I have received a brochure from a company and most to my surprise, many images in it were take from a certain microstock site - watermarks are clearly visible.

I went to their website and, although many brochures can be found (none of the ones I opened had this watermark problem), this particular one is not there.  If it was, I would simply forward the link to the microstock site so they would deal with the infringing company.

I could forward the brochure I received to the microstock site, but then I'd be hurting the technical relationship between this company and my office (I don't know the company directly, I got the brochure from a colleague who has been in contact with them).  If I were not involved with stock photography (and this is not my main job), I might never have noticed any of that.

I could ask this colleague to write his contact and say someone noticed this and that they should rectify it, but I doubt he would (this is none of his business).

This could be a pre-release of the brochure, sent to us in advance, who knows? 

Any suggestions?

Regards,
Adelaide

i think you should report it. They should not be doing things like that. Its already so cheap microstock??? Besides its not ethical to do somehting like that.

Report it.

If there is an infringement,
If it's a pre release or not, the infringement is already done.

But no one better than the stock company to know if there is a case or not.

What infrigement? In case you didn't know many sites (like iStock) allow free comp versions to be used for mockups. If they're just sending it around to get people's opinions on the brochure before letting it out, then it would be a completely legit use. I suspect that this is the case since all the publicly available brochures don't have the watermarks.

If he reports it, that company could decide to no longer do business with his (not a good outcome). I wouldn't be so quick to cry wolf.

Sounds fishy to me.

...maybe give them a give of a starter $20 at dreamstime

Remember to use yourself as a referral.

how does that work??
i am not quite sure i understand YY

This may be "fair use."  Fair use is use for commentary, criticism, or academic research.  However, I would argue that the church should obtain permission because criticism and commentary are nebulous terms.

Also, fair use typically does not allow use of a work in whole or even in substantial part.  In academic circles, fair use applies to a document shorter than 10 pages or a segment comprising less than 10% of a work, whichever is shorter (although this is just a rule of thumb; absolute quantity has not been established).

Quote from: leaf on January 14, 2007, 05:23

My home church in canada frequently used images in it's sermon to illustrate a point.  Images PLASTERED with watermarks from gettery, jupiter... you name it ... ouch.  I think that was a pretty clear example of someone not really knowing what the rules were.

I haven't been there in a while, but if i see it again i think i will inform them of what is illegal and not, and maybe give them a give of a starter $20 at dreamstime

What they're doing isn't illegal, at least in the US. It's called fair use.

This may be "fair use."  Fair use is use for commentary, criticism, or academic research.  However, I would argue that the church should obtain permission because criticism and commentary are nebulous terms.

Also, fair use typically does not allow use of a work in whole or even in substantial part.  In academic circles, fair use applies to a document shorter than 10 pages or a segment comprising less than 10% of a work, whichever is shorter (although this is just a rule of thumb; absolute quantity has not been established).

This is fair use.
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include �

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

If you want actual case law I'd be happy to provide it. The fact is that the church is using it in a non-commercial, educational way that does not impede the copyright owner from marketing his/her work. What applies to documents is irrelevant.

Note: This only applies to US law. Canada has a different version of fair use, so I'm not sure how a Canadian court would view this.

ahh "fair use" has to do with for example, writing a school project and quoting someone or an article.

I don't think fair use would allow a picture included in a report.

We're talking about two different things. The report wasn't what I said was fair use. The use of a photo by a church in a sermon would be.

Hmm.  Quite a response, I'd say.  But, as I said, it may be fair use.  You are assuming that the church is using the images for education or commentary.  Unless you see the specific materials being used, the context of such use, and any specific agreements between the user and the creator of such intellectual property, you cannot make such specific, hard claims.  For example, if the church is using the materials for the purpose of generating donations, such use could be construed as "commercial."  While the original post noted that the materials were being used in a sermon, we don't know if that sermon has been recorded and made available for sale, for example.  I bring up this possibility merely to illustrate the fallacy of making hard and fast claims without sufficient information.

As for your providing specific case evidence, you don't need to.  This is a friendly discussion, not a court of law.

Quote from: Professorgb on January 14, 2007, 15:30

This may be "fair use."  Fair use is use for commentary, criticism, or academic research.  However, I would argue that the church should obtain permission because criticism and commentary are nebulous terms.

Also, fair use typically does not allow use of a work in whole or even in substantial part.  In academic circles, fair use applies to a document shorter than 10 pages or a segment comprising less than 10% of a work, whichever is shorter (although this is just a rule of thumb; absolute quantity has not been established).

This is fair use.
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include �

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

If you want actual case law I'd be happy to provide it. The fact is that the church is using it in a non-commercial, educational way that does not impede the copyright owner from marketing his/her work. What applies to documents is irrelevant.

Note: This only applies to US law. Canada has a different version of fair use, so I'm not sure how a Canadian court would view this.

Ok, just for arguments sake I will point out some guidelines.

1. The sermons were used for education / commentary
2. NO the sermons were not sold or recorded via video.

Does this  mean it is ok?  Does this mean that a company giving out an education brochure for free is alloud to use whatever photos they want without paying for them?

Here is something i found about free use

4.2.4 Illustrations and Photographs
The reproduction or incorporation of photographs and illustrations is more difficult to define with regard to fair use because fair use usually precludes the use of an entire work. Under these guidelines a photograph or illustration may be used in its entirety but no more than 5 images by an artist or photographer may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as part of an educational multimedia project created under Section 2. When using photographs and illustrations from a published collective work, not more than 10% or 15 images, whichever is less, may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as part of an educational multimedia project created under Section 2.

FROM HERE

I had one comment from a paster on dreamstime once.  He had downloaded a photo to use in a sermon.  I responded with a thanks, and he said your welcome but was sad because they could no longer use photos in their sermons because they were being recorded on dvds.

ok, thanks for the explanation.

I would be upset if the church used the photos (and it was illegal) because they should be setting an example.  if they can steal images why can't I.

On a personal note:  Yes, I would be disturbed if a church used my images without permission.  Other than the "moral leadership" issue noted by others, I would have a problem with that use because I am not a Christian and I don't necessarily agree with the commentary for which the pastor would use my image.  I realize that if the pastor purchased my image, I would have to live with it; however, that would be a legal use and one that I have agreed to cede control over.  None of my opinion matters, though.  The legality of the use is what matters, not my agreement with the stated opinions of the user of my image.

Second, you need to distinguish the non-profit status of the church from the use of the image.  A non-profit enterprise may use my image in a profit-making enterprise, such as selling copies of a sermon.  Or the church may engage in not-for-profit activities and still be using my image illegally, such as by freely distributing copies of the sermon, which would be an illegal use of the image.

So, my earlier point stands:  This may be fair use.  It would be best if we all remembered to speak about legal issues in generalizations, rather than making hard-and-fast claims about specific situations of which we do not have total command of the facts.

A church, visually displaying an image durning a sermon is fair use under your two guidelines. On a more personal note: Are there really people here that would be upset that a church used their photo in a sermon without permission?

1) A company is a for-profit enterprise, a church is not (at least I hope you go to a non-profit church).
2) A one-time visual use is different than printing a brochure for distrobution.