MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: lawyer advice needed: COPYRIGHT removed? is it fair?  (Read 6244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2017, 19:19 »
+2
I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.

although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA.  A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorneys fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls copyright management information from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press

http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html
« Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 19:21 by unnonimus »


« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2017, 04:05 »
0
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!

I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.

Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.


I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.

although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA.  A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorneys fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls copyright management information from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press

http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html

« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2017, 04:47 »
+1
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!

I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.

Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.


I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.

although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA.  A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorneys fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls copyright management information from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press

http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html


US courts might not count a copyright notice as counting for anything (after all, copyright exists automatically on every image that's made) unless the image has been registered with the Library of Congress. That's my guess, anyway.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2017, 04:59 »
0
"Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA.  A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorneys fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls copyright management information from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press

But is it a violation to remove a copyright notice from a webpage that contains the image?

« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2017, 05:02 »
0
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!

I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.

Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.


I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.

although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA.  A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorneys fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls copyright management information from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press

http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html


US courts might not count a copyright notice as counting for anything (after all, copyright exists automatically on every image that's made) unless the image has been registered with the Library of Congress. That's my guess, anyway.

Getty /Istock have a lot of international contributors. They can not be expected to register their copyright in a foreign country,  in this case, US.

We do the creative work and have the copyright. Why should we have to ASK some office  in another country to register it? Do we have to ask some foreign entity whether our work is really ours before we can sell it at 0.02 usd via Istock?

Copyright is the essential right for every artist/ contributor. Without copyright we cannot sell or licence our work. Istock is intentionally blurring the line and distributing unclear information. Just try and download a preview  photo. At least on the metadata of my photos the  selected "copyrighted" is changed onto "unknown".

Replacing "Copyright" with "credit line" is altering and distributing false or misleading copyright information so yes that is wrong and against law.



« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2017, 07:55 »
0
I don't like this either. I've seen lots of photos in use where the credit simply stated "istockphoto" and no name of the contributor at all.  :(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2913 Views
Last post September 03, 2006, 20:41
by yupgp
11 Replies
5515 Views
Last post January 24, 2008, 05:31
by ljupco
44 Replies
14022 Views
Last post January 21, 2010, 18:49
by loop
254 Replies
39782 Views
Last post February 16, 2013, 16:34
by ShadySue
4 Replies
1534 Views
Last post January 29, 2018, 12:09
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results