Not only is the image size large, but the resolution is 350dpi, which means someone can make a nice large print. Consider uploading images at a resolution of 72dpi and a maximum size of 720p on the long side. It won't affect how they look on the screen, but it will make them less attractive to download.Originally Posted by stawastawa
Last edited by faberryman; 24-Aug-2017 at 13:11.
Actually, 72DPI is not needed because that is a printer specification, not a viewing one. You could use a 1DPI and the image would look the same. As a matter of fact, that is what I do if I send an image to a client for review - they can see it but they can't print it. (Yes, I know the DPI can be changed back to 72 or 300 or anything else but that is usually beyond most folks.)
No, a work is "under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form" in the USA.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
Making a claim and following through with that claim legally is greatly helped by registration - but you can do that at anytime to make it "official," including in preparation for a lawsuit.
And as already stated by AT, DPI is a meaningless number in the context of a digital file and has no relation to the pixel dimensions of the file, only to the number of pixels per inch used by the printer. A file set to 300 DPI that is only 300x300 pixels will be tiny on screen, and would only print as a little 1 x 1 inch postage stamp. Setting it to 30 DPI would change nothing on screen, and while it would print 10 x 10 inches, it would be very pixelated.
Yes, it is not 'fair game' it is how the internet works. If it can't be downloaded to the viewer's computer, it can't be seen.
I believe I am misreading your post. Any image presented to the browser can be downloaded or captured. No?
Oh, Corran already answered. Thanks, Corran.
coran i don't mean to sound argumentative, but ... what you said is kind of true in theory but not practice ...
as someone who has had trouble with a former client who stole my work and published it without my consent ...
i have spoken to the copyright office and lawyers ( both free ones, and ones that cost $$ ) and they told me without registration it is a lost cause.
while something is intrinsically copyrighted when the shutter is depressed and it is "created", that is different than the protections
that registration offers. ( and from what i remember registration should be done before publication, and posting images on the web is publication )
if images are taken and published and $$ made from them, being sold or leased to an ad agency for publication/advertisement/commerce
by a person who unlawfully took and used / made $ from the work, and the images were not registered -- it doesn't matter if you have the original negatives
or files, judges sometimes will not hear the case and because it is murky at best ( he said she said ), and a lawyer doesn't want to waste their efforts
when it isn't cut and dry who owns the rights to an image. registration is legal proof of ownership.
the problem now is that images are on the internet, and someone who finds something they can make $$ off of can suggest the work is abandoned/orphaned
and claim them much like a squatter can suggest they own a parcel of land they have illegally been living on. i can't remember who told me
but they said possession is 9/10 of the law... richard prince is a someone who made lots of $$ by downloading and printing other people's instagram photos.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living...eat/index.html
im not sure if it is still true, but supposedly FB claims ownership of images uploaded to their site, so they can publish everything and make $$ off of it too
it used to be in terms and condtions .. not sure if they changed it, last i was active there was IDK 10 years ago and there was a petition to stop the practice
that had like 100K names on it ...
Well, certainly there is the law and then there is the enforcement of the law.
With the digital age and internet upon us, there are billions of images flying around on the web. Posting on Flickr, Facebook, forums, etc. means you've "published" the work, and to register the thousands of images "published" as such would be not only crazy but ridiculously expensive. I am by no means a lawyer and my understanding of copyright law is certainly not up to that level - but I think calling your situation a "lost cause" is dubious! Perhaps they simply did not see an opportunity to make money on your case. If your images were used on a national billboard campaign for Coca-Cola their tune might change...
Tangentially related - about 10 years ago I was caught in an infamous speed trap (ranked #2 worst in the nation). I went to court intending to see what I could do to fight the charge and huge fine. The judge at the hearing stated in no uncertain terms that if anyone attempted to plead "not guilty" or challenge the charges that he would "throw the book" at them and make their experience hell. This was a clear violation of #5 and/or #6 on the Bill of Rights from what I remember. As a young college student with hardly any money to my name (the fine pretty much cleaned me out) I was told by the public defender to not invite the wrath of the judge. So yes, I understand what you are saying...but that doesn't change the law as it should be (and we can hope is) applied.
As for the Instagram photos - I believe the artist claims fair use through transformation. Wasn't that being challenged in court? I haven't kept up with it.
gang registration used to be like $65, and you could register upto 750 images.. its not very expensive...
https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html
regarding the lost cause statement, i don't think it is dubious at all, most images that
are used/published without consent are not coca cola ads but things someone thinks
no one will notice they are publishing and they think they can get away with it.
lawyers with experience in IP and the arts know it is nearly impossible to defend somenoe
who doesn't have the registration and they and judges have better things to do ...
on the other hand
i've read stories about cocacola or mcD's ad agencies finding someone's work on flickr
and offering the photographer 100$ or something to use the image on a billboard
and the photographer was elated and the ad agent not only did the right thing but
saved their client thousands of dollars ...
Last edited by jnantz; 25-Aug-2017 at 03:16. Reason: thinks, not things
jnanian stated the elemental case: we must have completed a copyright before a US court will consider our case. That's the end of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks