12 replies to this topic

[echeng]

It's really unfortunate that I have to remind our community of this, but the theft and posting of photos not owned by you constitutes copyright infringement. Legal implications aside, the action also goes against everything that we as a community stand for.

Today, one of our members posted a photo not owned by him to the POTW contest, and has been suspended from Wetpixel for 180 days until further notice. It was the second time he posted an image taken by someone else. The first time, we warned him and accepted reasoning for why such a mistake could have been made, but to do it twice pushed us over the edge.*

Please do not post someone else's photo as your own.


* The reasoning -- both times --was that the image "ended up" in his collection, and he thought that it was his. Personally, I can't imagine not having any confusion about whether you had taken a given image, but I suppose it is in the realm of possibility. In this case, the image was so striking that such an excuse was really stretching the boundaries of credibility, but we let it pass because we were unable to prove otherwise. We had no reason to let an excuse like that pass again.

[fdog]

Well done, Eric.

Your actions reflects the lack of tolerance in the community for this kind of behavior, and backs it up with immediate punishment.

Have that kind of low moral standard? Not welcome here.


All the best, James

[Mary Lynn]

I really support what you're doing, Eric.

While it's never easy being thrown into the role of facilitating adherence to copyright matters, the reality is that it needs to be done.

And it reinforces the worth and work of creative producers, be they imagers, writers, musicians, artists. In short: us. Thank you.

Mary Lynn
http://DiveFilm.com

[anthp]

Good call Eric.

[onokai]

This is the only way to handle it. Thanks for keeping this board clean.Mark

[Adawson]

Bravo... Out of curiosity I've done some Google image searches and have been amazed where my images showed up. Without credit, or with someone else claiming it. Shameless, some of these people... Thanks for keeping on top of it!

[donga]

I heard that copyright expires for any music produced after 25 years?

[TheRealDrew]

I heard that copyright expires for any music produced after 25 years?

Depending on when the music was made (at least in the U.S.), broad stroke is 70-120 years, though there is also something known as a compulsory mechanical license meaning you can record a song once it has been released but this covers audio only performances and will not apply to a synch license. In other words you can cover a Ramones tune, but you cannot place that cover in a movie.

[Oceantony]

Well Done!!!! In a contest that is really LOW

[Otara]

I suppose it is in the realm of possibility.

I dont think it is really, but I applaud your efforts to be so fair.

Otara

[Steve Douglas]

You did the right thing Eric, no question about it.  Suppose, however, someone bought footage from a company to use in their production.  Since they paid for it, they have the right to use it.  What would be the guidelines then?

 

You always know your own photos and videos....I was watching a documentary a few weeks ago on the weather channel about what would happen if an asteroid hit the Earth, and there was my footage of some cape buffalo charging.   I knew I had recently sold some Kenyan footage but it was through a footage firm....watched the credits and the firm got the credit not I.  It was their right but on the amateur level as well as for posting a film on Wetpixel, what would the ruling be on that?     I'm getting out of the underwater shooting business but still curious.  Suppose someone bought some footage, put together a film and submitted it to the Wetpixel competition...would that be acceptable if they had the rights to the footage that they never shot?

Steve

[adamhanlon]

Hi Steve,

 

Eric is away and has very limited internet, so I will try and reply.

 

The issue of copyright in this topic relates to someone attempting to pass off works as being theirs when it was not. As far as I am aware, they did not offer the work's owner any form of renumeration not was there any transfer of rights between the copyright owner and the individual that entered that image into POTW.

 

Films are complicated as they are often made up of footage from many different sources. Personally as long as the poster is honest and transparent about the fact that the footage is bought, I don't have a problem with it. Creativity is not only about capturing footage, so I can appreciate the time, effort and skill that is involved in creating a film.

 

In your example, the documentary's production team did not try to claim that they had shot the buffalo footage, and in fact credited to its "owner". This seems entirely right and justified. 

 

Competitions are another thing entirely. Ours state that any images or footage must have been shot by the entrant. 

 

All the best

 

Adam

[Steve Douglas]

Thanks for the explanation Adam.