- Posts
- 29,672
- Likes
- 76,830
Is it free to use pictures posted in forum
- Posts
- 6,190
- Likes
- 21,195
pdxleaf
··"I cut it TWICE and it's still short!"Two things.
Diminished expectation of privacy is the number one principal on how privacy law was interpreted and applied against the fledgling internet. I was there before www. The concept is that if you provide your name, address, photo, any data voluntarily, then have made it public, thus given up or diminished some of your expectation of privacy. This is why websites can and want to give you a coupon for 50 bucks in exchange for your signing up for a gimmick. They can now legally use what you voluntarily gave up. Also, as a part time artist I have sold sculptures and drawings so have made use of the copyright symbol. Placing it on your work is incredibly powerful. It does not prevent theft, but it can be useful if you intend to fight. Those principles are accurate. Please explain your argument. I recognize that the application for the question that the OP asks is nuanced. Any legal advice you receive on a watch forum is probably suspect in any regard, which i am confident that the OP knows.
Secondly, you impugn my character by accusing me of having no interest in the forum other than to increase my post count. You may know the inside of a watch but you don't know the inside of a man's head. I will consider your snide comment as an attempt at humor, which often doesn't work well in text. But it sure removes some of the fun and community spiritI was enjoying.
Diminished expectation of privacy is the number one principal on how privacy law was interpreted and applied against the fledgling internet. I was there before www. The concept is that if you provide your name, address, photo, any data voluntarily, then have made it public, thus given up or diminished some of your expectation of privacy. This is why websites can and want to give you a coupon for 50 bucks in exchange for your signing up for a gimmick. They can now legally use what you voluntarily gave up. Also, as a part time artist I have sold sculptures and drawings so have made use of the copyright symbol. Placing it on your work is incredibly powerful. It does not prevent theft, but it can be useful if you intend to fight. Those principles are accurate. Please explain your argument. I recognize that the application for the question that the OP asks is nuanced. Any legal advice you receive on a watch forum is probably suspect in any regard, which i am confident that the OP knows.
Secondly, you impugn my character by accusing me of having no interest in the forum other than to increase my post count. You may know the inside of a watch but you don't know the inside of a man's head. I will consider your snide comment as an attempt at humor, which often doesn't work well in text. But it sure removes some of the fun and community spiritI was enjoying.
- Posts
- 29,672
- Likes
- 76,830
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerDiminished expectation of privacy is the number one principal on how privacy law was interpreted and applied against the fledgling internet. I was there before www. The concept is that if you provide your name, address, photo, any data voluntarily, then have made it public, thus given up or diminished some of your expectation of privacy. This is why websites can and want to give you a coupon for 50 bucks in exchange for your signing up for a gimmick. They can now legally use what you voluntarily gave up. Also, as a part time artist I have sold sculptures and drawings so have made use of the copyright symbol. Placing it on your work is incredibly powerful. It does not prevent theft, but it can be useful if you intend to fight. Those principles are accurate. Please explain your argument. I recognize that the application for the question that the OP asks is nuanced. Any legal advice you receive on a watch forum is probably suspect in any regard, which i am confident that the OP knows.
Lots of writing here, but none of it supports this statement:
"if you put it out there, it's public and can be used."
And in fact, this is not true either:
"The concept is that if you provide your name, address, photo, any data voluntarily, then have made it public, thus given up or diminished some of your expectation of privacy."
It would depend on the privacy policies of the web site, and the laws in whatever jurisdiction is applicable...
Secondly, you impugn my character by accusing me of having no interest in the forum other than to increase my post count. You may know the inside of a watch but you don't know the inside of a man's head. I will consider your snide comment as an attempt at humor, which often doesn't work well in text. But it sure removes some of the fun and community spiritI was enjoying.
A flurry of posts is often someone trying to get to 200 posts so they can sell something. If that's the case here or not, only time will tell I suppose.
- Posts
- 6,190
- Likes
- 21,195
pdxleaf
··"I cut it TWICE and it's still short!"Lots of writing here, but none of it supports this statement:
"if you put it out there, it's public and can be used."
And in fact, this is not true either:
"The concept is that if you provide your name, address, photo, any data voluntarily, then have made it public, thus given up or diminished some of your expectation of privacy."
It would depend on the privacy policies of the web site, and the laws in whatever jurisdiction is applicable...
A flurry of posts is often someone trying to get to 200 posts so they can sell something. If that's the case here or not, only time will tell I suppose.
Thank you for taking the time to specify your disagreement. I agree that this more nuanced. Previous posters mentioned the concept of fair use, the forum rules. This is complicated, which is why no one reads the 600 pages of rules ( exaggeration). The rules are so long because it isn't an easy yes/no.
Diminished expectation sucks but it is a core principle. Is it more nuanced and should I have been more thoughtful in my response to the particulars of the OP, yes.
I understand people have abused this forum to use it. You are justified in being cautious. But consider how this is received by someone who reads about watches, is stuck at home, recently retired, finished remodeling the bathroom, and has a wife who could care less about watches or vanagons.
I intend on introducing myself in the introductions post but first i am reading all of the previous introductions, as that seems the right wat to do it. I am a slow reader.
Regarding sales, I recently sold a 3520.50 triple date ( which I loved) to help fund a 145.012 that my local AD sold me from his personal collection. I sold the triple date through ebay to a local guy who also loves it. To date, I am a net buyer. My collection is focused on space. That and my budget keeps me narrowed.
A lot of words, but i choose them thoughtfully, although that doesn't eliminate the chance of my own stupidity interfering.
- Posts
- 469
- Likes
- 1,956
- Posts
- 29,672
- Likes
- 76,830
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI 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) 😵💫
Not sure just the "final use" is really relevant, at least not in isolation. If for example the article is written for educational purposes, but the author was paid to write it (no idea if this blog hires people to write their articles or not, but some do) then he is using your work for profit even if the article is educational and the blog itself is not profiting directly.
I've actually had this exact thing happen to me. A photo I posted on a watch forum to explain something was taken by someone, cropped to remove my watermark, and then used in a technical publication (hardcopy magazine) all without my permission or notice. I happened to get that publication, and recognized my photo immediately. I emailed the publisher, who essentially washed their hands of it and blamed the author. The author (who was paid the write the article) then said he was sent the photo by someone else, said he didn't remove my watermark, and apologized. That was the end of it - I wasn't going to make a big deal of it, but honestly the attitude was so nonchalant it surprised me a bit.
The forum I posted it on no longer exists, but it was for a specific brand that the person who wrote the article is involved with, so my guess is that he was lying, but again I wasn't after money or anything, just to make him aware that this wasn't something I was going to tolerate.
Here is the photo as I posted it:
And the cropped version used in the article:
Here showing how the crop was done to eliminate my watermark:
This isn't a theoretical thing...it happens and shouldn't be tolerated IMO, no matter what someone says your expectations should be.
Cheers, Al
Edited:
- Posts
- 468
- Likes
- 1,324
jeppehh
·As stated before I’m not a lawyer and not a specialist in copyright. I’ve only researched it for work a bit and how I understand it the story you outlined @Archer actually falls under “fair use” and the author did not violate your copyright.
Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder for purposes such as criticism, parody, news reporting, research and scholarship, and teaching.
I surely don’t agree in this case, as I would argue it would have been right to ask for use in this case. I guess it’s not black and white and that is why lawyers all over the world are making billions.
Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder for purposes such as criticism, parody, news reporting, research and scholarship, and teaching.
I surely don’t agree in this case, as I would argue it would have been right to ask for use in this case. I guess it’s not black and white and that is why lawyers all over the world are making billions.
- Posts
- 29,672
- Likes
- 76,830
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerAs stated before I’m not a lawyer and not a specialist in copyright. I’ve only researched it for work a bit and how I understand it the story you outlined @Archer actually falls under “fair use” and the author did not violate your copyright.
Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder for purposes such as criticism, parody, news reporting, research and scholarship, and teaching.
I surely don’t agree in this case, as I would argue it would have been right to ask for use in this case. I guess it’s not black and white and that is why lawyers all over the world are making billions.
I don't agree - this was someone being paid to write an article that was sold to a magazine that was in turn sold to subscribers. From that article the factors that need to be considered:
"The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
This was a commercial use of my photo, for profit.
- Posts
- 8,258
- Likes
- 19,449
alam
·I had a more pleasant experience -- a few years ago a member here who identified himself as an AWCI member, reached out to me and asked for my permission to use a photo I had posted in the forum for use in an article in Horological Times. He went on to explain the purpose of the article was not advertisement in nature. After verifying his story, I asked my only condition was to receive a copy of the magazine where the article was being published - he agreed and couple of months later, I received a copy of the magazine in the mail.
Here's the photo that made me famous! 😜
.
Here's the photo that made me famous! 😜
.
- Posts
- 468
- Likes
- 1,324
- Posts
- 3,184
- Likes
- 3,856
SpikiSpikester
··@ ΩFPersonally - as a lawyer with some experience of litigating copyright - I find these online arguments fascinating...
🍿🍿🍿🍿
Anyway, I'll chip to say
- privacy issues are NOT the same as copyright issues, at all. Getting them mixed up as pdxleaf did, is really not helpful to anyone.
- if you produce something that qualifies as a "work", you have the copyright - you don't need to do anything to "create" it.
- proving you made the "work" is a separate thing altogether. It's a practical issue, which is made simpler by using (c) marks - as per @Archer
- if you have copyright, you are entitled to licence the "work" or sell it as you want. But mostly "works" like photos have virtually no commercial value. If someone uses a "work" without permission, they can claim fair use as a reason not to pay a fee to licence the use BUT they still must credit the copyright owner. So. removing a (c) mark is a reasonable indication of bad faith use.
- if someone uses your (c) photo without accrediting you as the source/copyright owner, you can request them to either give the (c) credit or cease making use of it.
Commonly, like @alam experienced, reputable users will ask permission, give a credit and send you a free copy of the publication your photo is used in - that pretty much reflects the commercial value the "work" has in the real world. A professional photographer can be in a position to demand a fee, but that's' getting into different territory altogether.
Hope this helps 😀
🍿🍿🍿🍿
Anyway, I'll chip to say
- privacy issues are NOT the same as copyright issues, at all. Getting them mixed up as pdxleaf did, is really not helpful to anyone.
- if you produce something that qualifies as a "work", you have the copyright - you don't need to do anything to "create" it.
- proving you made the "work" is a separate thing altogether. It's a practical issue, which is made simpler by using (c) marks - as per @Archer
- if you have copyright, you are entitled to licence the "work" or sell it as you want. But mostly "works" like photos have virtually no commercial value. If someone uses a "work" without permission, they can claim fair use as a reason not to pay a fee to licence the use BUT they still must credit the copyright owner. So. removing a (c) mark is a reasonable indication of bad faith use.
- if someone uses your (c) photo without accrediting you as the source/copyright owner, you can request them to either give the (c) credit or cease making use of it.
Commonly, like @alam experienced, reputable users will ask permission, give a credit and send you a free copy of the publication your photo is used in - that pretty much reflects the commercial value the "work" has in the real world. A professional photographer can be in a position to demand a fee, but that's' getting into different territory altogether.
Hope this helps 😀
- Posts
- 469
- Likes
- 1,956
Gstp
·Great @SpikiSpikester , but is linking back to post sufficient as credit ?
- Posts
- 3,184
- Likes
- 3,856
SpikiSpikester
··@ ΩFGreat @SpikiSpikester , but is linking back to post sufficient as credit ?
Best way to show you're a decent human is to give an express credit as part of the use & a link back, IMO.
- Posts
- 386
- Likes
- 448
glownyc
·I've actually had this exact thing happen to me. A photo I posted on a watch forum to explain something was taken by someone, cropped to remove my watermark, and then used in a technical publication (hardcopy magazine) all without my permission or notice. I happened to get that publication, and recognized my photo immediately. I emailed the publisher, who essentially washed their hands of it and blamed the author. The author (who was paid the write the article) then said he was sent the photo by someone else, said he didn't remove my watermark, and apologized. That was the end of it - I wasn't going to make a big deal of it, but honestly the attitude was so nonchalant it surprised me a bit.
- Posts
- 386
- Likes
- 448
glownyc
·It's a bit cheap... but it does the trick
Best way to show you're a decent human is to give an express credit as part of the use & a link back, IMO.
- Posts
- 24,257
- Likes
- 54,011
Dan S
·That only applies if your not trying to make money correct? If say the blog was running ads on the page and making money then it would be a different story?
Well, if someone is making money off of someone else's copyrighted work (and it can be proven), I think it is probably more difficult for them to claim fair use.
- Posts
- 3,184
- Likes
- 3,856
SpikiSpikester
··@ ΩFThat only applies if your not trying to make money correct? If say the blog was running ads on the page and making money then it would be a different story?
- Posts
- 386
- Likes
- 448
glownyc
·
Super helpful response.
- Posts
- 5,636
- Likes
- 5,810
SkunkPrince
·One for OF to determine, but once you post something here you dont own it.
Sorry, but not correct in the United States. However, you must assert your copyright or any legal action will be found against you.
One of my pictures not of a watch was ganked by a newspaper's website. I wrote, asking it be removed, and was informed the person who used it without permission had died.
Uh, ok?
Take it down anyways.
- Posts
- 614
- Likes
- 836
timecube
·Super helpful response.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 13
- Views
- 8K
- Posts
- 34
- Views
- 5K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 4K
