Re: [Leica] Photos on the Web

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>]

William wrote:
> 
> John Collier writes:
> 
> |Which is exactly my point. For there* OWN LEGAL PROTECTION, they ask you to
> |give up copyright just to the FILE. Maybe I need to take a writing course as
> |I do not seem to be communicating that well on this thread.
> 
> I don't think you are slipping, John.  I don't think your are giving up
> anything in reality , though.  I think it is more of a hold harmless clause
> for MSN.
> 
> Let's couch this in slightly different terms.  Let's say that I hire Mark
> Rabiner to take my portrait (with a Leica of course).  I buy three prints from
> Mark.  I take one of the prints and post to the MSN site.  Have I given up
> copyright?  No, I don't own the copyright.  Mark owns the copyright.  I cannot
> give up something that I do not own... that is to say, I cannot give MSN the
> copyright... only Mark can do that if he so chooses.
> 
> Have I violated Mark's copyright by posting the portrait on MSN?  I don't
> know.  If I claimed authorship, I would imagine so (but show me damages).  If
> I put it there so that Aunt Leonore or anyone else interested in looking at my
> portrait --- I would argue that this was fair use of the photographic print
> which I purchased --- which argument may or may not be accepted depending upon
> how the contract to buy the print was phrased.
> 
> The point is that the internet is relatively anonymous.  I really don't know
> if you are who you say you are and if you have any rights that can be
> transferred.  I cannot image responsible person/corporation trying to use my
> (who?)  photographs and opening the "can" of liabilities involved.
> 
> It's analogous to being in the stock market...if you cannot sleep at night,
> get out....If you lay awake at night worrying about someone stealing your
> photographs on the internet, put them in an album and don't show them to
> anyone.
> 
> William

William is my middle name by the way. What's your first and last?
Some fine points to split not precisely on the point but i feel like i want to mention:
If I shot your family portrait as I will sometimes do and it was used to sell
you or your product or anything I think we'd have a problem... the 1978
copyright law which gives the copyright to the photographer automatically.
If I did a Promo portrait as I more often do like of a singer or actor or
insurance agent then that picture is going to appear all kinds of places to sell
this persons talent and wares.
Although I think if this person run's off the picture with his signature on it
they can not sell the copies as such. He/she is the product, not the picture itself.
Do I sound far off copyright legal eagles?

The internet is a place where people are really not anonymous. They can be
traced. The main thing claimed is ignorance. Ignorance of basic copyright law.
In rare cases people really don't know they are stealing. In most cases I think
they can feel it.
Visuals and ideas are being stolen on a large scale with everyone shrugging
their shoulders.
But more and more they are not getting away with it.
Bill Gates will get away with exactly as much as he can get away with. No less.
The internet is not an anything goes deal. There is accountability on the long run.
Mark William Rabiner