"Borrowed" photographs

Bill Coye

Bill Coye

Knife Maker
This week I discovered another environmental company was using photographs taken from one of my websites www.methdecon.com on theirs. Thankfully, a quick email "fixed" the problem. I then had the webmaster put watermarks on all of the photos. They are also now right-click protected. Photos can still be taken by highlighting, click file and "save as" but with watermarks no one would want them.

I picked up a watermark program for all of my future photos.

Anyone have difficulties with pics of their knives being used without permission?

2guns

BC
 
It happens all the time on the Internet. A lot of people have the idea that if it is published on the web it is public domain. In fact, at least in the U.S., any writing or photograph that you create is automatically copyrighted to the author the moment it is created and the copyright is in force regardless if it is in print, digital format or published on the Internet.
 
Not that theft of digital property is funny, but the funniest one I have heard of is the family who took a family photo and then either a friend or a relative seen thier photo being used in an advertisement for a store somewhere in Europe. I believe that one made most of the majot news stations.
 
Bill Coye said:
Photos can still be taken by highlighting, click file and "save as" but with watermarks no one would want them.
Click to expand...
Until they find the crop tool and just make the image smaller. You need to have those watermarks moved into the center if you want to cover all your bases. It will however pretty much crap up the picture, so the question becomes does the potential for more improper use of your photos outweigh the benefits of a clear picture on your website? Welcome to every digital photographers life, and I say that from experience though I don't make a living off my pictures.
 
Copyright infringement is everywhere on the Internet. Most of it falls under the "no harm, no foul" category and isn't worth the effort to go after the offenders. If you object to someone using your photo just telling them to remove it usually does it. Web hosts can also be liable for infringment so they are almost always willing to immediately remove unauthorized copyrighted material.

You can register your photos with the copyright office for more protection. If you don't register, all you can sue for is actual damages so you have to prove that you were financially harmed or that the offender profited from the use of your photos. If they are registered, the offender can also be liable for statutory damages up to $150,000. Copryright notice is not required on the photo.

The simple solution is simply to ask for permission to use photos. In my experience it is almost always granted.
 
Last edited:
I've had 2 people threaten to sue me because I posted pics for "discussion" on a knife forum.
One of them threatened to sue me for "Internet libel"
Problem is, he would have to get my IP address from Comcast
That is not really easy to===>
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(u1fsmr55sqd2i0y5m5wliv45)/download.aspx?ID=67130

It happens all the time on the Internet. A lot of people have the idea that if it is published on the web it is public domain. In fact, at least in the U.S., any writing or photograph that you create is automatically copyrighted to the author the moment it is created and the copyright is in force regardless if it is in print, digital format or published on the Internet
Click to expand...
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work
Click to expand...
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

All you have to do to get around the disabled right click
Is to PRINTSCREEN, then paste it to MS PAINT
Then crop it
It will still show the watermark, though

In your case it was not for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"
So you were right about copyright infringement :eek:

If I post a pic of a knife on a knife forum and say, "Hey guys..do you think this alleged civil war Bowie knife is real or fake?"
I am protected under The Fair Use Act

If I post a pic of knife on T Rock's Knife Store, as a "logo", for example
I am not protected

I sent emails to both copyright infringment accusers with The Fair Use Act text
Told them to forward it to their lawyers
Never heard from them again
So I guess I am in the clear
For now:eek:
§ 507. Limitations on actions7
(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.
Click to expand...
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#507

BTW..I am not a lawyer
I would be interested in what any lawyers have to say
There has to be SOME knife maker/lawyers on this forum, right??:confused:
 
The fair use clause seldom stands up in court unless you are a news agency or a teaching facility and even then the use is very limited.

In most cases people drop it becuase it will cost money for lawyers and court fees and there is nothing to be gained becuase they can't prove monetary damages.

Also in many cases no harm is done and it may in fact just be free advertising for the copyright owner. But the fact of the matter is that the material is the property of the copyright owner and taking or using anyone's property without permission is illegal.

I am not a lawyer but as a lifelong photographer I have done quite a bit of research on the subject. If someone lifts one of my photos and posts it somewhere to say "what a nice photo" I probably won't do anything about it (although asking permission and giving photo credit would be nice). But if they are using my photo without my permission to help sell their product or service we are going to have a problem.

Knife photos are copied and posted all over the knife forums for the purpose of discussion or citique. If permission was not granted by the copyright owner it is illegal. If someone wanted to make a case of it I seriously doubt the fair use clause would stand (it has been shot down many times in court). But why would the knifemaker complain? He is getting exposure and if nobody is profiting from the use of the photo there is nothing to be gained by taking it to court.
 
Okay I have a question now. I copy pictures of knives all the time just to look at and study. I will some times try and draw what I like about them, and believe me, I'm no artist - it's a struggle to draw something even close.

Case in point. I am really interested in the Cephas Ham bowie, Because of historical provenance. I have copied some pictures(1 from a photobucket account of their reproduction) These are pics that I just use as "Models" for my drawing. I have posted pics of the actual Cephas Ham Bowie, on display at the Alamo,But have no idea who took the pic. Am I guilty of copyright infringement??

To show how lousy my drawings of it are, I'll post a pic of my drawing of the design, one for use on a 1 1/2" wide steel (This drawing still needs work, the tip ain't right at all!!) and one for use on a 2" wide. Both are 10" blade length. I apologize for brutalizing your eyes.

img006.jpg





I don't think it is really close to the original Bowie though, I'm not satisfied with it anyway. It just doesn't look right to me. Close, but no cigar.

Oh and something that is funny to me anyway, If you Google Cephas Ham Bowie, Some of the results are of me mentioning it right here on Knife Dogs!!:rolleyes: Another maker had a customer ask him to make him a repro of it and when he did a search he came across my posts here!! We already knew each other from a different forum so he contacted me for info!! I almost choked laughing so hard!! I am no authority!!!
 
pocomoonskyeyes said:
Case in point. I am really interested in the Cephas Ham bowie, Because of historical provenance. I have copied some pictures(1 from a photobucket account of their reproduction) These are pics that I just use as "Models" for my drawing. I have posted pics of the actual Cephas Ham Bowie, on display at the Alamo,But have no idea who took the pic. Am I guilty of copyright infringement??
Click to expand...

Technically yes, that is copyright infringement. Downloading something for personal use is not an issue. When you republish it without permission, that is infringement. It is unlikely that anyone will call you on it and if they do they would probably just ask you to remove it. Museums can be more picky about it and some won't even allow you take pictures in the museum.

Like most people, I have "borrowed" pictures from the Internet. I always ask permission to republish if I can identify the owner. If I can't identify the owner I have in some cases used a photo anyway to illustrate a point of discussion with the assumption that if the owner objects I would remove it. Since I am not doing it to make a buck I have not had a problem but the owner would have every right to demand that I remove the photo.
 
Mike,

Had that company asked first to use the pictures, it probably wouldn't have been as issue (weak on their part but not an issue).

Thanks for the input guys. Good information.

BC
 
Mike Carter said:
Technically yes, that is copyright infringement. Downloading something for personal use is not an issue. When you republish it without permission, that is infringement. It is unlikely that anyone will call you on it and if they do they would probably just ask you to remove it. Museums can be more picky about it and some won't even allow you take pictures in the museum.........
Click to expand...

OK when I have posted the picture Of the Cephas Ham Bowie, I said that it was "on display at the Alamo" . Would that Count as giving Proper credit? I'm really concerned about that picture being posted now. I think I should probably remove it. Does anyone think that would be well advised, or should I just "Let it ride"? To be honest, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong at the time, But now I'm not so sure. This picture was posted in different places on the 'net when I found it, at least two different postings that I recall. As soon as one person says it should come down, I'm taking it down.
 
Poco, a knife does not fall under copyright. in most cases knives are not protected under patents .
In the knife world, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It is how we honor our past makers. Knifemaking would not be what it is today without copying and influence of other makers. It is not a bad thing.
 
pocomoonskyeyes said:
OK when I have posted the picture Of the Cephas Ham Bowie, I said that it was "on display at the Alamo" . Would that Count as giving Proper credit? I'm really concerned about that picture being posted now. I think I should probably remove it. Does anyone think that would be well advised, or should I just "Let it ride"? To be honest, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong at the time, But now I'm not so sure. This picture was posted in different places on the 'net when I found it, at least two different postings that I recall. As soon as one person says it should come down, I'm taking it down.
Click to expand...

Jim Adams Customs said:
Poco, a knife does not fall under copyright. in most cases knives are not protected under patents .
In the knife world, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It is how we honor our past makers. Knifemaking would not be what it is today without copying and influence of other makers. It is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Jim I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about. You see, I was asking on another Forum about knives with historical Provenance. I posted a picture of the REAL Cephas Ham Bowie that is on display at the Alamo. It wasn't a picture of mine or another makers, But the real deal at the Alamo. That is what I am wondering if I should remove from my post there.
 
You not using the picture for profit? Just as a public discussion to the benefit of group. I really wouldn't sweat it.
Was it a Government photo from the Alamo?
 
Last edited:
Like Jim said, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If they contact you and ask you to remove it, do it. It's very unlikely that it would go any farther than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top