognition. This is not an official or legal interpretation, just mine. Stealing something is basically claiming something is yours when it is not. If it's for sale and you take it without paying for it such as a song, then that's stealing and it's wrong. If you listen to that same song on the radio, or on someone else's player, that's not stealing. The basic idea here is that anyone posting photos should either own them or have permission to use them. If not, and there are no obvious restrictions for their use, then they need to either link to those pictures or give credit to those that originated them. Even then, the line is blurry and what you can use without permission. How many people make a copy of a recipe or an article they find in a magazine? Should they get permission first? Probably not even though it is copyrighted property, but if they make 1000 copies and then sell them, or use the recipe in their own cookbook that is for sale, then that's not right.

If we feel something isn't correct, we'll tell you and ask you to delete it, or we'll do it for you. If someone comes to us and tells us that there is one of their pictures here that shouldn't be, we will take it off immediately. Recording companies and movie studios have deep pockets and they are constantly getting violated, and so they go after people with vigor. Suing is their first option. Photographers, casual or professional aren't as well equipped, and to sue would be their last option, but their work still deserves protection. We have occasionally deleted pictures for this reason, but that rarely occurs. One thing that we don't like to see, is in answer to the original question, we don't want to have someone post a picture here and then use the "image" tag to have it show up in a thread on another forum. They don't like that either since it just takes up unneeded bandwidth.

If there are any doubts, just ask us or check the source of the photo, but so far, everyone here has been doing a great job in this respect so I see no need for concern.

[Charlie B]

Charlie, your opinion is important, but I'm not sure where you stand on the original situation. In another thread, we were discussing a Soo Line boxcar which I had photographed in Houston. Then we started discussing modeling the boxcar, and we got around to seeing if there were any appropriate models on the market to match the prototype. I looked on the web and found a website which had a similar car, not an exact match. I posted an [img] link of the boxcar to show what was available and so we could discuss the mods needed to get a closer match. I also gave credit for the photo to the website. Do you consider that as stealing?

What about saving a photo from the net on your computer for future reference?

I have no problems saving photos for personal use, as I stated, but I think it is just common courtesy to ask for permission to post elsewhere. I think there is entirely too many people that just assume they can do anything they want, and legally maybe they can, but that doesn't make it right.
Posting a link to a site is just an advertisement for that site, so no harm is done in my opinion, and most sites are allowed way more bandwidth then they ever use.
Most commercial companies would be flattered that you wanted to use their model.
Remember how modelers got up in arms over the CSX UP licencing for their use on models. It was done because some junk was being produced with their logos/paint schemes and they were the ones getting the bad rap. They have every right to require a licence.

[tomustang]

With all respect charle, it's not right to photograph people working on private property or photographing trademark logos

It's also not right that photographers think they can do whatever they what with the photo since they took it but it's not true

[Gary S]

Thanks for the reply, Charlie.

It is a difficult and multi-faceted question for sure, with many different opinions and many different "what if" scenarios that could be pondered. At this time, I personally see nothing wrong with image linking the boxcar photo of the model and giving credit for it, making it obvious that the photo is not mine, and I received no monetary gain, and I don't think the photo hurt the historical society in any way. I don't see a moral difference between linking to the photo and image linking to the photo. Of course, it could be considered unethical even to post the link at all?

Of course my opinions are subject to change as more evidence comes in, which is why I started this thread in the first place. I try to base my opinions on logic and reason, and the thoughts of the good folks here certainly help to hone my thinking process.

The laws are necessarily vague. Believe it or not, the lawmakers do take into consideration the ethics, morals, fair play, and reason in the situation. And since they included the "fair use" exclusions, they do believe that some use of other's material, on ethical and moral grounds, is okay.

Thanks to everyone who gave their thoughts!

[Gary S]

With all respect charle, it's not right to photograph people working on private property or photographing trademark logos

Lots of moral and legal issues for sure!

When I took photos of the switching moves at the potato factory and started the thread here, I certainly didn't think I did anything unethical or immoral when I took photos of the workers making the moves.

[railohio]

Posting a photo to the Internet does not put it in the realm of "fair use" or "public domain." Yes, it's harder to enforce copyright laws in the digital era, but the spirit of the law remains the same.

Re-posting an image to a forum with the [img] tag is a bad idea for a number of reasons. It sucks up the owner's Internet bandwidth and it negates the photographer's rights to display and distribute an image as he or she sees fit (and, as I said above, simply posting the image online is not a waiver of those rights). It's always best to post the works of others' with the [url] tag.

Copyright law does not simply exist to protect the photographer from theft and resale. Unauthorized free distribution hurts a photo's commercial viability as much as resale by another party. If an image exists somewhere for free already a publisher or stock agency will be much less likely to purchase that photo and that hurts a photographer.

Fair use really boils down to the original intent of the photograph. While Atlas technically holds the copyright to photos of its models that it commissioned they would be very unlikely to go after someone for posting a photo of their latest model on the forum. That's free advertising after all, and their main business is not photography so the redistribution of the photo would not hurt their bottom line. On the other hand, someone who sells photographs or publications would be upset with the free redistribution of his or her work as that would erode sales.

Photography of other people in a public place is legally protected in America. When you leave your home and go into the public you waive your right to privacy. A release is only required for the commercial use of another person's image. Editorial and personal use do not require it.

Remember, just because you are willing to distribute your photos for free does not mean others should not have the right to make a living doing the same thing. Content costs real money to produce and photographers' have a right to request compensation and protect their rights if necessary.

[Gary S]

Posting a photo to the Internet does not put it in the realm of "fair use" or "public domain."

I agree. Although some of the posts in this thread may have implied that, I never made that claim. The way the photo is used is what determines whether it was fair use or not.

Re-posting an image to a forum with the [img] tag is a bad idea for a number of reasons. It sucks up the owner's Internet bandwidth and it negates the photographer's rights to display and distribute an image as he or she sees fit (and, as I said above, simply posting the image online is not a waiver of those rights). It's always best to post the works of others' with the [url] tag.

Both the url link and the img link equally negate the photographer's right to display the photo as he sees fit. Example:

(note: both of the following are from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sooline.org/models/index.html">http://www.sooline.org/models/index.html</a><!-- m --> - the Soo Line Historical and Technical Society webpage)

http://www.sooline.org/models/2010_7Post...0small.jpg

Clicking the link above shows only the photo, exactly as it is shown below. It does not show the photographer's entire website, which was how the display was intended.

Edit: I broke this link so the SLH&TS wouldn't eat the bandwidth...



The only difference is that the img link uses some bandwidth everytime anyone opens page 2 of this topic. The url link uses bandwidth only when a user clicks the link. I understand that some see a difference in the two links above. I just don't see any moral or ethical difference - especially when due credit is given and there is no attempt to make financial gain from someone else's work.

If the image link is wrong, then so is the url link.

[railohio]

If the image link is wrong, then so is the url link.

Not if you link to the page that the photo is found on.