Uncle tried to tell me not to put guns on Facebook, .. GFY!, WTF?!

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I already slapped around Occupy the NRA (now called campaign to unload) and they removed the images. There is a lot more to it then people think especially when it involves minors.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mipafox 438]

Not to be a negative Nancy but isn't it public domain once it hits the interwebz?

No. You own your work or art. There is no "internet rule" that invalidates that. Just a lot of people that don't defend their work because there is no reason to.

[checko 180]

Ok. Fair enough

[Shawnmoore81 623]

 

 

 

These ones I liked and left em alone.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[checko 180]

No. You own your work or art. There is no "internet rule" that invalidates that. Just a lot of people that don't defend their work because there is no reason to.

My line of thinking is if it is art then it was "published" on a public website with no expectation of privacy.

 

My line of thing may very well be flawed. I'm no lawyer.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

The way it was explained to me was if they picture is being used to report the story it's one thing. But when companies use the image however they want to like its a thumb nail it's not ok. The fact he's a minor also makes it more strict.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Shawnmoore81 623]

A lot of companies had to contact me through Nappen to obtain permission. I had no problem with the NRA using pics. I even gave them more pics to use. Fox and the blaze also were given permission.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mipafox 438]

My line of thinking is if it is art then it was "published" on a public website with no expectation of privacy.

 

My line of thing may very well be flawed. I'm no lawyer.

There is a difference between no expectation of privacy and licensing others to use your work or art. The two are largely unrelated. I'm no lawyer, either. But I'm at least closer to correct on this

[checko 180]

Makes sense about making profit off it.

[mipafox 438]

Makes sense about making profit off it.

You don't need to make a profit to violate someone's rights over their work, intellectual property, or art. Any use without license is a violation if they defend against it.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Makes sense about making profit off it.

Yeah that makes a huge difference. That can be the difference between a cease and desist order and a law suit.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[checko 180]

You don't need to make a profit to violate someone's rights over their work, intellectual property, or art. Any use without license is a violation if they defend against it.

See, this is where I don't follow. For example:

 

If you decide to bring your personal oil painting to a free public art showing and I happen to take a picture from my phone and post it to facebook to say, in my opinion, it looks like monkey crap thrown against a wall. I can't see how you can legally force me to take it down.

[Malice4you 627]

The second you take a picture, you own the copyright for that photo (except certain cases where you are a photographer working for a company, that may be a work for hire where the company owns the rights).  Your photo does not have to be registered to prove you own the copyright, but it can help in some cases, though I believe you may have a limited amount of time after discovering the infringement. 

 

(Some image hosting websites and contests can attempt a rights grab and claim ownership of the photo, or allow it to be used in advertising or for other uses, which is BS, but people still use these sites/contests.  Most people click agreements without reading all the legalese crap...so they may not realize they signed away their rights to their own photos.) 

 

Images showing trademarks, images taken ON private property, and images showing identifiable people may have hefty legal issues if used improperly (such as in advertising) if waivers are not obtained.  Images which are "newsworthy" have fewer restrictions, but one still can't go around ignoring copyrights.  Use of a copyrighted photo, such as the one Shawn took, on a book is a pretty big no no...and IMO that person has opened themself to a serious lawsuit and pretty substantial fines/restitution.  Reuse of a photo on the internet is just as bad, though often much harder to do anything about (finding the person responsible, if the infringement is hosted outside the US, etc)

 

In the case above, I'm not sure what basis they could get a photo taken down.  I haven't read up on this lately and my memory is fuzzy, but I'm thinking that as long as you're not slandering the artist and not selling anything using the photo, you're probably in the clear...

 

Of course, it is almost 5AM and I'm sure as hell not a lawyer...

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Photo has been changed

[lunker 274]

Photo has been changed

Excellent.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Here is where if they made a profit comes in to play.