I would like your opinion on this....
By celticeagle
@celticeagle (160015)
Boise, Idaho
October 3, 2015 2:12am CST
I have a problem with the online image laws. For many years I was totally ignorant there was any such thing at all. I ALOT of wrote article and picked the best possible pictures and used anyone I wanted. Never saw anything about any such law until one day about two years ago I was just get started on a site and it was one that was a stickler for using pictures that had no lean on them. I started a discussion about this and got bombarded with people telling me in so uncertain terms how naughty I was to have ever done this. Well, I have an opinion. Look at it from this standpoint: Say you go to a park. You see this lovely tree with its leaves turning colors and you take a pic. You take it home and put it online. You have some one take it and use it. You sue them. Think about it. How many other pictures do you think there are of trees out there? How can you prove that this picture that was used was yours? Now, mind you if you put your name, a date stamp, a mark of some kind on it--Fine. I wouldn't use any of those anyway. But ones that have no individual marking on it and are just stock pictures. Why would such a law serve these type of pictures? How can someone prove this picture is theirs? I think this is ridiculous. I mean, people are actually suing other people for this. You chose to put a pic out there that there are probably millions of others just like it out there. I can see it if there is a picture of your child or some very special picture you have taken. But to sue someone because they use a more or less stock type pic of a tree--- come on people! Grow up and join the real world. Why would this law apply to these type of pictures? I think that this law is stupid(except for those special pics) Okay? Your opinion please.
17 people like this
17 responses
@LadyDuck (460403)
• Switzerland
3 Oct 15
You can prove that the picture is your, because you can check all the details of a photo taken with a digital camera, the date, the hour, which camera... a photo is NEVER identical to another, professional photographers live with their photo, this law protect them just like the writers are protected by the same copyright law. An individual will never sue you, but a big company could if you publish a "copyright" photo.
11 people like this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
3 Oct 15
If it is copyrighted then wouldn't have some mark or I.D. on it? I am talking about ones that don't.
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (460403)
• Switzerland
3 Oct 15
@celticeagle You can "watermark" a picture to let people know that it is copyrighted, but hackers can remove the watermark and share the picture as free. This is no an easy problem to solve.
2 people like this
@yukimori (10143)
• United States
3 Oct 15
I can prove that a photo is mine based upon the EXIF data that is embedded in the files. My camera is programmed to add my copyright information to every photo I take, and in addition to that there's always the old fashioned method of putting my photo side-by-side with the one you used and comparing them.
There's also the fact that I don't shoot exclusively in JPG. You wouldn't be able to produce the RAW file, which contains all of the uncompressed data captured by the camera; I would.
It doesn't matter whether the photo is of a unique subject or a "stock" subject. You and I could stand in the exact same place and photograph the exact same tree at the exact same moment and it still wouldn't be the exact same photo.
Wouldn't you be pissed off if I were to take the words you've written in any of your posts here and repost them as my own without permission? I mean, they're just generic forum posts that anyone could have written, aren't they? The subjects aren't really special, so why should you care that I'm stealing your words to use as my own? 
6 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
3 Oct 15
@hereandthere If you take a picture with your phone, your GPS position can be recorded in the EXIF data and sent with the picture.
2 people like this
@hereandthere (45651)
• Philippines
3 Oct 15
@topffer People have not to know the model of my camera/phone or my GPS position when I took a picture. -- you are scaring me.
4 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
3 Oct 15
A photographer has to make a living and it is normal to pay for his work. Professional photographers are using several methods to prove that a picture is their picture. They take various pictures of the same thing and put only some to a photographic agency. The pictures they keep and the date they had put the picture in an agency will prove easily that it is their picture, as you will not be able to show other pictures of the same tree and you will have put the picture online after them. Additionally agencies are adding EXIF data to display the copyright, but they are often also tattooing pictures by adding their own encrypted information to their pictures, so if you download and upload a picture without editing it, you also upload all the info about the original owner and the photographic agency.
Newspapers and magazines have a legal way, at least in several countries including mine, to upload a picture that is not their picture without paying rights for it. If you see "DR" under a picture, it is for "Droits Réservés" (Rights Reserved), and means that they have not identified the photographer (which is generally not true) but that they are ready to pay for the picture if the photographer or the agency asks for a payment. The photographer or the agency has first to find that the picture has been published, and only about 20% are asking to be paid, so the newspapers are making a lot of savings with this "DR" method.
4 people like this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
4 Oct 15
@topffer .....I only use ones that are for reuse.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
7 Oct 15
@rebelann .....Are they marked? I would think that if they are appropriately marked there shouldn't be a problem. We have to be net smart now days.
1 person likes this
@rebelann (111430)
• El Paso, Texas
4 Oct 15
@celticeagle ok, those stock pictures you speak of were bought from the photographers so they already gave their permission, but when someone uses one of mine from my blogs or facebook without at least asking first is what ticks me off. So far I have not sold my pictures of my furbabies to anyone.
2 people like this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
3 Oct 15
There are plenty of places where you can go to find pictures that have been released into the public domain and which will therefore not open you to any risk of being sued for breach of copyright. One of these is creativecommons.org. For scenes taken in the UK, I can recommend geograph.org.uk - more than 4 million images, some of them mine!
2 people like this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
3 Oct 15
Any image that is uploaded to the internet does retain copyright for the owner, creator or whatever title you wish to use to describe them. This applies to animations, photographs and any other form of image.
Of course there are obvious exceptions, such as sites to which you would upload an image and agree to the terms, which often covers the aspect of relinquishing copyright.
However, despite the technicality of such restrictions, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if someone uploads a photograph to the internet then they are not too concerned about the privacy of it.
It is standard practice for anyone who creates an image that they do not want others to use, to add that information to the page.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with you using such images, which millions of other people do daily as well.
2 people like this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
3 Oct 15
Thank you! Now that makes sense. Thank you1
1 person likes this
@savak03 (6684)
• United States
3 Oct 15
I had a similar argument, er discussion, with an admin in another group I belong to. My statement was that it should not be wrong to post a copy of a crochet pattern that had been printed on the wrapper of every skein of yarn the company sold. I reasoned that since the yarn company had, in affect given the pattern away they had no rights to limit it's use. The admin of the group didn't agree with me so I decided to acquiesce to his ruling although I didn't agree with his argument. Sometimes we just have to follow the rules even if they don't make sense. 
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
3 Oct 15
And that makes me mad. We should not. We need to question rules, and laws. If we don't the old and archaic ones stay put and no one moves forward.
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
5 Oct 15
@savak03 ....Good for you! I love to get the last word in.
1 person likes this
@savak03 (6684)
• United States
3 Oct 15
@celticeagle You have to pick your battles though. Sometimes it is a losing situation. In my case it was his group and if I didn't calm down and acquiesce he could and would have booted me from the group. Still I made my point in open forum so I consider that as a win. Now everyone will have to think about what I said. They won't be able not to.
1 person likes this
@allknowing (130292)
• India
4 Oct 15
As many have said here the ownership of a photo can be easily proved. If I upload any pictures here for example that do not belong to me then I will upload those that i find in wikimedia commons where a page is dedicated to that picture which I attach along with the picture. This page clearly states that the owner has no objection to anyone using the picture provided credit is given.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
5 Oct 15
@rebelann ...You'd have to check on those type of sites.
@pgntwo (22408)
• Derry, Northern Ireland
3 Oct 15
@celticeagle How you and I perceive the same tree at the same moment in time could be completely different. Who is right, you or me? That's where copyright comes in.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
7 Oct 15
@pgntwo ....Yes, but proof is what I am talking about.
@garymarsh6 (23393)
• United Kingdom
3 Oct 15
I can understand why some people do not want others to use their photos as they could be using them to make money for themselves and making false claims. If you don't want that to happen then don't put them in the public domain unless you copyright them with a watermark.,
With digital photography you can tell where and when the photo was taken usually that information is all stored with the photo.
I do not put any photos on sites I am not happy to share with anyone to be honest but then I guess I am all too trusting!
1 person likes this
@hereandthere (45651)
• Philippines
4 Oct 15
@garymarsh6 what about facebook and the incident shared by crazyhorseladycx?
@ria1606roy (2797)
• Kolkata, India
3 Oct 15
I think there should be an identification mark for a picture posted online. Its format, size, date, time.....they all are part of that pic's information. No one can sue if those information are there.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
7 Oct 15
@ria1606roy ....It probably is or should be.
1 person likes this
@ria1606roy (2797)
• Kolkata, India
4 Oct 15
@celticeagle It's there in the option Properties of the picture, isn't it? At least the date and time.
1 person likes this
@Ragnarok8 (196)
• Davao, Philippines
3 Oct 15
Sorry I don't have any idea about this however I suggest this post to my other friends here in myLot. 
2 people like this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
7 Oct 15
@hereandthere ....I don't have many pics. No way to take any.
@hereandthere (45651)
• Philippines
4 Oct 15
@horse but do you watermark your pictures or have seen others use them
1 person likes this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
3 Oct 15
A lot of the so called stock pictures are copyrighted so you do have to be very careful which ones you use. I once belonged to a site where someone used anothes photo and the individual contacted the owner of the site and an admin message was sent to all about not using those photographs.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
3 Oct 15
yes, I always check. It is just ridiculous to me.
1 person likes this
@katsmeow1213 (28717)
• United States
3 Oct 15
I've always been very careful about pictures. I tend to only use my own that I have taken myself. If I need some sort of reference and don't have my own picture then I'd just post a link instead of a picture.
1 person likes this
@tashauphill (13)
• United Kingdom
3 Oct 15
i think its perfectly fine for stuff like a picture of a tree.And like you said id never take a copyright picture .I think people just find any reason to sue these days .Fair enough if it was a personal picture or you were doing something you shouldnt , but surely anyones free to take a picture of a tree and it look exactly like someone elses .
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (160015)
• Boise, Idaho
5 Oct 15
I do too. Thank you. I am glad a few see what I am trying to say.
