Copyright and Picasa

On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

On 20 Oct 2008, you wrote in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:

Once images are uploaded on a newsgroup, you are able to put them on a
website as long as credit is shown to the orginial photographer. The
problem usually lies in when you are trying to pass it off as your own
work or if someone downloads and than prints or makes a print for
themselves to sell. As long as you are not making money off the
picture(s) or music etc, than no copyright law has been broken. This
is pretty mcuh the way copyright is handled in Canada any way.

This is not the way US Copyright works.

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A statistician took a standard deviation from his normal way home because the mean of the population was after him.

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

While taking down the vitals for a soon-to-be mom, I asked how much she weighed.
"I really don't know," she said.
"Well, more or less," I prompted.
"More, I guess," she answered sadly.

People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs. Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
...
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
know what you are talking about.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
.. .
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
know what you are talking about.

The irony of that statement is quite amusing.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Mate, it boils down to this. If you think my photos are good enough to steal
for your own good self, then great for you. there only aircraft photos.

Personally I think that you would get off your arse and do it yourself but I
appreciate ther are those who can't and tehn there are those who just don't
want to. I guess you fit in teh later. I photograph a LOT of RICH peoples
toys and it is sometimes them that will do the chasing. Not me. So what ever
you reckon is fine, I am fine with. And just try and get away with something
that has the EAA logo in it without their permission.


"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
...
Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
know what you are talking about.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of
a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun
of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they
pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
. ..
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are
not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading
it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and
longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing
you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and
reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

Profit is the key here.

Taking an image from this group and putting it on a page not for
profit - I don't see the harm in that.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
.. .
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"Americans will always do the right thing when they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Winston Churchill

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
Profit is the key here.

Taking an image from this group and putting it on a page not for
profit - I don't see the harm in that.

There you go. that's your game. Nothing else. Freeloading off others. try
armed robbery, it's a little dicier but the benefits are better.
Get the right case law and you'll probably find it's legal too ;-)