Haakon is correct - copyright exists as soon as the photographer presses the shutter, whether the image has any copyright watermark or not. I am a professional photographer - I have some experience with this.
Yes I agree. As I understand if someone composes something unique and then puts it in a desk drawer, and later another person composes the same thing it is a copyright infringement even if there was no prior knowledge that it existed. Proving it would be a challenge unless it was witnessed of course. I don't know who the people are in the photos that Tulsa used, maybe he knows them, and who can say if the other examples are cleared from copyright violations, but if there is any question about the legality of the pictures used perhaps caution would dictate an adjustment in the photos to people that one does have permission to use.
After doing research and talking to other you are correct on almost all of it. What I should have said is that the images that I am using , since They are not being used for anything else but personal use, there is nothing wrong with the practice. With the internet as it is today, EVERYONE that looks at a something on it can be considered to be in violation of copyright law. Yes, it is a stretch but it is true. For your computer automatically makes a copy of everything that comes up on the screen. There are several court cases that have been won by individuals here in the US about this type of thing. What I have gained from this is that if you have ever posted anything that did not "belong" to you such as a picture of your grandmother your daughter took at Thanksgiving. You are in violation of copyright law. But really! I am sure no one gets written permission from the owner of the image.
I think you recognize SBN Subia as one of the photos. This pic is prominently displayed on the school website. FWIW, there is no question of infringement if pics are taken directly from association-related websites and school websites. Tulsa would have the right to use the photo, however, 1) if he owned the rights to it (if he took the photos himself) or if 2) he bought the rights to it or 3) if he inherited the rights to it or 4) if the photo was released by the owner as "free-use" or 5) if a federal judge gave him permission to use it. This is incorrect. You are confusing liability with legality. It is still ILLEGAL to use copyrighted photos. But when sued, if you can prove that you only used the photos for personal use, your liability as to the value you can be sued for can decrease. This is incorrect. You are confusing expectation of privacy with legality. Images posted on the internet can still be protected by copyright and those viewing these images are not in violation. The act of posting simply removes the expectation of privacy. Yes, you are in violation of copyright. The right thing to do was ask your daughter if you could post the picture she took. ---- Let me explain why what Haakon and BenCooper posted is relevant. Photos are indeed copyrighted by the owner the moment it is produced on a tangible medium. You are not to use them for private or professional means without permission. Let's say you ignore this and you go ahead and use a photo that belongs to BenCooper. Can he sue you? YES. Will he win? YES. What damages is BenCooper entitled to? Any and all monies derived from the use of this photo. So, if tulsa used BenCooper's photo on a poster placed on a facebook account which yielded 2,3,4...or however many new students tulsa gained from the posting of the poster, BenCooper would be entitled to it all. If using the photo yielded no monies, unfortunately BenCooper will win the case but will re-coop very little monetary damages (I've seen court cases where the plaintiff wins a case and the judgement comes back $0.75). This is why people officially register copyrights with the federal government. Once BenCooper registers a photo, obviously, no one can use it without permission. If tulsa ignores this and uses the photo anyway...tulsa is now fighting 2 lawsuits. One from BenCooper for whatever damages as mentioned above. The other is from the federal government with a fine seeking up to $150,000 per use...personal, professional or otherwise.
Therefore, if anyone who snaps a photo, and has it displayed on the internet, and yet there isn't a clear release of its use, it is "infringement" or "illegal"?
If you reuse an image from somewhere else without either 1) having the copyright owners explicit permission or 2) the image is released under some kind of open, or creative commons licence then you are breaching copyright. In essence, everything is owned and copyrighted by someone, unless otherwise explicitly released
You have an insanely uniformed idea of what is considered public domain.. for that matter your take on copyrights is just flat out wrong. But hey why let any of this stop you... after all... it's the KSW forum where every single thread turns into an incestuous stinking pile of bickering, snivel driven back biting and legal threats from one organization or another by overzealous individuals who would rather pound away at the keyboard than train.
Thereby, ALL images presented on this forum, including "Martial Art Babes" are breaching copyright....
From my experiences during and since I've left kuk sool, the image for ""What Other Martial Artists Think", perhaps should be some confused looking person scratching their head with a speech bubble saying "kuk sool?"
Any images which are not owned by the poster, or in which the poster has no legal interest, or are not subject to some kind of specifically stated open release, are a breach of someones copyright, unless - and this is a very tenuous unless which will only apply in certain countries - the reuse can be claimed as "fair comment / fair use" in the sense of using it to critique a work of art, or commenting on a news report. Even then its a very thin line as to what would be legal or not I'm sure VM would be better able to make a more concise comment. But in essence - yes, any non-original image will be owned by someone else, and will be subject to their copyright Now can we kill this insane thread drift? The legal situation is clear And as for the original idea, I think its old, dated, corny, and crud
What other people think i do: What other MAist think I do: What I think I do: What my co-workers think I do: What i really do: THAT PICTURE OF THAT GUY HOLDING THAT BABY BY HIS FOOT. What I really do(option 2): You get it. Pink fans*snickers*
So it was worth all the blood sweat and tears that went into that post. I guess the real joke is that so few people on this forum have a sense of humor. You guys probably don't know it but this type of joke is only funny because the OP is willing to laugh at himself. Example: I'm not giving up on you guys. I'm going to go work on a "Sense of Humor" Hyung(Kata) Or maybe I should call it "Essence of Hum-our" since we take ourselves so seriously.
WHAT NON MARTIAL ARTISTS THINK I DO WHAT SOME OTHER MARTIAL ARTISTS THINK THEY CAN DO WHAT MARTIAL ARTISTS ARE MISLED TO DO WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD DO WHAT I DO
From that last picture. I take it that you view yourself as a vulture circling a corpse? Wonder what Freud wold have thought of that? Whats the corpse?
