Asking cause I found one of my own pictures and some other members reused on a watch blog/newsletter. Not directly copied but linked.

 

If they linked to an open forum where you willingly posted your pictures then they did nothing wrong.

If they copied your photo and used it in a different context for profit... well that’s another thing entirely.

 

Link to blog/newsletter ?

 

If your photo is being used in a way you don't appreciate, contact the person using it and politely let them know how you feel.

 

Or impolitely......your choice.

 

I think this deserves some more details or even a screenshot for posterity. Name and shame

 

^^^^^^^^^

 

One for OF to determine, but once you post something here you dont own it. Note, this is pretty standard for cloud based applications and hosting, nothing unusual about it.

All in the t&c's

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
All material published on the website by Omega Forums, (including but not limited to images, graphics, trademarks and multimedia) is the sole property of South Creative or its licensors.


You are permitted to print and download extracts from Omega Forums for personal, non-commercial use provided the Company's copyright, trade mark notices and this permission notice appear on all copies.

 

That doesn’t mean what you think it means. It protects the website from being forced to remove a posted image. The photographer still owns the copyright.

 

Hands up, jumped the gun, was early and upon rereading I stand corrected.

Thought it was an interesting topic so took a read of the boilerplate. Was getting confused with, possibly out of date, information relating to forfeit of copyright on photo sharing websites.

Either way an interesting topic, but thanks for making me switch on the grey matter

 

It is an interesting topic, especially since it had to adapt to the online age. I'm familiar as I know many photographers, and at least one of them is quite fearsome when defending his intellectual property.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AxAC&usg=AOvVaw3nYPHuhPzeBeXV1y2Ba3D8&ampcf=1

 

Looks like he’s borrowed @Skrotis @Vanallard pictures as well.

Stole this one for us back with no link on it from the article.

 

The internet has a diminished expectation of privacy. This is a crappy, legal way that says if you put it out there, it's public and can be used. But if you add a copy right symbol, it cannot be reused without permission. If you are truly particular about a picture, add a copy right symbol. Otherwise feel flattered.

That is what a college course in business management wull get you.

 

100% false

 

Im pretty sure using someone else's work without their permission is not only wrong but also may be illegal. My question was maybe two :

1. By posting pictures here, do we waive our rights ? My guess: I wouldn't think - though I see som commenting this thread think it's so. And before anyone tells me that I should know this by reading the disclaimers Im sure can be found somewhere on site- I haven't - I never do and think I never will ..

Secondly - maybe more interesting :

2. By linking back directly to post - as this blogger has done with mine and other members pictures - is that sufficient photo credit line ?

To be clear. Im not very angry, or upset or flattered - it just made me wonder.

 

That is correct. It is illegal.

Looking at the blog post, the author not only links to the original blog post but also use the images in the blog post. This is a copyright infringement. Linking to the original publication (crediting the author) is not enough. The author needs permisson from the copyright owner.

 

Does it matter or is it relevant if the photos are used for profit or in a non-profit way?

E.g. If I find a photo of watch in a ΩF post or via Google that I use as a "example" or I have something to discuss about that particular piece, can I just post it for discussion? I would hope that that would be legal.

 

I am no expert. There might be some copyright specialists who can elaborate on this.

I would though assume, that what you describe falls under "fair use". As I understand it this is for non-profit or educational use. The blog post author might make a similar claim with his/her blog.

I'll leave it to the pros to elaborate on the finer details of this. (and contridict anything that might be wrong about my understanding)