Someone using my website pictures

[Steve_of_sandspoultry]

Still, it makes me wonder why he didn't just take a photo of his own bird?

We just had a bunch of snow and it's melting so my guess would be their pens are a muddy mess, or their birds just look bad. What gets me is we probably have the only SS around here, they aren't popular at all so they most likely got the birds from us.

You know that old saying..... "people is crazy" lol

Steve​

 

[Lifesong Farm]

There is a way to block pictures from being taken. I was downloading pictures from the web a couple months ago of my mares relatives. Most of them I was able to get off of one persons website because she owns Dancers cousin. However I found a couple pictures elsewhere and I couldn't lift them. I contacted the person and they emailed them to me.

What I used to tell my employees at the photolab was when they have the negative they own the copyright.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

http://www.copyright.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

Title 17, Copyright Law of the United States, Chapter 2:Copyright Ownership and Transfer
"§ 202 · Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright,
is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.
Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord
in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted
work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does
transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright
convey property rights in any material object."

Owning the negative does not necessarily give copyright ownership. However, in most cases where the negative is owned by someone other than the photographer, the photograph was a "work for hire," and as such ownership of the copyright is by hte one who hired the photographer.


I'll let someone else research the exact provision that protects items on the internet, if there even IS a specific provision for internet, rather than it simply being included as a means of the work being "fixed."

 

[desertdarlene]

Quote:
Now you got me curious, was that one of my photos you posted as an example? I missed it.

ETA: That sounds right about how Sonoran Silkies interpreted that law. Just because you have the negative or a hard copy doesn't mean that you own it. If the photographer can prove that he is the one who actually created the work and can also prove that he did not give permission or wave his rights, he still owns it. Just like if someone owned my original artwork doesn't mean they can make and sell copies of it. That's why it's good to keep good records if you show your work online or in public.

 

[Lifesong Farm]

Quote:
Most people who tried to get prints at the 1hr photo had their own negatives or prints. If they were done by a pro. then thats where the neg. comment came in. (ETA) If a photographers customer purchased the copy right then the photographer would release the negatives. But that all changed with digital. Now the photographers usually sign a statement that the customer has the right to reprint and gives them a CD. It seems like hardly anyone uses film anymore. I am glad I don't have to develop for the public anymore. Just my own photos in my house.

 

[Carols Clucks]

If you are selling a product with your images or selling your images, you should burn yourself that DVD of small versions of the work and pay your $$ to have it copyrighted.

Then, since the sellor stole your photo to use to sell their product, you can claim all of the money they earned from the use of copyright work.

But, you will have to sue, you are best off with demanding the person who stole your photo to stop using it and copy their webhost and web providers.

 

[swheat]

Quote:
Now you got me curious, was that one of my photos you posted as an example? I missed it.

ETA: That sounds right about how Sonoran Silkies interpreted that law. Just because you have the negative or a hard copy doesn't mean that you own it. If the photographer can prove that he is the one who actually created the work and can also prove that he did not give permission or wave his rights, he still owns it. Just like if someone owned my original artwork doesn't mean they can make and sell copies of it. That's why it's good to keep good records if you show your work online or in public.

For desertdarlene,
ETA- Pic deleted

 

[WhiteMountainsRanch]

I just wanted to jump (although it might be irrelevant because we ARE talking about pictures of chickens) but;

Just because someone took the pictures doesn't mean they own them. We had a friend who was out taking pictures of trains with graffiti on the sides, (1st off he got arrested for taking pictures of the trains, don't ask me why, cops said he can't). Then about a year later he had them (his OWN pictures) on (his own) website selling prints and was contacted by a LAWYER of one of the "artists" of the graffiti, stating they were going to SUE HIM for making money off HIS pictures because THEIR artwork was in the pictures...

Go figure.

 

[Chicken.Lytle]

Quote:
It is traditional, in certain circles, to replace vampire'd pics with Goatse. Just be warned, NSFW. NSFL even. If the pic was downloaded and then reposted, then DMCA should be considered.

 

[NellaBean]

The picture was from a image site off of Yahoo. It was not STOLEN from any site. It had no copy right on it. If you look up Speckeled Sussex hen it will come up. Use the image on yahoo when you look it up. I did not see anything that said copy right or do not use. I am sorry for the incovenence and I will take my own picture tomorrow. There was not bad intention on my part. I think the post was fine but it has been removed. I think the posting saying it was stolen should be taken down also. The emails I got from this person were very disconcerning and I would appreciate them not contacting me again. As I said there was no copy right on the picture or on the image. thanks

I like how he tries to make you out to be the bad guy. What a jerk.​