safe haven for tiny formats

[gth]

(Tog unkown)


Not mine...but makes me want to get back into LF!

Hey, slackercruster I checked the page code and the url you posted to Gandolfi's pict is:

"http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Photography%20BW/fbhjmk.jpg"


and the one to your own HDR with the bathtub is:

"http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/EPSN2416_-2_-3_paintl-2JPG.jpg"

I don't know how photo bucket URL or picture organization works so I have to ask you straight up...

Did you copy Gandolfi's pict to your own area and use that to distribute the pict? Kind of looks like it....

It get's a bit shady there, you see what I mean... It's one thing to post URL to a photo owners site.... at least you increase traffic to his site, and he can see who is linking his pict. But if you load a pict on your site and link to it... eehhh

I know, it's the internet and who gives a f' and all that but among photographers and photo site.... ehhh...

[Roger Cole]

I'm not a thief. I don't post other photographers' work in the first place, so the problem has never arisen.

To address the larger question...
If you don't know who the photographer is, you should not post the image, because you ARE violating copyright if the
image was made in the last 40(?) years, and might be in violation for older images.

- Leigh

If you want to discuss it you can link to it. That's totally fair and legal. Hotlinking is more gray. Downloading it and posting it into your own photo area and then distributing from there is not only illegal it's downright slimy.

[Pawlowski6132]

If you want to discuss it you can link to it. That's totally fair and legal. Hotlinking is more gray. Downloading it and posting it into your own photo area and then distributing from there is not only illegal it's downright slimy.

It depends on the context, the intent, and the damages.

You guys are waaaaaay too sensitive.

The guy said it wasn't his photo.

Which is more than I would have felt obligated to do.

[gth]

It depends on the context, the intent, and the damages.

You guys are waaaaaay too sensitive.

The guy said it wasn't his photo.

Which is more than I would have felt obligated to do.

Yeah, but I am not talking about the fine points of legality, and yes, internet comes with very limited privacy. But don't you feel there is a substantial difference between having your own website photo being linked to straight across, given you at least some control and traffic to your site AKA EXPOSURE, and being able to take the photo down, and a situation where the photo is down loaded to someone else's site and republished? Giving you absolutely NO control over or benefit from your creation.

And especially if it involves serious efforts towards photo art...

[jcoldslabs]

Isn't this what Tumblr is all about, as well as Pinterest, imgur, and to some degree Facebook--sharing images you "find" on the Web? I don't endorse this necessarily, but hasn't the music industry proven that this horse is out of the digital barn? I've done an image search and found some of my photos making the Tumblr rounds without permission. I could contact the people and ask them to take down the images, but there is no commerce involved and I figure so what? Then again, I have no Web presence and am not selling my photos, so I may be viewing this issue differently from those who do. I figure that if I put my images on the Web, including here on these forums, I have lost some degree of control over them. For all I know one of my uploaded photos is being used to sell beer in China. The only way to prevent it is to keep your photos off the Web in the first place.

Jonathan

[Frank Petronio]

I figure the (mis)use and appropriation of my images on social networking sites is the price I pay for the promotional opportunity they provide. Otherwise they are "free" sites but I clearly made the choice to post my work on them, knowing that my pictures could be easily swiped. I even post large file sizes, 2048-pixels, with full meta-data (knowing it could be striped out). To me it is a worthy trade-off because I know that the benefits of getting my work seen outweigh the consequences of some reblogs or people swiping pix for PC wallpaper or whatever. No legit ad agency is going to swipe my image online, and if it happens in Bezerkastan who cares? It's all criminals over there and my jpg is nothing compared to slavery and genocide.

Still I don't welcome or encourage it and it would be poor form here.

[SergeiR]

Your wrong. He didn't copy the work. There was no infringement. He didn't violate any US Copyright laws. If you are convinced he did, it should be simple for you to present the specific citation or case law to us here.

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3948

p6 and p9 contain specifics on cases and laws involved.

[z_photo]

by the way, Carolyn's book is pretty good

[austin granger]

Genesee, Idaho




http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/

[renes]

In Warsaw park, Voightlander Bergheil with Gundlach meniscus

Attachment 79203