Moved from {Photo "stolen" by newspaper reporter}

[Belle&Sebastain]

Don't assume.

sheetshooter, we are in the same camp. CAB. i saw your flight zone sticker

 

[HeWolf]

A friend of mine who is a freelance photographer told me that when a newspaper wishes to use a certain photo taken by a freelancer/amatuer, the rate for each of the image is about S$80 or so. Can someone confirm on this?

If it's true, then I've just wasted $80.

While on the way to zoo this morning, a car infront of me skidded from right to left and hit the railing, bounced up about 1m high and eventually landed on the middle lane.

How close was I, the debris hit the left of my car!!!

Helped call the police. Later was told by police that the drive was ok.

But car surely got to 'kill'.

So friends, slowly and steady is the way to go!

 

[r32]

So it's ok to for people here to infringe copyright issues, but not ok when the BH guy did the same. How cool.

If Duhville is still keen, just engage a lawyer to fight the case.

It's just that the irony is so thick here it's choking.
(pot calling kettle black etc)

Pot calling kettle black, indeed.

Perhaps you should line up your original software box collection for a photoshoot, as well.

"Let he who casts the first stone be without sin."

It applies to everyone, and not just the person who has taken offence to his photo being used without due acknowledgement.

You imply that he should just keep quiet about his issue, just because a large majority of the community here use pirated image editing software.

No one is without sin here, but to draw a relationship between image copyright and pirated software, is obfuscating the main issue in this thread.

The talk here is focused on how he can seek redress for this copyright issue and how he can prevent such occurences in the future.

I am sure the software houses are doing all they can with regard to policing and safeguarding their software from being pirated. Obviously, as you pointed out so self-righteously, everyone's still using it, because their anti-piracy measures aren't up to scratch yet.

And so similarly, duhville failed to protect his copyright and now he's trying to get it redressed. Software houses fail to protect their software and they too get the authorities to come in to clamp down on retailers (and in some cases users) of such pirated software.

People are going to take advantage of favourable situations where they can do illegal things without getting caught, until it becomes too tough to do so, be it software or image piracy.

That's the way it is.

 

[acroamatic]

So it's ok to for people here to infringe copyright issues, but not ok when the BH guy did the same. How cool.

If Duhville is still keen, just engage a lawyer to fight the case.

It's just that the irony is so thick here it's choking.
(pot calling kettle black etc)

The simple response to your statment is: no, it is not okay. The complex response will be totally OT. Go read Lawrence Lessig's work.

Suffice to say, copyright owners - particularly those with fat wallets and political influence - will use the full extent of the law to hunt down and prosecute copyright infringers. My point is not that it is okay for people to infringe copyright. What I did say is that it is irrelevant to duhville's plight whether the people on CS are copyright infringers or not. If any CSers have infringed copyright, then the owners have every right to go after them and that's another story altogether.

Copyright law protects all content-owners equally. However, the enforcement of the law clearly leans towards megacoporations' favour, be it in claiming damages from copyright infringement OR defending themselves against copyright claims. This is where the ironic smoke you smell is coming from.

My point is that duhville has should pursue this matter and be given the means to do so even if he doesn't have a fat wallet or political influence. So, yes, duhville should engage a lawyer if SPH/BH does not respond or want to settle this matter amicably out of court.

Perhaps you would like to help pay, since you're above us poor hypocritical copyright infringers who have no say in pointing out an injustice.

Following your logic, nobody can be a policeman or a judge because they are so obviously not perfect and have probably jaywalked - and dare I say, infringed others' copyrights - among other things.

Finally, I'll restate that it is doubly wrong for the BH reporter to have stolen the photo. 1. He broke the law; and 2. As a journalist, he has an ethical obligation to provide fair and honest reporting, which he has not by claiming the photo credit.

 

[Minoxman]

Obviously Duhville has the right to pursue the matter. You mean this point is even in contention? Of course the BH reporter was wrong. Again, a no brainer. Now whether duhville goes on to sue is his decision.
It's just amazing watching kettles shouting at pots, that's all.

 

[Minoxman]

So you guys are saying it's ok to use a pirated software of someone else's and yet at the same time shout foul IF someone uses your copyrighted software written by you illegally.

right...

 

[Minoxman]

Pot calling kettle black, indeed.

Perhaps you should line up your original software box collection for a photoshoot, as well.
.

It's precisely the reasons why I don't encourage duhville to sue although he can! . Why bring in all the legal hooha when most of us were/are/will be infringing copyright laws anyway one way or the other?
No, I don't have PS boxes to show off. I doubt the majority has any.

 

[glennyong]

sue BH la... quick quick... flame them.. flame them... flame them.........

flame their butts.... :bsmilie:

 

[acroamatic]

So you guys are saying it's ok to use a pirated software of someone else's and yet at the same time shout foul IF someone uses your copyrighted software written by you illegally.

right...

I've mentioned that it's not okay to use pirated stuff a few times. Going by your standards, no one can stand up for their rights as everyone is not perfect.

Why bring in all the legal hooha when most of us were/are/will be infringing copyright laws anyway one way or the other?

Hahaha! First you accuse (most) people of not abiding with copyright laws. Now, you say since we can't abide by the laws, let's not bother at all with them...

 

[roygoh]

It's precisely the reasons why I don't encourage duhville to sue although he can! . Why bring in all the legal hooha when most of us were/are/will be infringing copyright laws anyway one way or the other?

Are you assuming that Duhville is either using pirated software or endorses the use of pirated software? If not then I don't see why he should be discouraged from taking legal action against BH.

Your argument is that: since most of the people here violate copyright laws one way or another, then Duhville must be doing the same, thus he is in no position to protect his own rights?

The underlying reason for your statements here seems to be "those who use pirated sofware or endorse the use of pirated software have no business here encouraging Duhville to take action against BH", but it somehow turned out as "those who encourage Duhville to take action against BH have no business doing so because they themselves use or endorse the use of pirated software".

The first is a statement of principle while the second is a statement of unsupported assumption.

- Roy

 

[StreetShooter]

Nice picture. Don't bite.

PS picture is provided free for download by NZ govt.

 

[BadPicture]

copyright cannot be stolen (even if you don't put the C symbol or copyright info), as long as you possess the original file with exif data (better yet if its a RAW/NEF file), you can claim damages. especially when it is not you who put the work into public domain

first: talk to streats editor. say you want credit to be acknowledge, in lieu of payment, or else payment for the work stolen.

I'd want credit AND payment.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Are you assuming that Duhville is either using pirated software or endorses the use of pirated software? If not then I don't see why he should be discouraged from taking legal action against BH.

Your argument is that: since most of the people here violate copyright laws one way or another, then Duhville must be doing the same, thus he is in no position to protect his own rights?

The underlying reason for your statements here seems to be "those who use pirated sofware or endorse the use of pirated software have no business here encouraging Duhville to take action against BH", but it somehow turned out as "those who encourage Duhville to take action against BH have no business doing so because they themselves use or endorse the use of pirated software".

The first is a statement of principle while the second is a statement of unsupported assumption.

- Roy

actually its a simple thing that we should tell him... minorman... its 2 separate issue... dun mix them together... even u wanna sue BH for the publication of the pics, they won't be checking your pc for the pirated software rite, den even if they wan, its not BH problem to sue either, its the software publisher's problem... y bother?

 

[BadPicture]

i would like to ask.. if you took a photo..
and someone saw it and did a similar photo and got some credit...

then do you own copyright?? or there is nothing u can do to tat person..

Your copyright only covers work created by you (with limitations).

 

[BadPicture]

Write to MITA.

I don't think that would have much effect.

 

[BadPicture]

Hi duhville,

Yours is no proper credits given. Most prolly an honest case of omission or oversight. Nevertheless, you are right is requesting the proper recognition.

In my case, my company's product brochure which was written by myself was almost copied word for word with some word changes here and there by a competitor who was my ex distributor. In this case it is not asking for recognition, but I am seeking legal advise and action.

If you wrote it for the company, it is a "work for hire" and the company owns the copyright. The company needs to pursue the matter. Tell them to get a lawyer who knows intellectual property and get his opinion.

 

[Minoxman]

Are you assuming that Duhville is either using pirated software or endorses the use of pirated software? If not then I don't see why he should be discouraged from taking legal action against BH.

Your argument is that: since most of the people here violate copyright laws one way or another, then Duhville must be doing the same, thus he is in no position to protect his own rights?

The underlying reason for your statements here seems to be "those who use pirated sofware or endorse the use of pirated software have no business here encouraging Duhville to take action against BH", but it somehow turned out as "those who encourage Duhville to take action against BH have no business doing so because they themselves use or endorse the use of pirated software".

The first is a statement of principle while the second is a statement of unsupported assumption.

- Roy

SO I ask again, How many of you who supported Duhville here against BH uses packaged licensed original issues of MICROSOFT OFFICE 2000 OR PHOTOSHOP 5-7 NOW? I am making a calculated assumption here. So far only 1 person had shown me a "licensed" package although it was only on screen evidence.

So if I was right about my assumption, many of you supporting duhville would have been breaking the law they so vehemently(sp?) try to uphold. Ironic?
If my assumption is wrong, accept my apologies and your honesty and integrity will be much rewarded in due time and you can go on supporting all copyright/rights of use issues etc all you want.
Prove me wrong.

 

[Minoxman]

I've mentioned that it's not okay to use pirated stuff a few times. Going by your standards, no one can stand up for their rights as everyone is not perfect.

Hahaha! First you accuse (most) people of not abiding with copyright laws. Now, you say since we can't abide by the laws, let's not bother at all with them...

You can stand up for your rights of course if you abide by the SAME law yourself. It's a moral principle you should be consistent about.

You are right about your second paragraph. Dead on. Why bother?

 

[Minoxman]

actually its a simple thing that we should tell him... minorman... its 2 separate issue... dun mix them together... even u wanna sue BH for the publication of the pics, they won't be checking your pc for the pirated software rite, den even if they wan, its not BH problem to sue either, its the software publisher's problem... y bother?

It's a moral issue. It's either you have it or you don't. Doesn't matter what you infringed upon. I guess you'd never understand anyway.

 

[Minoxman]

Nice picture. Don't bite.

PS picture is provided free for download by NZ govt.

Nice picture. I was looking for the "Backstabber" one few months ago. No luck.