Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pro4um copyright questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pro4um copyright questions

    . .
    Last edited by Richard Dalton; 03-23-2006, 03:00 PM.

  • #2
    Richard,


    I am NOT Kirk but I will explain..............

    That is a standard boiler plated statement that you will find on just about any website

    Kirk is NOT going to sell or market your images without Your EXPRESS written permission, this statement in many ways protect us as users of the forum from thos that think just because it is visible means they can have it for their own use

    There are no higher moral standards than the ones Kirk Voclain follows
    he is a friend and a coleague and I trust him more than most.

    So Relax !

    ocasionaly Kirk will do a Pro4Um cd swap or something like it (several years ago he did a Background exchange thing) and when you send in your images you do at that time for that purpose agree that he may redistribute the images on a CD for sale but that is a different animal

    Comment


    • #3
      possibly the same reason your home page says @2004 instead of @2005

      simply an oversight
      there is no danger of your images being abused by Kirk

      a lot goes into the custom build of a website and like I already said my bet is this was a boiler plated area.

      when you sign up for the Pro4Um there is no wording there that forfiets your rights to Kirk !

      Fact is when PPA wanted to sell our copyrights for us working pro PPA members (without our permission) several years ago, Kirk was instruemental in getting that stoped.

      If your still not convinced don't share your images
      fact is if you share them on the internet ANY where on the web
      the possibility that someone somewhere might abuse them exist.

      chances of getting run over by a car increase when you leave your house too,
      we balance risks in life every day and I am sure you will be posting Low res images so where is the hazard in that ?

      In fact the Pro4Um system will not let you post High res files !

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Steve Lott
        Kirk is NOT going to sell or market your images without Your EXPRESS written permission, this statement in many ways protect us as users of the forum from thos that think just because it is visible means they can have it for their own use

        There are no higher moral standards than the ones Kirk Voclain follows
        he is a friend and a coleague and I trust him more than most.
        I have no disagreement with this--he's far more trustworthy than most people I've ever met.

        Your (and my) belief that he's won't sell them without express written permission wasn't being questioned, as far as I can tell. But the text IS claiming copyright on works that aren't his, and for which he does not own the copyright--by itself, that's entering a gray area regarding copyright infringement (this sort of disclaimer has been taken to court numerous times, with the decisions going in all directions based on the exact phrasing, the court, and--apparently--phase of the moon. ).

        There's a difference between compilation copyright and individual copyright, and the notice doesn't deal with that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Copyright law states that ownership of images are to the original creator and remain so for 75 years. The rights can only be transfered by the creator. As far as the statement, it protects images posted from people pulling them off the sight, it does not mean Kirk now owns your images.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by waldo berry
            As far as the statement, it protects images posted from people pulling them off the sight, it does not mean Kirk now owns your images.
            Um, Waldo, you don't need that notice to have the protection. And what it says is the opposite of what you say it means. (I agree that it doesn't mean he owns your work. I do believe it's claiming to do so: "All content, graphics, images, and actions contained throughout are Copyright Kirk Voclain Photography and Pro4uM.com".)

            Comment


            • #7
              First I think if funny to even think I would sell someone elses image...or profit from it...

              I'm the guy who won't even buy a Marathon Press Pre-Printed Card because I don't think it's right...

              But...to answer your question....IMAGINE you found one of your images on someone elses web site! And after looking at the htlm coding you realize they are getting the image from the Pro4uM.

              WOW....I'm not Lawyer...but I would rather have 2 reasons to sue than just one!

              The broke both YOUR copyright and the copyright of the Pro4uM.

              HOPE that explains it...

              Kirk
              Redheaded Johnson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kirk Voclain
                WOW....I'm not Lawyer...but I would rather have 2 reasons to sue than just one!

                The broke both YOUR copyright and the copyright of the Pro4uM.
                Trust me--I wouldn't expect you to do anything bad. I was surprised when Richard pointed out the phrasing, though.

                There's a problem with your above statements, though. You do NOT own a copyright on any of the single images, content, or actions here except the ones you created or had that right transferred in writing to you. You probably own a collective works copyright, so if someone did take a series of posts, or the whole gallery or such, and kept them together, you might have legal grounds under the compilation issue ("collective works"). ( Chapter 2, 201(c) ) The notice might serve to avoid the innocent infringment defense vis-a-vis punitive damage--unless the invalid claim itself invalidates the notice. (Severability is a tricky thing.)

                Anyone who took one action, post, or image would only need to deal with the person who owns the copyright to it--you have no claim to it. As such, it doesn't give 2 reasons to sue, and the phrasing might actually prevent any claim of visual notification from being held valid by virtue of improper notice.

                In other words, the posted phrase IS making a claim it cannot support; the images are NOT "...Copyright Kirk Voclain Photography and Pro4uM.com ...". Changing that to the more standard form (...Pro4uM.com and/or their respective artists... ) might accomplish what you hope to, without making unsupportable claims.

                FWIW, IANAL either, but have had to deal with this before and after it went to them.
                Last edited by Kevin Connery; 07-01-2005, 11:50 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  and since Mr Dalton your not even a PDA member,
                  what is the big deal ?

                  From what I understand a person that is under the trial useage of the pro4um
                  can not even post images in the gallery, but I bet you knew that
                  and of course I know for certain you will correct me if I am even slightly wrong !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Man, if Kirk wanted to use my images, that must mean my photography got a whole lot better than when I joined. Well, that's true, but it's still well behind most.

                    I think Richard has a valid concern, especially if Kirk every sold Pro4um and we were then no longer relying on his character. For example, a new owner could easily produce an book of photographic ideas from the images in the galleries and get it published.

                    -David Schneider

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Steve, it's on EVERY page. (Look at the bottom of this page.) It's claiming copyright to our posts, our actions, our photos posted (which can be done in the free section)...

                      I understand that photographers tend to think of copyright as image-based,. and thus, the Gallery is an obvious issue, but words are just as protected--even the ranting in online forums. (As if anyone cared.... )

                      The issue is NOT that Kirk would--or could even think of--doing something with our submitted works. (If I thought that were possible--not even likely, but POSSIBLE--I'd have left long ago!)

                      The issue is that it says something that's factually and demonstrably untrue--the 4um CLAIMS it has copyright for our words and images. Since it shows up everywhere, I can see how it would be a concern for someone visiting and/or considering joining the PDA, and attacking (mocking? putting down?) someone for asking a legitimate question doesn't put a good face on the 4uM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The free section is going away!!! LESS than a month now.

                        Kirk
                        Redheaded Johnson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mr. Connery

                          I do not want to start a fight,
                          fact is I hate disagreements in the first place

                          However you imply I already have....
                          can you show me the error of my post where I attacked and mocked anyone ?

                          maybe my emotions were more suttle when writing and taken the wrong way
                          there was a challenge made and I was making my point of view on it known
                          and we all know that having a different point of view can lead to where we are heading now, which is not a course I care to be on.

                          Thank You.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            pS

                            Mr Dalton siad
                            I had hoped someone more versed in these issues would provide input.
                            I could have took that as someone calling me uneducated in the manner, I simply figured he did not understand my points and left it alone
                            He might as well just have said something else, it appears that Mr. Dalton was once a PDA member, now he is in here stirring the pot in the trial area, I see some under lying issues may exist.

                            I feel you guys are getting pretty nit picky and this statement (the copyright statement) has been in existance for more than just a few months and now we are wasting bandwidth on it

                            If you feel so strong about it them maybe it is time to PM the boss or spend a nickle and have a converstation with Kirk about it on the tele

                            Ranting about it here is not doing of any good and if you want less distractions of those that may be visiting, then the pm or telephone or even a personal email to the owner of the forum is the solution in the first place.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The copyright comment on the bottom of Kirks site is practically word for word on every newspaper and magazine in the country I have never seen a photo that I submitted to any publication used in another venue unless I provided the image to the other publication.

                              Never for one second do I think Kirk would transfer any image posted on this board and take credit for that image unless he personally created the image. This is just a non-issue.

                              What started out as a simple question has taken a turn downhill.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X