Who "Owns" What?

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by StuM

Therein lies the rub. Your concept of "doing" the wrong thing" may differ from mine.

FWIW, my opinion on the first question is.

Legally, it's a grey area. It depends on the jurisdiction(s) involved.
Morally - in general, it stinks.

But there are also shades of grey. Does the published information explicitly or potentially identify the original sender? Does the published information contain information that is detrimental to a third party? IOW, to a certain extent, no harm - no foul.

You might not even need identifying information to be able to tell who wrote it. Everyone has a very unique writing style. Even if you were to convert say 48 point bold type into the same bland font the rest of us use, I'm sure 95% of us would identify a certain member's posts immediately purely by style, if not content.

I bet some of the longer term members here easily recognize the writings of their peers. I can identify some of the more distinctive ones who have about 2,000 posts or more.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by alansmith

Ann, if a photo was given to me as a gift. It is now mine. I can do with it whatever I like. As far as someone sending the contents of a private email that I wrote to another person is scandalous. I am not sure of the legalities of such a tasteless venture...but it is in poor form. I would have nothing to do with such a person after that. Deeply hurtful and betrayal of trust and friendship...for sure.

Not if it's copyrighted photo you can't. not in most places. You can destroy it and do with it whatever you like, but you definately can't go making money from it as if you own it..

[tinkrman69]

sinple, to both questions. the golden rule. treat others as you would have them treat you. if you are consciously honest with yourself, you'll have no problem how to act towards others.

PEACE LUV & HAPPINESS

[RaymondR]

Ann, you and Jim may have to stop summering in Tasmania. This is the sort of stuff that leads to you becoming a greenie or something and it's a short step from there to becoming a public nuisance.

[markpierce]

Many of the photos I've posted on this forum and another boating forum, have been "conscripted" by other Internet sites. Conclusion: everything posted on the Internet is public property.

[JPA Cate]

Thanks for the continued input. It is contributing towards a new equilibrium.

Ann

[Sandibar]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Unless you have a copyright, or patent, or trademark; then whatever you produced or bought is unprotected. Even if you have one of the above, you need to defend it or lose it. Unless there are big bucks involved, the cost of defending is not worth the effort($10k min).

The photographer automatically holds the copyright for his work the second he presses the shutter, unless he works for hire and contractually has ceded copyright to a client/employer. Registration of the copyright helps in disputes but is not a prerequisite for title.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Many of the photos I've posted on this forum and another boating forum, have been "conscripted" by other Internet sites. Conclusion: everything posted on the Internet is public property.

No it is not. This forum had to delete some photos posted here whose copyright owners objected to being here. If they had not been deleted the forum owners could be subjected for a lawsuit they would lose for sure.

Photos can only be legally used with the permission of copyright owners, even if the legislation is a bit different from country to country.

Most photos are taken by amateurs that could care less if their photos are used by others, some are marketing photos whose copyright owners would be very pleased if they are posted around adding to free publicity and that is why you have the impression you can use freely all photos that are on the net.

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by RainDog

In the first case, someone sends a private message to be private. You do not turn it public without permission of the author.

In the second case the receiver of the gift maintains all right over said gift.

I'm with RD on this one !

[Polux]

Originally Posted by HappyMdRSailor

I'm with RD on this one !

Yes, but the problem here is what was the gift? A framed printed copy of a photo by Jim or a printed copy and the copyright over the photo. Only Jim can know what he had intended to give to Ann.

Anyway if it was me I would not be discussing this with my wife over a photo that I had given to her. If she would wanted me not to make more copies of it, it would be certainly fine by me and if she wanted to have that photo as an avatar, I would chose another one, but that is just me.

[unclemack]

Copyright issues used to come up regularly regarding professional wedding photographers, believe it or not.

Not all wedding "professionals" gave copyright to the happy couple. Unbelievably.

Copyright's complicated. Lawyers love it better than sex.

Always felt sad for photography students knowing that few would ever make a decent living without going into teaching or weddings - despite those being the worst two cop-outs any of them could think of.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Many of the photos I've posted on this forum and another boating forum, have been "conscripted" by other Internet sites. Conclusion: everything posted on the Internet is public property.

Public property in practical terms, perhaps, but the photos are yours, you own the copyrights to them, and those who "conscript" them are violating copyright law.

Of course, the problem is that suing them costs money, and proving that you suffered any economic harm from the copying is extremely difficult (unless, perhaps, you have a thriving business selling your photos, in which case you would probably be taking steps to protect them).

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Many of the photos I've posted on this forum and another boating forum, have been "conscripted" by other Internet sites. Conclusion: everything posted on the Internet is public property.

Ah...Appropriated, no? Further, because something is displayed in public does not "ipso facto" render it public property. Never-the-less, Internet forums today are somewhat akin to public "Bulletin Boards" of prior era's when notices, messages et al would often be appropriated or quoted without attribution, i.e. plagiarized.

[tdoster]

It has already been said, but it is a topic everyone should be aware of. IANAL, but have a very good friend who is a Patent and Trademark Attorney and we have discussed this in length when one of our customers was presented with a cease and desist on the use of a picture they had purchased from a Stock Photography site. It is a very complicated subject, but simply; The intended copyright stands with the creator of the material unless otherwise agreed to regardless of establishing mens rea. Federal Copyright Act of 1976 states that photographs are protected by copyright from the moment of creation.

For all practical purposes for the OP. *See Caveat Below. You are never entitled to save pictures off from the internet for any purpose without the consent of the copyright holder. And chances are the copyright holder is not the website the picture came from - they may have a contract with the copyright holder (Purchase a Stock Image, policy, contract, etc.), or they may be using unlawfully and all subsequent copies are subject to the same law (again, mens rea (intent) does not protect someone holding copyright material, only the amount of claim by the holder against. Claim is normally a monetary loss or gain, and normally commercially on both respects.

The picture of your boat on your wall that a photographer was paid to take is yours, except you are not allowed to copy or reuse the picture in any way, only sell it as an "original" unless you have a "Work for Hire Agreement" that specifies who the ultimate owner is. If you want a larger or smaller picture, you must get permission from the photographer, or normally, the photographer will provide it. You are essentially copying or changing original artwork and only the artist is allowed to provide prints of the original...

You are still allowed to provide links to copyrighted material, like title 17 from Copyright.Gov (not copyrighted) Copyright Law of the United States | U.S. Copyright Office


* Muddy Caveat. Many sites. See Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, boating forums..., have language in their policies that you give up your right to anything you post, videos and pictures. You are essentially allowing them the right to reuse and in some cases their users, partners and customers. Their policy normally is to remove any material in which a claim is made that the copyright has been infringed upon.

Don't take the word of any of us on a forum, but read the policies of the site, the actual laws and interpretations (cases), or ask an attorney.

[tdoster]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Many of the photos I've posted on this forum and another boating forum, have been "conscripted" by other Internet sites. Conclusion: everything posted on the Internet is public property.

The wild west philosophy of the internet as a public domain of any sort has been gone since the early 90's.

Nothing is in the public domain unless it meets specific criteria, such as time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...yright_lengths, gift, or acknowledgement/contract.

Even that is changing thanks to the likes of Disney who fought for and gained changes that allowed renewal and possible indefinite rights for Mickey.