|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26285
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:03 pm
|  |
And what SS says.
| SS wrote: | Public Domain Content
We do not accept public domain content.
As stated in our guidelines: “”submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances.”
|
|
|
editha
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Location: Göttingen, Germany
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:39 pm
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | | You probably wont read this, but that is again a wrong assumption. You keep overlooking the fact the works are not copyrighted, so its not fraudulent what they do, so there is no fine. |
Ron, (I believe your name is Ron...My apology if I am in error), you keep overlooking a fact that you should give some considerable thought...
Every image that is submitted and accepted here is given a notice of copyright assigned to the submitter. including these public domain images.
Whether or not this is the result of an automatic process, an attribution of copyright of the submitter is falsely given to a public domain image and this diminishes all other legitimate copyright claims.
Any Buyer, conscientuously citing a copyright, improperly given to one of these public domain images, compounds the problem.
Regardless of inadvertance or as a result of an automatic process, this improper attribution of a copyright for public domain images also inadvertantly misleads buyers.
There are already an overwhelming number of self-proclaimed internet pirates that already believe that if it is on the internet it is or should be free to use.
If an industry such as microstock and its contributors are casual regarding the applications, claim of and use of copyright, I can only image the additional arguments this provides for the "Pirates".
Or perhaps a better question: Why should any buyer be obligated to abide by any of the terms of useage when we as an industry are so tolerant of misapplication, abuse or false claims of copyright?
Every misapplication, abuse or false claim of copyright, erodes away the already limited protections that we have under copyright law and if we are tolerant of this as members of the industry demanding copyright protections, then we speed the erosion process.
Microstock is still a nascent industry and some issues should be looked at more closely. |
|
editha
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Location: Göttingen, Germany
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:40 pm
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | And what SS says.
| SS wrote: | Public Domain Content
We do not accept public domain content.
As stated in our guidelines: “”submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances.”
|
|
That one has been around for a long time. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39245
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:27 pm
| |
| editha wrote: | | semmickphoto wrote: | | You probably wont read this, but that is again a wrong assumption. You keep overlooking the fact the works are not copyrighted, so its not fraudulent what they do, so there is no fine. |
Ron, (I believe your name is Ron...My apology if I am in error), you keep overlooking a fact that you should give some considerable thought...
Every image that is submitted and accepted here is given a notice of copyright assigned to the submitter. including these public domain images.
Whether or not this is the result of an automatic process, an attribution of copyright of the submitter is falsely given to a public domain image and this diminishes all other legitimate copyright claims.
Any Buyer, conscientuously citing a copyright, improperly given to one of these public domain images, compounds the problem.
Regardless of inadvertance or as a result of an automatic process, this improper attribution of a copyright for public domain images also inadvertantly misleads buyers.
There are already an overwhelming number of self-proclaimed internet pirates that already believe that if it is on the internet it is or should be free to use.
If an industry such as microstock and its contributors are casual regarding the applications, claim of and use of copyright, I can only image the additional arguments this provides for the "Pirates".
Or perhaps a better question: Why should any buyer be obligated to abide by any of the terms of useage when we as an industry are so tolerant of misapplication, abuse or false claims of copyright?
Every misapplication, abuse or false claim of copyright, erodes away the already limited protections that we have under copyright law and if we are tolerant of this as members of the industry demanding copyright protections, then we speed the erosion process.
Microstock is still a nascent industry and some issues should be looked at more closely. |
PERFECTLY SAID!!!!!!!! |
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6529
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:38 am
| |
| editha wrote: | | semmickphoto wrote: | | You probably wont read this, but that is again a wrong assumption. You keep overlooking the fact the works are not copyrighted, so its not fraudulent what they do, so there is no fine. |
Ron, (I believe your name is Ron...My apology if I am in error), you keep overlooking a fact that you should give some considerable thought...
Every image that is submitted and accepted here is given a notice of copyright assigned to the submitter. including these public domain images.
Whether or not this is the result of an automatic process, an attribution of copyright of the submitter is falsely given to a public domain image and this diminishes all other legitimate copyright claims.
Any Buyer, conscientuously citing a copyright, improperly given to one of these public domain images, compounds the problem.
Regardless of inadvertance or as a result of an automatic process, this improper attribution of a copyright for public domain images also inadvertantly misleads buyers.
There are already an overwhelming number of self-proclaimed internet pirates that already believe that if it is on the internet it is or should be free to use.
If an industry such as microstock and its contributors are casual regarding the applications, claim of and use of copyright, I can only image the additional arguments this provides for the "Pirates".
Or perhaps a better question: Why should any buyer be obligated to abide by any of the terms of useage when we as an industry are so tolerant of misapplication, abuse or false claims of copyright?
Every misapplication, abuse or false claim of copyright, erodes away the already limited protections that we have under copyright law and if we are tolerant of this as members of the industry demanding copyright protections, then we speed the erosion process.
Microstock is still a nascent industry and some issues should be looked at more closely. |
I am Ron or Ronald ;-)
Good argument there, I cant disagree with that. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:55 am
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | Regardless of the copyright claim being on the file here, I think it is inconceivable that anybody churning out copies of old stuff would ever allege that stuff was being stolen from them if it was reproduced without their permission. So this doesn't seem to me to be an attempt to create copyright on a PD image, it's more a case to the copyright label being wrongly applied. It does seem to be a violation of a strict interpretation of the terms of use of the site, though, since I believe we guarantee that we own the copyright to material we upload.
I am slightly more irritated by all the NASA images that are used than by PD stuff. The NASA guidelines are that anyone using their stuff should acknowledge them as the source but I have never noticed that happening.
BTW, I have only ever once uploaded a PD image - and that was just to see if they really accepted them. I've never used NASA material. |
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-952942p1.html#id=106227749
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-952942p1.html#id=106227527
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-952942p1.html#id=106227518
I do ;-) |
WEll done to you and everyone else who respects the source. I have seen plenty that don't.
Edith's illegal-copyright-claim point is of particular interest to me, since the Boston Globe once published a feature article of mine without paying, claimed copyright to it and put it up for sale on their website (where I suppose it still is, for subscribers). They simply ignored requests for payment and even their own "ombudsman" refused to acknowledge my email. What a lousy lot! |
|
| |
|
  |
Page 3 of 3
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
