. ???
- Thread starter Moose
- Start date
crotons.net
Active Member
To whom it may concern I don't recall giving permission to post any of these copyrighted photos? Please explain why they are here. Thank you
THESE PHOTOS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE USED WITHOUT MY WRITTEN PERMISSION YOU STOLE THESE FROM MY WEB SITE I WANT THESE POSTS REMOVED IMMEDIATELY
THESE PHOTOS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE USED WITHOUT MY WRITTEN PERMISSION YOU STOLE THESE FROM MY WEB SITE I WANT THESE POSTS REMOVED IMMEDIATELY
Jeff Searle
Well-Known Member
Nice crotons though, I know the property. A drive-by maybe a couple of years ago(?).
crotons.net
Active Member
Yea Thats Funny Love To See That It Would Make Me Happy
PROPERTY IS PROTECTED BY VIDEO AND UNUSUAL SECURITY DEVICES
WATCH OUT FOR THE DOGS TOO..........................
PROPERTY IS PROTECTED BY VIDEO AND UNUSUAL SECURITY DEVICES
WATCH OUT FOR THE DOGS TOO..........................
crotons.net
Active Member
This is what copyright means just in case someone was unsure
Q. What is copyright?
A. Copyright is a form of protection, authorized by the United States Constitution, that gives photographers, artists, authors, musicians, choreographers and architects the exclusive right to use and reproduce their works. Essentially, all original works can be copyrighted. This includes photographs, art works, sculpture, writings, music and computer software. Virtually all works created or first published after January 1, 1978 are protected by copyright. Many works created prior to 1978 are also protected.
The Copyright Act is federal law, not state law. Consequently, the law is uniform throughout the United States. Also, since the United States has signed several international copyright agreements, copyright protection is effective essentially all over the world.
Generally, owners of copyright have the exclusive right to use and copy their works. Copyright owners can also authorize others to use their works. The use or copying of any work without permission from the owner of the copyright is a violation of the United States Copyright Act.
Q. What does copyright do for artists?
A. Copyright gives the creator or author of a work the power to control the work. The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to control if, when, how and how often his or her work can be used or copied.
Q. What is copyright?
A. Copyright is a form of protection, authorized by the United States Constitution, that gives photographers, artists, authors, musicians, choreographers and architects the exclusive right to use and reproduce their works. Essentially, all original works can be copyrighted. This includes photographs, art works, sculpture, writings, music and computer software. Virtually all works created or first published after January 1, 1978 are protected by copyright. Many works created prior to 1978 are also protected.
The Copyright Act is federal law, not state law. Consequently, the law is uniform throughout the United States. Also, since the United States has signed several international copyright agreements, copyright protection is effective essentially all over the world.
Generally, owners of copyright have the exclusive right to use and copy their works. Copyright owners can also authorize others to use their works. The use or copying of any work without permission from the owner of the copyright is a violation of the United States Copyright Act.
Q. What does copyright do for artists?
A. Copyright gives the creator or author of a work the power to control the work. The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to control if, when, how and how often his or her work can be used or copied.
Crotonologist
Active Member
Cool crotons, but uncool to lift them from another website without permission, so please let's take them down unless properly credited with permission to share them.
Jerry@TreeZoo
Well-Known Member
Interesting discussion about copyrighted photographs. The Deerfield Beach Arboretum is working to get our website back up and with plenty of pictures and information. One member of the Friends of the Arboretum is a little hesitant to post her very artistic pics for fear that they will be stolen or misused. I can understand that feeling. I, on the other hand, have lots of photos from the Arboretum that are not nearly as good but still are useful for the website. What I plan to do is watermark, or somehow label each pic with the Arboretum's website address. That way, everytime someone wants to "borrow" the picture, they are actually spreading the website address and hopefully bringing more views to the website. In this day and age of the internet, everyone is copying pics all over the place. I think this approach works better and takes advantage of the realities of the internet as far as copyrighted pics go. Just my 2 cents.
I've always watermarked all my photos with my website address. The truth of the matter is there is nothing you can really do to stop photo theft. Just because someone says their photos are copyrighted doesn't automatically make them so. It must be done in a particular fashion, and apply to specific instances.
And try going after a website registered in Thailand and get them to pull them down. If you want to spend money on lawyers, go right ahead. And then try to prove what kind of damages you have suffered, so you can be compensated.
And try going after a website registered in Thailand and get them to pull them down. If you want to spend money on lawyers, go right ahead. And then try to prove what kind of damages you have suffered, so you can be compensated.
fawnridge
Well-Known Member
Those are not copyrighted photos. Unless the copyright is clearly visible on the picture AND registered with the US Copyright Office, no copyright exists. That's point one. Next, it is up to the owner of the copyrighted material to file an action against any offender and their responsibility to a) prove that such copyright exists and b) that the copyrighted material is unique.
None of that has happened so what we have here is just another angry chap, who thinks he has some understanding of the law. And, in case you're wondering, crotons.net, no, I'm not a lawyer, however, I'm a writer and know as much about copyright laws as anyone else who has ever copyrighted material.
None of that has happened so what we have here is just another angry chap, who thinks he has some understanding of the law. And, in case you're wondering, crotons.net, no, I'm not a lawyer, however, I'm a writer and know as much about copyright laws as anyone else who has ever copyrighted material.
Borgy230
Active Member
NICES!
fawnridge
Well-Known Member
Oh, and one more thing, the copyright laws ONLY come into play where the copyrighted material is used by someone not authorized to garner a profit. Since this a FREE, PUBLIC website and Moose is not making any money off your photos, you have no cause of action either way.
My suggestion would be to protect your website with usernames and passwords so that only the privileged few can see it. Otherwise, just shut up and let us get back to the important business of identifying Crotons for FREE for the rest of the world.
My suggestion would be to protect your website with usernames and passwords so that only the privileged few can see it. Otherwise, just shut up and let us get back to the important business of identifying Crotons for FREE for the rest of the world.
palmisland
Well-Known Member
You are welcome use any of my non self-incriminating photos.
Randy
Randy
Moose
Esteemed Member
Bren - thank you, I feel that your decision was appropriate.
OMG, you changed your avatar
Crotonologist
Active Member
No offense, but that is not correct....
Prior to 1978, copyright was created by the act of publishing the photo, but after 1978 the act of creating the photo also creates the copyright.
Here are a few quotes from the United States Copyright Office website:
"How to Secure a Copyright
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action
in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."
"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created..."
"When a work is published, it may bear a notice of copyright
to identify the year of publication and the name of
the copyright owner and to inform the public that the
work is protected by copyright. Copies of works published
before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk loss of
copyright protection."
"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under
U.S. law, although it is often beneficial."
"Use of the notice may be important because it informs
the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies
the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication."
"Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper
notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to
which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access,
then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition
of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation
of actual or statutory damages..."
"Innocent infringement occurs
when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected."
"The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the
copyright owner and does not require advance permission
from, or registration with, the Copyright Office."
"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended
to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular
copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection."
"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court,
registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Crotonologist
Active Member
Also...
Common courtesy would be to ask permission before publishing photos from someone's website, and to credit that website as the source of the photos.
Someone who really doesn't want to share the photos from their website should disable right-clicks and also watermark their photos...
As an innocent infringment (the photos were not watermarked), I think the photographer could have been a bit more civil about the whole matter...
Sharing the photos with proper credit would probably increase the traffic to the sharer's website.
Common courtesy would be to ask permission before publishing photos from someone's website, and to credit that website as the source of the photos.
Someone who really doesn't want to share the photos from their website should disable right-clicks and also watermark their photos...
As an innocent infringment (the photos were not watermarked), I think the photographer could have been a bit more civil about the whole matter...
Sharing the photos with proper credit would probably increase the traffic to the sharer's website.
fawnridge
Well-Known Member
"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended
to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular
copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection."
"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court,
registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."
And there it is in black and white. You're correct in that the word "copyright" need not appear, however, having gone through the legal system for just such a situation, you'll find that without it, any legal action will be IMMEDIATELY tossed out by a judge.
The whole copyright system has failed in light of the Internet and what my lawyer tells me, there are no plans to overhaul it or make it more restrictive. If I were publishing a book and used those photos, as long as I gave credit to where they came from, no court in the US would find against me. Even if I failed to give proper credit, anyone who sought to defend their ownership would fail without the word "copyright", the date, and the owner's name embedded into those images.
The truth about this whole thread is that it's just another unhappy person, trying to keep the Dave Butler battle alive. Where c.net fails is his personal attacks that are the real reason he's posted here. If Dave were still a member of this forum and Moose put those pictures up, c.net would probably have thanked him for the publicity.
to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular
copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection."
"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court,
registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."
And there it is in black and white. You're correct in that the word "copyright" need not appear, however, having gone through the legal system for just such a situation, you'll find that without it, any legal action will be IMMEDIATELY tossed out by a judge.
The whole copyright system has failed in light of the Internet and what my lawyer tells me, there are no plans to overhaul it or make it more restrictive. If I were publishing a book and used those photos, as long as I gave credit to where they came from, no court in the US would find against me. Even if I failed to give proper credit, anyone who sought to defend their ownership would fail without the word "copyright", the date, and the owner's name embedded into those images.
The truth about this whole thread is that it's just another unhappy person, trying to keep the Dave Butler battle alive. Where c.net fails is his personal attacks that are the real reason he's posted here. If Dave were still a member of this forum and Moose put those pictures up, c.net would probably have thanked him for the publicity.