pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is this a copyright violation?  (Read 5027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 19, 2011, 06:05 »
0
I was browsing flickr and came across to these 2 images..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11149434@N00/5479761488/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thefranchiseco/4527170157/#

Do you think this is a copyright violation or does yuri share his images on flickr under 2 different usernames.. it's fine if both accounts actually belong to him but if not there is a violation then?


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2011, 06:26 »
0
Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time.  I assume they are sharing them with clients or something.  Or was there something else?

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2011, 08:02 »
0
Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time.  I assume they are sharing them with clients or something.  Or was there something else?

There are all kinds of ways to share photos without making them public for anyone to download. These are unwatermarked images, the one is available at 850 x 565 pixels, lots of size for web use.

Even if the intent was to share with clients, Mattcba and the franchise co. are enabling copyright infringement. That's a problem.

« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2011, 09:10 »
0
Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time.  I assume they are sharing them with clients or something.  Or was there something else?

There are all kinds of ways to share photos without making them public for anyone to download. These are unwatermarked images, the one is available at 850 x 565 pixels, lots of size for web use.

Even if the intent was to share with clients, Mattcba and the franchise co. are enabling copyright infringement. That's a problem.

Sure there are other ways to share photos but Flickr is the easiest way and is well known to most people. What you say is correct but unfortunately, most people/buyers rarely has the owner of the image in mind when they are doing something. Only when there is a good chance of a monetary penalty or jail time from their actions would things change for the better for the image owner.

« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2011, 09:24 »
0
Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time.  I assume they are sharing them with clients or something.  Or was there something else?

There are all kinds of ways to share photos without making them public for anyone to download. These are unwatermarked images, the one is available at 850 x 565 pixels, lots of size for web use.

Even if the intent was to share with clients, Mattcba and the franchise co. are enabling copyright infringement. That's a problem.

I don't disagree with you.  I've actually pointed that out in the thread on IS at one point.  Why make it public?

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2011, 10:03 »
0
Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time.  I assume they are sharing them with clients or something.  Or was there something else?

There are all kinds of ways to share photos without making them public for anyone to download. These are unwatermarked images, the one is available at 850 x 565 pixels, lots of size for web use.

Even if the intent was to share with clients, Mattcba and the franchise co. are enabling copyright infringement. That's a problem.

Sure there are other ways to share photos but Flickr is the easiest way and is well known to most people. What you say is correct but unfortunately, most people/buyers rarely has the owner of the image in mind when they are doing something. Only when there is a good chance of a monetary penalty or jail time from their actions would things change for the better for the image owner.

The question was is this a copyright violation and the answer is yes. I disagree that flickr is easier than any other non public solution but even if it were, you can set permissions on flickr to only allow certain users (such as "friends") to view images. There's no excuse for this and if it were my image, being credited to the uploader as copyright owner and available to anyone to take, I'd go after them and notify flickr as well. Perhaps Yuri Arcurs is acquiescent because he makes so much that a theft or two or five hundred doesn't effect his bottom line.

« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2011, 10:20 »
0
The question was is this a copyright violation and the answer is yes.

The answer is no.  Not really.  How do you see it as a violation?

« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2011, 10:45 »
0
The question was is this a copyright violation and the answer is yes.

The answer is no.  Not really.  How do you see it as a violation?

IF both of those images have been uploaded by Yuri or a Yuri Co., and IF Yuri is the original copyright owner, then no, there is no infringement. Pretty stupid, IMHO, to upload and share unwatermarked images, but not an infringement. If Yuri wants to give stuff away, it's his perogative.

IF both of those images are copyrighted by Yuri, and one or both of those companies (who have no affiliation whatsoever to Yuri) have purchased the image and are now allowing downloading, then YES, copyright infringement.

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2011, 12:32 »
0
No, not really.  Displaying it there is no different than displaying it unaltered as part of a web page design, and as an added bonus, it's marked all rights reserved.

« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2011, 13:02 »
0
No, not really.  Displaying it there is no different than displaying it unaltered as part of a web page design, and as an added bonus, it's marked all rights reserved.

I see what you mean, displaying is NOT infringing. But they are allowing downloading of a medium-sized unwatermarked image. Again, IF the two people have purchased a medium sized image and are allowing re-downloading of it and they are NOT the copyright holder, then yes, copyright infringement.

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2011, 13:33 »
0
This is an easy fix.  If Yuri were to send yahoo a DMCA notice and a couple of links, they would take it down. 

Don't know if Yuri has time or inclination to bother with this type of thing, but maybe there's someone in his office who chases down misuse. 

« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2011, 13:34 »
0
I see what you mean, displaying is NOT infringing. But they are allowing downloading of a medium-sized unwatermarked image. Again, IF the two people have purchased a medium sized image and are allowing re-downloading of it and they are NOT the copyright holder, then yes, copyright infringement.

No. Downloading an image (or leaving it available for download) is not copyright infringement __ that only occurs if someone downloads and uses a copyrighted image that they do not have a license for.

As it happens you'll probably find that the vast majority of stock images correctly licensed and used for display on web content are not right-click protected or anything. I've often found my own images in action that are effectively available to anyone to download frequently up to Medium size.

« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2011, 14:13 »
0
I see what you mean, displaying is NOT infringing. But they are allowing downloading of a medium-sized unwatermarked image. Again, IF the two people have purchased a medium sized image and are allowing re-downloading of it and they are NOT the copyright holder, then yes, copyright infringement.

No. Downloading an image (or leaving it available for download) is not copyright infringement __ that only occurs if someone downloads and uses a copyrighted image that they do not have a license for.

As it happens you'll probably find that the vast majority of stock images correctly licensed and used for display on web content are not right-click protected or anything. I've often found my own images in action that are effectively available to anyone to download frequently up to Medium size.

So what would you call it when a person buys a license for an image which explicitly says that the license DOES NOT allow for:

Quote
sub-license, re-sell, rent, lend, assign, gift or otherwise transfer or distribute the Content or the rights granted under this Agreement

install and use the Content in more than one location at a time or post a copy of the Content on a network server or web server for use by other users;

use or display the Content in an electronic format that enables it to be downloaded or distributed via mobile devices or shared in any peer-to-peer or similar file sharing arrangement; (from the istock License Agreement...most other agencies have the same thing)

and then does exactly that on flickr?

« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2011, 15:03 »
0
^^^ I think that would be termed 'license infringement' rather than copyright infringement. Legitimate buyers do it all the time and, as far as I'm aware, none of the agencies take any action or enforce it.

« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2011, 15:09 »
0
I think if those flickr accounts belong to yuri, then no infringement.. if not, then clear copyright infringement..

« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2011, 15:38 »
0
Posting -anything- on the web allows for downloading. If you can't download it, you can't view it.  A web page full of X's would look a little silly :).

I dont like it either, but until the license prohibits it, it's not particularly illegal.

« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2011, 16:01 »
0
When you upload to Flickr, isn't there any observation that you have to upload images you own the legal rights of?


« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2011, 16:03 »
0
When you upload to Flickr, isn't there any observation that you have to upload images you own the legal rights of?

Every internet site that you upload images to has that.  Even Google image search.  If there's a weak point in the system, that's it.

« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2011, 16:12 »
0
When you upload to Flickr, isn't there any observation that you have to upload images you own the legal rights of?

Every internet site that you upload images to has that.  Even Google image search.  If there's a weak point in the system, that's it.

My point is, it is not legal to use Flickr to share material with your clients, even if one has purchased a license for the images.

« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2011, 16:24 »
0
According to Flickr terms and conditions the uploader has to have the necessary rights to post the images on his/her account.

I'm sure that any IP lawyer will be able to argue this in all possible directions but initially Flickr was supposed to be a platform for people to display their own images and not to post other peoples images - obviously.

Why would someone want to post images taken by someone else?

While some total uneducated "business people" exchange images this way (ever heard of email - duh) or for proofing purposes these people should be slapped on their fingers.

Flickr in its original intent is a great tool. Millions of contributors get a chance to publish their own content - with or without watermark, their choice.

But to post images that you don't have the rights for is plain stupid, useless and disrespectful.

Please give me one legal and valid reason why I would want to post someone elses images on my own Flickr account? I don't get it.

« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2011, 16:37 »
0
^^^ Why don't these 'business people' use YouSendIt or a similar service. Email servers often limit the size of files that can be transferred.

« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2011, 16:58 »
0
^^^ Why don't these 'business people' use YouSendIt or a similar service. Email servers often limit the size of files that can be transferred.

Exactly, it's beyond me as there are literally dozens of ways to share or display content to anyone in the world on a more private level.

There is absolutely no reason to publish those things to the world on Flickr.

One would think that even smaller business (with a web site, hence a host) can publish their stuff in password protected areas or via FTP.

Yousendit, Rapidshare and the likes were meant to be used that way.

It doesn't take much common sense to see that those people publishing the images wildly on Flickr obviously want to share or offer them for free download. There is simply no other reason besides stroking some failed photographer's ego.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3877 Views
Last post October 01, 2008, 09:39
by lathspell
10 Replies
3449 Views
Last post November 03, 2011, 05:39
by lacee
2 Replies
1455 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 13:21
by daveh900
8 Replies
739 Views
Last post September 11, 2019, 07:28
by DiscreetDuck
7 Replies
782 Views
Last post September 13, 2019, 14:13
by Minsc

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results