vince123123 said:Yes agreed, thats why I was making my initial comment to your post:
"The final conclusion is that for all of these copyrights and individual rights enquiries, you have to engage a lawyer trained in these areas. Or contact IPOS to consult them."
I don't really think there is an "or" here.
dawgbyte77 said:If the photo was taken in public without breaking any law (i.e. obscene), you do not have a claim for it anymore. Engaging a lawyer will not help, either the lawyer will turn you down or will just take your money. Have you spoken to the photographer instead? Just to clear some issue, I am not siding with the photographer and strongly do not agree with his ethics.
jsbn said:Whilst I am ok with sharing my shots with ppl, I'm not ok if they take it and print it without my explicit permission (unless I feel like it den I do free job. Dat's me).
Heck with what IPOS and stuff. Those are meant to create more and more silly lawsuits and lawyers will luff their way to banks.
These days, I just solve the problem by rendering prints unprintable. 72dpi, watermark and reducing the original photo size to as low as 40 or even 30% of the original size is enuff for viewing, yet its not enuff for prints. If the guy is shameless enuff to print it for sale, he can go ahead. Just dun lemme catch u with it.
xray said:I think copyright is a selfish way of doing things. But it's essential for making money.
In my opinion, I'll allow people to use my some of my photographs and even sell them, but give me credit for the photo. If they place it on their website, then they have to allow others to copy my photo like what they had done.
On contrary, if I took some photos for business use, I would not even think of making it free. Think in the shoes of those who have to live on their photo earnings. If you did not protect your photos, they would be freely avaliable and worth nothing.
That's why I like the Open-initiative - allows people to share stuff fairly, but I don't apply it to all my works.
vince123123 said:Well in that case those laws will not be relevant to you correct? Its to avail those who wish to protect their works of legal recourse in event of infringing use.
If you're wellsprited enough to share your photographs for free, why should you scorn the legal system who protects those who wish to avail themselves of protection?
I venture to suggest that a possible reason why such a statement is made is because one intends to use other pple's photographs (ie those who are glad for the existence of such laws) without having to pay them for it.
dawgbyte77 said:If the photo was taken in public without breaking any law (i.e. obscene), you do not have a claim for it anymore. Engaging a lawyer will not help, either the lawyer will turn you down or will just take your money. Have you spoken to the photographer instead? Just to clear some issue, I am not siding with the photographer and strongly do not agree with his ethics.
Andy Ang said:So if then the shot is take in public, cannot claim
But if shot in public then posted on the net? Can claim or not?:think:
babyhee said:i'm support photopurist. Hate those copyright stuff.
vince123123 said:I also hate locks and keys - could you give me the key to your house so I can go in and help myself to your assets?
babyhee said:no problem, you are most welcome. If only you can get past my killers dog who sniff out people who take advantage of others.
babyhee said:i'm in it for the love of photography, love the process but spare me the legal rights stuff.
By the to all people, you are free to use my photo stock and studio.
felixcat8888 said:Looks like PhotoPurist has gone hiding.....
No more replies.....