Scubaboard copyright violation!

[jlyle]

Nope. Not confused. The picture I posted is the ONLY one bearing a resemblence on YOUR site, following YOUR link posted in YOUR sig. Not confused. But baffled now. Please send me the link to this particular image on YOUR site, please, out of curiousity

Kate,

Right click on the image and select "properties" for the URL. It's an image in my 2006 Cozumel trip report.

 

[jlyle]

NetDoc,

I have not received any email from you.

I've check my CP and you have my correct email address. There are no notifications or PMs on this board.

You have proof that the image is mine. If you want a copy of the EXIF, I can provide it.

In my original contact email, I requested that the image be removed and asked for a mailing address so that I can bill you for its use.

The image has been taken down. Great. Now, about compensation...

SB is a commercial site. While copyright violations may be common on the web, it doesn't make them "right."

 

[Jax]

This thread has an very informative discussion on copyrights. Perhaps the pertinent posts could be separated out and put into a Non-Diving Related forum (not photography, as most photographers know this) so others could learn?

 

[ScubaSteve]

Kate,

Right click on the image and select "properties" for the URL. It's an image in my 2006 Cozumel trip report.

It is not difficult to copy an image from the web, rename it and save it to your "server". Possession alone, IMO, does not equate to you being the owner and photographer of that photo. I am not saying you are not, but just stating that you have it on your site and therefore it is yours really amounts to less than nothing. Do you have the file with all EXIF data attached that shows that you are the rightful owner of that photo? That would help a great deal in showing ownership of the photo. Like I said, claiming it is on your "server" does not mean you are the rightful owner.

The image resides on my server as part of a trip report.

I would like to add that you really do have a talent for taking some spectacular shots. Do yourself a favour and learn to watermark. It is not tough but helps in keeping your photos secure (I use the term "helps in keeping your photos secure" very loosely). Nothing guarantees anything but it is a simple step that helps and does not in any way hurt.

 

[Mossman]

In any complaint about a copyrighted picture, several things have to be determined. Where did the picture come from and was there a chain of permission to use the picture. If you put the picture on ScubaBoard, either in our Photo Gallery or by linking it, you are giving ScubaBoard rights to use it. That's what you agreed to in the ToS. However, we also give you rights to remove or de-link an image if you so desire. We have no desire to piss people off over picayune matters, but we often use pictures from our gallery in promoting ScubaBoard at various Scuba and Trade Shows worldwide as well as promoting fun ScubaBoard events.

I see the notice in the Gallery terms of service that allows Scubaboard certain rights to use photos posted to the Gallery, but where in the ToS does Scubaboard gain the right to use photos that are merely linked via a Scubaboard post? Often people link to others' photos.

 

[ramasule]

Can't wait to take a dunk with you Netdoc

 

[mikemill]

In recent years, with the plethora of images being made public on the internet, the concept of "Fair Use" also muddies the pictures. Its a best practice if you want to maintain your image rights, that you embed copyright info into the picture as well as watermark it. Pictures posted on the internet without such protections may be interpreted as being available per Fair Use.

IANAL and Fair Use is f-ing complicated and I recently got shown some of the more complicated sides of it (and is something I should really look at more since I work at a school). That said, I'm not sure how anyone can think that was fair use.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Given those I don't see how fair use can be thought of much yet apply.

I would enjoy hearing from a copyright/patent attorney on this matter though.

Edit: And since I've been critical of SB's handling of things in the past let me just say that this isn't one of those times. Mistakes happen, bad timing happens, and I believe this is one of those times where no harm was intended.

 

[drbill]

I do find this interesting. As I understand copyright law, the notice does not have to be published (although it is always a good thing to do). If the image was not posted on SB, that does pose an interesting issue... how was it obtained and used?

Although my images are copyrighted I would not have a problem with SB using any of them (well, except the ones in that "secret" folder, you know... the fish porn ones). I generally allow others to use them with credit for non-profit purposes.

 

[mikemill]

This thread has an very informative discussion on copyrights. Perhaps the pertinent posts could be separated out and put into a Non-Diving Related forum (not photography, as most photographers know this) so others could learn?

Like all things SB I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before (it certainly sounds familiar)

 

[ScubaSteve]

If the image was not posted on SB, that does pose an interesting issue... how was it obtained and used?

If I understood correctly, the image was POSTED on ScubaBoard but was HOSTED elsewhere. However, inreading the OP's posts again, he is not clear on where all this picture has been posted.