Water marked/ copyright ?

[latheboy]

Hey i got a question, there was a bloke taking pics of bikes on the way to the supers the other weekend and i found a couple of me.
They have a water mark and say copyrighted bla bla bla....

So i copied them cos im not paying 25 each
So the question is if i post them can Si get in shit for hosting them?

[Fight_fan]

Is Si still classified as hosting them if u use say photobucket or something similar to put them up?

[latheboy]

I'm not that techonmalogical Lance....

Hows your master?

[Cruisecontrol]

If the watermark remains in place then you are merely re-displaying them not stealing them.

[thejester650]

i agree with Cruisecontrol on this one. if you were using them as say advertising, he might get in trouble but just for the sake of showing them should be alright

[grindella]

for what ever reason you are using them you still need to get permission, ie release note, from the person who is in photo. If you have the money and time you could sue them but is it worth it?
Taking someones picture and using it without their permision is illegal. It is worse if they make money of them ie quoteSo i copied them cos im not paying 25 each back to the original question about getting Si in the shit, the answer is yes but, do you have the money to start a civil suit against them?

[Chase]

My understanding is that if the photos are taken in a public location and there has been no commissioning for the pic, then the pic is deemed to be owned by the photographer.

ie.. when professional photographers take pictures of beaches, sunsets, or public events for the purpose of sale and there happen to be people in those pics they don't need to be paid or authorise the use of the pics and are owned by the photographer.

but... if either party commissioned the event;
- you pay the photographer to take the pics then they're owned by you
- the photographer orchestrates the pic commissioning you to pose then you are entitled to be paid.

.... just my understanding.

[Fight_fan]

quote:Originally posted by latheboy

I'm not that techonmalogical Lance....

Hows your master?


Perfection itself mate! Not a leak in sight... Thanx again! [^]

[sharky]

Just photoshop out the watermark ;)

[Jup]

PM sent.

I have had success in the past by simply emailing the photographer and telling them that you wish to use the photo unedited, and not for profit, with appropriate credit given to them.

[latheboy]

quote:Originally posted by sharky

Just photoshop out the watermark ;)


Please see my 2nd post in this thread and sub lance for sharky:D

thanks jup and back at you.

They aren't really good pictures but they are the most up to date and was going to update my build.

No biggy i should just bust out the camera.

[Gix11]

I got in to trouble for a copyright design post you made a while back Ivan, but this is different. The photo has his watermark on it so you are advertising his work. No issue here. Remove the watermark and you have issues.

[latheboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gix11

I got in to trouble for a copyright design post you made a while back Ivan, but this is different. The photo has his watermark on it so you are advertising his work. No issue here. Remove the watermark and you have issues.



Shit what was that design post about Si... Sorry i wouldn't have done it if id known.

[Gix11]

No stress mate, he just emailed me from the States with threats of sueing me (typical American). I took it down straight away and he was amazed and thanked me - That simple - No stress.

It was the bike lift bench by the way, from a couple of years back.

[latheboy]

ok cool, ill find it agian and give it another crack... :D

[Gix11]

Sweet.

[gibbo]

quote:Originally posted by grindella

for what ever reason you are using them you still need to get permission, ie release note, from the person who is in photo. If you have the money and time you could sue them but is it worth it?
Taking someones picture and using it without their permision is illegal. It is worse if they make money of them ie quoteSo i copied them cos im not paying 25 each back to the original question about getting Si in the shit, the answer is yes but, do you have the money to start a civil suit against them?

Hmmm, you might want to pass this info along to Lara Bingles lawyers, apparently the womens mags are breaking the law with every issue they produce!

[80s freak]

I think I saw that dude, what's his web address Ivan? You could always use the defence of he did not get your permission to take your photo. There was a drama with this sort bof thing on the Black spur a while back, because the photos showed obviously speeding motorcycles number plates.

[grindella]

what is law and what is accepted practice may not be the same. Just to get you guys thinking. If the head of NSW highway patrol did not have a trailer for his bike would bike trailers still be legal?, considering the law states that a motorcyle is not allowed to tow another vehicle.

[latheboy]

http://www.hdimagetank.com.au/index.php

Type in your reg plate and see if he got you...

http://www.hdimagetank.com.au/search.php?hd_search=Y&search=zb+510&match_type=all&gid_search=&x=8&y=9 .... Me, photos taken by whatever his name is;)

[Neo Dutch]

quote:Originally posted by grindella

for what ever reason you are using them you still need to get permission, ie release note, from the person who is in photo. If you have the money and time you could sue them but is it worth it?
Taking someones picture and using it without their permision is illegal. It is worse if they make money of them ie quoteSo i copied them cos im not paying 25 each back to the original question about getting Si in the shit, the answer is yes but, do you have the money to start a civil suit against them?

This is not entirely correct. There are only 2 restrictions, can not photograph a child who is a ward of the state, and any person who is on the grounds of a court of law.

Latheboy, does have an avenue of re-course as a photographer may not use a photo for commercial purposes without gaining the permission of the subject. As the pic is available to the public, and not just LB then it could be argued that it is a commercial venture.

[sickboy]

[8D]here's me comming off the Island monday morning.
http://www.hdimagetank.com.au/search.php?hd_search=Y&search=YYG+908&match_type=all&gid_search=&x=6&y=8

[Bear]

In TV, we have to get signed "waver" forms to use anyone's recognisable image in video or else they can sue if they could be bothered. In a public place though, among other people, it's a calculated risk. You could argue it. But when it's a person being featured, it's commercial gain unless it's a private snap.
I don't see how this would differ to stills.

These rights are wavered on most sporting grounds that you pay to enter. There'll be some fine print on a ticket or a sign somewhere saying that any photos you take or you are seen in while there etc etc. are property of the sporting club and you waver those rights when you enter.
If it's a public place, you have commercial rights.
That's what I've been told in my industry by legals.

[red]

There's a lot of hearsay here. You would certainly be in the wrong to copy those images, and distribute them (both of those acts are illegal). You can't sue him for taking a picture. But under Australian copyright laws he can sue you. He doesn't need to sue you though, he can complain to the Police and they can deal with you without a court appearance.

The rule about getting a model release is if the image is going to be used to sell something. You have the right not to be associated with a product and can claim damages if this is how your image is used. Wonder if getting your picture taken on a speeding ticket fits this criteria?

The reason newspapers and TV get waivers is to avoid libel suits. Say you got photographed walking past a gay nightclub and the picture was published. People might think you were gay (or worse, a Policeman!) and you could sue the media entity for damage to your reputation.

While most photographers would appreciate the acclaim us lot would give them, some might get peeved if their copyrights were trampled. I doubt Simon could be held directly responsible for what is on the site (black amputee goat porn aside...) but do we really want him having to visit a lawyer cause of us?

[JackTar]

Just stop being a tight cunt and buy them Ivan.

[2ndclasscitizen]

quote:Originally posted by Bear

In TV, we have to get signed "waver" forms to use anyone's recognisable image in video or else they can sue if they could be bothered. In a public place though, among other people, it's a calculated risk. You could argue it. But when it's a person being featured, it's commercial gain unless it's a private snap.
I don't see how this would differ to stills.

With stills, there's 2 considerations as to whether you require a model release from someone. There's the commercial side you mentioned, but there's the privacy issue. If someone has a reasonable expectation to privacy, it's a no-no. But someone in public walking on the street, or riding along a road, shoot away to your heart's content.

[80s freak]

Or Ivan you could just get your tits out Lara Bingle style.

[latheboy]

quote:Originally posted by 80s freak

Or Ivan you could just get your tits out Lara Bingle style.


Been there done that... :D