Hi everyone,

Since there are so many lawyers on the forum, can some knowledgeable lawyers clarify what's true and what's not about the claims, often seen, that people can assert some sort of a "copyright" over the pictures they post?

I thought "copyright" only meant no one can make money or run a commercial venture with the product of your work?
But hey, on OF which is a non profit no one is making money from someone's pictures. No one is charging royalties.

Also, doesn't one have to formally file for copyright protection?

Thanks for your guidance,
Best regards,
S

 

Depends on the product, use, and country. It even applies to the name in some cases.

I can recommend some great books on it lol.

Example. I could make a water purification system called Rolev Reverse Osmosis light emitting Viltration and call my process Viltration.

As long as my logo did not look like Rolex I’m in the clear as no one would confuse my company with Rolex and would not cause brand dilution. If I made a watch with that name it would be considered brand dilution and not allowed. Regardless of logo and symbol.

In the US Olympia and Olympic cannot be used in any form unless your company is in the Olympia area of Washington State as the US Olympic Committee has locked down any use of those 2 terms as causing brand dilution.

 

In case I wasn't clear- I'm talking about pictures people post of WATCHES. More specifically vintage watches.
I'm not asking about water purification systems.

 

People can assert copyright on images they post on the internet. However, courts have been pretty liberal about allowing others to use copyrighted online images under the "fair use" doctrine.

 

I’m not sure what instance would cause a violation.

 

I just assume any pics I put on the internet are fair game, once posted I've lost control.

 

Basically you own your content and the responsibility for making sure that you are not uploading infringing or malicious content. Once its here it Non-Confidential and Non Proprietary.

CONTRIBUTING CONTENT
All third party and member submissions on Omega Forums are the exclusive property of the respective authors. Any messages or content posted on this website express the views, experiences and opinions of the individuals or organisations posting only and do not represent the ideas or opinions of Omega Forums or South Creative. Omega Forums is not responsible to any specific User who disagrees with any view or opinion expressed by any other User. Any disputes between Users regarding content are to be resolved between the Users concerned.


When you submit content you are warranting that; (i) You own the necessary rights in the content to do so; and
(ii) The posting of the content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, or any other rights of any other person(s).


Members, visitors and contributors are prohibited from posting or uploading any material that;
(a) Is unlawful, threatening, abusive, obscene, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any material constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, national or international law; or
(b) Transmits information, software, or other materials that contain viruses or other harmful components; or
(c) Transmits, or in any way exploits information, software or other materials for commercial purposes. To avoid doubt, this provision is intended to prohibit spam and the soliciting of business by persons who are not approved by Omega Forums. It is not intended to prevent usual and consensual transactions between members through the facilities provided by the website.


Any content you upload will be considered non-confidential and non-proprietary, and Omega Forums retains the right to use, copy, distribute and disclose to 3rd parties any such content for any purpose.


You indemnify South Creative and each of its officers, directors, employees, agents and affiliates from and against any and all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by South Creative as a direct or indirect result of a breach of your aforementioned warranties.

 

Reposting pictures not marked with a copyright from Instagram is not an issue, even with markings you should be clear under fair use if your doing it informative purposes and not making money.

Common decency states you should credit the source.

 

That. Precisly. And so often....lacking.....

 

@Syrte

Posting a picture in this forum with zero watermarks would generally mean you have zero rights in most countries for non profit fair use. If your picture or words are used in a for profit setting it would be on a case by case basis by whatever legal body would apply. Generally the location in which the content was distributed would be the deciding location.

Oddly I read the TOS here as contradictory. It’s states content is the sole right of the poster, yet retains rights to sell or use content.

 

That is for sure.

Agree, there’s a statement on top saying the owner retains property, yet a statement at the bottom to the effect that content uploaded is considered non proprietary. Both statements seem to conflict.

 

Thanks much, that is quite helpful.

 

In the UK:
“You get copyright protection automatically - you don’t have to apply or pay a fee. There isn’t a register of copyright works in the UK.”
“You can mark your work with the copyright symbol (©), your name and the year of creation. Whether you mark the work or not doesn’t affect the level of protection you have.”
https://www.gov.uk/copyright

 

In the US:

“Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”

(The caveats are with enforcement)

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

 

Server hosted in Australia... this does not apply.

 

Ex Advertising Photographer who has historically, had to resort to International Copyright

Your photographs / images are your ‘intellectual property’

You can freely licence them, to the Forum, by accepting the T&C’s

They still remain your property

 

Thanks gents, those protections are fair, I also find it more than fair to require pictures to stay up when people use the forum to sell items.

There’s another example I have in mind.

Some time ago I posted screen grabs of a certain watch sold on Ebay. I posted the Ebay price screen and pictures with no comment, just to record a hefty price achieved in a public sale.

Another member then found that archival info from the manufacture indicated the watch was not born with its current desirable and distinctive black dial —as the archive recorded a different dial color.
There ensues a discussion across various threads about speculative restorations with transplanted dials.

A couple of weeks later I received a private message from someone who had just joined the forum. He said he was the buyer of the watch (I realized we follow each other on Instagram although I don’t know him).
He had found out through the forum the dial was a graft, said he obtained from the seller the original dial, shared a nice picture privately, and was now asking me as a favor to remove the Ebay pictures I had published or at least the pictures showing serial numbers of “his” watch. Did not volunteer plans for the distinctive black dial now being set free.

I did not remove those pictures. Those pictures were published freely to the entire world for a public sale, the serial numbers give historical dating information and they carry relevant evidence. I suggested he post his end of the story- but he did not.
In this instance, if anyone came and said “I’m the copyright owner” I think my reply would be “sue me”.

 

Awhile back I downloaded a file of scans from a very old British catalog and was surprised to find that many images of products and other things had been removed.
Apparently the catalog itself was in public domain but the images remained the property of the estate of the artist. He had not sold the perpetual rights to these images to the company that published the catalog.