We have moved to a new site!
This site will remain open only so you can copy anything you need, such as critques. Do so quickly because the old Forward Motion boards will soon disappear.

Are you ready for the new site? You must create a new login, but the chat login will remain the same as here for now. Click here to join us at the new

Forward Motion for Writers

See you there!

---

A lot of places I belong to are pushing platforms for writers. Here is one blogger who got into hot water because she didn't understand the rules for using photographs.

http://www.roniloren.com/blog/2012/7/20/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog.html

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Thanks Wen. That's a nasty little pit to fall into...

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

While I can see how this was innocent enough, people who deal with copyright in their own work ought to realize it extends to more than words. This is something to pay attention to!

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

I've been wondering when something like this would happen. There's been a lot of people taking photos that are obviously copyrighted -- I've even seen people go to one of the photo sales sites and take a photo from there, complete with the watermarked company name. I recently unfollowed a writer/blogger because just about every image she used on her blog was obviously copyrighted (i.e., movie photos).

Another site for getting clip art: http://www.clipart.com/en/ It's only about $135 a year, but can also be purchased weekly or monthly to fit budget limitations.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Get your Creative Commons images here: http://search.creativecommons.org/

Another site that's useful: http://www.morguefile.com

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

That's why I only use my own photos on my blog.

Maripat

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Yeah. I thankfully would never fall into that trap, but I just don't use images at all because it's too difficult to find ones that I know are safe to use, and I'm not skilled enough (yet) to make them myself. So I want to thank all of you who have posted links to safe images! Now I might be able to actually have some occasionally (not that I'm going to have time to work on my blog any time soon).

Thanks!

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

While it's good of her to send out this warning, I believe that (innocently) she's not being entirely honest in her post. Two hundred thirty blog posts a year is not a casual blogger. She's promoting herself as a book writer. This makes her blogs commercial, therefore the photographer was fully entitled to compensation, even though she removed the picture. (Did she know what DCMA was before her troubles?)

Copyright of photos has always been a slippery item. If you pay me to take a photo of you, who owns the copyright. In the past when mostly there was a negative involved, the photographer kept the negatives by tradition, but did he own the copyright? That photo of you that I took without payment from you; who owns the right to that image? Is it me who took the photo, or is it you who owns the face? I think the law allows me to publish that photo, but not to use it for commercial reasons.

In some cases 'intellectual property law' comes into play

I don't think I could use that image in advertising. I'm not sure what the law says about property you own. I don't know if I can use a photo of your house, for instance, in some sort of advertisment.

Just because you took the photo doesn't mean unrestricted use of the image.

Try a search of 'photo release forms'.

Taking a closer look at her book covers, maybe it was the type of book she was promoting that upset the photographer.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

Copyright of photos is not in the least bit slippery. Just like writing books -- if you created the piece, you own the copyright until you sign it away. (Which is more common with pictures than with stories.) If you are contracted to take a picture, then the contract usually says the person who pays for it gets the picture. There are exclusive and non-exclusive rights, just like a number of other things.

For the rest, a lot of it has to do with intent. A picture of a street with Victorian style homes is different from taking a picture of one of the homes and using it for a paint company ad. Unless the house was painted exclusively with paints by that company, it's false advertising. If they did paint the house, it will be part of the deal to get the picture.

You'll find lots and lots of house pictures on free sites. Taking a picture of a house is not illegal as long as you are on the sidewalk or the street. How the picture is used is what can get you in trouble. For instance, if you used a picture for a site about stopping drug dealing in your neighborhood, you could be in a lot of trouble because of the implications.

Pictures of individuals or small groups need release forms from those people. Large groups in public places, no.

The photographer owns the rights to the pictures. And the drawings, graphics, 3D art . . . and stories they create, even if you find such things on the internet.

With a quic note to add this is what it was when I was doing photography for a living back with the Internet was just getting going. Laws may have changed in some areas, and certainly you need to check before you start posting things that might get you in trouble.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Perhaps slippery was the wrong word; sometimes complicated might be better.

Large groups in public places are OK as long as you can't identify people. If you use it for advertising and someone is recognisable, you could get into trouble. Where publication is OK is for editorial purposes.

Still, as with you the law may have changed since I left the photographic industry before the Internet. Also, my knowledge of the law (or lack of it) is not US law but Canadian and UK. The DMCA (US law) stems from 1998 if I've read it right..

As a side note, what I found disturbing, is that people who take these pictures and use them expect the photographer to chase them. In the comments to that article, several photographers said they'd consider allowing use if only they were asked.

While you are quite right and copyright does belong to the creator of the work, many people do not know this and perhaps copyright should be stated on any work published on the Internet.

The writer of the above article did not know, and believed that everyone else did not know. "Everyone did it," she says. She probably asked a few of her friends.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

Actually, copyright is a more complex issue when it comes to photography. In most cases, if you take a photo you own the copyright. Setting aside issues such as permission, I've also seen copyright cases where a work was challenged because it was too similar to another photo. Say that you and I were both attending the same event, standing side by side, and took similar pictures. If one of us sold one of those photos for a large amount to an important publication, they might sue the other one of us if we published our own photo, which happened to be similar. And who would win in such a case is at least as complex as the concept of "fair use".

And what about scanning? It is often a bulk process, with no creative input whatsoever (the photographic equivalent of compiling a telephone book) - yet such scans have been successfully copyrighted where telephone books cannot be.

And, if I recall correctly, there are at least one or two cases that imply some photos may not be eligible for copyright, if the creation of them was such that there is no creative element involved. (I seem to remember something about images made in a photo booth, but that could be my mind playing tricks on me.)

The bottom line, though is simple; if it isn't yours, don't assume you have any right to use it. I've seen comments that suggest to me even some "open source" content (Creative Commons or the like) may actually be copyrighted material 'remixed' by someone else and posted as 'free'. Since it is so hard to be absolutely certain where a work came from, we might all run some risk, but if you don't at least try to make sure you've secured permission from the legitimate owner to post anything you didn't create yourself, you're asking for trouble.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Oh, shoot. Okay, I'll go back to not posting images. (I know that wasn't your intention, but for some reason, I get really shy about asking people permission for things).

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

I think this just points to a good adage:

If you didn't take the picture, or didn't write the words, don't assume you can use it without contacting the creater first...

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

I've just got to wondering who owns the copyright of all those copy photos of the old masters paintings that can be found on the Internet. Is it the owners of the paintings? Is it the photographer who took the photo? Did the photographer have permission? Etc, etc. Some museums/galleries forbid photography. Is photography of an image any different from photographing a statue? What about statues and sculpture in public places etc?

Just wondering.

After I posted I thought to look. Here's one answer.

http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq12.htm

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

I'll admit that I hadn't thought about taking images from Google as stealing, and honestly, though I'd like to think that I've fairly tech savvy individual, that I spared absolutely no thought for rummaging the internet for awesome photos. I've been using images from the internet for various things since I was a kid, and it didn't even occur to me.

I'm systematically removing pictures and replacing them all with my own drawings. In fact, I'm finding that the drawings are a lot of fun to do, AND it lends a more personal touch to my blog. Even if it's more work than Googling, I'll continue drawing and using my own photos.

Does anyone know the copyright business for movie posters and promos for TV shows? I've used quite a bit of them for various reviews that I've done.