Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Zombie said:


No, Wayne, the law is clear whether in case law (precedent) or code

But if you choose not to see it then that’s fine too

If it were clear, then there would be lawsuits and you could find examples. I cannot. I looked.

If the law allowed, I'd imagine there'd be at least one publicly known case of litigation out there of someone sharing a photo of a famous painting or sculpture on social media, or in a forum. Out of the billions (I may be off by an order of magnitude here) of instances of this happening, there's just nothing there. Nothing. If the law allowed it, someone in our litigious society would have sued.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Wayne Gray said:

If it were clear, then there would be lawsuits and you could find examples. I cannot. I looked.

If the law allowed, I'd imagine there'd be at least one publicly known case of litigation out there of someone sharing a photo of a famous painting or sculpture on social media, or in a forum. Out of the billions (I may be off by an order of magnitude here) of instances of this happening, there's just nothing there. Nothing. If the law allowed it, someone in our litigious society would have sued.


You use terms like “sharing a photo” but that’s not correct - this is about reposting. And that is publishing.

Which is precisely where this all kicked off in 1735

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Zombie said:


You use terms like “sharing a photo” but that’s not correct - this is about reposting. And that is publishing.

Which is precisely where this all kicked off in 1735

Like this?

https://wisetoast.com/35-most-famous-paintings-of-all-times/

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Wayne Gray said:

Wisetoast is not a gallery.

https://wisetoast.com/


I had already corrected that -_-

But it would make no difference if it was a knicker elastic website

 


 

 

Edited by Zombie

Share this post


Link to post

Since I am a photographer, I'll need a clarify a few things.  Taking someone's photos without proper permission is never right.  If people asked me permission to repost, I usually would accept for non-profit purposes under Creative Common, no derivative work and no commercial usage.  If I were notified that my photos are taken, and that reposter did not informed me first, I'd ask him/her to take it down from his/her website.  It's the disrespectful part that gets me.  But you'd also have to think about monetary loss issue.  If I sued this lady who used my photos without permission, how much I'd get.  Usually extremely little, but I'd be spending tons of money and time in court.  That's why services like Pixsy keeps contacting me to see if I want to get them to represent me to do all the taking down photos they found.  I usually just review them and it's not worthy of my money nor time to get off work to go to court to do it, as I am not famous enough to get tons of money for compensation if I sued all these people.  I'd just be creating more homeless problems.

Remember all that Napster things (or young people probably don't remember) about pirating music .mp3's.  That was a very bad precedent that opened up a huge can of worms.  Eventually rather than jail all these pirating platforms' founders, the music industry changed the way music is distributed.  No, you young folks aren't the pioneers for taking free stuff that's part of other people's intellectual properties.  Surprise, surprise.  But college students had been going to jails for pirating musics before.  It's now so rampant, if we incarcerated every kid who has stolen music/photos/stories, the jails will be full of people and we'd have not enough workforce and give these kids a lot of negative future.  We even legalized marijuana in this state when it used to be an offense that can put people to jail.

EDIT: And as for fake news.  I'd recommend a docu drama movie called Shattered Glass.  Yes, creating fake news can make you go to jail.

Edited by Ashi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I hadn't intended to begin an argument about legal matters between members. It did seem rather clear to me that the continuous use of someone else's work was wrong, likely illegal, even if there is nothing to be gained by the use. Apparently some of you think differently and call it fair use.

I'll bow out of this particular subject, now, with a link to Copyright.gov . The information provided on the full page is informative. But pay attention to the answer to this question, "Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?"

I'll leave it to everyone to make your own best judgement on what is and is not fair use.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd just like to point out that M.C. Escher has been dead for almost 50 years. Pere Borrel del Caso died in 1910. Neither of them is losing profits here, and I'm pretty sure in the case of the latter, it's public domain. There's a 70 years after death thing on intellectual property rights. And taking or sharing photographs of art in public spaces (such as street art, murals, public sculptures and so on) is in no way illegal. Basically: Nobody cares. GA is not going to get in trouble for someone sharing linked images (droughtquake isn't uploading them to GA, they're not hosted here) in a forum thread. That's not how any of this works. So just chill, my dudes. 

Edited by Thorn Wilde
Wrote E instead of M

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Ron said:

I hadn't intended to begin an argument about legal matters between members. It did seem rather clear to me that the continuous use of someone else's work was wrong, likely illegal, even if there is nothing to be gained by the use. Apparently some of you think differently and call it fair use.

I'll bow out of this particular subject, now, with a link to Copyright.gov . The information provided on the full page is informative. But pay attention to the answer to this question, "Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?"

I'll leave it to everyone to make your own best judgement on what is and is not fair use.

Peer-to-peer has literally nothing to do with this. That's a very specific way of downloading and sharing things and is not being used in this instance. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

I'd just like to point out that E.C. Escher has been dead for almost 50 years. Pere Borrel del Caso died in 1910. Neither of them is losing profits here. And taking or sharing photographs of art in public spaces (such as street art, murals, public sculptures and so on) is in no way illegal. Basically: Nobody cares. GA is not going to get in trouble for someone sharing linked images (droughtquake isn't uploading them to GA, they're not hosted here) in a forum thread. That's not how any of this works. So just chill, my dudes. 


“I'd just like to point out that E.C. Escher has been dead for almost 50 years.”

Then his work is still within copyright.
 

“Neither of them is losing profits here”

No, but their estates could be 

 

“Basically: Nobody cares”

Tell that to the beneficiaries...

 

GA is not going to get in trouble for someone sharing linked images (droughtquake isn't uploading them to GA, they're not hosted here) in a forum thread. “

Tell that to the lawyers 
 

“That's not how any of this works.”

Tell that to the judge. Better still, tell the CJEU they got it wrong...

 

 

Edited by Zombie

Share this post


Link to post

I find it hard to believe that those in charge at GA are not aware of this thread and what has been posted on it. Surely if they were concerned about copyright problems they would have removed it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

:jerry:

Share this post


Link to post

The subject image of debate for the past several pages has been deleted, but no site rules were broken. Please understand that GA is not liable for images posted on the site, no more than Facebook, Twitter, Pintrest, Instagram and so on. Any and all images posted are the responsibility of the poster.

I don't think any of us are certified Copyright Lawyers and even myself, shouldn't give the impression we are just from reading some online articles about the subject.

Debate is fine, just maybe break this off to a separate topic please. There has been several topics where this has been rehashed over and over again. This topic is not where to do it again.

Thanks!

Site Moderation Team

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2020 at 2:33 AM, droughtquake said:

4788abb8bdc17f9fc8b595d35555a175e45c5faf

Indeed.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/25/2020 at 8:52 PM, droughtquake said:

3767ceb210cbb5c5c50b741e5cf40da8c21986cc

Ain't that the truth.

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/22/2020 at 8:54 PM, droughtquake said:

tumblr_mnicevXNFX1s0jgwpo1_500.jpg

Haha, Yes, Sir ... is the answer. 

  • Love 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post

spacer.png
Wouldn’t Steve’s pants have split when he gained all those muscles?  ;–)

Edited by droughtquake

Share this post


Link to post

tumblr_m9wbhwFIFW1qbp3ppo1_500.gifv
tumblr_m9wbhwFIFW1qbp3ppo2_500.gifv
tumblr_m9wbhwFIFW1qbp3ppo3_500.gifv
tumblr_m9wbhwFIFW1qbp3ppo4_500.gifv
Goldie Hawn in “First Wives Club"

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..