Hurricane Ritta

[nlash]

Prime example.

Not that anyone is going to care.

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2005

by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson

This material may not be reproduced without permission

So where did they get them pictures from i wonder?  

Great pics anyway, i have seen them before but it is just as awe inspiring to see them again.

If the website owners didn't take the pictures themselves, then they would have had to pay the photographer for them to have the rights to publish them on the site. The going rate for the rights for pictures like those would be in the region of £200 each.

Going rates for uk are

here

[Boomy]

At the risk of sounding stupid (never really given this much thought until Blatman and you pointed it all out! can you still upset people even if pictures you use have no copyright attatched or you couldn't find the original owner?

What i mean is, is there someone who can be contacted to check the status of pictures such as these etc?

As i said in the other thread, quite interesting reading all this so cheers

[nlash]

At the risk of sounding stupid (never really given this much thought until Blatman and you pointed it all out! can you still upset people even if pictures you use have no copyright attatched or you couldn't find the original owner?

What i mean is, is there someone who can be contacted to check the status of pictures such as these etc?

As i said in the other thread, quite interesting reading all this so cheers

If the owner of the material has gone to the trouble of marking a copyright warning then he or she doesn't want the material reproduced without permission. This is naturally quite difficult to enforce on the internet although if someone were adament about their rights ownership then some careful searching using google etc would bring up the offenders in time.

The main use for maintaining copyright is in print, magazines etc. Many photos and written word have been supplied by professionals where they rely on copyright to protect their living. The problem can also arise with small circulation copy, i.e. local village church community booklets for example. Pictures are taken from the internet for these small and seemingly harmless brochures that have a miniscule circulation, but at the end of the day, a professional may have taken the picture and as such, he or she should receive payment for its reproduction.

If there is a photograph on a website that doesn't carry the established copyright symbol or a line of reproduction restriction, then generally that picture is quite safe to copy as a judge would usually insist on the image carrying such rights protection lineage.

An example of similiar copyright rules where sales are not being restricted would be a tv advert using a backing track by a pop artist or rock band. Yes, the music being played may revoke a buying boom for that particular track, but nevertheless, the tv advert commissioner would still have to make payment to the artist for its use in the first place. To just go ahead and make an advert with a backing track without consent is against the law, the songwriter and band etc have still made the record and would demand a fee for its use.

Photography in particular is something I tend to deal with regarding reproduction law. If you are interested more info found here

[Blatman]

And the other thing to consider is Intellectual Property, which is at far greater risk of dilution since the advent of the internet. Intellectual Propert rights are now pretty fiercely guarded...

[Boomy]

Interesting link thanks.

It's a bit of a nightmare really isn't it?!

I mean you can take pictures of property for example if you are in a public place, however you can't take them once you are on that persons land unless you have permission.

Yet, it also suggests "Copyright law isn't there just to protect photographers, but other people as well. That includes property owners, and more and more of them are becoming resentful of photographers taking pictures of their property in order to make a profit. Avoid problems by seeking permission and asking the owner to sign a property release."

So you are legaly allowed to stand in the road for example and take a picture of a house to sell for profit, but you are not allowed to stand in the front garden and get the exact same shot?

As the property owner i can do nothing to stop you taking a picture of my house, yet you as the photographer can make a claim against anyone who uses your picture of my house?

Then, if i run down the street naked after say a stag night prank, you are free to take my picture and use it how you wish and there is nothing i can do about it.However, if i become "newsworthy" material ( what do they class as newsworthy?! ) and you use those pictures for profit, i can take legal action against you.

The wedding photographs part is interesting too!

[Renmure]

It is possible that:-

You could take a picture of me.

You could put your picture of me on your website.

Everyone in the whole world with a pc could download your picure of me onto their pc.

Everyone in the world with a pc could use your picture of me as a screensaver on their own pc.

And no copyright issues would arise.  Mind bending stuff  

[oldman]

Kinell  

By the way....Lovely Reeta..who sang that then