Judges, eh?

General discussion and anything that isn't covered by the other categories.
Mike Farley
Posts: 5936
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Judges, eh?

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 09:10

It is not just camera club judges who come in for criticism. A court judge in the US has just decreed that using photographs found on the Internet for a commercial website constitutes "fair use" if it is used in a non commercial way. The image also has less value, apparently, if it is considered factual rather than creative. I would not be surprised if this rumbles on for a good while yet as there would seem to be plenty of grounds for an appeal.

More from PetaPixel: https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court- ... -fair-use/. You can determine for yourself how much creativity the photographer applied in capturing the scene. As it stands, it would seem pretty much all photography is devalued unless the photographer goes to some lengths to set something up, either at the time of capture or afterwards in post processing.
Regards

Mike Farley

Check out my website and latest blog post: http://www.mikefarley.net

My most recent images can be viewed at http://365project.org/pictor/365
Sarahrs
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue 27 Sep 2016, 21:05

Re: Judges, eh?

Postby Sarahrs » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 19:45

might agree with the judge on this one. The photography was publicly available on a website for free. And website didn't try to make money from the photograph directly. However, it clearly shows that if you put something on the internet, expect it to be used. Or put a big watermark and copyright that I've seen some professional and amateurs do to stop this from happening.

So how do you put a watermark/or a copyright signature on your image?
Mike Farley
Posts: 5936
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Judges, eh?

Postby Mike Farley » Wed 04 Jul 2018, 07:27

I am a little surprised at some of these views. Would you walk into someone's house if they had left the door open and take anything you wanted on the basis that they had not said you couldn't? Unfortunately, the Internet/World Wide Web was never designed to protect copyright and there are some unscrupulous people who take advantage. Fair use is one thing, but it did concern me that the judge had introduced some new criteria as to what is acceptable, especially the creativity aspect.

For what it is worth, I never watermark or copyright my images. Where there is no protection available, I prefer to keep them small, both in terms of pixel dimensions and file size. It limits what those lacking moral integrity can do with them. My most stolen picture is one which another website published using an original full size image which I had submitted into a competition.
Regards

Mike Farley

Check out my website and latest blog post: http://www.mikefarley.net

My most recent images can be viewed at http://365project.org/pictor/365
Mike Farley
Posts: 5936
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Judges, eh?

Postby Mike Farley » Fri 06 Jul 2018, 08:28

DPReview has published its own summary of the case, which I found easier to understand than the report I found on PetaPixel. Or at least, it would be more comprehensible if, at the time of writing, DPReview had not repeated most of the final section which is a tad confusing. No doubt that is a glitch which it will amend in due course. The judge who made the ruling certainly comes in for considerable criticism due to his interpretation of the law pertaining to fair use.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/976166864 ... -precedent
Regards

Mike Farley

Check out my website and latest blog post: http://www.mikefarley.net

My most recent images can be viewed at http://365project.org/pictor/365

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests