photography.com stock photos without permission

Andy

photocat wrote:

So my private galleries can not be seen?

you don't have to rely on the word of others... simply get a 2nd browser, we LOVE Firefox... it's free from www.mozilla.com

Don't login on your 2nd browser - then you'll see just how a visitor sees.

photocat

Andy wrote:

you don't have to rely on the word of others... simply get a 2nd browser, we LOVE Firefox... it's free from www.mozilla.com

Don't login on your 2nd browser - then you'll see just how a visitor sees.

I love Firefox too, I use both, safari and firefox. I checked and yes, it just takes you to the password page...
Thanks Andy and Saurora!
I feel a lot better now.

Happy Christmas all

Angelo

photocat wrote:

I love Firefox too, I use both, safari and firefox. I checked and yes, it just takes you to the password page...
Thanks Andy and Saurora!
I feel a lot better now.

Happy Christmas all

what am I cottage cheese?

harruummpphh!!! :cry






.

photocat

Angelo wrote:

what am I cottage cheese?

harruummpphh!!! :cry

grin, nope... You are far more then cottage cheese. I appologize. I did not go back to the previous page...
Thanks also to Angelo, not a cottage cheese guy at all!

Moogle Pepper

I found my photos there too...

And my last name isn't part of my tags...

well as long as it links to my smugmug site..

Angelo

photocat wrote:

Angelo wrote:

what am I cottage cheese?

harruummpphh!!! :cry

grin, nope... You are far more then cottage cheese. I appologize. I did not go back to the previous page...
Thanks also to Angelo, not a cottage cheese guy at all!

Merry Christmas


.

Sam

Very interesting......................................<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I find this subject, and the various positions taken to be very interesting.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Without taking any position, I would like to know on what legal principle, (law, precedence etc.), does Photography.com, (as an example), claim to have any right to display copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
If they can display copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, why can’t I do the same?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I have always liked some of Andy’s, (i'm using Andy only as an example), photos. Can I display one of these on my wall without his permission? I will of course, like Photography.com, provide information with regard to Andy, the copyright holder, and explain how they to can display his work without his permission.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Sam<o:p></o:p>

Andy

Sam, it's really hard to read your posts since you make the text white

I'd not care, if you put a thumbnail of my photo, on your wall, if you gave me a link back from your living room wall to my website

This is no different than google indexing my site I have given permission, because I allow the search engines to crawl my site (the galleries I want them to, that is... I have some galleries that I don't allow crawling and indexing).





For those that don't want to be found by Search Engines, SmugIslands to the rescue

Sam

Andy,

I'm not sure what happened with regard to the white? text? It looks fine on my screen??

I used you as an example because you approve and like the idea of others displaying your image. Which is fine, your right, and understandable.

I believe I understand the right to list say MoonRiver Photography, but I am not clear on anyone's right to use a copyrighed image without permission. Just because someone dosn't complain does not equate permisson being granted.

Photography.com is a for profit organization. So in effect they are making money from displaying the images of others. This is not ABC / NBC news organization.

Try displaying a small thumbnail of Mickey Mouse, and link back to Disney. You would be in court, and loose. Since the copyright issues are the same, besides a billion or so dollars, what is the difference here?

Again I would be interested in the "LEGAL" principle that would allow this.

Sam

gus

Sam wrote:

Andy,

I'm not sure what happened with regard to the white? text? It looks fine on my screen??

I used you as an example because you approve and like the idea of others displaying your image. Which is fine, your right, and understandable.

I believe I understand the right to list say MoonRiver Photography, but I am not clear on anyone's right to use a copyrighed image without permission. Just because someone dosn't complain does not equate permisson being granted.

Photography.com is a for profit organization. So in effect they are making money from displaying the images of others. This is not ABC / NBC news organization.

Try displaying a small thumbnail of Mickey Mouse, and link back to Disney. You would be in court, and loose. Since the copyright issues are the same, besides a billion or so dollars, what is the difference here?

Again I would be interested in the "LEGAL" principle that would allow this.

Sam

What sam said

They are not displaying the photos for charity.

ivar

(Not to anyone specific, but:) If you allow the SmugMug search engine and Google Images to find your images, why not other search engines?

gus

ivar wrote:

allow

Ta-darrrr

Andy

gus wrote:

What sam said

They are not displaying the photos for charity.

If you don't want them listed in a search engine, you have options

I never said they weren't in business. They sell ads, it looks like. And who knows what else. But my thumbnail is there, in search engine. The result, goes back to my site?

I fail to see the problem here, since I want to be found.

If you don't want to be found, set your galleries to private, set your SmugIslands settings to "no" and set external links to be off - end of issue, they won't have your Thumbnails there.

Andy

gus wrote:

Ta-darrrr

Ta-darr!!!!!!!!

http://www.smugmug.com/help/private-search-island

YOU decide

Andy

Sam wrote:

I used you as an example because you approve and like the idea of others displaying your image. Which is fine, your right, and understandable.

Ahh but they are not simply displaying it. They're bringing visitors and traffic, providing searchability, and then linking back to my site. Totally different, Sam, than if they just put up my work on their website, and said, come buy our lemons, we have the best lemons in town! That'd be different, since I'm getting no value from the image (Thumbnail!) of mine being used on their site

I believe I understand the right to list say MoonRiver Photography, but I am not clear on anyone's right to use a copyrighed image without permission. Just because someone dosn't complain does not equate permisson being granted.

Photography.com is a for profit organization. So in effect they are making money from displaying the images of others. This is not ABC / NBC news organization.

Try displaying a small thumbnail of Mickey Mouse, and link back to Disney. You would be in court, and loose. Since the copyright issues are the same, besides a billion or so dollars, what is the difference here?

Again I would be interested in the "LEGAL" principle that would allow this.

Sam

I like it, since it can drive traffic to pros and those that want to be found. No different than Google (are they for profit? Sure they are )

If you don't want to be found, you have options.
http://www.smugmug.com/help/private-search-island

Andy

Sam wrote:

Andy,

I'm not sure what happened with regard to the white? text? It looks fine on my screen??

This is how most of your posts come out on Dgrin:

gus

Andy wrote:

Ta-darr!!!!!!!!

http://www.smugmug.com/help/private-search-island

YOU decide

I didnt know that existed...i will check it out.

I wonder if photography.com has the nads to do it to getty images or someone with the $ & nads to thump them fast & hard ?

Mike Lane

Sam wrote:

Very interesting......................................<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I find this subject, and the various positions taken to be very interesting.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Without taking any position, I would like to know on what legal principle, (law, precedence etc.), does Photography.com, (as an example), claim to have any right to display copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
If they can display copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, why can’t I do the same?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I have always liked some of Andy’s, (i'm using Andy only as an example), photos. Can I display one of these on my wall without his permission? I will of course, like Photography.com, provide information with regard to Andy, the copyright holder, and explain how they to can display his work without his permission.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Sam<o:p></o:p>

<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

I guess I don't see the problem. Yes, you could maybe go all legal eagle on them and probably make it so they removed any and all reference to your photos and your thumbnails from their site (I'm no lawyer, don't take that as gospel). But why? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > I mean really, how much does it hurt to have a few of your thumbs up in places on the web with links straight back to that image on your SmugMug site?

Okay, if you're a parent trying to protect their child from prying eyes, I can see the point. But if you're a pro or an amateur trying to make a buck or two from your pics, what's wrong with a little exposure?

In the case of your analogy, it would be like you having a postage stamp-sized print of Andy's with a big old sign with his website address right next to it on your wall. You know, I'm pretty sure you can actually have this right now. Just go to Andy's site (or my site if you'd like), nab a pic you like (I even have the easy share button for your convenience) and print it out as big as you think looks good and put a nice huge sign with Andy's or my internet address (http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/) next to it.

I guess what I'm saying is 1) you CAN already follow through with your analogy, and 2) exposure costs and the price you're paying here is miniscule.

Of course, if you want to sue, that's your business. Though, I'll be a little ticked off since my photos will be affected too if you win.

Sam

Andy wrote:

This is how most of your posts come out on Dgrin:

Not sure what is going on here. I don't see this on my screen. Please let me know if you see it again.

Thanks,

Sam

OffTopic

Sam wrote:

Not sure what is going on here. I don't see this on my screen. Please let me know if you see it again.

Thanks,

Sam

Your text looks fine to me Sam, and just like everyone else's - white text on a dark background. Maybe Andy has a different background color?

Sam

Andy,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
First, I understand you like this, and are receiving a benefit. I have no issue with this. It's your prerogative.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
First I don't want just anyone to come into my house, sit down uninvited, and read my photo books. Just because I left the front door open is not an invitation.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Since I seem to be having problems with understanding what I am writing I will type slowly, and try a different approach. Let me know if I understand this yet.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You pretend you are photography.com, and I will pretend I am Gus, (except I won't cuss or hurt you). <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1&quot;></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 11.4pt; HEIGHT: 11.4pt" alt="0" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/icon10.gif&quot; src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/SAMLIN~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
We are in a court of law: "Your Honor, photography.com has, and is using my copyrighted image without my permission, and refuses to cease this activity. I am seeking a cease, and desist order as well as actual and punitive damages."<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Ok, now it's your turn. You can begin with "Your Honor" (insert your LEGAL reasoning here)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Sam<o:p></o:p>

Andy

OffTopic wrote:

Your text looks fine to me Sam, and just like everyone else's - white text on a dark background. Maybe Andy has a different background color?

There are several skins to use, and if you change the color of your text with font commands, then they become hard to read. If you just type, and don't change the colors, they are easy to read always

Andy

Sam wrote:

sam's stuff

Sam, I removed your quote becuase there's lots of garbage codes inserted, dunno why


Who said they'd refuse to cease using anyone's images if they complained? Has this happened? If so, I'd call 'em on it and say they weren't being legit & ethical.

They're a search engine, not unlike Google. You have options, be searched and found, or not. It's up to you

ivar

Sam, are you typing some of your posts elsewhere and then copying it to a post here? There is some weird code in it that is not supposed to be there:



It shouldn't show that. Example of one of my posts:

gus

OffTopic wrote:

Your text looks fine to me Sam, and just like everyone else's - white text on a dark background. Maybe Andy has a different background color?

Same with me...sams posts look just like the rest of us

gus

Sam wrote:

and I will pretend I am Gus, (except I won't cuss or hurt you). <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1&quot;></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"></v:path><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 11.4pt; HEIGHT: 11.4pt" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="0"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/SAMLIN~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif" o:href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/icon10.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p&gt;
<o:p></o:p>

I can say without fear of contraception...that i only cuss & hurt bad people.



*edit...actually when i go into edit my post that has a quote from Sam in it ...i get some massive hyragliphics in his quote (sp?)

ivar

gus wrote:

Same with me...sams posts look just like the rest of us

Try the grey matter skin

Angelo

the better analogy here would be telephone numbers.

if you have a published number than any one of several 411 services can access that number for someone inquiring. you can't sue one publisher and not another because your telephone number is available in their white or yellow page book (where they make money selling ads!!!)


or you could choose to have your telephone number unpublished and than nobody could get it by calling 411

same story here. having an online presence opens you up to the world. if you don't want to be found turn off your links etal as Andy detailed.

Andy

Angelo wrote:

the better analogy here would be telephone numbers.

Dang you're smart.

gus

ivar wrote:

Try the grey matter skin

You want all of us to change to your skin choice then ? So its you thats wrong then