the greatest amazon desaster!

[DavidW]

Bleher, go back to Brazil, if you dare, and see what is waiting for you there in the court system. You haven;t dared since 2008 when you were in jail.
I offered a point by point rebuttal of your article but as usual all you can offer is ad-hominem attacks.
This is why anything you have to say cannot be taken seriously
As for the copyright photo...you are in plain and simple contravention of the copyright act, as you will find out soon as the attny's for AFP and Getty send PFK a charming letter. You arrogance in suggesting that you can , in effect, just help yourself to a published photo, is simply off-the-charts ignorant. You have been publishing for years yet you don't know this?
You are an embarrassment to the fish hobby, perhaps you should consider retirement, you are obsolete.

 

[Chaitika]

Just to get back to the usage of the photo, I dug up some info pertaining to the release information specific to this photo.

Link to the photo in question on Getty Image's website.

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/105962582/AFP


Scroll down three quarters of the way, and you will see in red text "Release information". Rhe clickable link next to that leads to this pdf file

http://www.gettyimages.ca/Corporate/ReleaseInfo/Not_Released_Popup.pdf

Where it states

This image/clip has no model or property release. Any commercial use requires additional clearance.

and

What is “commercial use” and what is an “editorial use”?
Generally speaking, “commercial use” means a message intended to help sell a product, raise money or to promote something. An example would be an advertising, promotional, marketing, advertorial or merchandising use. This is in contrast to an editorial use intended to report a newsworthy event or illustrate a matter of general interest, for which typically no release is required.


If the photo was being used by PFK in an editorial context, then they didn't need a release to use it.

Or am I misreading it?

 

[CLDarnell]

Interesting that this topic came back up today.

One of our Service Technicians got back from Ukraine just before Christmas, took some time off and finally came into the office this morning. He has to go to Puerto Rico for a few days soon, but after that, his next service trip is to Belem in Northern Brazil. We were talking and I mentioned the article that is the topic of this discussion and told him the details I could remember. He said he planned on taking a week off after finishing the job in Belem and he was going to tour down the Amazon as much as he could in 5 days. He then offered to take several photos and send them back to me

So sometime in the next month, we should get a pretty good collection of current, unbiased photos from the area.

Should be interesting!

 

[Zfishies]

Why does all of LBF threads turn into 10+ pages lol

 

[cichlid2006]

http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Heiko_Bleher_Arrested_for_Fish_Smuggling
After a quick read of this thread I decided to check Blehers criminal record and found the above link upon a whole 10 seconds of research. I am sure there would be more information if someone were to look deeper and had more time to surf for the information. In the discus article he is quite defiant about having a criminal past but that article proves otherwise so what else is he lying about. If he can steal and attempt to smuggle fish out of Brazil I am almost positive stealing research and a photograph would not stop him sleeping at night.

To Mr. Cichlid 2006, I wanted to congratulate him for having judged me. I guess from what you write, you are a judge and did give this judgement "That I am a criminal" in a court. Unfortunately I was not asked to appear for your judgment. And to my knowledge one can only be a criminal if he is condemned or sentenced. I have never ever in my entire live been judged, in no court (except maybe yours), and no sentence have passed on to me. I have no criminal record whatsoever. The case in Manaus, everything can be read about it on my website under "Special Events", is an existing accusation by the PF of Manaus, standing, and no hearing has taken place, no request of any judge for us (my wife and me) to come to court. It is an accusation without any base, as I never ever had any genetic material. (And I am sure that the judge knows this false accusation to well and therefore will never ask for a hearing and much less judging.
But Mr. Cichlid 2006, you have condemned me, please send me the court order and the judgement, so I can see it at least...

I never condemned you, the article I posted does and it states you did jail time, which I am sure means you have a criminal record which you hotly denied. I just brought information on to the table about your criminal past. I did not judge you but merely took a snapshot of your character from an article stating you do indeed have a criminal record and that you hotly deny having which is a lie by any definition.
That snpashot of your character led me onto my final sentance of my quote.

 

[cichlid2006]

Just to get back to the usage of the photo, I dug up some info pertaining to the release information specific to this photo.

Link to the photo in question on Getty Image's website.

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/105962582/AFP


Scroll down three quarters of the way, and you will see in red text "Release information". Rhe clickable link next to that leads to this pdf file

http://www.gettyimages.ca/Corporate/ReleaseInfo/Not_Released_Popup.pdf

Where it states

This image/clip has no model or property release. Any commercial use requires additional clearance.

and

What is “commercial use” and what is an “editorial use”?
Generally speaking, “commercial use” means a message intended to help sell a product, raise money or to promote something. An example would be an advertising, promotional, marketing, advertorial or merchandising use. This is in contrast to an editorial use intended to report a newsworthy event or illustrate a matter of general interest, for which typically no release is required.


If the photo was being used by PFK in an editorial context, then they didn't need a release to use it.

Or am I misreading it?

PFK do a magazine that you pay for and I would have thought that if this picture is on the front page then it is helping them to sell magazines, i.e. commercial use. However, I am not an expert in law so that is just my thoughts on it.

 

[DavidW]

What is “commercial use” and what is an “editorial use”?
Generally speaking, “commercial use” means a message intended to help sell a product, raise money or to promote something. An example would be an advertising, promotional, marketing, advertorial or merchandising use. This is in contrast to an editorial use intended to report a newsworthy event or illustrate a matter of general interest, for which typically no release is required.


If the photo was being used by PFK in an editorial context, then they didn't need a release to use it.

Or am I misreading it?

Any useage to make money is considered commercial. PFK is a commercial venture, and the photo was used by the author to sell an article ( commercial interest)
AFP/Getty is not my rep, even tho they are next door to my studio here in NYC, Sygma/Corbis rep some of my work, but they all live by the same rules, and all have large active and aggressive legal departments. Use by a magazine like PFK or like Bleher's would normally invoke a fee of around $100 per photo...normally WITH PERMISSION and most certainly with photo credit. Even if it is 'rights free" no-one else can claim copyright any more than you can copy the US Constititution and then claim copyright to that

 

[Miguel]

Allright guys, this thread has gone from the Amazon and its sorry state of affairs to legalese and copyright, a theme I doubt most MFKers are interested in.

Lets consider this case closed.