|
Post by lepidofrance on Nov 11, 2013 6:31:23 GMT -8
Animating the website of the Association of Lepidopterists of France (LFA), I place regularly on this site pictures (mostly pictures of butterflies). Of course, for every picture the photographer's name is mentioned. With academic and educational or scientific tasks, we (the Association and myself) are not asking for any money for the reproduction of these pictures, as long as the photo credit should be honored: - Name of the author of the photos - Reference to the website - Reference to the LFA as the organization responsible for the publication of these pictures. All our photos are stored in Picasa-Google and have again the same references for photograhic credits. www.lepido-france.fr/picasaweb.google.com/113703781091091595078At the risk of repeating myself: we are happy when these photos are reused for about educational or scientific developments, provided that reference is made to the photographer and Association. Inside this Forum, I see on the page : insectnet.proboards.com/thread/3733/favorite-ornithoptera-specimen?page=11&scrollTo=36588this picture in a "froggy's post": I saw the same picture on an advertising page Blurp with books on Birdwing: As far I know, two books are issued : O. tithonus & O. paradisea. See for example : www.blurb.com/bookstore/invited/3248778/c0b2865426bcb86db2eaa16621c848ab9d0ee208?utm_medium=email&utm_source=application&utm_campaign=share-share_promote&utm_content=0852am-01_05_13-bodyThese books are made only from pictures taken on the internet, without accompanying text. More serious and scandalous, these photos are presented without any mention of the photo credit. The pictures are not presented, they are simply stolen! The purpose is mostly commercial and the books are sold USD 100 ( tithonius) and more than USD 200 ( paradisea). Here are a few pages of these books using pictures of members of the LFA: The smallest courtesies had been warning us of this reuse. It would have been more elegant to offer us even more!, copy (s) of these publications "pirates." The photos are in no way free of rights solely because their authors have decided to publish them on websites. The author and publisher are neither more nor less, counterfeiters. For now the LFA contacted his lawyer!
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Nov 11, 2013 7:46:03 GMT -8
Incredible...
|
|
mygos
Full Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by mygos on Nov 11, 2013 13:26:09 GMT -8
It is exactly the same for me when I can see pdf exchange on this forum for recently published articles or books ...
A+, Michel
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Nov 11, 2013 14:55:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Nov 11, 2013 14:58:29 GMT -8
|
|
mokky
Full Member
The Butterfly Society of Japan
Posts: 155
|
Post by mokky on Nov 11, 2013 15:07:39 GMT -8
Wow! I also found some familiar pictures taken by Japanese insect photographers such as Mr. Matsuka. It is disgusting behavior by those who never pay any respect for the efforts by photographers! Mokky It is exactly the same for me when I can see pdf exchange on this forum for recently published articles or books ... A+, Michel
|
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Nov 11, 2013 15:22:37 GMT -8
Japanese photographers: Certainly ! There seemed to recognize some photos by Matsuka Hirotaka. I have not checked, though I would have made the bet!
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Nov 11, 2013 15:41:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Nov 11, 2013 23:45:21 GMT -8
In my opinion, this is pure theft as by default, every photo has a rightful owner and in order for that photo to be used by someone else, the user must get permission from the owner. Otherwise it is theft and thieves can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
According to wikipedia, "copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies." Also from wikipedia..."Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed though copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph. For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph. A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting, architectural work (building) or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works."
So I suggest that legal action is taken or at least, LFA is provided with free copies of the book.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Nov 12, 2013 6:33:05 GMT -8
A sad example of human nature.
|
|
mygos
Full Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by mygos on Nov 12, 2013 7:13:52 GMT -8
Am I right in saying that people are happy to download books, papers on the web free of charge on one way, without permission from their authors, but are very unhappy when they discover that some photographs they published on the web are used the same way ...
I am not saying this for you Jean Marc, as I know you would not do to the others what you don't like to be done to you !
A+, Michel
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Nov 12, 2013 8:27:18 GMT -8
"I am not saying this for you Jean Marc, as I know you would not do to the others what you don't like to be done to you !" Read more: insectnet.proboards.com/post/new/5131#ixzz2kRuqtuXgMerci ! It is quite interesting to note that when looking for a photo of a butterfly (or biotope) I do not have in my stock and that found on the internet, of course, I contacted the author of the image to obtain approval. 9 times out of 10, if not 10 out of 10 times, said author is very happy to see his work published (it goes without saying, with his permission and the photographical credit !) on a website for scientific and educational purposes. As far as I can remember, I've never been refused. In addition, this approach has allowed me to interact with good insects photographers (Estonian, Danish, Russian, Brazilian, from India, and so on ...) and to publish, always on the website, very interesting posts! Conclusion: it's not so hard to make things right! On the other hand, when on this same forum InsectNet.com, I asked who would be willing to publish on the website lepido-France pictures of butterflies of the United States, I received no response. Perhaps we must believe that the old Europe is too cheesy for U.S. citizens. For as it is a French who sculpted the Statue of Liberty in NYC and a French engineer Gustave Eiffel, who designed the structure! Old times !
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Nov 12, 2013 8:28:41 GMT -8
Michel, you are right, it is the same problem indeed. On www.delias-butterflies.com website, Jean Marc and me have spent a lot of time to try and find authors of Delias pictures we found on the web. We have thus met interesting specialists...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 15:40:05 GMT -8
I have been researching this topic as it pertains to image sharing on social media platforms and am left scratching my head as there are a lot of grey areas. For example, if a teenager uses a picture of a Lamborghini for their cover photo without tracking down the original photographer and crediting them, is it copyright infringement? I think most people would agree not. I can't say I've ever seen copyrights or photographer credit associated with such images other than photo watermarks. Being that just about everybody I know on Facebook is guilty of this behavior, where does one draw the line between innocent and mischievous behavior?
The legal documents I have reviewed thus far don't offer much insight and practically say that if the photographer wants to prevent photo sharing they should watermark their photos, post low resolution photos, or prevent copying by posting on sites that prevent right-clicking.
I don't rely on my photography to earn a living, thus may have a biased opinion, but I don't care if somebody uses my photographs on social media, and have had this happen on multiple occasions. I have even had my profile pictures used on dating sites which I found quite amusing.
So with the current state of affairs, should the responsibility of protecting ones work fall on the shoulders of the photographer? The legal system seems to be way behind on this issue, so I would think so. In a scenario where an individual is obviously using another's work for financial gain and claiming the photo as theirs, I would agree that legal action be pursued, but many individuals may be unaware of their wrongdoings, and again there are many grey areas.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Dec 12, 2013 16:00:12 GMT -8
Hello cacicus, there is not really any grey areas in the copyright law. Nobody will sue the teenager if he uses the picture, but it does not make it legal. Watermarks or the copyright © are not necessary to enforce the copyright. What most people agree, or not, does not matter. What matters is the law (which may of course change in democratic systems once it went through the whole system of politics.). If you want to share a picture here that is not yours you can just link to the picture (which is the correct way of showing it).
I am not an expert on this matter, but I do rely for my job on using the work of others and I know the basic procedures that you have to go through to legally copy something. I might end up in big trouble if I would not know how to do that properly.
For the rest of the thread, I will not comment as the story is now a month old and should rest.
|
|