Photo Copyright

Photo Copyright is one heck of a grey area but falls into two categories (in my opinion), that is "Photo Theft" and "Bandwidth theft"

Photo theft is where the photo is lifted (downloaded and saved) from somewhere on the net and used for another purpose or posted (uploaded) in another place.

Bandwidth theft is where the photo is not downloaded but the photo's physical URL (its link, to make it viewable) is posted elsewhere on the net, every subsequent view of the photo at its new location is stealing bandwidth from the original server. Not such a big deal for most photo's that are reposted, but here is a photo that when it was first posted went viral...and was simply posted everywhere...and must have been a huge drain of National Geographics bandwidth.



But technically, we are all guilty of download theft simply because of how computers work. To view a photo on the web, out internet connection, our browser and so our PC downloads the image for us and stores it on our computer so that we may view the photo and its whole surrounding page on our screen. And depending on how our PC's are setup that photo could still be on our PC days, weeks or months later. Technically...it's download theft, but could not nor would it ever be pursued in a Law Court because every single internet user would also have to be prosecuted too.

Photo resolution

Photo resolution also plays a huge part and adds another shade of grey to the whole subject. I resize all of my images down to around 800 pixels on the longest edge, so for the sake of the following lets say I reduce to 800 x 600 pixels.

Photoraphic printers print at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch, this means that for every inch of photograph printed, they require 300 pixels of photo information (300 computer dots) its these different coloured dots that give the detail in the photo and so make a photo look good. My 800 x 600 pixel image would equate to a photo size of approvimately 2 inches by 2.5 inches...not great is it! If that photo of mine was enlarged to a standard 8 inch by 6 inch photo and printed, it would look really awful because your not adding any extra pixels (information), your just stretching what you have already, so the now printed 8 x 6 photo would be really horrible.

Its for this reason that people do not pursue Photo or image theft as most people know that to download and print a photo from the web, it's going to turn out rubbish anyway, essentially its an unwritten rule that to download and repost a photo is acceptable but technically not legal.

If someone wants to download one of my photo's and print it without asking, I cant stop them doing that and they then have a rubbish print of it, however if they ask, I would probably supply them with a higher resolution copy of the file so it printed better for them,,,provided it was for personal use only and no commercial gain came from it. I have already done this in the past and have supplied many shots to charities for promotional work free of charge.

Bandwidth.. Posting a link to another photo can lead to undesirable circumstances too, I remember about 10 years ago that it was a huge issue, and many people dealt with it thus. They would discover their photo had been "hotlinked" (their photo's link had been posted elsewhere, stealing their bandwidth) so they would replace that photo with another that simply stated "The poster of this photo is stealing bandwidth from my site", some went a step further and would replace their original photo with perhaps some smutty photo...knowing full well that admins and mods would be scrambling around to remove from their forums.

So with all of this in mind, if I want to illustrate a point in a forum such as here (as I did above, posting National Geographics photo) I would not worry about doing as such.

If it was a large reputable company such as National Geographic, I will just hotlink it. The bandwidth used will be insignificant to them and I do not need to worry about image replacement, I also know that should they choose to contact me of GC about the hotlinked photo I or GC would remove it and nothing more would come of it.

If it was a company of a much smaller size or personal user I would download the photo and reupload before posting so I would not be using their bandwidth and would not need to worry about image replaement either. Again, a request by the owner to remove the photo to myself or GC would see it removed.

Steve...

 

Agreed!

I treat each of my photos differently depending upon my eventual use for a picture.

Firstly I try to keep them in the ratio of 4:3 choose whether I am going to take prints off them or not!

If they are for PC use I usually use 72 psi as my default resolution,and 640 x 480 px as my reduced size I find that this works well on most monitors.

Meaning if someone wanted to print off one of my pictures it is going to look rather pixelated (blocky) when printed.

My personal pictures are usually only cropped and stored at full size and resolution for eventual use!

 

Although it will look fine if stolen for the purpose of enhancing someone's web site / blog :(

 

Actually, no! No theft is committed either by accident or intention. Viewing a website is a bit like looking at a book within the reference section of a library. You are welcome, and probably encouraged, to look at as many pages as you wish. The proviso being that you _don't_ take them away.

To effect this, your browser assigns coded references to everything that you download and view. The fact that images may reside in the browser's cache for some while afterward simply makes them redundant. However, if you then manipulate _anything_ beyond the point at which it was first displayed, this includes all original content along with any images, you _will_ probably commit a copyright or trademark infringement.

Copyright law is not such a grey area. Basically, if you did not originate the image, you have absolutely no rights to it whatsoever! Yes, it is as simple as that! Even images, and other intellectual property, placed into the Public Domain have limitations, for example, you often cannot rename the file or manipulate its sizing.

Proving ownership, and other matters, in a court of law is something else; just don't confuse the two. Copying information from another site, manipulating it (even as much as by changing its filename) and then uploading it to another server _is_ a copyright infringement. Linking to the original, out of context and without written permission of the originator, (the image outside of its original page) is bandwidth theft.

Copying an image from a commmercial site brings with it some other risks. If you were to assign text to it that could in any way detract from the owner's original intentions for that image, then some fairly powerful lawyers could very soon be on your case, with threats that are far from empty! There are robots that scan the Web continuously for just such "violations". The GC servers won't be exempt from this as these robots don't observe the robots.txt directives.

What I'm hoping this thread will do is create a clear policy on GC which outlaws both Copyright infringement _and_ bandwidth theft. I've suffered from both and been led a few merry dances by people I'd not wish to be friends with, even if you paid me! Over to you...

Regards,
Steve

 

I said technically, as a way to demonstrate that you are downloading...I didn't say it was a definate theft.

What you say is all true but unlikey to ever be pursued more than a note to ask for photo/image removal. To pursue such infidelities..all of them would collapse the net as we know it.

Copyright law is not a grey area, your quite correct but its enforcement, general ignorance and total avoidance is most definately grey. Many break it in one form or another but an incredibly small percentage are pulled up for that and then prosecuted because it is so widespread and laws between countries differ so much. Even with an incredibly swift and precise clampdown...it would continue.

I would never say its ok to hotlink or download, without informing at the same time thats its breaking the law....but no one is knocking at my door with their handcuffs ready, until then I shall continue to use the net as Billions already do.

To get yourself into court you would have really have to be derogatory in such a bad way first..even then you'll get away scot free...look at Facebook and the trash thats posted there. In the last few months alone I have seen Obama, Cameron and some of our Royal Family cussed in such a manner that should have people in court..its allowed and accepted however and nothing is done.

On that basis alone I would not worry about simply hotlinking a photo, or downloading it to post yourself (thus avoiding bandwidth theft). It's kind of like complaining to Idi Amin about breaking your pencil !

To post anothers photo here or on any other forum is acceptable in my mind...I did it a couple of hours ago. Its caused no distress to anyone, I have not benefitted from it in any way financial or other nor has GC, I have merely illustrated a point in an educational manner, if the photo's owner wishes it to be so, I will remove it.

In twenty years of web use, I have never been asked once to do as such and I fully respect copyright law..I should do I'm a semi pro 'tog myself and would not want my own photo's sold without my knowledge or without any recompense arriving in my bank account either.

I personally think that GC should just ignore this and if necessary just add to their terms and conds that all posters are responsible for their own postings...simples.

Steve...

 

The only point that I'd make is that whatever policy is formed and followed, there should be no ambiguity about its wording! How rigourously it is policed should not be more onerous than any other policy. The occasional well-placed reminder should be quite sufficient to deter.

Allowing leniency may be deemed as a more friendly approach, but when you get faced by people who think they have gained god-given rights to do as they like (not that anyone on GC would do that!) situations can change very quickly for the worse. If they then go on to publicly describe you in very derogatory terms simply because you have privately pulled them up and they have chosen to deliberately ignore your requests, the picture can get very unpleasant indeed!

Sadly, in forming any policy, you do have to take the possibility of worst-case scenarios into account.

Regards,
Steve