| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Ed Matusik wrote:
jk wrote:Yes that is true Ed., the copyright covers all or part of the image.
Derivatives or similar shots are a much more difficult area as proven by a recent case in UK about a use of a B&W image of a London Bus that has been recoloured to show only the bus in colour. This area is very subjuctive and could tie up a herd of laywers for a century!
Unless you captured an exceptionally valuable image, entering into the legal system to recoup monies will, in the long run, cost you more that what you win (if anything, that is). This virtual media is both the bane and the saving of every photographer. We all are driven to want to show our stuff, but ultimately loose control of it the second it's posted. The best defense, is, as you and others have remarked, small file sizes and no more than 72 ppi resolution. At least copied digital info will limit print size. But this is digressing from the original question which doesn't involve someone downloading a posted image. - EdM
3:)
That may be the harsh reality when someone contests the charge. But as I say, that didnt stop Getty images pursuing two rather average shots of Venice that my client had grabbed off the Internet and used on his website.
Maybe he should have had the nerve to say "no way" and ignored them. But faced with a threat of this magnitude, he felt he had to enter into some negotiation, once it was pointed out he had done something wrong.
Faced with an inability to win my rightful compensation I would be inclined to spend some money on a large advert in the regional newspapers the perpetrators business covered. Using the same image and making a clear statement of ownership, while pointing out all other uses are fraudulent!
Appropriately worded of course!
Last edited on Sat Jul 7th, 2012 14:11 by Eric
____________________
Eric
