Copyright and "Fair Use" - Photolaw.net

[Undead]

If you want to call calling you out on this matter trolling then I guess I am but I do not see it that way and since I do not make a habit of this I do not think the term is accurate but then again I am apparently not that smart.

I do love how you are beating around the bush and insulting other users information right or wrong while ignoring the main point. Or perhaps you missed it. In case you did I have cut out the rest of the text and just left the Yes or No questions that you apparently would like to continue to hope nobody noticed. Again a simple Yes or No answer will suffice but feel free if you must. Wheres the dang popcorn icon???

1. Did you or did you not access through means other than those intended by the website owners and or developers copy an image and or images from a password protected portion of a legal business or corporations website(s) without prior permission and re-post said images claiming FAIR use and or circumnavigate a websites efforts to display images with a watermark prominently displayed and added during the proper server call made at said site(s) through a URL exploit allowing the same said image(s) to be displayed in full without said intended watermark for the purpose of downloading and or re-displaying same said image(s)?

2. Have you or have you not on this site and others including your own used the published research and information of others without crediting said sources?

Yes I have posted some good info on this forum as you have even yourself acknowledged prior to... yeah well you know where it went from there.

As to Heritage I have not been in touch with them.

For PM I have spoken with them and John quite a bit today and have also given them the code needed to help close the exploit you are using which is being implemented as we speak. As to deaf ears, it did not fall on such deaf ears, they seemed rather unhappy about it actually. They do seem to care very much about their works and images being taken and used in such a way without permission. Will they pursue it from a legal stand point? I don't know and personally I doubt it is worth it to them but that is not my call.

Perhaps I should talk to Heritage now.

[brude]

Mike, who are you anyway? Wow, you are a tiresome troll. Have you ever contributed anything to this forum or do you just come here to launch "digital piracy" crusades?

This is quite a defamatory statement, counselor.
Maybe you should scan Undead's post history.
He's a cool contributor.
No signs of 'trollish' behavior.

I think you're mistaking Undead for Louie -- which is understandable. They each have a 'u' in their name. 

[guest8]

The problem is, even if Mel did either of those things it cannot be proven and photos of posters belong to no one. So they cannot do anything legally because they do not own the works displayed and therefore do not enjoy the protections of being copyrighted works.

[CSM]

The problem is, even if Mel did either of those things it cannot be proven and photos of posters belong to no one. So they cannot do anything legally because they do not own the works displayed and therefore do not enjoy the protections of being copyrighted works.

What about the modifications they made to those posters?  Do they own photographic representations of that work?

[Undead]

This is quite a defamatory statement, counselor.
Maybe you should scan Undead's post history.
He's a cool contributor.
No signs of 'trollish' behavior.

I think you're mistaking Undead for Louie -- which is understandable. They each have a 'u' in their name. 

Thank you!

[CSM]

Thank you!

I like how you used "Said" a lot - helps drill into those thicker skulls perhaps

[guest8]

What about the modifications they made to those posters?  Do they own photographic representations of that work?

That's more legal mumbo-jumbo .. technically they are recreating what was there. So, I'd guess (because I'm no legal eagle) that they do not own that work at all. Only if an artists changes it and makes it their own artwork would then ownership start to come into play.

[CSM]

That's more legal mumbo-jumbo .. technically they are recreating what was there. So, I'd guess (because I'm no legal eagle) that they do not own that work at all. Only if an artists changes it and makes it their own artwork would then ownership start to come into play.

Well restoration is never exactly the same as the original poster/artwork.  I would think a restorer would feel they own that re-created art or "work" and representations of it - especially when it is used as promotional material for their services...

[guest8]

Well restoration is never exactly the same as the original poster/artwork.  I would think a restorer would feel they own that re-created art or "work" and representations of it - especially when it is used as promotional material for their services...

If the intended it to be a true restoration, meaning that they are trying to make it to look just like the original then I'd still say they have no ownership. I think of restoration this way.. they are copying what is there to make the piece whole again. Now if they did the exact same thing but instead of recreating a part of the image they recreated the entire image then the recreations would be considered forgeries and either way the work doesn't (legally) belong to them.

Only if they take the work and do something highly transformative or attempt some spoof, satire or to criticize could they then claim some kind of ownership of the new work.  

[ladeda]

The problem is, even if Mel did either of those things it cannot be proven and photos of posters belong to no one.

eh, not necessarily true. a quick EXIF data scan can reveal all about the sauce, and If a file was never released to the public then that's a plausible conclusion..

taking the king kong poster as example:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D90
Date Time: 23/06/2011 – 21:38
Shutter Speed: 1/60 sec
F-Stop: f/4.0
Aperture value: f/4.0
ISO Speed: f/1.4
Focal Length: 50.0 mm
Flash: Did not fire

Copyright may not apply to photos of public domain art, but accessing what is to be a secure area of a server to obtain files is unarguably hella shiesty. 

[CSM]

If the intended it to be a true restoration, meaning that they are trying to make it to look just like the original then I'd still say they have no ownership. I think of restoration this way.. they are copying what is there to make the piece whole again. Now if they did the exact same thing but instead of recreating a part of the image they recreated the entire image then the recreations would be considered forgeries and either way the work doesn't (legally) belong to them.

Only if they take the work and do something highly transformative or attempt some spoof, satire or to criticize could they then claim some kind of ownership of the new work.  

Yes, yes I understand.  But restorers have built their entire businesses around "rebuilding" pieces - in their own artistic hands - of existing artworks (I use artworks in the broadest terms to represent myriad paper items that could be restored).  Representations - i.e. photographs - of that artistic work particularly when used as a means to illustrate the work that can be done or promote the business as whole must have some degree of business ownership.

Does anyone know if a restorer must legally ask permission from a client to post/distribute/market the work done on a poster in advance of doing same?

[guest8]

The camera info still doesn't prove anything .. that can be edited or deleted by anyone. For all we know Mel thought this was a funny thread went in there and duplicated the camera codes and is having a laugh. It is circumstantial and wouldn't "prove" anything.

[CSM]

The camera info still doesn't prove anything .. that can be edited or deleted by anyone. For all we know Mel thought this was a funny thread went in there and duplicated the camera codes and is having a laugh. It is circumstantial and wouldn't "prove" anything.

I thought the camera info/code was ingrained in the digital photograph?

[guest8]

Does anyone know if a restorer must legally ask permission from a client to post/distribute/market the work done on a poster in advance of doing same?

I believe this is harkening back tot he original question .. people who own artwork, be it posters, photos or whatever .. do not really own it. So someone taking a basic photograph of it doesn't infringe on copyrights and the person who took the photograph doesn't really own that image.

Now take it one step further, some one restored a poster and took a super HD photo and then started illegally recreating the poster and selling it. The person for whom the poster was restored has no legal rights to sue but that would fall on the VeRO to raise question and file suit.

[ladeda]

The camera info still doesn't prove anything .. that can be edited or deleted by anyone. For all we know Mel thought this was a funny thread went in there and duplicated the camera codes and is having a laugh. It is circumstantial and wouldn't "prove" anything.

Remove entirely yes, but editing the shutter speed, ISO and the focal length of the lens, hell no.

[guest8]

I thought the camera info/code was ingrained in the digital photograph?

Nope, save the photo to your computer then right click and go to properties then details and you can delete most of it easily there are other ways to scrub metadata to where it can say whatever you want it to say as well.

[CSM]

I believe this is harkening back tot he original question .. people who own artwork, be it posters, photos or whatever .. do not really own it. So someone taking a basic photograph of it doesn't infringe on copyrights and the person who took the photograph doesn't really own that image.

Now take it one step further, some one restored a poster and took a super HD photo and then started illegally recreating the poster and selling it. The person for whom the poster was restored has no legal rights to sue but that would fall on the VeRO to raise question and file suit.

I am not referring to the poster in totality but the restored work...if the poster is restored the poster is no longer "as it was".  It's been altered.  I believe one of the arguments that came up is that the photo of King Kong could be disseminated because any copyright on it would have expired.   The photo shared also had not yet had any restoration work performed by Postermountain.  But if artistic restoration was done yesterday - and if there is a copyright - it obviously would still be in effect...

[CSM]

Nope, save the photo to your computer then right click and go to properties then details and you can delete most of it easily there are other ways to scrub metadata to where it can say whatever you want it to say as well.

But saving the photo and then editing it is just creating a second or more precisely third copy.  The original digital file from the camera would still have the correct info.  But yes we don't know what version of the photo Mel posted so your point is made. 

[brude]

While a restoration artist might (or might not) get protection under existing copyright laws, the spirit of what Chris is driving at is on the money.

Restorers might not own the work they have been contracted to perform, but they might have some say as to how their work --which is actual artistry -- is presented/published.
There might even be stipulations agreed upon between the client (poster owner) and the restorer as to how that image will be used.
I think that is why they had them locked away in the first place.

Frankly, I think they should allow these images to flood the internet with a minimal watermark.  It's good advertising.

[guest8]

Remove entirely yes, but editing the shutter speed, ISO and the focal length of the lens, hell no.

Before you make a claim like that you should be 100% that you are in fact correct.

[guest8]

I am not referring to the poster in totality but the restored work...if the poster is restored the poster is no longer "as it was".  It's been altered.  I believe one of the arguments that came up is that the photo of King Kong could be disseminated because any copyright on it would have expired.   The photo shared also had not yet had any restoration work performed by Postermountain.  But if artistic restoration was done yesterday - and if there is a copyright - it obviously would still be in effect...

It is "as it was" ... originally.. I get what you are saying , that the work they do isn't original so it should belong to them. But it doesn't. Unless they purposely made the work totally different or made satirical changes. Its still a King Kong poster (and if it wasn't public domain) the original rights owners would own the work.

[50s]

A digital file / digital image is comprised of a long string of text characters 1's and 0's (as we all know by now).

A digital file can be edited down to the 1's and 0's level to change anything. Don't think a digital file has some sort of unbreakable protection or has something that can't be changed.  EVERYTHING in a digital file can be altered. Once somebody has the file, they can do whatever they like to it technically.

---

My understanding is if the photo is not just of the poster but includes something else, such as a scarab paper weight in each corner, it is considered sufficiently different creatively and copyrighted. Include something other than just the poster in the image if you want to have a little protection.

[CSM]

A digital file / digital image is comprised of a long string of text characters 1's and 0's (as we all know by now).

A digital file can be edited down to the 1's and 0's level to change anything. Don't think a digital file has some sort of unbreakable protection or has something that can't be changed.  EVERYTHING in a digital file can be altered. Once somebody has the file, they can do whatever they like to it technically.

---

My understanding is if the photo is not just of the poster but includes something else, such as a scarab paper weight in each corner, it is considered sufficiently different creatively and copyrighted. Include something other than just the poster in the image if you want to have a little protection.

Is this why David always posts his dog and you always post your latest supermodel girlfriend?

[erik1925]

Aside from the interesting camera info, data stamped on a photo image file, etc, the basic question that Mike "Undead" asked (several times) still remains unanswered:

Was permission given to go into Poster Mountain's private, secure and non-public database to download their large image files?

OR, was it done by other, "less permissive" means?

Forget about poster images for a moment. Hacking into secure, non-public areas on ANY website is illegal -- period.

Regardless if it be poster images or other data looked at or downloaded -- that is immaterial.

[50s]

Aside from the interesting camera info, data stamped on a photo image file, etc, the basic question that Mike "Undead" asked (several times) still remains unanswered:

Was permission given to go into Poster Mountain's private, secure and non-public database to download their large image files?

OR, was it done by other, "less permissive" means?

Forget about poster images for a moment. Hacking into secure, non-public areas on ANY website is illegal -- period.

Regardless if it be poster images or other data looked at or downloaded -- that is immaterial.

If you are asking Melvin, I am guessing you might need to wait till he is back from figuring out where the EMP supersized image repository is located