Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-28-2014   #41
jippiejee
Registered User
 
jippiejee's Avatar
 
jippiejee is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
What are they actually "marketing", if they're already giving everything away?
In the case of Trey Ratcliiff: he allows free web posting of his work for non-commercial use, doesn't even care to watermark either, but he does send his attorneys after commercial parties infringing on his copyright. His marketing strategy is about sending traffic to his website I think, which can be monetarized too with ads and affiliate links. But he does sell quite a lot I understood. If an audience (created through that free proliferation of your photos) loves your work, they might want to order large prints that cannot be done from the web resolution files. Just guessing here, not sure what makes him so successful commercially. My bet would still be that his website's huge traffic is the main source of income.


Quote:
... if someone is making any real money off it, they can damn' well pay us.
Yes, I don't think anyone would dispute this. There's a time and place for attorneys. That'd be one of those.
__________________
flickr
flickriver
---
Leica M4-P/M8/M9
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #42
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by jippiejee View Post
In the case of Trey Ratcliiff: he allows free web posting of his work for non-commercial use, doesn't even care to watermark either, but he does send his attorneys after commercial parties infringing on his copyright. His marketing strategy is about sending traffic to his website I think, which can be monetarized too with ads and affiliate links. But he does sell quite a lot I understood. If an audience (created through that free proliferation of your photos) loves your work, they might want to order large prints that cannot be done from the web resolution files. Just guessing here, not sure what makes him so successful commercially. My bet would still be that his website's huge traffic is the main source of income.

[... if someone is making any real money off it, they can damn' well pay us. ]

Yes, I don't think anyone would dispute this. There's a time and place for attorneys. That'd be one of those.
Thanks. This makes sense. But isn't it what most people already do?

Then again, I have a law degree...

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

What about "stealing" photographers?
Old 01-28-2014   #43
FranZ
Registered User
 
FranZ's Avatar
 
FranZ is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 140
Unhappy What about "stealing" photographers?

My wife had an exhibition of her paintings in a church in honor of Pentecost.
Without asking her, a photo of one of her paintings was printed on the front cover of the Pentacost Sunday program, with only the name of the photographer mentioned and her name was nowhere to be found. . . .
Theft, infringement, I don't know, but at least carelessly and sloppy
__________________
Regards,

FranZ


'The question is not what you look at, but what you see' - Thoreau

Sony A7R3, RX1Rm2, RX100M6 & a lot of fun
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #44
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
... theft? I thought Sontag said photography was rape anyway
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #45
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,283
Sontag was delusional.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #46
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
If I buy a photograph, put it on my front door and photograph it from a public road is it a breach of the copyright?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #47
defconfunk
n00b
 
defconfunk's Avatar
 
defconfunk is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
If I buy a photograph, put it on my front door and photograph it from a public road is it a breach of the copyright?
If a judge considers it "transformational", then no (ie if it is simply a part of the larger image of your house). If it occupies teh majority of the scene (ie you add your door frame as framing), then yes, it is infringment.

This has become an issue with statues in public places. For some reason I don't understand, the sculptor owns the copyright for the statue, even in public places. Several scupltors ahve sued and won cases where photographers made money selling photos of the statues, and even photos where the statue is not the promenent part of the image (ie an image of a park or town square where the statue is central to the park or square).

It is complex and not always consistent; every country has different rules - in Britian a photographer won an infringement case because a photo of his was 'recreated', a b&w backdrop of buckingham palace with a colour red double decker. Because the new image looked too close to the 'original', the second photographer was found to be infringing. This has set a bad precedent in Britian where one man now essentially "owns" the idea of a red bus in front of a b&w buckingham palace.
__________________
I have a camera. I enjoy pushing the big button.
http://mattkrull.tumblr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #48
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Then again, I thought that "totally unintellectual" could be spotted as a joke, as I know you're not.
Oh believe me, Roger, I'm quite unintellectual
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #49
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by defconfunk View Post
If a judge considers it "transformational", then no (ie if it is simply a part of the larger image of your house). If it occupies teh majority of the scene (ie you add your door frame as framing), then yes, it is infringment.

This has become an issue with statues in public places. For some reason I don't understand, the sculptor owns the copyright for the statue, even in public places. Several scupltors ahve sued and won cases where photographers made money selling photos of the statues, and even photos where the statue is not the promenent part of the image (ie an image of a park or town square where the statue is central to the park or square).

It is complex and not always consistent; every country has different rules - in Britian a photographer won an infringement case because a photo of his was 'recreated', a b&w backdrop of buckingham palace with a colour red double decker. Because the new image looked too close to the 'original', the second photographer was found to be infringing. This has set a bad precedent in Britian where one man now essentially "owns" the idea of a red bus in front of a b&w buckingham palace.
.. I thought it was London bridge myself
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #50
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
Oh believe me, Roger, I'm quite unintellectual
Yes, but not totally.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #51
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
Defconfunk, thanks for the answer.

I wonder when we can copyright our outfits, buildings etc, and what will happen to street photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #52
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Yes, but not totally. Cheers, R.
Some days I like to pretend
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #53
defconfunk
n00b
 
defconfunk's Avatar
 
defconfunk is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 281
Sparrow, I could be wrong, could easily be the bridge. I didn't to a reference check before posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
Defconfunk, thanks for the answer.

I wonder when we can copyright our outfits, buildings etc, and what will happen to street photography.
We're getting close to that point with some things, cars in particular. Fashion is (currently) not copyrightable. However, with cars, the very shape of them is trademarked. Porsche is litigous in protecting the image of the 911. Stock agencies are pretty clear - you cannot upload an image that shows a car's badge, or a highly identifiable body shape (such as the 911). The 'image' of a car is very lucrative these days, with video games (and I assume other media) paying big bucks to license cars.

In California there is a grey area called The Right of Publicity (publicity rights / personal rights). Celebrities use it to protect themselves from being used in commercials just for appearing in public (ie a store can't promote itself by showing a photo of Brad Pitt walking in front of the store). It is also being used to censor unflattering images.

So, yes, if Beyonce happened to be in your street shot, made a stupid face, and you posted the image online, she could try to have it taken down. Depending on where the server is located, and how censor-resistant the isp/host is, it may stay up, it may come down.
__________________
I have a camera. I enjoy pushing the big button.
http://mattkrull.tumblr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #54
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
In general, thieves do not care for what they steal. Why should such persons care about such open letters?
There is a moral side in things. If one is missing it then a plain letter cannot put things back where they belong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #55
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
In general, thieves do not care for what they steal. Why should such persons care about such open letters?
There is a moral side in things. If one is missing it then a plain letter cannot put things back where they belong.
Dear Nikos,

Very true. But equally, some people think, "It isn't really stealing if..." They are probably the only ones this "open letter" will affect.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #56
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
At least it is not stealing if it is a copyright violation. Calling it stealing does not make it stealing and I do not think it helps.

But I have no idea on how to fix it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #57
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
At least it is not stealing if it is a copyright violation. Calling it stealing does not make it stealing and I do not think it helps.

But I have no idea on how to fix it.
How is copyright violation NOT stealing? It is stealing the right to use a picture, a legally defensible right. Or believe that only material goods can be stolen?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #58
dbarnes
Registered User
 
dbarnes is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 307
There have been numerous RFF threads about this.

One thing that I think is valuable from them is the notion that it's hard to get through to someone whom you're calling a thief if that person doesn't think of himself as a thief. He's more likely to just tune you out.

Of course, it may feel good to rant.

If the point is to encourage a revelatory change of self image in that person, great. But success strikes me as unlikely.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #59
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
How is copyright violation NOT stealing? It is stealing the right to use a picture, a legally defensible right. Or believe that only material goods can be stolen?

Cheers,

R.
Would you please be a gentleman and tell me where in the world a copyright infringement is the same as stealing?

Thanks
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #60
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
Welfare mostly. And I steal food and clothes from stores when I need them. I don't really believe in private property at all.
I hope you're just kidding???

For those that live by theft they deserve the full support of their community. I believe these free thinking folks should be fed and house at the expense of those that can afford it through their tax dollars. They should be fed and a roof over their heads with bars around them in a nice comfortable jail cell.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #61
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by defconfunk View Post
It is complex and not always consistent; every country has different rules - in Britian a photographer won an infringement case because a photo of his was 'recreated', a b&w backdrop of buckingham palace with a colour red double decker. Because the new image looked too close to the 'original', the second photographer was found to be infringing. This has set a bad precedent in Britian where one man now essentially "owns" the idea of a red bus in front of a b&w buckingham palace.
It's a good story but not true. It was Westminster Bridge looking towards Big Ben and no one "owns" the idea. It was an argument about product packaging/branding of products that were sold side-by-side in tourist shops. You can take pics of buses and grey out the remainder if you wish but if you wrap them around stuff to sell to tourists someone might tell you to stop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #62
hepcat
Former PH, USN
 
hepcat's Avatar
 
hepcat is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eastern Iowa
Age: 64
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
Would you please be a gentleman and tell me where in the world a copyright infringement is the same as stealing?

Thanks
Although my first name IS Roger, I am not Mr. Hicks. And although I'm entirely certain that he is competent to answer the question for you, I will undertake to explain it as well.

First, items that can be copyrighted are called "intellectual property." Property, can in fact, be stolen. The statutes in California, for example, even cover "theft of real property by severance."

However, back to intellectual property, if I own the rights to an image and someone else publishes it without paying royalties to which I am entitled, they have deprived me of income that is rightfully mine. If THEY fraudulently accept royalties that should be mine, it's compounded. Unfortunately, copyright infringement is a civil violation rather than the arrest-able criminal violation of theft, but the result of the unlawaful deprivation of income/property has the same result. In the event they accept MY royalties, though, depending on the jurisdiction, criminal fraud charges may apply.
__________________
Leicas and lenses

Find me on the web...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #63
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Nikos,

Very true. But equally, some people think, "It isn't really stealing if..." They are probably the only ones this "open letter" will affect.

Cheers,

R.
Totally agree with this!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #64
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
How is copyright violation NOT stealing? It is stealing the right to use a picture, a legally defensible right. Or believe that only material goods can be stolen?

Cheers,

R.
I happen to be of the opinion that copyright infringement is not stealing. Mind you, I'm not saying it's not bad, but it's different.

The concept of ownership itself is already somewhat of an abstract idea and ownership of immaterial goods is a purely legal construct. I'm not a legal expert but it is not the case that the law in most countries distinguishes beetween theft of material goods and copyright infringement. If so, then it seems quite clear from a legal point of view that copyright is not stealing. In certain cases of abuse we might also say that someone's dignity was stolen but I think we all know right away that we're not talking about literal theft.
So if we leave the legal discussion behind it basically comes down to how far you want to stretch the metaphor of stealing. But instead of treating this as a question of semantics some people treat it as a question of ethics. I suspect this is deeply rooted in some Judeo-Christian thou-shalt-not-steal thinking which makes a legal transgression more severe by framing it as being in violation of the Ten Commandments. But this only matters if you believe in them. If not that it's utterly meaningless. I'm somewhat of an Atheist but also try to act according to my own moral beliefs. If my actions hurt other people then it really doesn't matter what you want to call them, they're bad either way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #65
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
. . . Would you please be a gentleman and tell me where in the world a copyright infringement is the same as stealing?
Everywhere.

Sure, you can quote statutes limiting theft to "intention permanently to deprive". But a really simple definition of theft, to which most of us can relate, is taking something that doesn't belong to you, and using it as your own.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #66
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
so basically, since you think it is stealing it is stealing, even if it is not......
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #67
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
so basically, since you think it is stealing it is stealing, even if it is not......
For clarity it would be a good idea to actually put forward what you do actually think otherwise you waste everybody's time.

So why is is it not theft, and where is it not illegal?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #68
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
It is not theft because it is a copyright infringement. It is not the same thing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #69
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
 
dogbunny's Avatar
 
dogbunny is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 熊本市, Japan
Posts: 563
It is not theft because a key component of the concept of theft is the idea of depriving someone of something that they already possess. Those who think copyright infringement is theft are of the mind that copyright infringers are depriving them of future or potential earnings -- that is depriving them of something that they don't yet possess. It may be unscrupulous, but it isn't theft and laws around the world support that idea.
__________________
Deserve your dream -- Octavio Paz
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #70
Coopersounds
Registered User
 
Coopersounds's Avatar
 
Coopersounds is offline
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
It is not theft because it is a copyright infringement. It is not the same thing.
The law in Australia and the USA see the difference. They are classified as different to theft.
__________________
I LOVE FILM!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #71
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
It is not theft because it is a copyright infringement. It is not the same thing.
WHY is it not the same thing, using the definition I gave earlier? Do you dispute that it is theft to take something that belongs to someone else, and use it as your own?

To turn your argument back on itself, you're saying "It's not theft because I say it isn't".

Vheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #72
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
WHY is it not the same thing, using the definition I gave earlier? Do you dispute that it is theft to take something that belongs to someone else, and use it as your own?

To turn your argument back on itself, you're saying "It's not theft because I say it isn't".

Vheers,

R.
bolded: Yes it is because I say it isn't or it is not the same because the law say it is not the same.... you can choose.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #73
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
bolded: Yes it is because I say it isn't or it is not the same because the law say it is not the same.... you can choose.
"When justice is against you, plead the law. When the law is against you, plead justice." Cicero, as I recall.

Justice is against you.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #74
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
Ok, justice is against me.

Just for saying it a copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. Justice is cruel.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #75
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
WHY is it not the same thing, using the definition I gave earlier? Do you dispute that it is theft to take something that belongs to someone else, and use it as your own?

To turn your argument back on itself, you're saying "It's not theft because I say it isn't".

Vheers,

R.
Roger, I'm afraid to say your argument is on thin ground. Firstly, your definition is overinclusive. I could think of quite a few cases where I take something that belongs to someone else and use it as my own while still not stealing anything. E.g. if I borrow my friends scissors to cut a piece of paper. Also, there are different kinds of copyright infringement that would not be included in your definition. If you watch a pirated movie you're not using it as your own just as the movie would not become your own if you watched it in the movie theater.

But even if we ignore that for a second, you simply cannot dismiss sig's legal argument while at the same time referring to such concepts as property (especially intellectual property). There is no private property without a law that defines and enforces it.

In my opinion there is little point in calling copyright infringement stealing because a) the law doesn't treat it as such and b) it simply doesn't ring true for most people. Copyright is a very complex issue and I think it would be better if, instead of meaningless rants, we would try to educate people about the different ways in which copyright infringement harms the people who create the copyrighted material.
Also, there are different kinds of copyright infringement and not all of them are the same. There's plagiarism (pretending to be the creator of someone else's work), commercial usage witout license (using someone's work for free in order to generate income) and piracy (getting something for nothing) and many more. Most people can agree that plagiarism is abhorrent but that's not so much because it's stealing but because it's lying.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #76
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,133
someone uses one of my images in their website and even claim that they created it.
i discover this, hire a lawyer who engages the police.
what do the police charge the perp with?
simple!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #77
jippiejee
Registered User
 
jippiejee's Avatar
 
jippiejee is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
what do the police charge the perp with?
simple!
Nothing, where I live. This is supposed to be a civil law issue.
__________________
flickr
flickriver
---
Leica M4-P/M8/M9
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #78
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus View Post
Cicero was neither a nice nor a wise man, in my opinion and, though I can't find the reference, that seems to me just the sort of inane statement he would have made. . .
I didn't say he was. But it's a bloody useful trick with which most lawyers are familiar. Along with "there is no such thing as inadmissible evidence" (you can withdraw it, but the jury will still be influenced by it).

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #79
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
Roger, I'm afraid to say your argument is on thin ground. Firstly, your definition is overinclusive. I could think of quite a few cases where I take something that belongs to someone else and use it as my own while still not stealing anything. E.g. if I borrow my friends scissors to cut a piece of paper. Also, there are different kinds of copyright infringement that would not be included in your definition. If you watch a pirated movie you're not using it as your own just as the movie would not become your own if you watched it in the movie theater.

But even if we ignore that for a second, you simply cannot dismiss sig's legal argument while at the same time referring to such concepts as property (especially intellectual property). There is no private property without a law that defines and enforces it.

In my opinion there is little point in calling copyright infringement stealing because a) the law doesn't treat it as such and b) it simply doesn't ring true for most people. Copyright is a very complex issue and I think it would be better if, instead of meaningless rants, we would try to educate people about the different ways in which copyright infringement harms the people who create the copyrighted material.
Also, there are different kinds of copyright infringement and not all of them are the same. There's plagiarism (pretending to be the creator of someone else's work), commercial usage witout license (using someone's work for free in order to generate income) and piracy (getting something for nothing) and many more. Most people can agree that plagiarism is abhorrent but that's not so much because it's stealing but because it's lying.
Ubi remedium, ibi jus.

Quite honestly, I can't get all that excited about it. As long as there is a remedy, I'll live with whatever others want to call the right.

Even so, I'm not convinced about either the scissors or the movie. What if the scissors are borrowed without permission? Yes, there's always implied permission, but that can be wobbly ground. As for the movie, what if it's on a pirated DVD?

Overall, though, I cannot see a moral difference between copyright infringement and theft. Legal distinction, yes. Moral or just, no. And if we want a good example of (effectively) intellectual property that can be (and has been) stolen or usurped, consider an advowson, the right to appoint a priest to a benefice. Though as far as I recall, an advowson is real property, which rather argues than many legal definitions are a matter of historical accident.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2014   #80
hepcat
Former PH, USN
 
hepcat's Avatar
 
hepcat is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eastern Iowa
Age: 64
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
someone uses one of my images in their website and even claim that they created it.
i discover this, hire a lawyer who engages the police.
what do the police charge the perp with?
simple!
Depending on how the image is used and the laws of your jurisdiction, it may be a civil case of copyright infringement, or it could fall under criminal fraud statutes, or both.

One interesting point about Internet fraud, though (unless statute or case law has changed since I retired four years ago,) the jurisdiction of a crime can simultaneously lie with the location where the victim resides and where the suspect resides, and in a third location as well; where the servers are located, for instance, or even a fourth if the crime can be shown to have been committed yet elsewhere. It can make for some interesting investigations and prosecution hurdles. Although most law enforcement agencies are more than happy to let a single agency investigate and prosecute.
__________________
Leicas and lenses

Find me on the web...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:45.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.