Copyright and Bird Law Lawyerings

[KentXie]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Yea, this. And then there is the threat to notify the photographer. There's something unsettling about that post/comment on a magnitude many times beyond a single instance of alleged copyright infringement. There's malicious intent there.



Do you think this means something?

It's not malicious. I'm friends with a few professional photographers and I understand that with the thousands and thousands of dollars they spent on their equipment, the worst thing you can do to then is 1) try to get them to do a job for free by telling them they will get "exposure" and 2) try to use their work without paying for them. If you're too much of a cheapskate to pay for their product, then don't post or use them in the first place.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Agreed. It's like that woman in LA who yells at kids selling candy because they don't have a street vendor permit. Who cares, even if it might be technically illegal?

Unless you're a professional photographer who make money off your work, you don't get to say this.

 

[Money]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Who cares, even if it might be technically illegal?

Words to live by...

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Words to live by...

Conflating selling roadside lemonade with property rights!

A copyright conveys a property right in an object; it may have great or little value. And the value is not the value assigned by the person who 'takes' the property, and who may consider it to have no real value.

Title to an automobile conveys a property interest in that car, and if I 'borrow' that car without permission to run an errand, --at a minimum, that's unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a crime. If I like the borrowed car so much that I keep it, that's a conversion of a property right, also known as grand theft auto.

 

[cjbski]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Normally, I agree that "stealing" photos is an issue if you're going to make money on them. For the purposes of this forum, it is not a problem to post them for viewing.

Especially because the watermark is still on there. No one is selling these photos!

AND, this guy posts his photography regularly on Reddit and Flickr. He isn't trying to keep it under lock and key. I'd leave it.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Normally, I agree that "stealing" photos is an issue if you're going to make money on them. For the purposes of this forum, it is not a problem to post them for viewing.

Especially because the watermark is still on there. No one is selling these photos!

AND, this guy posts his photography regularly on Reddit and Flickr. He isn't trying to keep it under lock and key. I'd leave it.

MBTA wants to buy exclusive rights to that photo to use in a report it intends to publish. But before it pays for exclusive rights, MBTA wants an assurance that its purchase is indeed exclusive, that no other party can legally reproduce and publish the image. For the exclusive right, MBTA is willing to pay the photographer $500.

However, photographer can't give an assurance to the MBTA that it will have exclusive rights because there has been an unauthorized publication of the photograph on archboston. MBTA says no deal. Photographer is out $500.

So your response to the photographer is, in essence, 'tough shit'.

BTW, where do you keep the keys to your car. I don't think you'll mind if I borrow it.

 

[FenwayResident]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Title to an automobile conveys a property interest in that car, and if I 'borrow' that car without permission to run an errand, --at a minimum, that's unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a crime. If I like the borrowed car so much that I keep it, that's a conversion of a property right, also known as grand theft auto.

This is a bad analogy because if you steal my car I don't have a car anymore. There would be actual negative consequences for me.

Compared to this photographer who has had literally no negative consequences from his photo being posted on AB. In fact, one could argue it's been a positive experience for him since everyone reading this thread is now aware of his existence.

Crowing about copyright infringement on a forum with 50 daily active users is akin to yelling at kids selling candy when they don't have a permit. It's a way for someone to feel morally superior by calling out a victimless crime.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

This is a bad analogy because if you steal my car I don't have a car anymore. There would be actual negative consequences for me.

Compared to this photographer who has had literally no negative consequences from his photo being posted on AB. In fact, one could argue it's been a positive experience for him since everyone reading this thread is now aware of his existence.

Crowing about copyright infringement on a forum with 50 daily active users is akin to yelling at kids selling candy when they don't have a permit. It's a way for someone to feel morally superior by calling out a victimless crime.

With respect to no negative consequences, that is a premise you are not entitled to make. Why don't you use that argument with B&T, or with the Globe if somebody posts the entirety of a Globe article? By your reasoning, posting on archboston represents only positive exposure for B&T and the Globe.

And it is not 50. The most users in one day is 1,365.

As for a supposedly victimless crime, the U.S. Code doesn't quite think so.

.....The Copyright Act allows the copyright holder in an infringement suit to elect:

Non-statutory damages, (the actual damages plus attributable profits), or

Statutory damages which allow for up to $30,000 per infringement.

For statutory damages, the owner is not required to present proof of damages or profits. So, it is easy to see why copyright owners often prefer statutory damages. There is nothing to prevent a court from considering evidence concerning actual damages and profits in making an award of statutory damages within the statutory range, however, that is rare.

For our in-store display scenario, the infringer would be subject to a large enough award that a lawsuit would now become worthwhile for the copyright holder. Additionally, attorney fees are also available, paid by the defendant. That fact is a serious deterrent for infringers. Also, even though intent does not matter in copyright infringement (not knowing about the infringement, or it being accidental is not a defense), the Copyright Act allows up to an additional $150,000 per infringing work for willful infringement. How willful the infringement is and, therefore, how much of that $150,000 is awarded is up to the court.

https://alj.orangenius.com/copyright-infringed/

..........There goes Oduandina's Porsche.

 

[Justin7]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Do you think this means something?

Yes.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

This is a bad analogy because if you steal my car I don't have a car anymore. There would be actual negative consequences for me.

Compared to this photographer who has had literally no negative consequences from his photo being posted on AB. In fact, one could argue it's been a positive experience for him since everyone reading this thread is now aware of his existence.

Crowing about copyright infringement on a forum with 50 daily active users is akin to yelling at kids selling candy when they don't have a permit. It's a way for someone to feel morally superior by calling out a victimless crime.

I'm going to guess you are the type of person who would ask an artist to do a job for "exposure" instead of paying for the artist's work. You're a cheapskate, plain and simple.

It's also not a victimless crime. The artist should have been paid for the use of his photo on this forum by Ourandina. He got $0 for it. That's a loss of whatever he would have charged.

A better analogy is not getting paid for a service you provide. Since you love using the lemonade stand/candy as an example which by the way is applied incorrectly since the vendor is the person selling the service (i.e. equivalent to the photographer), the correct analogy would be taking the kids' lemonade/candy without paying the kid and then telling the kid that it's fine to do so because you're going to tell everyone about the lemonade/candy stand that you can steal from.