Photo's- what's right/wrong

[CristyCurves 169032]

Downloading/copying another's pictures is wrong-Right. I think we all can agree on that!! It is a copyright infringement. So my question is - when a man copies and pastes a picture to search it on tineye or google image search isn't he then committing a copyright infringement? After all he has copied a picture, a picture that he has no ownership of and that is what a copyright infringement is. To my understanding there is no provision in the law that states it's okay to copy if you are going to use it with positive intentions and to benefit others, or am I wrong?

Obviously this type of copying is done to prevent negative experiences, to prove someone is legit, but the law is the law and no matter the intentions of the holder of the copied picture, it's still copied. Your thoughts.

[raindancer 121]

When I use Tineye, I actually don't download or copy the photo. I have a browser plugin for Tineye that allows you to right click on a photo and Search for the image on Tineye, so there is no copying involved and therefore no infringements, if any exist.

 

I rarely ever use this for any posts on Cerb, but do for pictures posted on the other sites that may not have the same reputation as Cerb. Just today, I checked a number of photos and found quite a few that are very questionable. If they are questionable to me then I usually move on. Some are so obvious it is hilarious.

 

My two cents.

 

PS. I have never right clicked on any of your photos Cristy

[Guest K***e D****ls]

Something like this I wouldn't consider a copyright infringement because you aren't using it anywhere like posting on a blog or another website. It's to make sure you aren't making bad choices when finding a lady.

 

There's a certain ad forum starting with 'E' that is infamous for girls using fake photos in their ads or in their thumbnails in the US, but I've also seen it in the Toronto ad forum. I've seen everyone from Sunny Leone to Kate Upton's photos being used in other girls ads on there. Some girls go on photobucket, tumblr or model mayhem and grab obscure glamour models' photos thinking no one will know and use them. It's highly pathetic but it's also an unfortunate part of the business.

 

So used in a way like google images or tineye, it's more protection for the gent to weed out frauds and fakes, than being malicious when it comes to copyrights. And as mentioned, there are ways to do it without right click saving.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

My understanding is there is a difference between copying something - or using that copy without my permission to "post, forward etc." I wouldn't have a problem with someone copying my picture for their own personal enjoyment as I have already posted my picture online. However, if you copy my picture, and then use it to pretend it is your likeness, that is never cool. Or, if you take a picture of me without my permission and then post it somewhere.

 

I'm sorry to hear that there are those using your pictures trying to pretend it is them. That is never ok and I truly wish there was more we could do the stop this. For both providers and hobbyists this needs to stop.

[CristyCurves 169032]

When I use Tineye, I actually don't download or copy the photo. I have a browser plugin for Tineye that allows you to right click on a photo and Search for the image on Tineye, so there is no copying involved and therefore no infringements, if any exist.

Great point, thank you. I obviously thought to search a picture you'd have to copy it. I wonder though, if even searching it is an infringement of some sort? Remember I am a computer dummy and the more one knows in this internet world the better, especially when you have personal pictures out there:)

 

 

PS. I have never right clicked on any of your photos Cristy

LOL, well that may be because they weren't good enough so you realized they must be real,lol ! Or you didn't because you had no interest in them:) Or because, you just knew they were mine:) Or because you just didn't care , either way -thank you:)

[Luckyme 41401]

My understanding is there is a difference between copying something - or using that copy without my permission to "post, forward etc." I wouldn't have a problem with someone copying my picture for their own personal enjoyment as I have already posted my picture online. However, if you copy my picture, and then use it to pretend it is your likeness, that is never cool. Or, if you take a picture of me without my permission and then post it somewhere.

 

 

I agree. I think the key is "copying it and use it somewhere without permission" - that's a copyright infringement. Also, as raindancer says, you don't even have to copy to check the photos on Tineye.

 

Searching a photo obviously is not illegal. If it is on the Internet, one can not prevent anyone to search for it. Otherwise, search engines such as Google would be out of business long time ago.

[igab 5629]

Once you post on the Internet it's in the public domain. If you don't want them copied or shared, don't post them.

What many teens don't get when they post selfies of themselves is that these race around the world and there are no controls. The legal world has had very little influence for a lot of years...that's why they used to call it the Wild Wild Web.

[CristyCurves 169032]

Once you post on the Internet it's in the public domain. If you don't want them copied or shared, don't post them.

.

 

While I appreciate and thank you for your comment I can't agree with it. Posting anything on the internet DOES NOT make it public domain, nor does it give anyone the right to use it. Once anything is created whether it be a photograph, video, music, it's protected by the copyright act. You don't even need to register it there or have it stamped. What has been produced by me is mine, no matter if I post it on the net or on a pole. Copying it will be a copy right infringement and actionable in court.

[bcguy42 38594]

Posting anything on the internet DOES NOT make it public domain, nor does it give anyone the right to use it. Once anything is created whether it be a photograph, video, music, it's protected by the copyright act. You don't even need to register it there or have it stamped. What has been produced by me is mine, no matter if I post it on the net or on a pole. Copying it will be a copy right infringement and actionable in court.

 

Correct. Posting something on the Internet does not affect the rights of the copyright holder. That would be you if you took your own picture.

 

Under the concept of "fair use" or "fair dealing", a person can copy that picture for their own personal use. Canadian law has explicitly allowed this since 1999. They can't sell, trade or otherwise claim ownership of the image. There is also a "research" exemption. I suspect reposting copyrighted images in the "Best of .." threads could be considered research. :)

 

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure posting a copyrighted image and claiming it is you is a violation of copyright law.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

Here is a link I found online:

 

http://users.trytel.com/.pbkerr/copyright.html

 

Canadian copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act, which protects original literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works. A partial list of works which are entitled to copyright protection in Canada includes: books, newspapers, dictionaries, manuals, catalogues, magazines, pamphlets, computer software, paintings, drawings, design trade-marks, sculptures, architectural works, engravings, dramatic works, photographs, films, videos, scripts, maps, lyrics and musical works.

 

One very significant right granted to the owner of Canadian copyright in a work, is the exclusive right to reproduce the work, (or any substantial part of the work) in any material form whatever.

For example, the owner of copyright in a book has the right to stop others from making copies of the book, (or any substantial part of the book), whether the copying is by way of a commercial printer, a photocopy machine, or by way of a computer image/text scanner.

 

In addition to acquiring the exclusive right to copy the work, the owner of copyright in a work also receives an entire "bundle" of rights, some of which are specific to the type of work in question. For example, in the case of a dramatic work, copyright includes the right to convert the dramatic work into a novel. In the case of computer software, it includes the right to rent the software to others. Each different type of work has its own bundle of copyrights.

 

Copyright comes into existence automatically, at the time the work was created, and, in the case of most works, it continues until the end of the calendar year in which the author of the work dies (regardless of whether the author has sold or assigned the copyright in the work or not), and continues for an additional period of 50 years. There are some notable exceptions to this rule however. One such exception relates to photographs, which are protected by copyright from the time the photograph was taken, up until the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken , and for an additional period of 50 years (that is, the termination date of copyright protection for photographs is linked to the date the photograph was taken, and not the date of the photographer's death).

 

"Moral" rights are also protected under Canadian copyright law. Moral rights include the author's right to be associated with the work by name, or pseudonym and the right to remain anonymous, and include the author's right to the integrity of the work (that is, the author's right to stop the work from being distorted, mutilated or modified, to the prejudice of the author's honour or reputation, or from being used in association with a product, service, cause or institution).

 

Moral rights remain with the author of a work, even where the work, or the copyright in the work, has been sold or assigned. Moral rights continue to exist in a work for the same length of time as do the other copyrights in the work in question.

 

Copyright in a work may be assigned or licensed to others. All assignments and licenses of copyright must be in writing to be valid. The mere transfer of physical possession of a work does not thereby include an assignment of copyright in the work.

 

While moral rights may not be assigned, these rights may be waived by the author, in whole, or in part. A mere assignment or license of copyright in a work does not, in and of itself, amount to a waiver of moral rights in the work. It is therefore recommended that, where possible, all assignments and licenses of copyright include a written waiver of the author's moral rights.

 

Each work in which copyright subsists should be marked with a notice in the following form: "© Smith and Company, 1996". That is, the notice should display the copyright symbol ©, followed by the name of the owner of copyright, followed by the year in which the work was published. This notice is to be displayed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of a claim of copyright in the work.

Copyright may be registered in Canada at the Canadian Copyright Office located in Ottawa/Hull. While registration of copyright in a work is not required in Canada, registration does provide benefits to the copyright owner, and is recommended.

 

When registering copyright in Canada, there is no need to file a copy of the work with the Canadian Copyright Office (in fact, the Canadian Copyright Office will return any works which anyone attempts to file with them!). It is therefore possible to obtain a copyright registration in Canada without having to disclose any of the confidential information which may be contained in the work (although you will have to disclose the work's title).

 

 

Did I infringe on the copyright of this author? I copied it and pasted it here. However, did I distort, mutilate or modify it? No, I copied and pasted and gave the credit of where it came from. So, I would not be guilty of copyright or moral right of this piece.

 

However, if I tried to say these were my own words, or, say that they said something different, then I would be infringing on their rights, and this would be actionable in court.

 

So, the very nature that I copied this and re-posted it here is not an infringement of their rights. Its only when I start saying something else, that's when it gets into the courts.

 

I agree that once you post a picture on the web, it becomes a public domain. Unless you have your pictures set to private (in which case no one except those you allow would be able to see it), you don't have any recourse - except only if someone posts your picture and say's this is their likeness or being malicious or distorted, that you have recourse in court.

[Guest c**io**m7]

Interesting links and ideas. Canadian Copyright laws, including the C-11 admendments are quite clear. Online images may be copied but not altered or re-used nor can the copier claim ownership of such images. Although, re-use is acceptable if this use is research or educational.

 

The burden of proof on whether or not a photo has been misrepresented as one's own, and/or misused falls upon the copyright owner.

[loneskater 25635]

Keep in mind there was a court case not too long ago which stated that the photographer owns the pic not the person who had her pic taken. No wonder paparazzi make money!

 

How many ppl ask the photographer before sharing pics on the net!!!

[Guest S*rca****sid]

Once you post on the Internet it's in the public domain. If you don't want them copied or shared, don't post them.

What many teens don't get when they post selfies of themselves is that these race around the world and there are no controls. The legal world has had very little influence for a lot of years...that's why they used to call it the Wild Wild Web.

You are incorrect in your perspective. That is not the definition of "Public Domain", click on the link for the correct interpretation. As far as photos are concerned, each country has it's own law regarding copyright. In Canada, all copyrights belong to the artist who created it, usually the photographer if it is a photo. Even if you pay the photographer to take the photo, they still own the copyright. This is only changed if there is a legal document signing over the rights.

[Guest c**io**m7]

Keep in mind there was a court case not too long ago which stated that the photographer owns the pic not the person who had her pic taken. No wonder paparazzi make money!

 

How many ppl ask the photographer before sharing pics on the net!!!

 

Ah yes...good point however, if the subject commissioned the photographer, the subject becomes the copyright owner unless expressly written otherwise, or agreed upon.

 

If the photographer did not take the photos under a contract that was paid in full, the photographer owns all rights to the photograph. If the photographer was paid in full, the subject owns the photo. Copyright Act 13(2).

 

In the case of your picture being taken without your permission, such is the case with many paparazzi, the subject did not commission the photographer for the photo therefore the photographer owns the copyright.

[cinelli 22184]

While I appreciate and thank you for your comment I can't agree with it. Posting anything on the internet DOES NOT make it public domain, nor does it give anyone the right to use it. Once anything is created whether it be a photograph, video, music, it's protected by the copyright act. You don't even need to register it there or have it stamped. What has been produced by me is mine, no matter if I post it on the net or on a pole. Copying it will be a copy right infringement and actionable in court.

 

Copying for an internet image search would be allowable under research or educational purpose.

 

It is interesting you seem to object to image searches. Use of fake images is rampant in escort ads. Guys should be sceptical of any pictures.

[Guest c**io**m7]

Even if you pay the photographer to take the photo, they still own the copyright.

 

Slight misperception...the photographer only automatically owns copyright if he/she is NOT paid to take the photos.

 

Section 13: (3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright

 

And Section 13(2): Commissioned works is another exception under the Act (s. 13(2)). If a photograph was ordered by a customer and paid for in full, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the customer is considered the author and owns the first copyright in the photograph. For example, if a bride or groom hired a photographer to take their wedding photos and has paid for the service in full, then the copyright may then be owned jointly by the spouses, and not by the photographer

 

https://www.cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Photography_Law#If

[CristyCurves 169032]

 

It is interesting you seem to object to image searches. Use of fake images is rampant in escort ads. Guys should be sceptical of any pictures.

 

Really, That's how you interpreted my post? What I object to is not knowing the rights and wrongs. So, my post was a way to find out and there have been some kind enough to educate me. After having my own pictures copied and used I thought it best to know as much as possible about copied images, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, lol:)

[Guest S*rca****sid]

Slight misperception...the photographer only automatically owns copyright if he/she is NOT paid to take the photos.

 

Section 13: (3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright

 

And Section 13(2): Commissioned works is another exception under the Act (s. 13(2)). If a photograph was ordered by a customer and paid for in full, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the customer is considered the author and owns the first copyright in the photograph. For example, if a bride or groom hired a photographer to take their wedding photos and has paid for the service in full, then the copyright may then be owned jointly by the spouses, and not by the photographer

 

https://www.cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Photography_Law#If

Previously, photographers were not automatically the first owners of their photographs when shooting commissioned work, but instead it was the individuals or businesses that commissioned the images who owned the copyrights. Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act specifically singled out photography as being different than other creative works. That link you quoted is out of date, it was amended in November 2012.

[Guest c**io**m7]

Previously, photographers were not automatically the first owners of their photographs when shooting commissioned work, but instead it was the individuals or businesses that commissioned the images who owned the copyrights. Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act specifically singled out photography as being different than other creative works. That link you quoted is out of date, it was amended in November 2012.

 

Absolutely correct! My error. http://petapixel.com/2012/11/07/canadian-photogs-now-officially-own-the-copyright-to-all-of-their-photos/

 

However, we will find that 13(3) will define authors to include photographers especially in the case where a person's image is used publicly in contradiction of the Privacy Act.

 

Photography is a fine line area, especially in the digital age and the internet age. This is not something the courts are taking lightly nor is there much precedence.

[Moviefan 1238]

This site should help answer your questions on copyright, as well as trademark, Patents everything you need to know on Canadian Intellectual Property can be found here.

 

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/Home

[Cowboy kenny 50799]

Good Grief, everytime an image is displayed on your computer it's downloaded, if we followed that logic everyone would be guilty.

 

And it's true that when a photo is posted on the internet it is in the "public domain" litteraly and simply put "it's out there" but that does not mean it's free to be used by anyone, for profit or not, but it is in the public domain, as anyone with internet access can view it. The term public domain actually means that the intellectual rights of the original owner have run out.

 

Copyright is infringed in a number of ways. For example when you re-sell the rights without proper ownership, when you re post the image without permission of the owner or credit to the owner and it most certainly is against the law to use someone else's photos and use them to represent your self.

 

To my understanding there is no provision in the law that states it's okay to copy if you are going to use it with positive intentions and to benefit others, or am I wrong?

 

 

There are exceptions though, for example on my site I post copywritten photos all the time under the protection of fair use/ fair dealing, for the purposes of comparison. critique and parody. I always link to the site where I found the images. I never represent the images as my own. There are other images on my site that I pay licensing fees for. These are images like clipart and other graphical elements used to shame the fakers. I pay a subscription fee to access royalty free images meaning I pay once per image to use the images in perpetuity on my site.

 

In 7 years of the diary I have been contacted a number of times by copyright owners who have asked for further information about the perpetrators who stole the image in the first place and only once in 7 years has a copyright owner asked me to remove an image that they owned because they did not approve, not so much my use of the image, they were appreciative of that but they didn't like being associated with Escorts, it was a lingerie site from the UK. They were however appreciative of the information I provided and oddly enough that faker was never heard from again ?

 

It's kinda funny though that the issue of copyright and ownership only becomes a concern when ones own images where stolen and not the other way 'round. I remember a cerb member who accused of being mean and a bully for chastising a them for using fake STOLEN images and not getting why it was wrong, funny how the tide turns.

[gc1968 2033]

LOL, well that may be because they weren't good enough so you realized they must be real,lol ! Or you didn't because you had no interest in them:) Or because, you just knew they were mine:) Or because you just didn't care , either way -thank you:)

 

If it's any consolation Cristy I have copied several of your pics, but I use them for my own, ummm..........enjoyment. Yea I'll go with that. :icon_redface: Is that wrong?

 

;)

[Luckyme 41401]

You are incorrect in your perspective. That is not the definition of "Public Domain", click on the link for the correct interpretation. As far as photos are concerned, each country has it's own law regarding copyright. In Canada, all copyrights belong to the artist who created it, usually the photographer if it is a photo. Even if you pay the photographer to take the photo, they still own the copyright. This is only changed if there is a legal document signing over the rights.

 

This seems to be exactly what is happening to a SP I know. From what I heard, she paid for the photo-shooting, and yet the photographer is the one who owns the rights. So, if she wants to use them, she has to pay a fee ( again). I find this very intriguing and strange.

[Guest S*rca****sid]

This seems to be exactly what is happening to a SP I know. From what I heard, she paid for the photo-shooting, and yet the photographer is the one who owns the rights. So, if she wants to use them, she has to pay a fee ( again). I find this very intriguing and strange.

There isn't an issue with her using them, for example posting on a website or other social media. It's usually the reason behind getting the photos. For example, if a law firm hires me to produce head shots of the partners and staff, I'm going to ask them what they are for so that I can make the proper size and resolution prints and copies.

 

The issue is if she sells copies of them or has them printed without permission.

[piano8950 32577]

 

And Section 13(2): Commissioned works is another exception under the Act (s. 13(2)). If a photograph was ordered by a customer and paid for in full, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the customer is considered the author and owns the first copyright in the photograph. For example, if a bride or groom hired a photographer to take their wedding photos and has paid for the service in full, then the copyright may then be owned jointly by the spouses, and not by the photographer

 

https://www.cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Photography_Law#If

 

Section 13.2 has been repealed

 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-7.html#h-7

 

And standard in the industry is that the photographer owns the rights to the images. I can't think of any photographer friend who I know who doesn't have this clause on their contract. So despite what the law says, almost all clients are already signing the rights (if they have any, not sure since it's been repealed now) away.