On the other hand, I would think that if a photographer explicitly forbade it, the courteous thing to do is to abide by his wishes, regardless of whether you think copyright is bogus or not.

Could I ask if you approve of people viewing any images you post on the internet within the web browser? Assuming you approve of this, would you let someone set up a computer in their home specifically for showing one of your images? Day in, day out, all that computer does is have a browser window showing one of your images. Would this be acceptable?

How is letting someone view one of your images on their web browser ANY different to them printing it out and sticking it on their wall? That you’ve made your images available online for viewing means you are offering up your photographs to the world to see.

Incidentally, you do realise that the instant someone views one of your images online, they have immediately made a copy of that image on their computer, don’t you? Is that breaking copyright rules? Copyright is no longer as clear cut as it used to be and simply if you do not want people making illegal copies of your images, for personal or otherwise reasons, do not put them online.

You’ve even put it into perspective when I think about my own work. I do feel for those who want to make their main income from their photography. But Ralph doesn’t do himself any favours by suggesting that copyright isn’t like copyright -photos or music it’s still a very similar situation.

BWT thanks for the print

Scott, according to you and the law. I feel differently, as do obviously millions of Americans who illegally download music and photos on a daily basis.

While I agree that photographers truly interested in discouraging improper use of their works should be taking measures, such as watermarking and posting only low-res photos, that doesn’t change the fact that people should exercise the personal responsibility of adhering to the intentions of the property owner.

The NYT blogger (why on earth do professional newspapers have blogs?) crossed a line when she advocated ignoring copyright restrictions simply because it suited her. A vast majority of the uproar would have been avoided if she had practiced some journalistic prowess by cautioning people to pay attention to the licensing issues surrounding photos posted on Flickr. It could have been a teachable moment instead of just thumbing her nose at responsibility.

It doesn’t matter if “everyone’s doing it” or that it may be impractical for anyone to prosecute an individual for such an infraction. It’s still wrong to ignore a copyright placed on a creative work.

Of course, all of this could be rendered moot if Flickr were to just make it easy for Flickr visitors to pay Flickr photographers a reasonable price for prints. I’ll bet many photographers would love to earn a few bucks from the casual purchasers out there. Wasn’t Zoommr (sp) supposed to enable that capability on its site? Whatever happened to that?

Perhaps the copyright and ownership and licensing issues aren’t so easy to overcome after all.

It’s against the law to download music illegally and yet millions of Americans have. In fact I suspect more have than haven’t.

I understand that it is in fact technically and actually against the law to download a photo from the internet.

You and others keep talking about suing and lawsuits and verifiable commercial use of photos like your example with NBC etc. These are very different things and far easier to take action on than someone printing a photo for personal use. Let me ask you this Ralph. Have you ever sued someone for printing out a photo and hanging it in their home? Can you site a single case ever where someone was sued for that?

Your code says it’s wrong to print out photos for personal use, in part because of the illegality of it. Mine says it’s ok. The law alone isn’t going to get me to a moral position that it’s wrong and I’ll continue advocating that people live by their own code regardless of what any law says.

A copyright is collection of 5 exclusive rights. These are:
(1) the right to reproduce the work
(2) The right to prepare derivative works
(3) the right distribution
(4) The right to preform the work
(5) The right to display the work

These are some of the things that can be copyrighted
• literary works
* Musical works including any accompanying words
• dramatic works, including any accompanying music
• Pictorial, graphic & sculptural works
• Motion Picture and other audiovisual works
• Sound recordings
• architectural works.

It is funny Disney was mentioned because they lost a copyright case because of the fair use portion of the copyright law. In this case parody Walt Disney v. Air Pirates which a publication of two Magazines called “Air Pirates Funnies”, in which characters resembling Mickey, Minnie and Donald were depicted as active members of the drug ingesting counter culture. Courts upheld that it was a parody and also protected by the First Amendment.

From personal experience I went head to head with NBC because they violated an agreement on how an image that I had shot. It was a portrait of a national college athlete that had died of a heart issue. Because I held the copyright we came to a settlement in my favor.

In 1991 ASMP filed a brief in which courts up held the copyright of individual independent contractors was protected against publishing houses.

Here is the basic problem. Most people do not know copyright laws and what they don’t know they fear. Most people do not know the case law or history of the court cases so they make assumptions. Or they only hear sound bites from the Record company cases or napster and again make assumptions.

Historically copyright has protected individuals from the corporations. Why do you think so many corporations wanted the Orphan act. If copyright was more like the patient laws then the corporations would have the control you fear. History and the case laws do not support your position here.

A great example of not understanding copyright is Andrew’s and Thomas’s statements. These broad statements that just do not match the facts.

One the big issues did you knowingly violate copyright, did you receive revenues. These are written into the copyright laws. I know most people will want to bring the huge fines because of the record companies, but that was not just an issue of owning illegal music but knowing distributing it.

One my favorite books that I picked up when I went through a semester of media law (required course when I majored in photojournalism) is “The Law (In Plain English) for Photographers” by Leonard D. Duboff

This book give the best explanation I have seen for copyright and other legal issues for photographers.