View Single Post
  #11  
Old February 11th, 2020, 08:17 AM
Buzz Buzz is offline
Cyber Tech Help Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
O/S: MacOS
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 3,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total Noob View Post
Copyright protection on photos are under Federal law, as I understand it, automatic with the publishing of the photo, assuming certain announcements an disclosures are properly made with the release.

But the holder has to file for the copyright and pay a fee before he can go to court on it,
I read this much and then just skimmed the rest.

You are flat-out wrong from the start. So, I didn't bother reading everything else closely. Your basic understanding is flawed.

Copyright on creative work (photos, illustrations, sculptures, writing, music, etc) is established the moment the work is created. It has NOTHING to do with any "publishing". Absolutely nothing. Unpublished work is just as copyrighted as published work.

More over, no registration or fee is required to have a copyright. Again, copyright is established the MOMENT the creative work is generated. For legal reasons, it can be helpful to have the date of creation somehow noted, but no registration is necessary.

Yes, one can choose to register works with the Library of Congress (LOC) in the US. This does not make a copyright "more" valid. All registration does is create an official record of the date of the work. If a dispute arises and you have registration dated first with LOC, then there are some legal benefits, as in, they assist with disputes.

"Fair Use" does exists. However, removing a watermark shows clear intention to circumvent protective measure put in place by the copyright holder. Whether or not that causes damages to the copyright holder is an independent matter that would take arbitration or at least disclosure to grasp fully. Most "fair use" does not involve intentionally circumventing protective measures. But each case is it's own matter.

------------------

I've created intellectual property for more than 35 years. I am well aware of copyright laws since my livelihood depends upon them.

Again, I realize that there's generally no malice in the misunderstanding of copyrights. However, it's clear you don't fully grasp them and may be seeking to justify an infringement via a bunch of made up scenarios. I mean yes, murder is illegal.. but if it's self-defense you amy not be punished. The same round-about scenarios can be created for practically anything.

Each case or infringement is independent and one can not generalize about what is or is not damage or acceptable.

Throwing in music or video is another matter. There's an allotment for time-shifting with video, etc. Audio visual works have their own set of legalities.

Make no mistake though.. it is theft in many cases. Whether or not you'll be caught and then legal action taken is an entirely different matter.

--------------------

Ultimately, you just want someone to tell you what you want to do is okay... because that post is littered with unjustifiable rationale. Your ENTIRE post is all about how you feel you are justified in infringement. And it's really all wrong. There are so many incorrect issues that I could spend weeks trying to explain how you are simply wrong over and over and over again. Everytime I pick a sentence and read it.. it's incorrect in some manner....and all slanted to your rationale for theft.

Sorry, if you want an non-watermarked version of a photo, contact the copyright holder and ask them for one. It shouldn't be too hard, since there's a watermark!
Reply With Quote