Thread: Who's a legal Boffin - Photos

Taking the photo is OK, publishing it is OK (the person who has taken the photo owns the copyright in the original artwork).

If one was to download the photo and republish it without the author's permission, that would be a breach of copyright.

Copying the idea illustrated in the photograph would almost certainly be a breach of copyright.

If the copy was made as a once-off for use between consenting adults in private, and not sold for commercial game, the chances of any action being taken are slim (but not zero).

I'm no lawyer, and the world of copyright is a complex one, but in principal (in Oz) you own the copyright to your own original work. Any further explanation gets into the minefield!!

Let's hear the lawyer's version now!

Cheers,

P

We don't have enough room on the server.

Originally Posted by

We don't have enough room on the server.

P

I don't think it's a problem to copy anything. As long as you copy it for your own use and don't sell it. If you male any sort of personal gain out of it then you breach the copyright.

Dan

Wasn't there a case recently where some famous person successfully supressed photos taken of them without their permission? That would imply that there had to be consent before the photo was taken, so even though the photographer owns the copyright on the photo itself, they don't necessarily have the right to publish it.

Regarding copying, going back to my Yunee Daze, I have a recollection that there were limits to how much of a textbook you were allowed to copy for your own use.

I don't think it's a problem to copy anything. As long as you copy it for your own use and don't sell it.

Not quite right Dan. I'd hate to come across someone who had built one of my house designs "for their own use"!

Similarly I know a lot of boat designers are dudded by the copy merchants...if you want someone's design, be honest enough to pay for their effort!

As I noted below, making an imitation of a commercial furniture piece (for instance), while illegal and even immoral, is unlikely to bring prosecution providing you don't show anyone!

Cheers,

P

Not sure if this is what prompted the thread but there was a press release last week I think by the fed govt about new laws covering photos taken by the camera phones.

My take on the celebrity cases was that the context of the photos supposedly cast a slur on the celebrity, such as model Naomi Campbell exiting a Narcotics Anonymous meeting or Andrew Ettinghousen suing some paper a few years ago for publishing nude piccies of him taken without consent.

With text can't you copy/reference pretty much anything for use in your own writings as long as you attribute the source appropriately??

................Sean

Ahhh publishing unauthorised photographs of celebrities is altogetherly different!! Not really a copyright issue in most cases, more libel and breach of contract I would have thought.

Those guys make their living from

a) their reputation - so if you sneak a couple of nudie shots of MR Ettinghausen in the shower and have them published...expect to cop a bit of monetary flak as a result of the impact on his endorsements, to say nothing of invasion of privacy.

b) selling shots of themselves...that is the only commodity a lot of them have to trade and they would see the situation no differently from knocking off bricks from a building site. Often they are contracted to a certain publication, and the publishing of shots in a rival magazine or paper will impact on their income!

Cheers,

One of the reasons why I posed the questions is that there is now a sign down at our local pool banning mobiles from the change rooms.

I can't imagine what sicko screwed up individual would want to take photos of me getting changed but this topic is a hot one with the cackle club (SWMBO and friends)

G'day.

Depends on the country you are in.

There are places in the world where you must (not just should)
ask permission to take a photo & other places where you MUST pay
to take a photo. If you don't you will likely be stoned for it.

Don't loose too much sleep over the 'the cackle club' squizz,
they'd need to be stoned for wanting to take a pic of you in the change room.

Cliff, I'm ROFL (Rolling on Floor Laughing). I worded it bad. I don't think the cackle club is spending too much time considering such photos of me.

On a more serious note what I meant is the women folk (mums) are concerned about the ability of nutcases to take photos in such places and are, as mums will be, mindful of the kids. Thats another topic altogether.

I remember reading somewhere of a woodworker having his stuff at a show and guys coming up and measuring his furniture up, taking photos etc without even asking... Now that would me off but I guess its going to happen anyway.

Its an interesting subject. I guess the llegal eagles may get rich out of this type of thing.

while no-one likes the idea that photos of their kids will be used to give paedophiles their kicks even quite innocent photos posted on the internet can also put people at risk. schools and sports clubs will now generally check with parents at the start of the year/season before posting class photos or team photos or even shots of school activities/ action from a game. If a family are trying to avoid the whereabouts of someone violent and abusive the last thing they want is his mate down the pub going "i see your son is playing for the west bay tigers" having seen the lads photo on a website. Even background shots for TV programs can cause problems. There are plenty of people in Australia who have fled from violence in other lands. I know someone who freaked when he spotted himself in the background on a TV program because he had a genuine fear that if he was spotted by someone with links to his persecutors that they would then track him down. I personally cannot imagine what it must be like to live in fear like that and obviously the cameraman had no idea of the mental agony that this guy would suffer when he shot his few seconds of film. One would hope that a TV company if contacted would not add the particular clip to their library of standard shots but I wonder if they could be legally obliged not to show it again.

I'm not up to date on the laws regarding this BUT I do know that we obtain written release/consents for Medical and PR photos used in the Hospital and for Govt Publications. I often wonder how legal some of the Papperazzi's images are when they sneak into someones private residence (back yard etc) and shoot their photos, in some cases they must be trespassing too. I was told that if an image/graphic design is significanly changed - 30% or more?? - that was ok, you could use someone else's original work. Maybe people don't challenge Newspapers re releases is that it wouldn't be worth the legal costs.


Peter

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

As I noted below, making an imitation of a commercial furniture piece (for instance), while illegal and even immoral, is unlikely to bring prosecution providing you don't show anyone!

Cheers,

P

Bitingmidge,

I made a copy of Christian Becksvoort's 15-drawer cabinet for my own use and do not intend to sell it. I am dubious about your statement that this is illegal and immoral. He has published articles on making chests of drawers in which that cabinet features. So, is he not effectively putting it in the public domain by doing so? My copy also is not an exact copy since I did not have access to his measurements. I can't see that I am harming him by making an imitation of his cabinet, since I am not in the market for an $8250 cabinet. Similarly, I don't feel any guilt at imitating the general style of Sam Maloof's rockers in the rockers I have made. My chairs are completely different from his in virtually every detail of their construction, although they are recognisably derived from the style that he established 50 years ago. Again, Sam maloof has published articles and books about how he makes his chairs. There seems no point in his doing that if he wants to prohibit people who read the articles from building a similar chair.

Rocker