Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
A judge has found that two news organizations improperly used images that a photojournalist had posted to Twitter in one of the first big tests of intellectual property law involving social media.
Agence France-Presse and The Washington Post infringed on the copyrights of photographer Daniel Morel in using pictures he took in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake in January 2010, District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan ruled.
While Morel had requested what the court said would amount to "tens or hundreds of millions of dollars" in statutory damages based on awards for each subscriber that used the images, the judge said AFP and Getty would only be liable, at most, for a single statutory damage award per image infringed.
Should hopefully bring some sanity back into the awards that courts have been handing out.
By the time I spend $50 for a subscription somewhere and 4 hours looking for the perfect graphic, I've paid a graphic designer $40 to build exactly what I wanted the first time and it takes me about 5 minutes. Then I drop it into the site, look at it, it's not perfect, so I can go ask for a tweak.
From Webwork: Create your own images or hire a graphic designer that has been schooled not only in graphic design tools but also in copyright and trademark law and ethics.
From wheel:Yes, agree strongly with webwork. I am very specific with my requirements. I have emails requiring that graphics be created from scratch...
today's camera, including the smartphones - make it look like you knew what you were doing.
I don't have any pics on my site. If I did, I wouldn't use stock photos that every visitor has one look at and realizes it's a pic from a stock photo site. I think it brands your site as mickey mouse unless one is very very careful.Everyone has their own observations and opinions about stock photography and its use. Personally, I think most people are bombarded with images on the web, billboards, television ads, etc., and probably don't recognize the same models, scenes or images they may have seen previously.
And if you did want a stock photo, I'd still pay a local, probably amateur,photographer to do it.That can be a lofty goal for some businesses. When I write an article about the top ten beach destinations for 2013, I would be hard pressed to find a photographer who lives near the coast, heads to a local beach, and snaps a shot of a family building sand castles. Why not just pay Getty or some other stock photo site $15 for an image? All the big advertising companies do it, and I don't think they're worried about being sued. And why should I if I have legally purchased an image, and have records of that purchase?
Go have a look at your site from 5 years ago. Can you prove right now that you have rights to every image on that version of your site?As far as royalty-free and rights-managed photography is concerned, yes. I have purchased thousands of watermark-free, royalty-free and/or rights-managed photos over the years, and licensed (purchased) royalty-free photos can be used in a variety of ways, and for as long as you like. Of course, there are other rules and procedures, but using those images for web or print media is certainly valid.
Hardly. I have $10K worth of pro lenses and flashes that can do things that smart phone online dreams of doing. Bottom line it's the photographers eye that makes a great image, not the camera or the smart phone. If you're good, any camera will work.