Copyright Enforcement

[Leif Skoogfors-2]

newuncleme wrote:
(snip)
Post low-rez, watermark, stamp © (c)
symbol and statement, submit your work for copyright protection, etc.
Seriously, the old argument stands that if you leave the key in the
door, it's
hard to have any credibility whining about people entering ....

While I can see newuncle's point, it is not one I can agree with.
Watermarks, © notices, and evenlow rez images are stolen with
impunity. 98% of images on the Internet are used without a
license.Photographers who make NO effort to even issue a DMCA notice,
which you can send to a ISPat no cost, followed by an invoice perpetuate
the problem.
Stealing images is like speeding. Everyone does it. But, when that one
State Trooper clocks you,the cost is high. A few sppeding tickets and
your license gets suspended. France just passed a  lawthat a three
strikes and you are out law is a good thing. Your Internet service is
cut off.
We need education for the public, a united community to push for easier
enforcement of ourcopyrights, and most of all, photographers to get
angry.
Leif Skoogfors


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "willjan3" <foto_@...> wrote:

>
> newuncleme wrote:
> (snip)
> Post low-rez, watermark, stamp © (c)
> symbol and statement, submit your work for copyright protection, etc.
> Seriously, the old argument stands that if you leave the key in the
> door, it's
> hard to have any credibility whining about people entering ....
>
> While I can see newuncle's point, it is not one I can agree with.
> Watermarks, © notices, and evenlow rez images are stolen with
> impunity. 98% of images on the Internet are used without a
> license.Photographers who make NO effort to even issue a DMCA notice,
> which you can send to a ISPat no cost, followed by an invoice perpetuate
> the problem.
> Stealing images is like speeding. Everyone does it. But, when that one
> State Trooper clocks you,the cost is high. A few sppeding tickets and
> your license gets suspended. France just passed a  lawthat a three
> strikes and you are out law is a good thing. Your Internet service is
> cut off.
> We need education for the public, a united community to push for easier
> enforcement of ourcopyrights, and most of all, photographers to get
> angry.
> Leif Skoogfors
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Time are different now and the public, as much as we would like to educate them on piracy, doesn't really care.The best defense to protect you photos is still a watermark and disable right click on web sites. Print services in any store should requirer a release to print from media devises. Although everybody knows someone with a good printer.

France has a good idea with the three strick and pull your connection but you have to catch them first. A good example is downloaded music. How that goes is the same with photos. We have to pass the cost of theft on to the public.

j.r. berlyak

[Bob Croxford]

On 26 Sep 2009, at 20:53, willjan3 wrote:

> While I can see newuncle's point, it is not one I can agree with.
> Watermarks, © notices, and evenlow rez images are stolen with
> impunity. 98% of images on the Internet are used without a
> license.Photographers who make NO effort to even issue a DMCA notice,
> which you can send to a ISPat no cost, followed by an invoice  
> perpetuate
> the problem.

Dear Leif

I hope you are well.

Even when images are not on the web copyright infringements occur. I  
have one image which appears on Bing.com images about 20 times. It  
has never been put on the web but has been scanned from books and  
post cards. One English professor in Japan even gave permission to  
another site to use it. They credited him and not me?

If you really want to see what businesses think about copyright  
infringement you should visit the 140 plus pages of a forum about the  
Getty Corbis letters.

http://www.fsb.org.uk/discuss/forum_posts.asp?TID=194

That is the UK Federation of Small Businesses.

Its an open forum so I suggest that all photographers who value  
copyright to join in and tell the 'small businessmen' of Britain what  
you think of copyright theft.



Bob Croxford

www.atmosphere.co.uk

[Ryan McGinnis-2]

While I agree with you that a watermark is effective (both in that some in
the public seem to have the impression that a photo is free for taking so
long as there is no copyright notice, and in that removing a watermark is
apparently a DMCA violation), I don't see what the point of rightclick
disable is.

Candidly, I feel the best defense against copyright infringement is to hold
infringers to account, whether it be by issuing takedown notices or, in some
cases, seeking remuneration.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:23 AM, jberlyak@... <
jberlyak@...> wrote:

> --- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "willjan3" <foto_@...> wrote:
> >
> > newuncleme wrote:
> > (snip)
> > Post low-rez, watermark, stamp © (c)
> > symbol and statement, submit your work for copyright protection, etc.
> > Seriously, the old argument stands that if you leave the key in the
> > door, it's
> > hard to have any credibility whining about people entering ....
> >
> > While I can see newuncle's point, it is not one I can agree with.
> > Watermarks, © notices, and evenlow rez images are stolen with
> > impunity. 98% of images on the Internet are used without a
> > license.Photographers who make NO effort to even issue a DMCA notice,
> > which you can send to a ISPat no cost, followed by an invoice perpetuate
> > the problem.
> > Stealing images is like speeding. Everyone does it. But, when that one
> > State Trooper clocks you,the cost is high. A few sppeding tickets and
> > your license gets suspended. France just passed a  lawthat a three
> > strikes and you are out law is a good thing. Your Internet service is
> > cut off.
> > We need education for the public, a united community to push for easier
> > enforcement of ourcopyrights, and most of all, photographers to get
> > angry.
> > Leif Skoogfors
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
> Time are different now and the public, as much as we would like to educate
> them on piracy, doesn't really care.The best defense to protect you photos
> is still a watermark and disable right click on web sites. Print services in
> any store should requirer a release to print from media devises. Although
> everybody knows someone with a good printer.
>
> France has a good idea with the three strick and pull your connection but
> you have to catch them first. A good example is downloaded music. How that
> goes is the same with photos. We have to pass the cost of theft on to the
> public.
>
> j.r. berlyak
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
>    Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
>  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
>    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
>     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[jean-pierre lescourret]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "jberlyak@..." <jberlyak@...> wrote:

> France has a good idea with the three strick and pull your connection but you have to catch them first. A good example is downloaded music. How that goes is the same with photos. We have to pass the cost of theft on to the public.
>
> j.r. berlyak

This HADOPI law ( HADOPI is the name of the organization in charge of enforcing this new
law protecting the works on the internet) is  quite controversial in France but at least it has two merits :
first it reminds to everybody what a copyright is, two it shows the way to act to the victims of infringement . The future will tell us if this law is efficient .

jp lescourret

[Iris Richardson]

Leif is right we as the creator need to enforce the infringement. If we don't other will and the money they collect will end up in a fund which are than redirected to pro organizations etc. the creator in the end does not see a penny. Indeed we are hurting the industry and ourself financially. I know several photographers who collect more money from infringement than they would licensing their work. Protecting creative work has to become second nature to all artist who make a living creating intellectual property. Times might have changed but theft still remains theft.

Iris Richardson

[David Sanger-3]

Iris what are you referring to? There is no such program or actual proposals
for one.
david
-----
david sanger photography llc
travel ::  stock :: photography :: technology
updates at www.davidsanger.com
t   510-526-0800
m 510-526-2800


On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 AM, IrisR <iris@...> wrote:

>
>
> If we don't other will and the money they collect will end up in a fund
> which are than redirected to pro organizations etc. the creator in the end
> does not see a penny. I
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]