is saving copyrighted photos from a website considered stealing?

[civad]

Ask permission if you want to use the photos elsewhere.

Absolutely. A few years ago my roommate wanted to put up a picture from a museum on his personal homepage. He asked me if he could do so. I suggested that he write to the museum, and ask for permission. They let him put up the picture, albeit with a few terms and conditions.

( they weren't unreasonable wither: e.g. he should mention where he got the picture from, etc....)

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: jntdesign
keep in mind it's not ME who wants to download and 'use' the photos
i'm the web guy who doesn't want to litter the website with an annoying right click disabling javascript

I got a better question. How are you going to distribute the content w/o me getting it? As mentioned you are SERVING that image so people can see it. If I can see it, I can record it.

Not to mention the obvious things like cache, but what about the printscreen button?

If you want to protect the image, don't place it on a public network. WTF? Look but don't see?!? By the very nature of computers, if you are sending the data, I can capture it.

 

[fredtam]

No it isn't illegal imo. Besides people that use real browsers will still be right clicking and saving.

 

[jyates]

I would think that if the images aren't copyrighted then there's no problem.
But if they are copyrighted then there is a problem.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: jyates
I would think that if the images aren't copyrighted then there's no problem.
But if they are copyrighted then there is a problem.

The images are copyrighted by virtue of their existence.

 

[jyates]

Hmm learning something new....so you say if I put a picture of my lovely face
on the internet it is copyrighted material?

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: jyates
Hmm learning something new....so you say if I put a picture of my lovely face
on the internet it is copyrighted material?

Most definitely. Read some of the links posted in this very thread. Lack of copyright notice does not imply that something is public domain. Copyright begins the moment a work is created.

 

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: jyates
Hmm learning something new....so you say if I put a picture of my lovely face
on the internet it is copyrighted material?

Most definitely. Read some of the links posted in this very thread. Lack of copyright notice does not imply that something is public domain. Copyright begins the moment a work is created.

yup

and the pictures on our site have a copyright watermark when they load (although the watermark can be easily rid by simply modifying the URL)

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: jyates
Hmm learning something new....so you say if I put a picture of my lovely face
on the internet it is copyrighted material?

Most definitely. Read some of the links posted in this very thread. Lack of copyright notice does not imply that something is public domain. Copyright begins the moment a work is created.

Is this really true?

Do we step into the bounds of "intellectual property?"

I, of course, am not a lawyer but it really does seem that the bounds of what can and cannot be copied are blurring.

Major sporting events? Can't be rebroadcast, only with express permission. But CAN be taped for personal use.

GAAA! Its all so confusing.

The advent of the VCR started all of this.

Gee, I'm at an art museum and take a picture of a piece. What can I do with it?

I'm splitting hairs here of course because everybody's copied a tape (you know...those things that have two spindles and a magnetic media that records music), a mp3. There's what is legal and what is "accepted". So please don't sick the evil powers on me (you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about....oh! I'm soooooo scared.)

 

[Spencer278]

Java script should die.

Has there been any case of your images being stolen. I don't think anyone but other media companies would want your images and because of how steep the fine is for copyright violation you could make a lot more money sueing over the images then you would lose in ad reveune.

 

[Fudssa]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Just saving photos from a website for personal use isn't considered stealing.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Java script should die.

Has there been any case of your images being stolen. I don't think anyone but other media companies would want your images and because of how steep the fine is for copyright violation you could make a lot more money sueing over the images then you would lose in ad reveune.

If a media company steals an image, then you sue. If an individual uses your picture on their personal website, a lawsuit would probably not be worth the effort. But, since they're probably linking directly to your server, you can have lots of fun (e.g. rename the real file on your server and point your pages to the new file, while uploading something else with the name of the original file - think along the lines of something that involves doing things with goats, or doing business in bathtubs).

 

[yukichigai]

Because of the nature of images on the internet there is no restriction on downloading the images. In fact the very act of viewing the images creates a copy of them on the local hard drive.

The Javascript route will only inconvenience a few people. If folks want the images they can get them, as has been mentioned. There is no way to stop the image from being downloaded into the cache unless you use a non-standard format, not to mention that certain browsers (like Mozilla/Firefox) can prevent Javascript from modifying or disabling right-click menus. An accurate metaphor for what the higher ups want you to do would be "installing a locking screen door on a submarine."

It's only a copyright violation if they market it as their own.

 

[JoeKing]

Its infringing on copyright if the person makes any money or gains from the material.

I'm sure your bosses will just argue "But we are just taking preventative measures to limit the possibilty of an infringement occuring"

Why don't you want to place the right click disabler script in? It'll cut down on the hot linking by bewbs and it will protect the original material of your newspaper to an extent. I mean I'm sure if the issue of copyright infringement ever came up, your paper could argue "The violator took steps beyond normal methods to gather the intellectual property from out website".

 

[db]

Bosses/legal departments are so paranoid that they will say "NO, you can't do it".
But unless you are deriving some gain from another's work, what is the damage or loss?
On what basis would they sue you?

edit: Ok, I just read the *entire* thread. If you publish a work by a holder who stipulates that they want precautions taken, then making an extraordinary effort to protect would be in order. Again, this would honor the holder's wishes, and hopefully prevent legal action.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I've never found a javescript that stops the application key