SmugMug Copyright Policy

Alexander

Hi,

I have trouble finding information on how SmugMug deals with Copyright violations. As in, a user posts a pic which is not his or he is not allowed to publish.

Could you, please, point me to where I can read about that?

Do you guys have a legal obligation to delete such pictures?



Thanks
Alexander

stuartb

I suspect that Smugmug are not empowered to arbitrate in what is essentially a civil dispute. If a reasonable objection is made to them I guess they would request the image to be taken down until the matter is resolved. Just guessing.

Alexander

I'm just interested, because I found some material which might cause trouble for the person who posted it.

(No, I won't link to it, I don't want to cause harm, just discuss...)

ivar

Any copyright and related questions/issues should be directed at our Support Heroes at the SmugMug helpdesk

stuartb

On a slightly different tack . . you certainly have to wonder if images posted in 'public' galleries forfeit their copyright by virtue of the fact that they are been offered up for viewing without condition. Its a bit like Elton John singing in a public street . .anyone can record it .. but in a concert situation you have bought a ticket and entered into a 'contract' with terms and conditions. I think any art displayed in 'public' cannot be protected where personal use is concerned. However if you were to reproduce images from a 'public' smugmug gallery for your own commercial gain then that might be a different matter but personal prints for your wall cannot be prevented.

Alexander

Recording Elton John in a public concert would not allow you to publish that recording. Me publishing a picture of mine online does not allow anybody to re-publish it anywhere else.

But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about posting material for which the poster does not have the publishing rights.

stuartb

If you took a photo of him in the street you could publish that could you not?
If you took a copy of someone elses photo of him in the street (out of a book for example) then copyright rules exist and you couldnt publish it.
I am wondering if there is a difference if you re-produce images which you dont know are copyright protected as opposed to knowing you are stealing them. Are ALL images on Smugmug copyright protected I wonder? Or just certain ones?

Is there a difference between printing someone else's images out and hanging them on the wall of your home as opposed to trying to re-sell them commercially? Is it ok to copy someone elses images as long as you credit them?
Is it up to the owner of the images to ensure their IPTC copyright tags are present and correct? Can this be 'locked' to avoid being tampered with?

ivar

stuartb wrote:

If you took a photo of him in the street you could publish that could you not?
If you took a copy of someone elses photo of him in the street (out of a book for example) then copyright rules exist and you couldnt publish it.
I am wondering if there is a difference if you re-produce images which you dont know are copyright protected as opposed to knowing you are stealing them. Are ALL images on Smugmug copyright protected I wonder? Or just certain ones?

Is there a difference between printing someone else's images out and hanging them on the wall of your home as opposed to trying to re-sell them commercially? Is it ok to copy someone elses images as long as you credit them?
Is it up to the owner of the images to ensure their IPTC copyright tags are present and correct? Can this be 'locked' to avoid being tampered with?

You can not use someone else's photo in any way; with or without credit, it doesn't matter. They are copyrighted from the moment they exist, contrary to popular believe.

Please see the 'Mind Your Own Business' forum for a bunch of other threads on this if you want to know more about it.

claudermilk

stuartb wrote:

On a slightly different tack . . you certainly have to wonder if images posted in 'public' galleries forfeit their copyright by virtue of the fact that they are been offered up for viewing without condition. Its a bit like Elton John singing in a public street . .anyone can record it .. but in a concert situation you have bought a ticket and entered into a 'contract' with terms and conditions. I think any art displayed in 'public' cannot be protected where personal use is concerned. However if you were to reproduce images from a 'public' smugmug gallery for your own commercial gain then that might be a different matter but personal prints for your wall cannot be prevented.

Absolutely not! I'll leave it at that befor I get wound up & type something nasty & out-of-character.

On the question of taking someon's photo in public. Sure you can publish it--under specific limitations. It's not a free-for-all. Like Ivar said, check MYOB for many discussions.

Gregg Hall

ivar wrote:

You can not use someone else's photo in any way; with or without credit, it doesn't matter.

that is not entirely true, there are fair use laws that cover what you can and can not do without someones permision.

Andy

Alexander wrote:

Hi,

I have trouble finding information on how SmugMug deals with Copyright violations. As in, a user posts a pic which is not his or he is not allowed to publish.

Could you, please, point me to where I can read about that?

Do you guys have a legal obligation to delete such pictures?



Thanks
Alexander

Our terms:
http://www.smugmug.com/aboutus/terms.mg
(bottom of every SmugMug public page)

stuartb

Andy wrote:

Our terms:
http://www.smugmug.com/aboutus/terms.mg
(bottom of every SmugMug public page)

Would I be right in thinking that these are just the contract 'terms' for Smugmug customers? Casual internet browsers looking at 'public' smugmug galleries (and saving images they like the look of) are not obliged by thes contract terms. There is no log-in required for public access.

denisegoldberg

stuartb wrote:

Would I be right in thinking that these are just the contract 'terms' for Smugmug customers? Casual internet browsers looking at 'public' smugmug galleries (and saving images they like the look of) are not obliged by thes contract terms. There is no log-in required for public access. Its public domain.

Public galleries contain photos that are the property of the photographer, and the photos in the galleries are copyright by the photographers. Some of us have placed copyright watermarks on the photos. Many of us have copyright statements on every page of our galleries.

Casual internet browsers do not have the right to download images unless the image owner has explicitly allowed "save original". And right click saves or screen captures? They are a fact of life in the internet world - but that does not mean that it's ok to copy and save images. I would consider that to be theft.

--- Denise

stuartb

Denise, I was specifically referring to the fact that the 'terms' are applicable to Smugmug Account holders and not the general public who are just browsing.
You dont actually need to put a 'reminder' copyright mark or statement on your gallery, your copyright is assumed and you are automatically protected under law. Putting such marks might actually be counter-productive as people may then (wrongly) assume that galleries 'without' the copyright notice are copyright free . . which would of course be wrong.

Its ironic that people cannot download and print out images from smugmug but they can freely display all 200 million 'public' images on Smugmug via wi-fi on an LCD picture-frame hanging on their wall at home . . . or their iphone . . . without it being 'theft'.

Its also true that almost every school child in the world uses the internet for research and downloads and prints out images and other content to create their projects. Its ironic in many ways that the internet (including sites like Smugmug) is contributing to the old copyright laws becoming pretty much unenforceable and culturally insignificant.

As an Architect . . . . can I object to a photographer selling images of my building?

claudermilk

It is a tough situation. We shouldn't have to put those reminders up, but even if the protection is automatice, it certainly helps to nudge people & remind them that the images are indeed protected & not free. All we photographers can do is try and educate the masses who have now decided everything on the net is a free-for-all.

As an architect, sure you can object. However in most cases my understanding is that's about as far as you'll go. With some highly recognizable buildings there are protections. Check with a real lawyer on that one as my undersanding is pretty fuzzy.

stuartb

claudermilk wrote:

With some highly recognizable buildings there are protections . . . .

I dont think so . . all buildings visible from public streets are treated the same. Its when you go inside that things change . . My point was that an Architect owns copyright on the building design yet photographers think nothing of taking pictures and then claiming copyright on 'their' pictures of my building.
Its certainly not something I feel strongly enough about to be paying a lawyer for! Its just an interesting point (to me at least).

claudermilk wrote:

All we photographers can do is try and educate the masses who have now decided everything on the net is a free-for-all.

Good luck with that!

Gregg Hall

stuartb wrote:

Denise, I was specifically referring to the fact that the 'terms' are applicable to Smugmug Account holders and not the general public who are just browsing.
You dont actually need to put a 'reminder' copyright mark or statement on your gallery, your copyright is assumed and you are automatically protected under law. Putting such marks might actually be counter-productive as people may then (wrongly) assume that galleries 'without' the copyright notice are copyright free . . which would of course be wrong.

Its ironic that people cannot download and print out images from smugmug but they can freely display all 200 million 'public' images on Smugmug via wi-fi on an LCD picture-frame hanging on their wall at home . . . or their iphone . . . without it being 'theft'.

Its also true that almost every school child in the world uses the internet for research and downloads and prints out images and other content to create their projects. Its ironic in many ways that the internet (including sites like Smugmug) is contributing to the old copyright laws becoming pretty much unenforceable and culturally insignificant.

As an Architect . . . . can I object to a photographer selling images of my building?

Sorry, but fair use laws have been around a long time before the internet. And schools are one of the big places that fair use laws come into play.

And to answer your last question, if the building can be seen from free public access the answer is no. If you have to go onto private property, either by being invited, or buy buying entrance, then the answer is yes.

stuartb

Gregg Hall wrote:

. . if the building can be seen from free public access the answer is no.

I am not seeing a difference between an Architect's creative work sitting in full public view and a photographer's creative work sitting in full public view.

Gregg Hall

stuartb wrote:

I am not seeing a difference between an Architect's creative work sitting in full public view and a photographer's creative work sitting in full public view.

In the case of the photographer, the creative work is the photograph itself. In the case of a building the creative work is the building, not the photograph of it. Much the same as a statue or something in a public park. For example, I can take a picture of the empire state building from the street and sell said picture, however, I can't take a picture of Cinderella's Castle at WDW and sell it because the only way Cinderella's castle can be seen is from private property.

And really this has already been decided by the courts, so there isn't much reason to argue about it.

stuartb

I suspect you are quite right . . legally. But morally, I still feel its a bit of liberty to take a photograph of an Architect's beautiful copyrighted building and then go on to claim that image as your own. No building . . . . no photograph.

The stunning views that photographers find in cities arent just 'there' . . they are visualised, designed and created by Architects and urban designers, and the stunning visions contained in the photographs you see of mountains, rivers, fields and cute little kittens were created and 'copyrighted' by someone nearly as important!

A photograph is an image of something that has already been 'created' by others.

claudermilk

And there is the distinction: the IMAGE is the photographer's. No photographer, no image. I think I'm detecting an agenda here for some reason. Anyway, to really get the true answers to these questions, an IP lawyer is really the right person to ask--otherwise you're just getting opinions of random people who don't really know (myself included).

stuartb

You are quite right Claudermilk . . . we have probably gone as far as we can with this. I do find other people's points of view to be educational though . . especially so when a fresh way of looking at things is being presented, and the evolution and challenges of the internet certainly puts many of the 'old' way of looking at things into a brave new light. Your own galleries are fantastic by the way!

Gregg Hall

stuartb wrote:

I suspect you are quite right . . legally. But morally, I still feel its a bit of liberty to take a photograph of an Architect's beautiful copyrighted building and then go on to claim that image as your own. No building . . . . no photograph.

The stunning views that photographers find in cities arent just 'there' . . they are visualised, designed and created by Architects and urban designers, and the stunning visions contained in the photographs you see of mountains, rivers, fields and cute little kittens were created and 'copyrighted' by someone nearly as important!

A photograph is an image of something that has already been 'created' by others.

Well in thats how you feel, then perhaps you should toss your camera??

stuartb

Gregg Hall wrote:

Well in thats how you feel, then perhaps you should toss your camera??

I rarely use a camera . . . . . my images are created digitally.

Gregg Hall

stuartb wrote:

I rarely use a camera . . . . . my images are created digitally.

Very cool, if you would post your site, I would love to take a look. I take pictures, partly because it is the only artistic outlet I have that I can actually do decently.

Art Scott

stuartb wrote:

1--I suspect you are quite right . . legally. But morally, I still feel its a bit of liberty to take a photograph of an Architect's beautiful copyrighted building and then go on to claim that image as your own. No building . . . . no photograph.

2a--The stunning views that photographers find in cities arent just 'there' . . they are visualised, designed and created by Architects and urban designers, {2b}and the stunning visions contained in the photographs you see of mountains, rivers, fields and cute little kittens were created and 'copyrighted' by someone nearly as important!

3--A photograph is an image of something that has already been 'created' by others.

1- it is my understanding that Architects are HIRED to produce for a client...therefore in most cases the copyright is held by the client or the builder of the work of architectual art.....this was coming from a conversation with one of FLWright's proteges many years ago in an art Course that he was teaching nd he saw me photographing one of his houses...I actualy was photo'ing a young lady combing her hair in what she thoiught was a mirror that was actually the glass wall of the house....gold mirror on her side and clear glass on mine......
The discussion poped up in class the next day from the Prof, he never mentioned my name to not embarrass me and also he told me privately that since he not only designed the house but also was the builder of note with everyting done by subs that he did actually hold total copyright, but that was not the norm in the real world...now this could have changed in 30 yrs....he was the type to make sure of his info and had letters from a couple of lawyers and judges in the area to go from before class the next day.....he decided to intoduce me to his house guest and asked me to show the prints from my endeavors ..... She bought the prints and negs (as she was nude combing her hair and had no ill feelings with my work or me and we talked on serveral occaisions before she left to back to Germany).....
If he spots anyone photo'ing one of his houses he just asks that the photos be destroyed so he doesn;t have to go the legal route...but again if you ask permission he was the kind to say yes if for personal use but no publishing with his lawyers consent also..........



2a- Pretty much the same as 1 from what I was taught from the FLWright Protege Prof I had in college......

2b-- I do believe that if THAT copyright holder had a problem with US photogs photo'ing HER creations...she would have taken steps for us to never do it again without HER EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT....

3-- NOT ALWAYS.....a great many photogs being the artists they are take a photo and then manipulate the hell out of it....and then VIOLA!! a totally new original work of different art.........

stuartb

Art Scott wrote:

1- it is my understanding that Architects are HIRED to produce for a client...therefore in most cases the copyright is held by the client or the builder of the work of architectual art . .

This is incorrect. The copright of the original design always remains with the creator. This prevents a 'client' building more copies of your design. FLW Foundation will retain copyright for sure . .regardless of who currently owns the buildings.
Are photographers not HIRED to roduce for a Client?

My original point was to question whether if you display your images in 'public' galleries on Smugmug . . you are effectively leaving them 'out on the street' . . and therefore people are free to use the 'print' button in Firefox or IE.
99% of websites display images of some sort. All these images are 'copyright'. To argue that you cannot print web pages is to say that the print button in your browser performs an illegal function. Someone should mention this to Bill or Steve.

danbrew

stuartb wrote:

This is incorrect. The copright of the original design always remains with the creator. This prevents a 'client' building more copies of your design. FLW Foundation will retain copyright for sure . .regardless of who currently owns the buildings.
Are photographers not HIRED to roduce for a Client?

My original point was to question whether if you display your images in 'public' galleries on Smugmug . . you are effectively leaving them 'out on the street' . . and therefore people are free to use the 'print' button in Firefox or IE.
99% of websites display images of some sort. All these images are 'copyright'. To argue that you cannot print web pages is to say that the print button in your browser performs an illegal function. Someone should mention this to Bill or Steve.

This thread is why there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money doing copyright work.

People can certainly "print" anything they like on the internet. It's just when they try to republish/sell/consolidate that work of art into something they call their own is when they run into problems. Suppose you printed every single photo of the day off of a site like Advrider.com and made a book that you wanted to sell online. You certainly would be violating the copyright of all of the individual photographers and you might be violating the copyright of Advrider for their "photo of the day" theme.

Crafting a public gallery (so it makes it easier for folks to snag your images) is really no different than a publisher creating a beautiful table top book that was printed on high quality paper and facilitates great scans. In both cases the author (or publisher) of the work has presented their work to the viewing public. They should have (and do have legal protection) the right to assume people aren't going to steal their work.

I generally ignore 99.9984% of the stuff I see on the internet - especially when someone says "I believe..." or "It's my understanding..." - all codes words for "I really don't know what the hell the real answer is, but I thought I'd just add something to the thread."

Fair use is also widely misunderstood.

But, hey, this is the internet. Take my $0.01 for what you paid for it.

stuartb

danbrew wrote:

People can certainly "print" anything they like on the internet.

Thats what I think too. It has been suggested however that to do so is 'theft'. It would be good to hear the official line from an official Smugmug person as to whether internet users may print Smugmug public gallery pages for personal use and not for reproduction or commercial gain. The issue is certainly not clear.