Delfin underway

Delfin said:

Here's one more shot of Torsk in 2008 after she was repainted white. The mizzen is still in place.

Click to expand...

Just so you know, that photograph was taken by me. So proper credits should be used, not to mention permission prior to posting.

* just a friendly reminder of copyright laws

West said:

Just so you know, that photograph was taken by me. So proper credits should be used, not to mention permission prior to posting.

* just a friendly reminder of copyright laws

Click to expand...

My apologies. I believe someone sent that to me as is, so perhaps if you are concerned you should place a copyright mark on your work.

Delfin,
Disagree about the mizzen mast and I'd go for white.

Thank you for releasing that photo, West. That is a marvelous image.

Delfin said:

My apologies. I believe someone sent that to me as is, so perhaps if you are concerned you should place a copyright mark on your work.

Click to expand...

No problem Delfin, since someone sent it to you, you assumed the sender was the owner.

If I put a watermark on every photo I post, that would ruin people's enjoyment in viewing it.

West said:

Just so you know, that photograph was taken by me. So proper credits should be used, not to mention permission prior to posting.

* just a friendly reminder of copyright laws

Click to expand...

My memory is failing after years of retirement and can't remember the rules of copyright law. Was the photograph registered or did you include the copyright symbol prior to posting? Explain the copyright protection.

Thanks

Marty-copyright protection is actually quite simple. However, enforcement may be a different matter. In short, any thing created subject to copyright, i.e. written works, art, photos etc., is automatically owned by the creator and the copyright resides with the creator subject only to the exceptions in the law (fair use, criticism, news, and the like). No filing is required nor is it required that that the copyright symbol be displayed on the work. The copyright is automatic, granted by law. That said, enforcement is also up to the copyright holder. If someone uses a copyrighted work without permission, the owner must chase him down and seek compensation or demand the use cease. This can be painstaking and expensive. That is why, at least for digital photos, many do use a watermark so the digital file cannot be reproduced. If you check out the on-line stock photo sites, their pictures carry the watermark. As we all know, you can click on a photo you see online and generally download it in a few seconds. When someone purchases the right to use, the owner sends a file without the watermark. If you recall, several of the social websites got a lot of criticism a while back because their terms of service (which nobody ever reads!) included a provision that anyone signing up gave up their rights to any photos posted. Most have now changed or limited that provision because of the criticism they received.

Carl:
I removed the crow's nest and Fwd Mast on the Ulysses last year and still have not gotten used to it. A lot less radar false images and spot light return. Have yet to make up my mind whether it looks better or not.

THD said:

Marty-copyright protection is actually quite simple. However, enforcement may be a different matter. In short, any thing created subject to copyright, i.e. written works, art, photos etc., is automatically owned by the creator and the copyright resides with the creator subject only to the exceptions in the law (fair use, criticism, news, and the like). No filing is required nor is it required that that the copyright symbol be displayed on the work. The copyright is automatic, granted by law. That said, enforcement is also up to the copyright holder. If someone uses a copyrighted work without permission, the owner must chase him down and seek compensation or demand the use cease. This can be painstaking and expensive. That is why, at least for digital photos, many do use a watermark so the digital file cannot be reproduced. If you check out the on-line stock photo sites, their pictures carry the watermark. As we all know, you can click on a photo you see online and generally download it in a few seconds. When someone purchases the right to use, the owner sends a file without the watermark. If you recall, several of the social websites got a lot of criticism a while back because their terms of service (which nobody ever reads!) included a provision that anyone signing up gave up their rights to any photos posted. Most have now changed or limited that provision because of the criticism they received.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that succinct explanation

THD said:

Marty-copyright protection is actually quite simple.

Click to expand...

Many thanks, remembered there were certain changes to the law back 25 years ago. You reminded me that the requirement of the copyright notice (symbol) was dropped.

ulysses said:

Carl:
I removed the crow's nest and Fwd Mast on the Ulysses last year and still have not gotten used to it. A lot less radar false images and spot light return. Have yet to make up my mind whether it looks better or not.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see a picture, when convenient.

Regarding copyright, a photograph is automatically copyrighted to the photographer who took it. No application or filing is necessary; the photo is copyrighted to the photographer the instant he or she takes it.

This does not apply to video, by the way.

So any photo--- including happy-snaps taken by an amateur using an iPhone--- is copyrighted to the photographer. As such, a photo cannot be used for commercial purposes, or posted on public-facing media, or used in any way really, by someone other than the photographer without the photographer's permission.

The photographer can grant useage rights to another party by saying so in writing. There can be a charge for this or not; it's up to the photographer. The photographer can also give or sell all rights to a photo for a specific time period or in perpetuity to another party if he or she chooses to do so.

We bought our $1,000 Rocna a number of years ago when a Seattle magazine used a photo of mine on their cover without my permission. They did not do it deliberately or knowingly but were given a copy of the photo by another party who could not remember who had taken the photo.

When this was brought to my attention after the magazine was published, I contacted the magazine, proved the photo was mine, and the magazine appolgized and said they would pay a rights fee for the use of the photo on the cover of that edition of the magazine. I sent them my standard form granting the magazine one-time-use rights, charged them the standard fee I was charging at the time for a cover photo, and they promptly signed the form and paid the fee.

In this age of Facebook and other social media where photos are thrown around like candy, copyright law is almost always overlooked. But it's there, and if a photo is used by a party other than the photographer, the photographer has legal grounds to take action.

Marin said:

In this age of Facebook and other social media where photos are thrown around like candy, copyright law is almost always overlooked. But it's there, and if a photo is used by a party other than the photographer, the photographer has legal grounds to take action.

Click to expand...

Yes he does BUT unless the photo is used in a commercial pursuit, there are no financial gains to be had. In the case here, the poster received no financial gain by posting the photo on TF and there were no financial damages to the photographer. The only real legal remedy available is injunctive relief so the photo would not be used again. The offending poster probably doesn't even have the means to remove the photo from TF as it isn't under his control. So basically, copyrights don't have a lot of meaning unless it is used for commercial gain.

I am hoping the photographer brought the copyright issue up in jest.

In my tenure as a moderator here the subject has never come up. If it ever did we'd flip a coin and either delete the image or tell the party to pound sand as there's no money changing hands. Most likely the former just for the sake of being done with it.

CPseudonym said:

In my tenure as a moderator here the subject has never come up. If it ever did we'd flip a coin and either delete the image or tell the party to pound sand as there's no money changing hands. Most likely the former just for the sake of being done with it.

Click to expand...

In the this case and in most cases re forum chit chat...Spoken Truthfully and Correctly - IMO!!

Of course boat owning lawyers might have alternate opinion... gotta keep priming that that per hour huge cash flow by whatever means necessary... don't cha know!

I think it's the whole "fair use" thing as described to me by the forum owner. Either way, he ain't to concerned nor am I.

Now if someone came in advertising it for sale that might be a horse of a different color. But like Marin so eloquently stated, his example of a magazine cover shot is completely different than someone posting an image found to our obscure little forum. Some forums, one in particular, watermark all images posted regardless of who actually owns the image.

Marin said:

Regarding copyright, a photograph is automatically copyrighted to the photographer who took it. No application or filing is necessary; the photo is copyrighted to the photographer the instant he or she takes it.

This does not apply to video, by the way.

Click to expand...

Say what?

If only there were a place, where i could live with my boat in my back yard that was harmonious and Lawyer free...rumor has it such a place exists in south FL.

Seriously, I'd be flattered if someone posted a picture i took here. If they were selling framed copies i may feel differently.

eseyoung said:

If only there were a place, where i could live with my boat in my back yard that was harmonious and Lawyer free...rumor has it such a place exists in south FL.

Seriously, I'd be flattered if someone posted a picture i took here. If they were selling framed copies i may feel differently.

Click to expand...

Aye Matey, what is yours is mine.

__________
Perhaps a separate thread on all things copyright may be a good idea as we have high jacked this thread already, and the subject/issue has been resolved some time ago.

Congratulations, you own a stack of bills and an empty bottle of Goslings.

QB said:

Say what?

Motion pictures are audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with any accompanying sounds. Motion pictures are typically embodied in film, videotape, or videodisk.

Copyright in a motion picture is automatically secured when the work is created and “fixed” in a copy.

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ45.pdf​

Click to expand...

Raw video is not automatically copyrighted to the videographer who shot it in the same way that a still photo is. I know this because a) it's my job and b) our company has this very clearly spelled out in all the legal stuff that governs the production of video.

Yes, all the completed videos we produce are copyrighted to our company. Or an independent person can produce a video that is then copyrighted (and it has to say so or it's not). But raw video is not automatically copyrighted to the cameraman who shot it. A still photo is.

The key lies in the word "tangible" which is in the official definition of what constitutes a copyrightable video.

CPseudonym said:

In my tenure as a moderator here the subject has never come up. If it ever did we'd flip a coin and either delete the image or tell the party to pound sand as there's no money changing hands. Most likely the former just for the sake of being done with it.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, I just copied a photo someone sent me. I didn't realize I was setting off a controversy.

Sheesh! I think a marvelous thread was high jacked here - wonderful boat, superb restoration, just terrific to see a vessel brought back to life.