some old corps photos

[byline]

Sandy has every right to be mad, people on here acting like she did something wrong, she did NOTHING wrong but protect what was hers, her beautiful pictures that told a story. The day that someone trying to protect their property turns into people calling her vile disguisting things and a liar is SAD. Those are the things that are sad.

I don't know about the namecalling, as I've tried to stay out of the personal stuff, but I will say this, just to try to clarify things a bit (thought it'll probably be clear as mudflaps by the time I'm done): When the issue deals with taking photos that either we, ourselves, have taken, or for which we own the negatives (and so own the copyright), then of course I can understand the outrage over them being used without permission of the copyright owner . . . or worse, being sold for profit to someone who just decided to lift them from a thread like this one where we're trying to share our history, and especially give joy to someone who may never have seen themselves in a photo with their corps. You can't put a pricetag on that kind of joy, and it's wrong--not to mention, a violation of copyright law--for people to steal that for their own profit. If the idea is sharing it, free of charge, with more people who will gain still more joy from seeing these photos, then I think most of us are probably OK with it. Though, anytime I've ever shared others' photos posted here, I asked permission. Not only is that in the spirit of copyright law, but it's just common courtesy.

The most recent bone of contention, however, is a grayer area. Sandy seemed to be upset over someone else posting a photo she had bought from Ed Ferguson, scanned and then posted. Even though she paid for that print, she can't claim ownership over the photo, itself. The original copyright owner would have been Ed Ferguson, who chose to sell prints of his photos, a right he has as the copyright owner. That didn't mean he was selling away his ownership of the photo; he was simply controlling its distribution to the best of his ability, and probably trying to make enough money to cover his expenses. But he still owns his photos; people who buy prints, yearbooks, etc., don't "own" the copyrighted content. That would be like me scanning a photo from a DCI yearbook that I bought, posting it, and then complaining if somebody else used my scan on their website. Ain't gonna happen, because first of all I was already on thin ice, copyright-wise, by scanning it and posting it, and then secondly, I know full well that isn't my photo, to begin with. Now, if somebody takes that scanned photo and tries to sell it at their own profit, then yes, I would join in the outrage over that. Not because it's "my" photo; it's not. But because it's wrong and a violation of current copyright law for the true copyright owner (whether that be DCI, the photographer or whomever). But I feel like we're mixing up a bunch of different things and calling them all equal, when I'm not sure they are.

As far as DCI is concerned, I e-mailed them my question when this debate first blew up, but I haven't heard back from them. Though I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect them to reply to my e-mail, first of all because it's a legal issue, and then the volume of mail they received precludes them from answering every one.

I'm glad we're having this discussion about copyright law, because I think it's something we all need to know. And if we don't know, we need to learn about it.

Edited September 20, 2006 by byline

[Lancerlady]

I don't know about the namecalling, as I've tried to stay out of the personal stuff, but I will say this, just to try to clarify things a bit (thought it'll probably be clear as mudflaps by the time I'm done): When the issue deals with taking photos that either we, ourselves, have taken, or for which we own the negatives (and so own the copyright), then of course I can understand the outrage over them being used without permission of the copyright owner . . . or worse, being sold for profit to someone who just decided to lift them from a thread like this one where we're trying to share our history, and especially give joy to someone who may never have seen themselves in a photo with their corps. You can't put a pricetag on that kind of joy, and it's wrong--not to mention, a violation of copyright law--for people to steal that for their own profit. If the idea is sharing it, free of charge, with more people who will gain still more joy from seeing these photos, then I think most of us are probably OK with it. Though, anytime I've ever shared others' photos posted here, I asked permission. Not only is that in the spirit of copyright law, but it's just common courtesy.

The most recent bone of contention, however, is a grayer area. Sandy seemed to be upset over someone else posting a photo she had bought from Ed Ferguson, scanned and then posted. Even though she paid for that print, she can't claim ownership over the photo, itself. The original copyright owner would have been Ed Ferguson, who chose to sell prints of his photos, a right he has as the copyright owner. That didn't mean he was selling away his ownership of the photo; he was simply controlling its distribution to the best of his ability, and probably trying to make enough money to cover his expenses. But he still owns his photos; people who buy prints, yearbooks, etc., don't "own" the copyrighted content. That would be like me scanning a photo from a DCI yearbook that I bought, posting it, and then complaining if somebody else used my scan on their website. Ain't gonna happen, because first of all I was already on thin ice, copyright-wise, by scanning it and posting it, and then secondly, I know full well that isn't my photo, to begin with. Now, if somebody takes that scanned photo and tries to sell it at their own profit, then yes, I would join in the outrage over that. Not because it's "my" photo; it's not. But because it's wrong and a violation of current copyright law for the true copyright owner (whether that be DCI, the photographer or whomever). But I feel like we're mixing up a bunch of different things and calling them all equal, when I'm not sure they are.

As far as DCI is concerned, I e-mailed them my question when this debate first blew up, but I haven't heard back from them. Though I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect them to reply to my e-mail, first of all because it's a legal issue, and then the volume of mail they received precludes them from answering every one.

I'm glad we're having this discussion about copyright law, because I think it's something we all need to know. And if we don't know, we need to learn about it.

I'm glad we're discussing it too cause I'm working on getting my associates degree as a paralegal and this is up my alley anyway.

But I don't think Sandy was upset just about that one photo you were talking about and that's not the only isolated incident involved. However on another thread in this forum there has been some vicious name calling going on and nothing has been done about it, I thought personal attacks weren't allowed and calling someone a liar last time I checked is a personal attack.

I don't know why DCI didn't respond to you, I got a quick response from Mr. Acheson and I understand where they're coming from.

Sad thing is all this could've been avoided in the first place, if like you said, people would just ask for permission.

That one photo you're talking about is not the only one Sandy is talking about. Several other photos were lifted that she did in fact owned, from this website and attempted to be sold on ebay and used on another website without her permission, that is where she finds fault. I think she knows she doesn't own the picture she bought from Ed. That would be like me trying to say the pictures Jim Delooze donated to our website are ours, even though I have them encrypted now for his protection. I don't want to mess up future business over this mess.

Anyway....you're right we do need to learn about it and let it all be a lesson to everyone. You can't trust everyone.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Lancerlady

[byline]

That one photo you're talking about is not the only one Sandy is talking about. Several other photos were lifted that she did in fact owned, from this website and attempted to be sold on ebay and used on another website without her permission, that is where she finds fault. I think she knows she doesn't own the picture she bought from Ed. That would be like me trying to say the pictures Jim Delooze donated to our website are ours, even though I have them encrypted now for his protection. I don't want to mess up future business over this mess.

I understood that this wasn't the first time it had happened, and it wasn't only this particular photo . . . though it seemed like this came to a head in the "Pre Hoppy ... Post Hoppy" thread, so that's why I directed my comments to that particular one. But thanks for giving more clarification to this issue, because I wasn't entirely sure where the debate was going at all times . . . especially since it's been spread out over several different threads in several different forums.

The namecalling is really too bad. I'm not aware of the particular instances you're referring to, but I don't doubt that it happened. Hopefully it was brought to the moderators' attention and they're able to do something about that. IMO, there's no excuse for namecalling or characterizing (all too often mischaracterizing) other people . . . on anyone's part. Surely we can discuss this like adults . . . just as we would if we were talking about this face-to-face.

Edited September 20, 2006 by byline

[Tansea]

Moot points, all of them. She is gone.

[ptr250]

96 SCV Vidcaps

[ptr250]

[ptr250]

[ptr250]

[ptr250]

[ptr250]