[dynimagelv]

personal gain never enters into it until you are WELL inside the Federal Court System....

copyright is a VERY sticky subject.....I once [before the internet was invented] submitted some pics to a Casino in Atlantic city....NOT being a trusting sort, whatI submitted was a COPY SLIDE of the Original and copied slightly out of focus.....simply for them to select the pics they wanted to use for their Calendar.

Wouldntcha know.....12 pics submitted, 12 pics used in their calendar....no payment made....and they actually PRINTED the calendar with out of focus pictures and tried to scam it more by giving the PRINTER of the Calendar the Credit lines for the pics.

I prepared a demand letter for payment at my original asking price for the pics [$10,000 for 12 slides for use one time in a calendar]

I took the demand letter along with the original slide [RAZOR SHARP images] to the president of the Hotel....[i knew him personally] Within 20 minutes the VP of marketing as in his office and within 45 minutes I had a check for 10 k in my hand along with a PERSONAL apology letter from the VP of marketing.....

It PAYS to assert your copyright claims....

in the demand letter i stated the amount I was entitled to under Federal Copyright Law......$100,000 .......NEVER have i seen a check cut so fast.

[dynimagelv]

ALWAYS, I repeat ALWAYS be aware of copyright laws....they are in effect and belong to the creator at the instant the shutter is tripped WITH or WITHOUT Copyright notice....

I NEVER post a picture that I care about on the internet.....

to the MODS,,,while this may SEEM off topic it is not.....the same laws apply to Grafitti/art? whether its good or bad.....

[Muonic]

Originally Posted by von949

I always post links to the source also. Does that matter?

Nope. Doesn't matter. It IS OK to post a link to a picture, but it IS NOT OK to repost the picture itself.

Plus there is no personal gain.

Doesn't matter. You are still not allowed to repost someone else's pictures.

If anything, I probably direct online traffick to the original website where the photos are hosted. More beneficial to the original photographer.

That decision is up to the original photographer. If he wants more viewers, he will tell you, when you ask his permission.

For me, it is as much a matter of common courtesy, as anything. You wouldn't borrow someone's car without asking permission, and you wouldn't borrow a mechanic's tools, without asking permission. And you shouldn't borrow some else's pictures without asking permission. It's really that simple.

I know that most of the time, people have good intentions when they repost a picture. They are usually saying "Hey, look at this great picture I found on the internet". But it's still not Ok to do that. Better to post a link. I'm just trying to share a little information about copyright issues here (honest ). It's good for the photographer, and it keeps you out of trouble for borrowing someone else's pictures.

[observer53]

Basically, the rule of thumb here is that if you didn't take a photo, don't post it. If the photo itself doesn't have a copyright on it, that isn't the only issue. Many off them are linked from sites that have the copyright protection posted on them.

[logline]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Alright! Alright! Let's take your estimate of 99% is crap, then why, why, why are we painting over the 1%!!!

Maybe because the OWNER of that property never allowed the tagger to put it there? What about his rights?

[von949]

Originally Posted by logline

Maybe because the OWNER of that property never allowed the tagger to put it there? What about his rights?

Usually in most places, the owner is us(tax payers).


Posted from Nokia 8210

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by logline

Maybe because the OWNER of that property never allowed the tagger to put it there? What about his rights?

Driving in to town from Cheyenne Avenue on I-15 every morning after work, for several years now, I've seen some awesome grafitti art show up along that corridor, from time to time, and prayed and prayed they didn't paint over the best of the best, but within time, it's all painted over, and worse yet, painted over with colors that don't even match the walls, public bridges. In comparison, it's looks dreadful!

In many cases, they paint over it, and the old paintings still shows thru!

This grafitti squad that goes around painting over the grafitti, seems to paint over only that which paint they have on hand that day, oftentimes it's no match at all, leaving a checkerboard effect. Across the street from me, a tagger tagged a wall that was brown. Grafitti squad comes along and, apparently, they only had white paint that day, and splashed the white paint over the grafitti, and I want to vomit everytime I look at it!

Another grey wall, nearby, now has a checkerboard of white, 3 shades of brown, and light blue! What next? Green?

Bigger question: Why the need for the walls in the first place? In the older sections of the city, like Huntridge, there's very few walls.

[Kaiminani]

Originally Posted by observer53

Basically, the rule of thumb here is that if you didn't take a photo, don't post it. If the photo itself doesn't have a copyright on it, that isn't the only issue. Many off them are linked from sites that have the copyright protection posted on them.

It should be noted that such a policy is community destroying. Witness how much less meaningful the discussion has become without those pictures.

Furthermore, technically it is impossible to post a picture here. Those pictures are all hosted on other websites - those websites are the ones responsible for complying with copyright law because they are the ones making the copies. All that gets posted here is the internet equivalent of a street address, not the actual picture. It is each user's web browser that sees that "street address," goes to the hosting webserver at that address, asks it for a copy of the picture and then displays the picture on the user's computer screen.

I understand that city-data has most likely adopted this counter-productive policy under the threat of barratry, they are not the only web forum site to do so. I'm not interested in the self evident argument that city-data can make whatever rules they want because it is their website. I'm criticizing the weak rationale for the rule and pointing out its deleterious effect on city-data's nominal reason for existence.

Inline linking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

It should be noted that such a policy is community destroying. Witness how much less meaningful the discussion has become without those pictures.

Furthermore, technically it is impossible to post a picture here. Those pictures are all hosted on other websites - those websites are the ones responsible for complying with copyright law because they are the ones making the copies. All that gets posted here is the internet equivalent of a street address, not the actual picture. It is each user's web browser that sees that "street address," goes to the hosting webserver at that address, asks it for a copy of the picture and then displays the picture on the user's computer screen.

I understand that city-data has most likely adopted this counter-productive policy under the threat of barratry, they are not the only web forum site to do so. I'm not interested in the self evident argument that city-data can make whatever rules they want because it is their website. I'm criticizing the weak rationale for the rule and pointing out its deleterious effect on city-data's nominal reason for existence.

Better to direct your concerns to the administrator of this site, who makes the rules.

Back to topic, please.

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by Kaiminani

It should be noted that such a policy is community destroying. Witness how much less meaningful the discussion has become without those pictures.

Furthermore, technically it is impossible to post a picture here. Those pictures are all hosted on other websites - those websites are the ones responsible for complying with copyright law because they are the ones making the copies. All that gets posted here is the internet equivalent of a street address, not the actual picture. It is each user's web browser that sees that "street address," goes to the hosting webserver at that address, asks it for a copy of the picture and then displays the picture on the user's computer screen.

I understand that city-data has most likely adopted this counter-productive policy under the threat of barratry, they are not the only web forum site to do so. I'm not interested in the self evident argument that city-data can make whatever rules they want because it is their website. I'm criticizing the weak rationale for the rule and pointing out its deleterious effect on city-data's nominal reason for existence.

Inline linking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe they started the policy when the RJ went nuts and started suing everybody. Scroll down to the section on "copyright trolling"

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can post a picture here, btw.