|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30
626
« on: January 15, 2007, 15:36 »
As for my not going to church, you have absolutely no basis for making such a claim.
And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the photographic industry and those who wish to earn money in it . . .
Um...you said you're not a Christian, hence no church. Other than that I agree that is is going no where, so lets get back to where we should be (photographing and enjoying beauty).
627
« on: January 15, 2007, 14:52 »
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...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.
Here in lies the problem. Since you don't go to church you're not familiar with a sermon and so don't realize that the sermon isn't normally printed. The image is being displayed on a screen behind or by the pastor while he speaks. There is no distributing or printing going on here. You are correct that I need to distinguish between the non-profit status of the church and the use of the image. However you go on to make an incorrect conclusion from this. The distrobution of the sermon, if it were to happen, would not be for-profit. The only distinction that would matter is if the church was using the image in a for-profit manner. Distributing a sermon would not be a for-profit enterprise because they wouldn't be selling the sermon. I think it is interesting that you say not to make "hard and fast" claims when you are infact doing that very thing. You say that by freely distributing copies of the sermon the church would be doing something illegal. That statement is the fallacy of which you speak. Can you cite a case where a church was found guilt of copyright infringement for distributing a sermon with an image in it?
628
« on: January 15, 2007, 02:31 »
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?
For your first question: 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? For your second question: Remember we have to stick with the specific details given. A company using a photo in an educational brochure is very different than a church displaying an image during a sermon. 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.
629
« on: January 14, 2007, 22:50 »
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.
Yes, I'm assuming the church is using the images for education/commentary since that is what a sermon is by definition. I'm also assuming there weren't "any specific agreements" to use the photo since the images were watermarked. Lastly, I'm assume he doesn't go to a TV evangelist church or any other for profit church that sells their sermons. Raising crazy hypotheticals just for the sake of arguing a point is a waste. Why don't we stick to the facts give instead.
630
« on: January 14, 2007, 18:29 »
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.
632
« on: January 14, 2007, 18:12 »
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.
633
« on: January 14, 2007, 14:06 »
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.
634
« on: January 13, 2007, 00:09 »
Well you can always join istock, and become a diamond (or gold by the time you have the downloads). Then you will be able to submit to getty.
635
« on: January 11, 2007, 13:43 »
Hmmm...
Maybe I should go out and trademark the name iTelephone, iRadio, iVideo, and iMail!
You're already too late to the party. All of those are trademarked already. You could try: iIsAStupidNameForAProduct.
636
« on: January 10, 2007, 21:52 »
It now looks like it won't be called the iPhone. Cisco owns the trademark on "iPhone" and just filed suit right after Apple made the announcement. It appears that they were in negoliations to license the name and Apple decided it would go ahead without reaching an agreement. Hmm...
637
« on: January 10, 2007, 16:32 »
I'm a huge mac/ipod fan and think this will bomb. It's $500-$600, so it's more expensive than getting an ipod and a cellphone seperately.
638
« on: January 10, 2007, 13:14 »
I've been getting the same rejection level I've always had there. 22 out of my last 24 shots were excepted.
639
« on: January 08, 2007, 19:43 »
Honesty is relative.
Honesty is only relative for people that don't believe in an absolute truth.
And that absolute truth is?
640
« on: January 08, 2007, 17:37 »
Maybe simple, but not honest  I wouldn't do it.
Honesty is relative. I have no problem giving people fake information if they don't actually have a need for the information. Not to mention that there is no way for the company or government to verify the information, therefore it is useles. In case you're interested my phone number is 641-985-7888 (in the US), give it a call
641
« on: January 08, 2007, 14:16 »
I have to exchange the $$ to norwegian Kr. and the exchange rate is pretty crummy. however cashing a cheque isn't free either. There is also things that can be boughten with american $$ and paypal, so not all the funds end up being exchanged to norwegian kr.
Since when is cashing a cheque not free? What kind of bank doesn't cash checks for their customers?
642
« on: January 08, 2007, 14:13 »
From what they posted in their forum, I'd suggest giving them a fake information. They say than no one will be verifying the information.
643
« on: January 07, 2007, 16:42 »
I wouldn't rely on the photoshop auto white balance, if I were you. I'd do it manually, either in a RAW developing program or using the channel mixer in PS.
RAW developing program? Photoshop CS2 is a RAW developing program, isn't it?
644
« on: January 07, 2007, 00:22 »
OK. What am I doing wrong? I have a softbox with a white velvet background and 2 x 250 watt halogen lights. I used photoshop's auto white balance function to compensate for the incorrect white balance of halogen lights, and yet I can't seem to get the wonderful white backgrounds that are required at stock agencies. Thanks. 
646
« on: January 04, 2007, 23:37 »
I think I'm going to try some isolation shots and was wondering what people thought of this setup: http://www.photekusa.com/
647
« on: December 30, 2006, 20:22 »
For the 6 months I'v been in microstock my $/download is:
iStock: $0.67 (with ELs)
SS: $0.252
(Even though its only 6 months it shouldn't effect the average royalty per download.)
648
« on: December 23, 2006, 23:41 »
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.
649
« on: December 23, 2006, 19:34 »
I don't use windows (linux) so I don't have the option of using their plugin tool..
Cheers, Me.
I have it working on Red Hat. The Mac OS X version is a java app.
650
« on: December 21, 2006, 18:49 »
There was just a Supreme Court ruling about tranformational art that allowed the use of a photograph. There was another one a few years ago that made an artist pay the photographer.
What case?
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
