New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Alta not an Expert Mountain? - Page 2

post #31 of 48
Why? Please explain what the big deal is about these photos. I am not trying to be cynical, just trying to learn something.
post #32 of 48
http://www.tipz.net/sins_bandwidth.htm
Plus, infringing on the copyrights of the owner without consent or attribution.
post #33 of 48
Canyons, I use many of my pictures here and on other forums. Those images are mine, no one else's. If you want to do ANYTHING other than look at them you need to have my permission which I will gladly give for appropriate payment or other remumeration and will always insist that a credit line be given or at least an attribution.

It is unlawful to approprite (steal) someone else's intelectual work, stories or pictures or videos. It happened to a friend's daughter. I shot many pictures of her over the years and when she was 16 she put a full length picture of herself on a web site where people rate how attractive they are. Her head was superimposed on a porno nude and the person had the gall to email it to her and include the porn site link where it was displayed. The same email was sent to many football players in her school.

Since it was my shot of her head I pursued it vigerously, found the culprit and took him to court, but alas, he was a juvenile and got away with a slap on the wrist.

One of the recent skiing related incident was when a couple of videos were linked to at another ski web site of two well known skiers making turns during a class and was labeled as them skiing the best demos they could, not by the poster but by posters on the other web site. Either the poster didn't know or didn't say exactly what was being demonstrated and no qualification was given and as far as I could tell, there was no credit line on or below those videos. Having talked to the poster of the link I know he had the best intentiones and was not giving material for malicious criticism, but that how it turned out.

I made my living all my life as a photographer and all I have is the images I created and the reputation they give me.

http://home.neo.rr.com/ottmar

....Ott
post #34 of 48
Maybe so, and I am sympathetic to your personal tale, but this is quickly becoming incredible. If someone wants to place their pictures on the net for public viewing, I say, they run the risk of someone else using it. "Legano...illegano...it's a gray area." For the record, in this instance, I enjoyed the pics. I wish that we could keep this forum to the simple issues of skiing and related jargon. Everybody wants to be a lawyer. Quite frankly, I don't know why. I have been one for 20 years, and don't find it nearly as exciting as skiing down a 40 degree chute. Thanks, man!!!
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyons
Maybe so, and I am sympathetic to your personal tale, but this is quickly becoming incredible. If someone wants to place their pictures on the net for public viewing, I say, they run the risk of someone else using it. "Legano...illegano...it's a gray area." For the record, in this instance, I enjoyed the pics. I wish that we could keep this forum to the simple issues of skiing and related jargon. Everybody wants to be a lawyer. Quite frankly, I don't know why. I have been one for 20 years, and don't find it nearly as exciting as skiing down a 40 degree chute. Thanks, man!!!
Honestly? You must not be a very good lawyer if you can't understand you are stealing bandwidth and pictures. Read Trayc's link, and hopefully you'll understand.

For the record, I own a website and this exact stuff can be quite irritating. I've had pictures of mine posted on message boards larger than this one, it can be quite the bandwidth sucker.

BobMc
post #36 of 48
Yes. You're right. I must be a terrible lawyer. Powdr should be crucified for posting such valuable intellectual property. You guys make me laugh. I guess everyone who posts a generic picture of a ski in an ebay listing without giving proper credit is committing either a criminal or quasi criminal act. To take it one step further, if my daughter cuts a picture of Pres. Bush out of Time Mag. and pastes it to a collage without giving Time credit, she should be chastised. I love all of the free legal advise people can obtain on this site. There really is no need for anyone to pay me $$$$.
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyons
Yes. You're right. I must be a terrible lawyer. Powdr should be crucified for posting such valuable intellectual property. You guys make me laugh. I guess everyone who posts a generic picture of a ski in an ebay listing without giving proper credit is committing either a criminal or quasi criminal act. To take it one step further, if my daughter cuts a picture of Pres. Bush out of Time Mag. and pastes it to a collage without giving Time credit, she should be chastised. I love all of the free legal advise people can obtain on this site. There really is no need for anyone to pay me $$$$.
Did you even read Trayc's link? You just don't get it.

BobMc
post #38 of 48
Like Ott, I am making my living on photography. I want to share my photos with potential clients, friends and family so I have a website.

Well - any website worth it's salt needs a proper host, and they cost money. How much would you respect my business if geocities was adding 1000 popups to the experience?

If I had a brick and mortar store, I would not have adverts for other businesses on the front door.

Just like a brick and mortar store websites have bandwidth charges. Think of it like a utility. The more electricity you use the more you have to pay and the same with bandwidth. The web host does not care where the pictures are viewed or accessed. They only know that the "lights are on" and charge accordingly.

So stealing my bandwidth is like running a cable and stealing my electricity. You've got the benefit of lights but I don't get the benefit of the business coming into my store. The very reason I set up a store in the first place.

From a content perspective, if you use a professionally shot product photo for eBay and you host it on your own dime, no one will imagine that you did it yourself. If you link a photo from REI, don't you think they have a right to be annoyed? It's also clear that collages are derivative works, while it is not clear in this thread that the poster is not the owner of the photos or a participant depicted in them.
post #39 of 48
Canyons, the honest ebay members will do just that. When I bought my skis last year there was a picture of them, generic, as you say, and under the picture it said "Picture not of the actual item". Is that so hard to say? Or they'll say "Item may vary from that depicted".

When your daughter buys a magazine, the actual magazine belongs to her and she may do with it as she pleases, burn it or flush it or some such, the stories and pictures in the magazine do not belong to her, they belong to the copyright holder, the only one who has the right to copy the picture. The collage is fine as long as it stays with her, the moment she publishes it, and displaying it in her annual high school gallery consist [publishing, it is not always OK. With images of public figures there is a leeway and freedom of speech protects her even somewhat but she still can't slander a non-public figure and publish it without consequence if that person chooses to act on it.

LeBron James, the basketball wunderkind is from my home town and everybody tries to cash in on his fame. There are a lot of pictures of him floating around the net and some dude made 4000 tee-shirts with LeBron's mug on it and they are now sitting in a warehouse rotting. His agent made it plenty clear that an image on the Internet does not belong to everyone.

All that dchan asked and that I ask is that when someone posts a picture that isn't his he says who’s it is and we all assume that he got permission, spoken or unspoken, from that person. Often groups or clubs share pictures and anyone of them can use any pictures without permission.

Powdr put up those pictures innocently to show the terrain. I am assuming that it is Powdr who is in the pictures skiing it or taking the pictures or that he was at least there. If he just lifted them from someone's web site and had no part in the excursion he should have attributed the web site or whoever took the shots. If he was indeed there the group sharing would apply and everything is OK.

I am not arguing with you specifically, you said you were interested to learn, but I am arguing the mistaken idea that everything that is published anywhere, magazine, newspaper or internet becomes public domain, it doesn't. My web site specifically states these pictures are for personal use only.

.....Ott
post #40 of 48
Guys, thank you for the education. I guess, in this instance, my thoughts are "much ado about nothing." I can see why the people who make their money the way you do voice your thoughts so vigorously. I am done with this thread. I am a part of this forum because I enjoy skiing. Nothing more...nothing less.
post #41 of 48
Good enough, canyons, the subject comes up now and then and spurs a discussion, it's time to put it to rest since everything that needed to be said, was....

Cheers....Ott
post #42 of 48
Powdr tells me he does have permission to post the images. I have just asked him to give credit.

DC
post #43 of 48
Dchan, your reminder for credit of the pictures posted by Powdr was gentle and I fully believed it to be an oversight. My reaction was to Canyons "what's the big deal" and I just wanted to educate him about copyrights since he wanted to learn.

....Ott
post #44 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyons
if my daughter cuts a picture of Pres. Bush out of Time Mag. and pastes it to a collage .... she should be chastised.
This, however, is true, for reasons unrelated to copyright law.
post #45 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyntrayc
http://www.tipz.net/sins_bandwidth.htm
Plus, infringing on the copyrights of the owner without consent or attribution.
While I would agree that it can be unfriendly to "deep link" to others' sites, it certainly does not qualify as theft of resources. After all, the people following the links are making a request of the server ("can I see the picture?"), and the server is responding with the content ("sure, whatever you want"). It is fairly easy to prevent this with a properly configured server, but instead it seems that people would rather accuse others of theft.

The great thing about the internet is that I can display your content however I please, as long as I'm knowledgable enough to do so. For example, I rarely see any ads on the internet, by using the wonderful Adblock plugin for Firefox. So even if I download a complete page from your precious site (rather than a single jpg), it is unlikely that I will hit your advertiser's servers.

Sorry, but the free flow of information cannot be stopped just by calling it a crime. You want people to see your pics? Then be prepared for the consequences. Welcome to the 21st century.
post #46 of 48
Ya know, the guys DID put up a web page with the pics. I think that they WANTED as many folks to see them as possible. I personally "track back" (shorten the URL to a "home page) most pics like that to see what other goodies they might have. That's what I did. I don't really think that this is that big a deal. If the owners were really interested in limiting the distribution of the pics, the would have placed a water mark or similar on them...

It's always a good idea to ask, but I don't think this was that big a deal...

L
post #47 of 48
So will we be skiing this terrain at ESA?
post #48 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyntrayc
So will we be skiing this terrain at ESA?
Only the lower level folks, the rest will go to the tough stuff!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel