Illegal photograph stealing?

Question

Is it true that if you take a photograph and put it up on a website without permission that it is illegal?

If so.....


Is there any way that someone could enforce this? What are the consequences?

Answer 1

No,
If YOU take a photograph and post it on YOUR website then it is legal.
If JOE takes a photograph and YOU post it on YOUR website, without JOE'S permission then that is illegal, you won’t go to jail for it, but you can be sued for doing it.

The crime is called plagiarism, and is one where you claim to have done something when instead someone else did the work. This is why it is illegal to copy out of the Encyclopedia and claim it is your report. You cannot copy something from another person’s website and post it on your site, if you claim it is yours. The law was originally to prevent people from copying other people’s material from their books and claiming that it was yours. The law has been expanded to cover any type of similar work, including photographs.

If you got Joe’s permission AND if you put up a notice, “Joe took this picture,” or something similar then it IS legal to post Joe’s photograph on your website.

The problem comes in with people who make money by writing or taking pictures. These people COPYRIGHT their work. The copyright gives them a protection so that no one else can use the material they create. If you want to use that work then you have to contact the person that owns the copyright and ask their permission. If your document or website is designed to make a profit then you will have to pay for that copyright use. If the copyright owner fears that your document or website will compete with their products then they will refuse to sell you the work, and if you do use it then they will sue you and get a court order to force you to take it down. If you made a profit off of any of their work then they can sue you for that as well.

If a professional photographer takes pictures for a magazine then he sells those pictures, and the copyright to publish, them to the magazine. If the magazine buys all the North American Rights then the photographer himself can’t even publish that photograph somewhere else in Canada or the US, but he could sell that photo to a British Magazine for publication. If the magazine bought the World Wide Rights to publish that photograph then the photographer cannot use that photo without the permission of the magazine anywhere in the world. When the photographer gives up his copyright to the pictures then he is paid for doing that. So if you are posting a picture made by a professional, without the rights to post it, you are competing with the photographer who took the picture or the magazine that bought the picture, and you will be sued.

If a photographer takes lots of pictures then he can do what he wants to with them. He can sell some of them and keep others. Some photographers are asked by fan websites if they can get exclusive use of their pictures. If the photographer agrees then he (or she) will send some pictures that he has not sold to this website so they can post them. The fan website adds text giving the credit for the photo to the photographer (thus avoid plagiarism), and posts it on their website. They then tell their fans to not remove the text from the photo, and they can only use that photo for their own collection only; they cannot share it, sell it, or post it on their own website without the permission of the photographer.

When the photographer goes onto a photo shoot then he takes the pictures, develops them and shows them to the magazine. Before that he bought the camera, the lights, the film, and paid any other expenses out of his own pocket. The magazine may decide that none of them are any good and so not buy them, or they can buy several of them. The photographer is free to do whatever he wants with the rest of the pictures. To prevent him from selling these photos to other companies the magazine may buy all of his photos for that set (this would be written into the sales contract). This kind of photographer is an independent photographer running his own business, not and employee of the magazine; so he owns the copyright on the photos. If the magazine uses a staff photographer then the photographer is an employee. The magazine pays for his film, the costs to develop and print the photograph and the scenery, lights or any other required material. Because the magazine is paying the staff photographer a salary then the magazine owns the copyright to all of his photographs.

When a photograph is published in a magazine then many fan sites will scan it in and post it on their website. Technically this is illegal, since they are competing with the magazine, however few magazines will try and sue. If the photos include their logos and a note saying that they came from their magazine, AND if the photos are not being sold then the magazine will permit the fan sites to continue. If someone took scans from a magazine and then tried to post them on their website AND make people pay to see them or download them then the magazine would be more likely to sue. In the first example the fan site is giving free advertisement to the magazine. A lot of the fans are likely to go buy that issue just so they can get their own copy. If the website is selling the photos then they are trying to make money and competing directly with the magazine over the same material, material that is owned by the magazine, so they will probably sue the people doing that.

You can post photos on your website, but if people have to pay to see your website then you will have to pay the owner of those photos for the privilege of posting their work, or otherwise get their permission. If you post photos on your website and it is a nonprofit website, with no money being paid to see the photos then the owner of the pictures can still sue you. If you ASK for their permission AND make sure that a note on the photo says, “These photos are owned by this person” then they are more likely to allow you to post them and not sue.

The general rule is this: If you profit from the photo, then you have to pay for the photo. If you don’t profit from the photo then you might be able to post it. In each case you have to ask permission from the owner of the photo to post it before you do it. Also you have to include a note (usually on the photo itself) naming the person that took the photo and the owner of the photo, making it clear that you did not take that photo.

If you take the photo yourself or if a friend does then, with the permission from the owner of the photo, you can post it. Usually, such pictures are from public sites, or public events. If you tried to post photos from a museum then that museum owns the copyright to the exhibit and may not want you to post those photos, so they can sue you.

Copyrights have a limited lifespan and the copyright expires several years after their death, however congress changed the copyright laws and anything that was produced and copyrighted after January 1, 1978 has a lifespan between 70-120 years.

The Gap has a string of commercials running (black pants are back with the AC/DC song “Back in Black” playing) that uses images of an old movie star (Audrey Hepburn ) from an old film. The actress died in 1993 and the film was made before 1978 when the copyrights had a shorter lifespan. It is legal to use these images because the copyright has expired, the Gap doesn’t have to pay anyone for the privilege of using their work. However, the song was written in 1980 and AC/DC still holds the copyright for it, along with their record company that produced and sold the song. The Gap has to pay them for the right to use that song, since The Gap is selling black pants and wants to make a profit.

If you illegally use copyrighted work then that is called Copyright Infringement. Copyright Infringement and Plagiarism are both cases that are settled in civil court where one party sues another for damages caused by the act, court costs, and anything else the lawyers can tack on.

Enforcement is simple. If anyone sees you using copyrighted material then they can report you to the owner of the copyright. Alll the copyright owner needs to do is make a page copy of your website and they have enough proof to win their law suit.

Answer 2

The person who takes a photo immediately owns the right to that photo, whether it is to print or post on a website. The photographer can then sell the copyright to a magazine or a website, but the copyright is still owned. At no time can you expect that any photo you find on the net to be free to use, UNLESS it is expressly notated to be "Public Domain" or "Royalty Free" or even "Free for web use."

Overall, placing someone else's work on your website is a violation of Copyright law, which has been extended to include electronic copies.

karma is a bit off above. You can take a photo, in a public place of people you do not know and use it yourself. This falls under the Copyright laws as Public Venue, where you do not need a signed permission to use a photo. The exception would be if you took a photo of a particular person expressly for that reason. (You CAN take a photo at a concert, and the star won't get up set, and the people in teh crowd can't sue you for using their likeness just becuase they were at a public event. If you walk up to a person and ask to take their photo and expect to make money on that photo, you had better get a model release signed at the time the photo was taken.)

Answer 3

Whoa, that's creepy. While I don't know if it's illegal, you can still try calling the police and telling them he's got some pictures of your children and he is refusing to give them back. Are your children fully clothed in the pictures? And I don't think you need proof that the pics were stolen out of your house - they're your kids.

Answer 4

The worst they could do to you is serve you with a cease and dissist, and you would have to take it off the website. If you didn't then they could maybe do something more to you.

Answer 5

I think if you took the photo, you own it therefore there is no copyright