Can Yall sign this Petition against SOPA and PIPA

[PFactorDave]

As a professional photographer, you probably have a website with some of your 'copyrighted' images on display.

If I visit your website, viewing your images, am I stealing? According to you, I do.

If I embed image from your website, ie wrap the image URL between the URL tags here in the forum, am I infringing your copyrights?

If, lets say somebody living in Iran, copies your images to his/her hard drive, would you suffer any monetary damages?

From the little research I have done in the last ten minutes, cached material is generally not considered infringement due to its temporary nature.  Once you make a copy form the cached material for print or retransmitting, you are pirating.

I never said you were stealing by viewing images on a website.  If you copy one of my images from my website and use it on your website, or make a printed copy, then you most certain are infringing my copyrights.

My understanding is that using URL tags to use one of my images on another website is actually in fact infringing upon my copyright.  But linking to my website is not.  So, using that image you used in the way that you used it, (if not a Public Domain) would apparently be infringing upon the rights of the person who created it.

If someone in Iran copies my images, I think I do suffer monetary damages.  Seeing as how my business is selling those images.  That person is using my images without paying for them like a regular customer.  Where that person is located is moot.  Of course, getting a legal remedy for those losses is unlikely because copyright law varies considerably from nation to nation.  I do believe I could file suit in a US Court under US Copyright law but it is unlikely that the case would succeed for obvious reasons.

Do you believe that I have no rights to the images that I capture, simply because I do business on the internet?

[Motherland]

Porn pics?

I suppose you could find porn images on megaupload or mediafire (although I think it's against the terms of use... but then again piracy is in the first place), but Pirate Bay literally does not have an option to search images, and I don't think any other torrent tracker does either. You can find a lot of videos though...

For an image to be displayed on the internet your computer has to make a copy of it. It generally keeps a copy of it for easy use. Photography also has more much more intrinsic value of being printed on paper versus music, video, or software which have literally no added value by being printed on physical media.

[2bighorn]

Curious why you bolded the "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement"?  It isn't key to the discussion of copyright infringement being theft or not.

You named that act as being an example of how copyright infringement equals theft. Later you changed the tune to that of willful copyright infringement.  

We use Copyright Warnings on our web sites.  The phrase, "Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited by law" appears all over my web site.  

We layer as many warnings in as many places as possible, including copyright marks and overlays etc. We make it pretty darn hard to miss that the copyrights belong to us.  To get around them and have an image that is usable for much of anything, it takes a pretty determined and willful act.  We do everything possible to let everyone know that making a copy of our work is a violation of the law.  Proceeding to do it anyway crosses the threshold of being a willful act.

Now you know why I "bolded" it. No matter how many warning you put on, and whether I willfully copy one of your images, it most likely would not be willful copyright infringement, unless you could convince us that low resolution watermarked web image is valued over $1000.

[PFactorDave]

No difference really.

Honestly, the biggest difference is that it is easier for a photographer to make it difficult for someone to use the work.  Copyright overlays are the best tool for making an image less useful on the internet.  We protect against hard copy prints with the overlays as well as low resolutions.  An image on a website can look pretty good for display purposes, but too low of a resolution to get a tolerable print.

Photographers don't have the technological hurdles that music (for instance) has...

[PFactorDave]

Now you know why I "bolded" it. No matter how many warning you put on, and whether I willfully copy one of your images, it most likely would not be willful copyright infringement, unless you could convince us that low resolution watermarked web image is valued over $1000.

Well the low resolution and watermark are tools that we use simply because it is so hard to enforce our rights. 

As for value, you would be amazed at what tabloids pay the papparazzi guys for celebrity images.  Literally tens of thousands of dollars if it is a juicy shot of somebody who is famous (or infamous) enough at the time.

A likely scenario would be a gossip blog who copies a papparazzi image from a site that paid the photographer for the image, then uses it on their own website.  The low resolution isn't an issue, and there often is no watermark or a small copyright mark in a corner.  The willful act would be intentionally cropping the copyright mark out of the image, or photoshopping it away.

[Delirium]

Frankly, I don't see a difference between piracy and theft. Let me put in this in simple terms, imagine if someone was able to recreate Aces High by copying the AH software and park the game off shore. In addition, they charged $5 a month instead of $15 and gave current Hitechcreations customers a month free for switching to their service.

If you wouldn't consider that stealing, you need to examine your life.

[Motherland]

Well the low resolution and watermark are tools that we use simply because it is so hard to enforce our rights. 

As for value, you would be amazed at what tabloids pay the papparazzi guys for celebrity images.  Literally tens of thousands of dollars if it is a juicy shot of somebody who is famous (or infamous) enough at the time.

A likely scenario would be a gossip blog who copies a papparazzi image from a site that paid the photographer for the image, then uses it on their own website.  The low resolution isn't an issue, and there often is no watermark or a small copyright mark in a corner.  The willful act would be intentionally cropping the copyright mark out of the image, or photoshopping it away.

That is, however, using copyrighted material to add value to your product, and getting money for it, rather than just pirating for personal use.

[2bighorn]

My understanding is that using URL tags to use one of my images on another website is actually in fact infringing upon my copyright.  But linking to my website is not.  So, using that image you used in the way that you used it, (if not a Public Domain) would apparently be infringing upon the rights of the person who created it.

How so? No copies were made. It might not be ethical, but if you follow the letter of the law, it's not copyright infringement.

If someone in Iran copies my images, I think I do suffer monetary damages.  Seeing as how my business is selling those images.  That person is using my images without paying for them like a regular customer.  Where that person is located is moot.  Of course, getting a legal remedy for those losses is unlikely because copyright law varies considerably from nation to nation.  I do believe I could file suit in a US Court under US Copyright law but it is unlikely that the case would succeed for obvious reasons.

You don't suffer any monetary damages. U.S. persons may not engage in trade or financial transaction with Iran unless authorized by OFAC or expressly exempted by statute. I doubt your images would be exempted from sanctions.

Do you believe that I have no rights to the images that I capture, simply because I do business on the internet?

You have rights as defined by copyright laws. I'm just pointing that often lawmakers (and majority of copyright holders) have no knowledge of how delivery technologies work, hence we get blanket measures to protect RIAA and MPAA and everyone else becomes a victim in the process.
DMCA already gives them plenty of tools. No need for SOPA and PIPA.

[2bighorn]

Photographers don't have the technological hurdles that music (for instance) has...

There are no technological hurdles. Music industry has plenty of tools to protect and deliver their product.  They just got too greedy and too restrictive. They should adjust just like most everyone else. No need to protect them above the current law.

[2bighorn]

Frankly, I don't see a difference between piracy and theft.

It's like saying armed robbery is the same as murder. They are both wrong, one can lead to another, but they are not the same.

[Ack-Ack]

No need for SOPA and PIPA.

Agreed. Video game piracy is an issue that effects me directly because I work in the gaming industry and our games are favorites of pirates.  While I think those that pirate games/music/movies are nothing more than thieves, SOPA and PIPA are not the ways to go about combating it.  You don't cut off your arm to take out the splinter in your hand.

ack-ack

[mthrockmor]

Here we go:

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/

It would seem the current laws in place allow for this to be handled. It goes through the normal means, allows for due process, etc. Ironic, while some are pushing for complete overreach of the internet we have something like. There must be more to the whole story and this from Time may not be disposative, but certainly lends to the argument that we do not need a new law.

Boo

[PFactorDave]

Here we go:

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/

It would seem the current laws in place allow for this to be handled. It goes through the normal means, allows for due process, etc. Ironic, while some are pushing for complete overreach of the internet we have something like. There must be more to the whole story and this from Time may not be disposative, but certainly lends to the argument that we do not need a new law.

Boo

Most of the time we don't need a new law.  Then again Time tends to be biased on a lot of issues.

[Dichotomy]

Do you believe that I have no rights to the images that I capture, simply because I do business on the internet?

I believe you have all the rights in the world to that for the record and I did some research into copyright law today because another photog rubbed my nose in my ignorance of it or, shall I say, the changes in it since I had to deal with copyright.  *edit didn't read far enough down... good to know you're low res and watermarking Dave.

Here's a way I 'think' SOPA and PIPA could even potentially harm the AH boards.  We've all seen pages scanned from books posted here.  The way I understand it if the books creator or copyright owner was made aware of this the site could POTENTIALLY be blacklisted.  That's the kind of stuff that bugs me about the potential breadth and scope of government interference with the internet.  

[PFactorDave]

I believe you have all the rights in the world to that for the record and I did some research into copyright law today because another photog rubbed my nose in my ignorance of it or, shall I say, the changes in it since I had to deal with copyright.  *edit didn't read far enough down... good to know you're low res and watermarking Dave.

Here's a way I 'think' SOPA and PIPA could even potentially harm the AH boards.  We've all seen pages scanned from books posted here.  The way I understand it if the books creator or copyright owner was made aware of this the site could POTENTIALLY be blacklisted.  That's the kind of stuff that bugs me about the potential breadth and scope of government interference with the internet.  

Ya, I do everything I can to make the images on my website as useless as possible to the guys who think that it's ok to take them and use them as long as it is only for their personal use.  That concept is pure BS, in my opinion.

Honestly, SOPA/PIPA could potentially harm the AH Boards.  There is all kinds of material posted up here that certainly is an infringement on a copyright somewhere.  I don't feel that it is the government's place to "blacklist" and then block a site without some form of due process.

But that said, the copyrights still exists and there is a great deal of intellectual property getting used around here without permission.  That bothers me too, because I live on the other side of that story most of the time.

I don't know what the answer.