Copyrighted Fish Images..

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Chaitika;1998743;1998743 said:
If it was any other type of non-internet business, the feedback would be quite different. You simply do not use someone else's image to sell something, otherwise expect a cease and desist order and a lawsuit. The fact it's on the internet does not change that fact. The internet is not so anonymous these days.
Click to expand...
To bring a lawsuit to someone over a couple stolen pictures, you would have to prove their value is worth a fairly large sum. The costs alone of legal fees, would make a judge laugh in your face if you tried suing someone over something as trivial as a picture.
 
Anyone who wants to protect their images must to add a distracting watermark or else you become fair game for piracy. I occasionally google my name and find my stuff posted all over the world. I love it! Best find was when I saw some art dealer in Russia selling prints of my paintings. I don't mind at all. Just makes me more bloody famous and increases the value of my work.
 
dominicolas;1998490; said:
Also, my main problem with this whole thread is that you made the guy selling the fish out to be a horrible criminal, when he really just didn't know he had done anything wrong or made anyone mad. I just think it's wrong to treat a person that way, no matter how important you think your pictures are. The fact is, you intentionally soiled this mans name, behind his back, and in a place where he can not stand up for himself. And as a person who is not pretentious enough to tell people he is a proffessor just to gain sway amongst his audience (dmed), i think that being another man's judge and jury is just a weasly thing to do.
Click to expand...

Please - my full-time job is much more impressive. I brought it up because I read a lot of papers submitted by students that are plagarized, and they really think that if it came off the internet it is not the same as stealing it out of a book. That's not true. I have no doubt that you really believe what you are saying. So, if I park my car on the street, I guess you think you can take it because it's in a public place?

This is not a defensible action. What the seller did is dishonest and illegal, and he apparently admits that he did it (but has not removed the pictures yet). The other pictures in his online "store" are cropped so that the watermarks are removed. He is using someone else's pictures to make a profit. You are defending him because he is apparently just some schmuck selling fish on the internet. Let's look at it another way:

Suppose you took your family on a vacation to Disneyland, and when you got back you posted a picture of your vacation in the Photo Lounge. Then a few months later, you're watching TV and see your picture on a Disney commercial that they are using to sell their product. You know they make millions a day. When you contact them, they say that they got tired of paying actors and professional photographers to take pictures for their advertising, so they just troll the internet and pick up pictures that they like of families at Disneyland -- it's easier, it's faster, and it's free. Would you feel the same way? Because it IS the same thing.
 
I bet dominicolas is the ebay seller, mudfrog did think he was part of MFK and Dom seems very defensive...

If you are going to save a pic off the internet because you like it sure go for it, you aren't harming anyone. But if you are going to use the pic to try and sell something then atleast ask to use it, but really you should be able to post pics of the exact fish you are selling other wise I my self will just click next...
 
dominicolas;1998697; said:
It's not like swat is going to bust down your doors, but you did break the law. A little more seriously than the ebay guy I might add because instead of infringing upon one person's copywrite, you have stolen from the American Public. That means you stole from most of the people on this forum. I think you owe us an apology,
Click to expand...


Besides being extraordinarily nasty, this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.

Even if you made the full $500 for your picture, you are absolutely entitled to offset any expenses involved in conducting that business. Just off the top of my head, that would include the livestock itself and reasonable care expenses, your internet service (since that is your method of distribution), and any photography equipment you purchased in that year and used to take or finish the photo, which might include the camera itself, lenses, speedlights, tripod, storage media, and editing software. You probably easily exceeded the amount of taxes you would have paid on this amount.

Getting paid for taking pictures is actually a great way to support the habit -- as long as you manage to sell some, you can write off some of your equipment purchases!
 
I agree and I'm done with that guy, he's just trying to be a jerk. Too bad the forum doesn't have an ignore button so I don't have to read his posts anymore..

No, I made no wear close to $500.. didn't even make $50.. I was told what they were paying for certain pictures and I just happen to have those pictures. I know my pictures aren't the greatest but from time to time I do get decent pics of fish that are not commonly photographed and thats what happened in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom