how uncomfortable would this make you?

Actually the photography laws are pretty clear. If i take a picture of something, even if i took a picture of you. I am the copyright holder of the image. You still sometimes need permission to publish (which includes posting on the net), which is what such things like model release forms are for. But for the actual image i am the copyright holder.

So if i wanted to take my doll photography further, i would probably need to contact the doll owners to make sure they are OK with it. But the actual image is mine. It is why a doll company who owned the doll sculpt can't use your photo's because the copyright is not with them. It is with the photographer. Plus i am not fully sure if you actually need the doll sculptors permission, i would mainly only ask out of politeness.

I know a story where i a photographer took a picture of a model and the model then gave permission for someone else to use it. But she actually violated copyright law in doing so, even though she was the model. Because the photo belonged to the photographer. He had the copyright not her.

 

France has really weird copyright laws. You can copyright a building's image in France, and I'm pretty sure the Eiffel Tower IS copyrighted.

 

I personally wouldn't give a rats arse as long as my picture was linked back to me and credit was given...and depending on the tone of the confession and whether my picture was used in a sarcastic manner or not, as long as the confession doesn't go against my beliefs XD
However, I do understand that not everyone feels that way and I think the blogs should certainly ask first :T

 

That comes under a different law, but if i am the original owner of the picture, concept and design. Then yes i am. We are talking about someone directly save an image and reusing it in the terms where i am talking about, this has gone way off the topic at hand.

The point i am making if someone sees your photo online, they save it. Then repost it (even with the change of the text) it is breaking the copyright of the photo in question.

 

It's not as fuzzy as you insist.

If I take a photo of a statue, yes that photo is a derivative work, but I still have some degree of copyright protection. Someone else cannot take my photo and claim it is theirs, use it without my permission, etc. If they do, they're in double trouble-- with me, the owner of the photograph, and with the creator of the original statue. Is my copyright limited? Yes, but that in no way gives someone else the right to do with it what they will.

As for the Getty Images example I made earlier, if you search their site you will find a plethora of photographs of sculptures and art, all of which are derivative works, and all of which have copyright protection. What I said stands.

 

Karla-Chan: you are right about the photographer owning the image and not the model. Some years ago I worked on a range of licensed beauty products bearing the name of a very famous now dead Movie Icon. I imagined that the Movie Icon's estate was who we were working for but it was actually the estate of the photographer who took a lot of the most famous images of her. There was also a lot of discussion about whether or not we would be allowed to use her signature for the range as she had signed many of his original photos and written him many letters. That I felt really uncomfortable about and in the end I think the signature was dropped. He (his estate as he was also dead by this time) OWNED the rights to her image in those photos, which are some of the best know images of this person.

 

Actually, you guys are right. If you draw something, even if you're drawing something that is copyrighted by someone else, you still have limited copyright over that image (so you COULD sue anyone who took your drawing and tried to sell it/claimed they drew it), even if you couldn't sell the image yourself. So if you drew that picture of Mickey Mouse, even though Disney would sue you if you tried to sell it, if anyone else claimed it as their work or tried to sell it, they'd be violating your rights (and if they tried to sell it, Disney would sue THEM, so in that case I'd just sic Disney on them).

Though, apparently, drawing pictures of anime/video game charas and selling them at anime cons is A Okay.

Then again, Disney is well known for going apeshi*t on anyone who even sneezes on their copyright and anime and video game companies seem to regard this as free advertisement (it works too. I bought the entirety of Baccano! because my friend was selling a picture of Ladd punting a puppy)

 

Yes, that is my main point. It also got explained to me when i did a model photoshoot. But they had the copyright to such a degree i couldn't use the images at all unless i bought the copyrights off them. Which my other made me buy them, because she got upset over the idea that someone else owned the rights of the images of me.

I thought it was a bit like that actually. Because Tokyopop (now out of business i think) used to take advantage of that. If you sent them fan-art that you had drawn they had a weird disclaimer, that on sending it to them, you gave up any copyright you had over it and they could use it if they wished too.

 

Agreed. But, considering how easy it is to transmit information over the internet, it should be mandatory for everyone, not just art students.

 

Also, in regards to the Eiffel Tower:

"The tower and its representations have long been in the public domain. However, a French court ruled, in June 1990, that a special lighting display on the tower in 1989, for the tower's 100th anniversary, was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, upheld the ruling in March 1992.[SUP][50][/SUP] The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright.[SUP][51][/SUP] As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries."

'Cause the french are crazy! ^__^

/OT

 

Edit: Argh, Quetz was a minute faster than me


About the Eiffel Tower:
They have actually written something about that on their website ->
http://www.eiffel-tower.com/the-eif...rand/image-rights-the-eiffel-tower-brand.html

So daytime pictures are okay, but at night is a whole different thing.
So yes, you can even copyright something like that.

 

Ha! You take one smart comment, and just ignore every single constructive thing I've said, and try to make a case of me being "snarky?" Yeah, fine. So I can be a bit of a smart-ass, but I don't need to "stoop to being snarky." I think you can see that I am perfectly able to get my point across without it.

And how does my taking a very active role in this debate have anything to do with how I "accuse others of being high and mighty?" I'm sure not saying that what I think is the right thing and that all should agree with me... My opinion is my opinion... don't get mad just because I bring in outside fact to support my argument.

I'm not going to disagree with you on them taking the time to get permission. Like I've said....oh, almost every other reply I make, getting permission would makes thing easier in the long run, and yes, it is certainly doable. I for one-if I had the photos and more than just a lonely little doll head-would gladly submit a photo of my own to go with my confession if it meant making things a bit easier.... though my photos would likely royally suck *has no talent*.

...See you bring one's personal opinion into this, which already makes what is already a difficult argument (no it's not simple, I merely said the solution to this was more simple than getting butthurt and pitching fits and screaming "THIEF!") much more grey. Opinions are subjective, and yes, I know one would have to prove their case in court... I think everyone knows that *hopes*. I am merely stating what I see and how I interpret it. I know the definition of satire, and most of what I've seen can fit that definition... some will agree, some will not. It will always be that way.

So what? If they are within their right to do as they are doing, they don't have to do what *you* think they *should* do. I'm not saying I'll be doing anything like this in the future since... well I'm too lazy to run a blog, but there's no sense in getting so riled up about it when all you have is your opinion. This is where the "high and mighty" stuff comes in. Just because you *believe* someone should ask you permission, doesn't mean they have to if they don't legally have to, but yet because that's not playing by your (general you being used here.) rules, it's wrong, and a punishment of some kind should be dealt... when you could have just asked the photo be taken down and go about your lovely day.

Of course the same could be said of my opinions... but based on what I've read, the law seems to be working in my argument's favor.

See I have no issue if someone isn't comfortable with their image being shown in someone else's site/blog/whatever. That's okay. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But this isn't just about that anymore. Yes, people are creating drama out of nothing. A simple solution is obvious, but yet people want to take up pitchforks and run people off the internet for something that *really* is not that big a deal. It's really not. My own arguments come into place because I don't feel right sitting idly by and watching people do this crap. I'm not creating the drama, the drama was created before I even submitted my first response... and the only reason I keep replying, is because people are addressing what I say.

Where in the world did you see me tell anyone that they have no right to be against their photo being used in a way they don't want it used? I'm not accusing you of being high and mighty because you don't like how your photo is being used. I'm accusing people of being high and mighty because they seem to think that just because their art is so uber special, that even if someone is within their legal right to use it a certain way they feel the need to be all up in arms and start accusing people of being thieves.

You (general you) are not high and mighty just because you want a photo of yours not used a certain way. You become high and mighty when just because you *think* someone is wrong in what they are doing it doesn't matter if they are within their right to do it or not. You don't like, so it's automatically wrong, no matter what higher authority may say different.

 

Actually as a lot of people have stated the people running the blogs have NO legal right to use the photo's. The copyright holder has every right to say, no take my photo down i do not want to be associated with the blog, or the opinions stated in this blog.

I also think they are within the right to report it, because looking at the drama about how they are dealing with this very thread, they do not look like they would be mature and sensible about it. So why cause head aches for yourself when you can use the report button and not get as much drama. Also has someone pointed out, the way tumblr works. If the blogger takes it down from the confession blog, it doesn't take down the re-blogs. The image will ONLY remove that image from their original post.

This has no effect on all the re-blogged versions of that image that result from the original post. The ONLY method to remove those too is to have the Tumblr support team remove them from the servers directly, and to do that, you have to report the original post to them.

Plus my experience with DA has taught me, you use the silent report method or you can get trolled. So once bitten twice shy really.

 

The only reason they say they don't think the blogs have that legal right is based on their interpretation of the use of the photos. The problem with art and law is that art can be interpreted in such a vast number of ways, none of which may be considered wrong or right. I say I believe they are within their right, because I interpret the art in different way...I'm not saying either of us are wrong or right...I am merely stating that based on what *I* see, the law works in my arguments favor... obviously some don't see that, and obviously some do. Interpretation and opinion are all completely subjective, one big grey area... it doesn't make this any easier when the laws we focusing on are pretty blurry too.

Yes they within their right to report it., if that means getting their image down like they want. But then leave it at that. Don't go around pointing fingers and accusing people of being thieves when your problem can be resolved with little or no stress. If the blogs bitch about being reported...oh well. They may be within their right to do what they are doing, but a photo owner is within their right to ask a photo be taken down... it's when someone feels the need to stir things up with everyone that I have a problem.

And this goes both ways. If someone reports you to get an image taken down... suck it up. They have that right. But the same goes for the one who wants the image removed... if the blogger was within their legal right to post it up, suck it up, ask it get taken down, and leave it at that. (Note the use of the IF in "If the blogger is within their legal right." ...but once again we bring in the issue of opinion and interpretation....)

 

For me personally, If that happened to me I would not tollerate it. If the picture was taken from my home that is theft, If it was a copy or paste thing from my own blog I wouldn't care. If someone doesn't respect my dolls by not keeping it pg or pg13 related then I would deleate there comments or ask them to delete their post about my dolls. If they don't I will unleash Helleth Furry! I personally don't put up with such disrespect, especially since not everyone knows how to watermark. Either way regardless if they are watermarked they are still your photos, and they are still copyrighted by you or by your blogs, hence forth people need permission from owner to post pics even under the lesser circumstances where they aren't watermarked or whatever. Thats just my two cents.

 

But they are taking photo's that don't belong to them and reposting them else where without the owners concent. That is theft.

In a court of law as well, the courts would most likely side with the photogragher, because it is their image they are using. It is not subjective.

 

What you don't seem to realize is that if their use of the photo is protected under the Fair Use doctrine, they don't need to get permission from the owner. In the case of these photos one can argue that they are being used in a satirical manner, which would mean, it is protected under fair use... some may argue that the photos are not being used in this manner. In terms of this debate, that is a matter of opinion and interpretation of someone's use of media...one big grey area.

And no, the court's will not necessarily side with the photographer. Matel tried to sue someone for using their barbies in photo work... Matel lost because it was ruled that the barbies were being used in parodied manner. So no, just because you own a piece of work does not mean that you will win a suit because someone else used it... it will depend on how the piece was used.

 

But this is not parody or fair use. It could even be argued that these are being used to bully, upset and harass people. Which in this country (even if said on the internet) you can go to prison for. Fair use is mainly personal use, like saving it on your computer to look at. Not reposting else where, in a mannor that is going to upset people and the orignal owner.

Now you are vague in the barbie case, was it photo's of the barbies they used to edit. Or was it a photographer took pictures of barbies that someone owned.

 

I think instead of spamming hatemail and contacting tumblr if you're not the party involved is just crazy. If you're really concerned as to whether or not an artist's work is used without permission, contact the artist and let them handle it. What if the artist was one of the people who didn't care or saw it as publicity? And, if they're not and want to get it taken down, let them be the ones to contact the blog.

I'm not arguing for people doing this in any way, I'm just honestly curious about how well a case like this would hold up in court...

From my understanding of the Getty situation, the whole problem in question is that they make money off of their work so they can seek damages. However, how much damage they can seek is really... not that much. They may demand $1000+ dollars for using, say, a $50 dollar picture, but it doesn't seem that in court they'd be awarded anywhere near the amount, maybe triple the picture cost at most, they just like to use scare and harassment tactics to get people to pay more than its worth.

I didn't read too indepth, so there may have been cases where they won a large settlement? Many of the blogs I read said none of the cases had yet went to court, but I couldn't find exact dates, so that could have been a few years back.

So, I'm not sure what someone who doesn't charge for their pictures could do if they had their image taken and put up on a blog post could really feasibly expect but an expensive court case that probably wouldn't cover the cost of a lawyer. And actually, I'm pretty sure you have to send a "cease and desist" letter, and if the offending material is taken down, no harm no foul, really. You still could have a case, but if they were polite and took the image down, you really don't have much of a foothold in court (from my understanding) UNLESS they had made money off of it.

Also, it's against the law to harass/threaten someone who is breaking your copyright, so if you're going to fight someone over it, know that the person, even if you hate them, has rights, too, and can take you to court for that. A lot of people who do get harassed don't know they have rights in this situation.

And of course, there is the fair use clause which protects more than people seem to think. Even big media corporations who have the power to sue the little people have to step back when its clearly within their rights to be using the material. I'm thinking of the youtube videos that use songs, more fanvideos, if you will- they get taken down all the time due to copyright infringement, yet they get put back up most of the time if the person who made the video contacts youtube explaining that the song was part of fair use- they weren't making money off of using it, after all, and I guess it can be considered transformative work, but I'm not all that familiar with it.

I'm not sure how well that translates to pictures, but I've seen it and heard of it happening.

Regardless, if you don't own the rights or have permission, just protect yourself and get it. It takes only a few seconds of your time and will save you spam/hatemail later. Besides, you'll probably make the artist smile that someone is recognizing their hard work.

 

If it weren't a big deal to some members, the thread would not have moved from the first page. And I'm not sure how DoA members talking on a debate thread about something they don't like to see happen with their own pictures constitutes a pitchfork-wielding mob trying to block bloggers from the entire Internet.

To answer the OP (which was not in the context of only-confession-blogs-on-tumblr), I would not want my pictures used without my permission. Beyond the fact that it is rude (and I don't want free "advertising" -- advertising for what? I offer no doll-related services whatsoever), the pictures could be hosted on services with ToS I have not agreed to. The pictures could be associated with a site that I object to. Also, I don't generally post my doll pictures on the vast open Interwebz. I put them on members-only forums and my friends-locked LJ. My PB account is private. If I wanted more exposure than that, I'd go get it myself. Nobody could do me a favour by putting my pictures places I didn't ask them to, even if they were very nice about it. Part of putting on the big girl panties is recognizing that there are times when your intentions really don't matter.

The Internet is not purely about legality; it is a social entity. If you (general you) use someone else's pictures without permission, you take the risk of not only ToS or legal violations, but of that someone being angry and unpleasant with you. And your opinion on the harm or lack of harm of your actions does not trump the opinion of the owner of the pictures.