soloboxerboy's blog

Useful information

So if there is an informal group and one person takes photos but does so as an amateur (i.e. without the expectation of being paid or in the course of a business) presumably that person has copyright.

However:

1. Surely he has no damages to sue for as he was not taking photos in the course of a trade or profession so that even if his copyright is infringed there is no risk of civil proceedings because there is no loss?

2. In that kind of setting can his consent to waiving his ownership rights not be presumed?

If you are together with friends and just taking photos, technically the one taking the photo owns the photo and the rights to it. Yes, a verbal release can be given, but it is always best to have it in writing, because unless you have a lot of witnesses, or have it recorded, it would be difficult to prove in a court of law if it came to that. Now, if I am out at Musikfest ( a 10 day music fair that is held annually in my city) with friends and take photos, I would never sue them if they used them without my permission, as that would make me a crappy friend. I do still retain the copyright to those photos, and it is up to the owner of the copyright to have the copyright enforced and seek legal action when it is violated. So long as the person doesn't try to make money off the photos that were taken, they should be okay.

Where I work, I make the final decision on photos as to whether or not they are copyrighted or not, and cannot be over-ridden by upper management. It is always better err on the side of caution than to open yourself/company to litigation for copyright infringement. There is one company locally here that will sue for $30,000 per copy that is made of any photo they took. They will not give the copyright release to people who wish to make regular photo prints, but WILL release it if the customer wishes to make a mug, canvas, or other time that the photo studio doesn't make. If that photo studio ever chose to sue the company I currently work for, they would make out quite well, as other locations have violated the copyright laws and don't care (also, CVS and Walgreens also will print anything you bring them and don't ask for copyrights and this leaves them open to being sued).

An example where copyrighted items can be used is: When a student is doing a paper/report and uses photos. They must give credit to the owner of the photos, it is what is called a "Limited Use Copyright," and it protects students and learning institutions from being sued.

People in group settings don't expect there to be an issue, and most people won't care if you take a copy a pic, but when professionally done, one must be very careful with the copyright issue.

Copyright is different from country to country, can't just use what you've specified as it may be totally different elsewhere

WYDude, many of the copyright laws are pretty much the same as the U.S.A., and this is a good guide for people to use, especially in regards to items taken from other websites (as all content on websites is copyrighted), magazines, newspapers, videos, etc.

Disclaimer: Site operators are neither a professional photographers, nor a copyright lawyers. (Our policies are based on legal advice of our lawyer, but we have been warned that, while our intents are good, our implementation is somewhat naive.)

That said, the purpose of the "Private only / Copyrighted" category in photo classification is rather simple:

1. Prevent potential liability in the event that someone uploads a photo from enterprises such as BG East or Globalfight.
2. Prevent impersonation, which is when someone takes photos from another site and posts them here as their own.

Of course, (most) site members are not copyright lawyers either, so checking for "copyright" boils down to the question of "is there a watermark or company logo on this photo"? This, unfortunately, covers the case when someone has their photos taken professionally (watermark and all), pays for the use of the photo, and wants to post them in their profile. I do believe that is a legitimate use that we disallow simply to protect ourselves from liability and impersonation.

It's not a perfect system.

No, it isn't perfect, but then what is..lol...I have seen many photos taken from other websites, sports news sites, etc., and that is something that needs to be discouraged. Basically, if people are pulling photos from off the web, then it is a copyright and shouldn't be visible to anyone put the person that wants to have it in their profile. That would be a very simple rule to implement, and shouldn't be that hard to enforce. I enjoy MF and don't want anything as silly as copyright infringement to affect MF or any of the members of MF. Using the basic rule that if you didn't take it, if you paid for it, or if it is taken from a publication, the web, video, or other media source, it should be treated as copyright and should only be viewed by the person that posted the item. My current job position requires me to look for copyrighted photos, and other things that are deemed illegal or not family friendly, and would just like to make sure that no one using MF gets into trouble over photos. Keep up the good work!

So what you are saying is ..........

Actually let's lighten up a bit guys and just hit the mats.

Why not let me get my wifi up and i deal with it later.

man this seems way over board, these laws seems about useless, there probably about a 10 million to one odds of being prosecuted, about the same odds for the music you download , and didnt pay for

Better to be safe and end up being sued and losing everything you worked so hard for, at least in my opinion...People did the work, and the public in general shouldn't be trying to steal that work. They deserve credit for the work they have done.
It would just take one person/agency to go through photos on any website, such as this one, to get things started. Most likely they would request that the person, or the administrators of the website, remove the photo and not allow it to reappear, and that may be the end of it, but not a guarantee.
My question is: Why put yourself at possible risk of a litigation, when it is so easy not to post the photos that are knowingly copyrighted?

How about u give someone your phone to take some pic's
If they agree to take them on YOUR phone then they should be 100% yours correct

Technically, no, as they are the photographer...For example...A professional photographer takes a job at a Photo Studio, any photos that are taken belong to the company he works for and not the photographer....So if you hand someone your phone, yes the phone is yours, BUT you are not paying the person a wage, and therefore, technically the photos are theirs, not yours. Most people won't argue over photos taken on your phone. The problem is so many people take photos off other websites, use professionally done photos (and do not have a copyright release.....a copyright release can give you limited (very specific use, or a wider range, but not total ownership) or a full copyright release (this gives you the right to do with the photos as you please, they are yours, you are the owner). Most people will ignore the phone use, but the website theft, the theft from pros, etc., cannot and should not be ignored. Those people make money off those photos and did the work, of not just pushing a button, but editing, and the use of their time, gas, and more....it is really a respect issue...

Dude the copyright system is bullshit

LOL..the only reason I asked was because at one time I spoke to someone on the site another wrestler/fighter and I asked them why they don't have a certiain picture on the site anymore ( it was a picture of them in wresting gear) a hot picture I thought,
They said they had to remove it cause the guy who took it said he had the copyrights. I guess some guys can be pricks LOL ..It was not a master piece and nothing special about the pic ..but a hot older guy ready to rumble .

I just wanted to make sure when I give my camera to someone to shoot away and take some wrestling pic's of me ..they are my pic's no if's ands or but's

No, actually it isn't. It is a copyright, and just like a patent, a person worked to create something, so if someone is stealing from them it is wrong.....Would you be okay with me coming to your employer and telling them to give me your paycheck, as I did your work, even though I didn't? If you say no, why would say no to that, as you are saying that photographers and other owners of copyrights (such as MF) don't deserve the monies they are entitled to, as they did the work, and not you? So you willing to give up your paycheck to those who are not working, but saying they did the work?