byline Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 It is a lot different then taking a picture at a Gallary (which I wouldn't go to anyway) than doing it with pics sent in with the ok to do it and my own pics and they were anywhere from 25 to 50 years old...with no name or copyright number on them...At least Moe Knox had the sense back in the 50's to have his name on the pictures...People today don't have brains enought to do that...they can put a right click - don't do that on it...or as Bands n Corps does...have it imprinted on every pic that goes out...The photographers today don't want to spend the time or the money to do it...This is my opinion... As Stef noted, photographers don't have to put their name or a copyright symbol on their photos in order to get them copyrighted. The photos are copyrighted the second they become a tangible piece of property (a negative, a print, a computer image, whatever). That's the way copyright law is now. So it's not that they don't want to spend the time or money to do it; they don't have to spend the time or money to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBrancheau Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I see that nothing has been mentioned about the LACK OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY by selling someone else's images for one's own financial gain... Yep...I shouted that. How would you like it if the very photos YOU took ended up on someone else's website (without your permission) and they're selling them for $25.00 each. Don't tell me you wouldn't mind...'cause that'd be a lie. You'd be ticked off personified. Marlene, I will say this: what you did shows a lack of personal integrity and tact. You owe Malibu and anyone else who's photos you 'borrowed' for financial gain a BIG TIME APOLOGY. But, perhaps you have no personal integrity. If that's the case, I feel very sorry for you. And I hope what you've done doesn't happen to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 As Stef noted, photographers don't have to put their name or a copyright symbol on their photos in order to get them copyrighted. The photos are copyrighted the second they become a tangible piece of property (a negative, a print, a computer image, whatever). That's the way copyright law is now. So it's not that they don't want to spend the time or money to do it; they don't have to spend the time or money to do it. Since 1978 or so, anyway... ^0^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribeToo Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Since 1978 or so, anyway... ^0^ Ron, I'm pretty sure it's reciprocal. Prior to 1978, you may have had to jump through hoops.. no longer.. and even things that predate the law are included. Stef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 You know this whole mess started because some babies started crying that someone was selling their pictures. How much money was actually involved $100.00, $500.00, $1000.00? I’ll bet it was less than $100.00. All of this commotion for chump change! Some of you people need to get a life. I’m going to start posting a few more pics and if you want to sell the prints for a few cents, knock yourself out! I get it. Crime is OK as long as it's done in moderation. <**> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Stef, If you go to the first site http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/drumc...ofthe60sand70s/ that we have left you will see a Disclaimer that says "Disclaimer: This site Drum Corps of the 60's and 70's and the owners and moderators accept no responsibility or liability for content, opinions etc." "Accept no responsibility" - not exactly words to live by. I am not saying what I did was right but there are others doing it.. ....and if so, they're not right either. I had extra pics and sole about 20 3 X 5's (small) for about $25 before Ebays charges... I did not know they were from an individual...someone sent them to me... Afterall I had over 3000 pics on there and I don't know today who sent what... Um, you need to keep track of that - especially if you intend to sell things. Does anyone see the irony here? You criticize others for not watermarking their photos, yet you don't even keep track of where yours came from. Isn't that asking far more of everyone else than of yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptr250 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I get it. Crime is OK as long as it's done in moderation. <**> I’ll bet everyday in every burg of this country 98% of the people driving are breaking one or more traffic law. So your solution is to pull all the vehicles and close the roads. I can’t believe the holier than thou attitude of some of the people on this board. All right the lady sold $25.00 worth of pictures, some of which may have come from this thread. BFD!!! GET OVER IT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferb27 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I’ll bet everyday in every burg of this country 98% of the people driving are breaking one or more traffic law. So your solution is to pull all the vehicles and close the roads. I can’t believe the holier than thou attitude of some of the people on this board. All right the lady sold $25.00 worth of pictures, some of which may have come from this thread. BFD!!! GET OVER IT!!! You know, I've always loved SCV. They have been one of the most loved and respected organizations in the drum corps world. They are also one of the if not the most classy. Having said that, I guess even the classiest of drum corps has to have at least one ######## that marched! You have never offered anything to this site but negativity. Remember, whatever you say here not only represents you but the drum corps you came from. Have respect for the opinions of others. Didn't SCV instill any of that in you? Rather than rant and rave because you disagree with an opinion, offer something more tangible than "BFD"!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) I’ll bet everyday in every burg of this country 98% of the people driving are breaking one or more traffic law. So your solution is to pull all the vehicles and close the roads. I can’t believe the holier than thou attitude of some of the people on this board. All right the lady sold $25.00 worth of pictures, some of which may have come from this thread. BFD!!! GET OVER IT!!! So what are you saying? That just because some people get away with breaking traffic laws, everyone should? No one should be caught? No one should be held accountable? Just forget the laws altogether. It's each man or woman for him-/herself! Our streets and highways would be in a pretty sorry state, don't you think? The essence of civil and criminal law, and the enforcement of such laws, is to create a society in which we can operate in an orderly way that protects individual rights while respecting the rights of others. Granted, it's a balance, and sometimes it seems that individuals win at the expense of society or vice versa. But it's still better than doing nothing and letting each individual fend for him-/herself with no legal recourse or protection. I'll say this again: Copyright law protects not only vast corporate entities, but also the struggling artists who are looking to generate whatever income they can from their copyrighted works. When we violate those laws, we are chipping away at a person's livelihood. Yes, we've all done it in some form or fashion. However, most of us do these things as trades. We don't profit financially from these trades, and we don't try to. We're just trying to share our history. Generally speaking, copyright law is dealt with in civil, not criminal, court, so typically violations that diminish the monetary value of a work are the ones that go to court. (We should keep in mind that even trades, over which no profit is made, can do this. After all, if someone can get a free copy of something, rather than paying the copyright owner, then that copyright owner has lost income.) Anyway, that's why, when Marlene decided to sell photos that belong to someone else (and apparently she did this on more than one occasion), this became such an issue. I think for most of us, if we do something once out of ignorance, we're forgiven easily enough. But when it happens more than once, even after the individual has already been informed about the previous violation and agreed not to do it again, then I think we're past the point of ignorance. It may not be malice, either. But it's not something that can just be shrugged off as, "I didn't know!" Edited September 27, 2006 by byline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john2780 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Only a moron would tie ones personal opinion to that of a organization. That would be like me assuming that all involved with 2-7 were petty little babies because a couple of their alumni fit that discription. Please have this person banned from this site as his personal attacks and negativity are too much for the rest of us. <**> <**> I know I am not alone in this opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts