Looked up the link above. No mention of punitive damages. What's your point?
-M-
True. There wouldn't be any mention of punitive damages in the code. I highlighted that passage to illustrate the change in the code that removes the requirement to register works with the copyright office as a means of protecting the work.
Punitive damages, if awardable, would stem from the malice demonstated by their initial response to the inquiry about infringement. It is my assumption, based on what we've been told here, it can be fairly easily proven the producers of the show knew they should be concerned about copyright and taken appropriate steps to identify the holder of copyright.
Here is a pointer to an overview of the Berne Convention agreements. This
agreement covers the protection of literary and artistic work. The United
States is a party to it. Cornell document.
And you might want to look at the World Intellectual Property Organization, www.wipo.int, as well.
If you feel you have a claim, you should seek legal advice from an attorney
who specializes in this field. But I'm guessing the use would be considered
fair use and that the most you will get is a courtesy run after the fact.
Like I said, it's a guess.
Best of luck to you.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I just discovered that the person corresponding with me is the producer of the newscast. This person has won awards for their excellence in journalism.
I'm really thinking there has been a misinterpretation of copyright laws but then, I tend to think really nice things about most people. But you would think a senior producer working in media would know all about copyright... wouldn't you?
I just discovered that the person corresponding with me is the producer of the newscast. This person has won awards for their excellence in journalism.
I'm really thinking there has been a misinterpretation of copyright laws but then, I tend to think really nice things about most people. But you would think a senoir producer working in media would know all about copyright... wouldn't you?
Maybe he wouldn't know, but his (program's) legal team should have!
Is anyone else having issues with portrait clients "screen capturing" their images (even though they are watermarked), and having them printed via Groupons etc. for Shutterfly or similar? I'm finding that many high school seniors have photoshop skills, and are quite capable of cloning out watermarks with their "student copy" of Elements! I've actually gone to a client's home to pick up my daughter (3 months after their shoot)...to find several framed 16x20's on their living room wall! After a bit of private eye work, (high school kids talk:)...I learned that the KID actually saved the day, and some bucks for her mom! No idea how to avoid this trick, because right click protection and watermarking CLEARLY miss the "mark" here. Frustrated beyond belief.
Is anyone else having issues with portrait clients "screen capturing" their images (even though they are watermarked), and having them printed via Groupons etc. for Shutterfly or similar? I'm finding that many high school seniors have photoshop skills, and are quite capable of cloning out watermarks with their "student copy" of Elements! I've actually gone to a client's home to pick up my daughter (3 months after their shoot)...to find several framed 16x20's on their living room wall! After a bit of private eye work, (high school kids talk:)...I learned that the KID actually saved the day, and some bucks for her mom! No idea how to avoid this trick, because right click protection and watermarking CLEARLY miss the "mark" here. Frustrated beyond belief.
The way you avoid this trick is not have images online in the first place, or at least not until after a sale. Face to face proofing and order taking on your computer. It is more work, but it prevents the theft. And, its a much better way to get actual sales, face-to-face with the client.
I guess the answer lies in figuring out a better way to watermark in addition to posting only very low resolution images-with SmugMug, you can upload full resolution images but limit the displayed size. By limiting the size, you're making it more difficult to create larger prints.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Was this ever resolved? Now I wanna know what happened
It went away. I had a discussion over the phone with the producer and she apologized after I asked her how she would feel if someone took one of her segments and used it in a presentation without mentioning the source and to generate revenues. I don't have the legal team of Getty Images at my beck and call nor the $$$ resources to hire a legal team to pursue what at most would be a fee of a few hundred $$$ after several years of legalistic tit for tat in the slow moving Canadian legal system, so I opted to forget about it.
But I have since found that my image of a Columbian Ground Squirrel has been edited and seems to be somewhat popular. I had to laugh!
But I have since found that my image of a Columbian Ground Squirrel has been edited and seems to be somewhat popular. I had to laugh!
.
Freakin hilarious!
Although on a more serious note, I am sure you realize you have a copyright in the album description, but have the "original size" and image download enabled! You have a copyright AND a download button!
Comments
True. There wouldn't be any mention of punitive damages in the code. I highlighted that passage to illustrate the change in the code that removes the requirement to register works with the copyright office as a means of protecting the work.
Punitive damages, if awardable, would stem from the malice demonstated by their initial response to the inquiry about infringement. It is my assumption, based on what we've been told here, it can be fairly easily proven the producers of the show knew they should be concerned about copyright and taken appropriate steps to identify the holder of copyright.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
agreement covers the protection of literary and artistic work. The United
States is a party to it. Cornell document.
And you might want to look at the World Intellectual Property Organization,
www.wipo.int, as well.
If you feel you have a claim, you should seek legal advice from an attorney
who specializes in this field. But I'm guessing the use would be considered
fair use and that the most you will get is a courtesy run after the fact.
Like I said, it's a guess.
Best of luck to you.
I just discovered that the person corresponding with me is the producer of the newscast. This person has won awards for their excellence in journalism.
I'm really thinking there has been a misinterpretation of copyright laws but then, I tend to think really nice things about most people. But you would think a senior producer working in media would know all about copyright... wouldn't you?
.
Maybe he wouldn't know, but his (program's) legal team should have!
When I hear the earth will melt into the sun,
in two billion years,
all I can think is:
"Will that be on a Monday?"
==========================
http://www.streetsofboston.com
http://blog.antonspaans.com
Send them an invoice. Take it from there.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
The way you avoid this trick is not have images online in the first place, or at least not until after a sale. Face to face proofing and order taking on your computer. It is more work, but it prevents the theft. And, its a much better way to get actual sales, face-to-face with the client.
Sorry for the off-topic.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
After a 6 year bump, I don't think it's a problem....
It went away. I had a discussion over the phone with the producer and she apologized after I asked her how she would feel if someone took one of her segments and used it in a presentation without mentioning the source and to generate revenues. I don't have the legal team of Getty Images at my beck and call nor the $$$ resources to hire a legal team to pursue what at most would be a fee of a few hundred $$$ after several years of legalistic tit for tat in the slow moving Canadian legal system, so I opted to forget about it.
But I have since found that my image of a Columbian Ground Squirrel has been edited and seems to be somewhat popular. I had to laugh!
.
.
Freakin hilarious!
Although on a more serious note, I am sure you realize you have a copyright in the album description, but have the "original size" and image download enabled! You have a copyright AND a download button!