- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
> I'm not suggesting that a lab owner or worker should not be aware of the
> issue or somewhat concerned. I'm more or less suggesting (if I know what
> I'm
>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:47:24 -0600
>
>
>- Original Message -----
>From: &
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> Until the goverment would pay me for doing their law enforcement I
> wouldn't
> worry about it. It's a different matter for selling tobacco or alcohol to
> minors.
Ho
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
> As the photographer I customarialy remove EXIF's from material or I use
> film. ;-)
>
Save for web will strip the exif data, but if the file is large enough to
print,
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> >
>>Respectfully Tom, you are wrong. It is illegal to copy copywritten work
>>except in fairly limited circumstances, and there is nothing in copyright
>>law that puts
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tom C"
>Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
>
> > That's where I'm coming from exactly. Better not do any reprints at all
> > then. How can one know whether the written permission is authentic? Does
>
>Respectfully Tom, you are wrong. It is illegal to copy copywritten work
>except in fairly limited circumstances, and there is nothing in copyright
>law that puts any onus on the copyright owner to mark the work as copyright
>protected.
>The person who owns the equipment used is liable for the wo
Internal Revenue requirement paraphrase:
'If any portion of your income was obtained by illegal means such as
betting, illegal gambling, or other criminal activity, it still must be
claimed and the source of income must be listed'.
Tom C.
>
> >
> >> If the picture looks too good to be an amate
>From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>But once again I ask, who gave you law enforcement authority? You are just
>like those security guards that like to pretend they are cops.
Yep. Supposed responsibility with no authority.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pd
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> That's where I'm coming from exactly. Better not do any reprints at all
> then. How can one know whether the written permission is authentic? Does
> one
> call the pho
That's where I'm coming from exactly. Better not do any reprints at all
then. How can one know whether the written permission is authentic? Does one
call the photographer? What if *I* took the photos and want reprints? How
do I prove that I'm the photographer? Do I write myself a note?
Tom C
e-bay, made by U.S.
citizens, and all of them are liable to the FBI for $250,000 and x years in
prison?
Tom C.
>From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>Date: T
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> At which point I would hand them my business card and ask, "Am I supposed
> to produce crappy photos when I do them for myself?" And anyone with a
> computer can
- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>>
>> William Robb
> Nope. You're still missing the point.
>
>
No John, I'm not missing the point. I was a photofinisher for some 25 years,
I de
- Original Message -
From: "Sandy Harris"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> That ONLY covers circumventing technical protection measures.
..
> My point here is that that part of the DMCA says nothing at all
> about just printing a file the
OK, consider it ignored.
Cheers
Dave
On 7/13/07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just a test of my e-mail client and our company server regarding
> some settings I have changed. Please ignore this.
>
> Thank you,
> Antti-Pekka
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdm
This is just a test of my e-mail client and our company server regarding
some settings I have changed. Please ignore this.
Thank you,
Antti-Pekka
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of John Sessoms
> ...
> I'm *required by law*, and by my employer, to stop them from u
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> John Sessoms
> ...
> It's not that hard to recognize professional work. Especially if it's
> stamped with copyright notices on the back.
>
> And doubly especially if it's a regular customer who brings in
> under-exposed disposable
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> John Sessoms
> ...
> I'm *required by law*, and by my employer, to stop them from using our
> equipment to reproduce copyrighted material, *UNLESS*.
> the person attempting to print the photo has a signed copyright
release
> from th
From:
"Digital Image Studio"
> On 13/07/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unless I have the copyright holders expressed permission; a written
>> release; under the DMCA, I must not allow copyrighted material to be
>> reproduced on my equipment.
>
> That's all fair enough given the laws
On 13/07/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not presuming anything. I'm following my employer's policies
> regarding reproduction of copyrighted material. If it has anything on it
> indicating it's copyrighted, I've no choice in the matter; if common
> sense indicates it's subject t
From:
"William Robb"
> - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms"
> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>>
>> Unless I have the copyright holders expressed permission; a written
>> release; under the DMCA, I must not allow copyrighted
fphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Digital Image Studio"
> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
&g
From:
"William Robb"
> - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms"
> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>>
>> I ain't going to risk my freedom and my future financial security
>> because you're too lazy to do right by your c
- Original Message -
From: "Digital Image Studio"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
>> If the picture looks too good to be an amateur snapshot, then the lab
>> needs
>> proof of ownership.
>
> LOL, there's nothing like a r
On 7/13/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What has happened is some jerkwater organization has sent around a
> > threatening legal looking letter. ...
> That jerkwater organization would be your federal government.
> The DMCA pute the onus on the lab operator to ensure there is no v
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> No your are not. Since when is law enforcement your job?
>
> What has happened is some jerkwater organization has sent around a
> threatening legal looking letter. You might a
On 13/07/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the picture looks too good to be an amateur snapshot, then the lab needs
> proof of ownership.
LOL, there's nothing like a robust definition ;-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: "Digital Image Studio"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> That's all fair enough given the laws however how do you determine
> what images the customer owns copyright to? Obviously only images
> produced when the part
No your are not. Since when is law enforcement your job?
What has happened is some jerkwater organization has sent around a threatening
legal looking letter. You might as well say you can not sell some one a gallon
of paint without him providing proof he has permission to redecorate.
If someon
From:
graywolf
> Actually, retaining the rights in cases like that is a relic of the
> old days. Used to be that no one had much personal credit. House, car,
> and maybe a 90 day account at the Department store downtown. Newly
> weds usually did not have much money so they usually opted for the
- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
> Unless I have the copyright holders expressed permission; a written
> release; under the DMCA, I must not allow copyrighted material to be
> reproduced on my equipment.
On 13/07/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From:
> graywolf
> > Actually, retaining the rights in cases like that is a relic of the
> > old days. Used to be that no one had much personal credit. House, car,
> > and maybe a 90 day account at the Department store downtown. Newly
> > weds
- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
> I ain't going to risk my freedom and my future financial security
> because you're too lazy to do right by your customers.
On the other hand, one could say that y
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Sorenson"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>I suspect you're right about displays at your place of business,
> although in today's world it's not a bad idea to CYA. If you have the
> model release you ca
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Davis"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> Unless your only source of income is that of a declared Wedding
> Photographer. Re-do's would likely be retained as a further income
> possibility.
That used to be the cas
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>I can understand wanting to retain copyright in just about every situation
> except wedding and portrait photography.
It seems rather pointless when the failure rate is close to 50
Maybe photographers need to start stamping "Not property of Photographer" on
the back of their proofs .
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
John Sessoms wrote:
> From:
> "Tom C"
>> To te
From:
"Tom C"
> To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had
> gotten paid for my services, and I delivered the photos, negs, or
> digital image files to the newlyweds, I wouldn't care less what they
> did with them after that. It's their wedding, their photos, their life.
wedding and portrait photography.
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>> Date:
wedding and portrait photography.
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
> >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> >Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> &
if
> they could hang a photo of her in the studio and would we come in and
> sign a model release. So either I'm smoking crack or The Picture People
> like to cover their bases in order to avoid legal entanglements.
> Probable a little of both.
>
>>
>>>> Fr
Discuss Mail List
>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>>> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900
>>>
>>>
>>> When I was in that game, that is exactly what I did. I gave em an
&g
t; To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900
>>
>> On 7/13/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had
I can understand wanting to retain copyright in just about every situation
except wedding and portrait photography.
Tom C.
>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: DMCA T
On 7/13/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To tell you the truth, if I *WAS* a wedding photographer and I had gotten
> paid for my services, and I delivered the photos, negs, or digital image
> files to the newlyweds, I wouldn't care less what they did with them after
> that. It's their weddin
.
>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:57:48 -0600
>
>
>----- Original Message -
>From
- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>
> *IF* you are a wedding photographer and are giving your customers a CD
> so they can print their own photos, you need to include a written
> copyright release. If they co
From:
Scott Loveless
> The DMCA probably ranks right up there with the IRS, Homeland
> Security, and victimless crimes in sliminess. It was definitely
> written to benefit "them" and not "us". If you can use it to
> legitimately enforce copyright, go for it.
>
> Good luck with dealing with thi
Hi Mark. You've expressed the way I feel about it.
I'm not stupid enough to mess with people I don't trust. Since his
unconscionable actions were done with no provocation from me, who knows what
a guy like this would do if deliberately provoked? It's not worth finding
out.
Tom C.
>From: "
The DMCA probably ranks right up there with the IRS, Homeland Security,
and victimless crimes in sliminess. It was definitely written to
benefit "them" and not "us". If you can use it to legitimately enforce
copyright, go for it.
Good luck with dealing with this scumbag. Hopefully, it will b
Thanks Mark.
Tom C.
>From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "pdml"
>Subject: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:46:57 -0400
>
>If the offending content is on a website, one avenue you can pursue is to
>send a "DMCA Takedown"
52 matches
Mail list logo
