Pics--perfect waves. Simon F.

[Mike Fernandez]

Hello folks.
I was asked to write guidelines about copyright.
I'll try to be concise, and leave the heavy reading (with sources) to those individuals that are more interested. I'll keep to mentioning photos, however copyright includes works created by; musicians, writers, artists, researchers, scientists, etc.

Common courtesy: If a person feels so inclined to want to share someone else's photo, they should get permission. I bet the photographer would say yes to using a photo, and it would also give the photographer a chance to make a copy with their name on it so editors who might see it, know who shot it. Maybe an editor would want to purchase it.
What that Steakum guy did with Steen's photos was just wrong. He pinched them without permission, didn't name Steen in the title, and it even took him a few posts before he finally credited Steen. I had the feeling he was trying to get the glory for himself.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Surfer, they have purchased some of my photos, but they are a multimillion dollar corporation, and anyone with Steen's talent should be making some money with his images. For someone to steal them, and post them on any corporate website, which helps the corporation, and not the photographer, is just wrong, and it cheapens the value of a good photographer. I mean if every good photographer was giving their photos away, why would the magazine hire photographers like Aaron Chang, or others to shoot stuff?
I don't think Surfer is liable for anything that was done, and they would probably remove the photos if asked.
We are blessed to have Steens work, along with Slats, Waka, and all the others who post up here at KSUSA for the love of the sport, and the camaraderie in our little world. I hope to do the same in the future.
There is nothing wrong with a photographer giving his stuff away trying to get his name out there, or for anyone to do whatever they want with their own work, but the creator/photographer should be the only one making that decision.


Copyright is: The legal ownership, and right to distribute a persons own work. Copyright gives the content creator/owner, photographer, a chance to profit from their own work.
Profit creates an incentive for a person to create something, and distribute their work.
An image does not have to be marked as copyrighted anymore, and it doesn't need to be registered at the U.S. Copyright Office for it to be copyrighted. The owner of the stolen image is entitled to actual damages, and all profits made on their work.
If an image is actually registered at the U.S. Copyright Office, the owner of the image is entitled to not only actual damages, profits, and attorney fees, but also statutory damages. The latter is a bigger penalty.
Copyright lasts the life of the creator, plus 70 years in the USA. Also generally 95 years after publication.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html


Fair use is: The use of images for non profit websites, libraries, scholars, educators, and students to increase subject knowledge, and allow usage of images in term papers, presentations, and closed computer networks at schools. Fair use is not covered in reproducing, and publishing images in publications, including scholarly publications in print or digital form.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectua ... guid.htm#3


Public domain is: Any images that are not protected by copyright. Images in the public domain are generally old works made before 1923. Also works created before 1964, and the copyright was not renewed.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... /chapter8/


Content provider vs. content creator: A content provider is one who is distributing content on a website, movie, book, etc.
A content creator in this case would be the photographer who creates an original work. (Lets stick to "original," here. You cannot take a photo of a public domain piece of art, or photo, and then copyright your image.)
The general business model of websites is, content is sold by creators to the providers, and the providers charge the advertisers on the website in order to make a profit. The better the images from the creator are, the more the provider wants them, and the more a creator can sell them for.
Generally the number of clicks, hits, or members a website has, is what is used to determine advertisement rates.
So in the ideal world, if a website has great photos, the creator/photographer is getting paid to shoot, and the provider is making money from advertisers who are paying to place their ads on the website because they know thousands of people are looking at the great content.

[JohnS]

So, when guys scan in the old pictures of kneeboarders from Surfer Magazine, Tracks, etc. and post them here. Is that copyright infringement

I love looking at those old shots

[Moderator]

So, when guys scan in the old pictures of kneeboarders from Surfer Magazine, Tracks, etc. and post them here. Is that copyright infringement

Technically, yes it is. We all love them it's true, but it's important to give photo credit (My recollection is that the older mags would put the photo credit as an inset to the photograph).

Another common thing we've seen here recently is a online newspaper article posted in it's entirety. That's also a copyright violation. The appropriate use is to paraphrase the article (you can post a snippet) and then provide a link to the original piece - it gives credit to the author and provides a page view to the provider who paid for the content.

There's no way to prevent these things from happening - even with a watermark and any other precautions. It happens everywhere, and there's not much to be done about it, except to educate people.

The idea here is to get everyone at KSUSA thinking about these issues, and educate our users about proper use of copyrighted work. There's no plan to go back and scrub the site.

[JohnS]

Thanks Bob,
I agree that education is key. I am in no way defending folks who don't give credit & $$$ where credit is due. I create software for a living, and am well aware of what copyright infringement has done to the software industry. Glad you guys aren't going to scrub anything. Thanks,
--John

[eqKneelo]

I'd love to see Steen and Slats and WAKA watermark their work... and if they post the photos on KSUSA, maybe watermark the sites address too, to get traffic back here once the photos get inevitably lifted. (If they want to)

Also, I'd also love to see them each get their own PORTFOLIO section here on KSUSA.

It's great that everyone can post their vacation shots and grainy photos their girlfriends took... but what these guys are doing should separated and elevated.

[Steeno]

great work mike and the moderator, maybe I am little naive with this stuff aswell.

I keep forgeting that there is more out there than our little world.

I think Ed has some great ideas, it would be great to just flick through slats portfolio of images on here from the main album's page, WAKA's also, and I would be stoked to have my own album that was easy for all to see.. These albums would need to be accessable with all the main albums and for all the public to see. I have noticed sometimes, good surf collides all over the world and some great pics dissapear into the depths of the general album, never to be found again.

And when we upload to KSUSA to have an instant watermark added, labeling copyright and the www.ksusa.org web address could steer trafic back to this site and us photographers if they do get lifted.

[SFKneelo]

Thanks Bob,
I agree that education is key. I am in no way defending folks who don't give credit & $$$ where credit is due. I create software for a living, and am well aware of what copyright infringement has done to the software industry. Glad you guys aren't going to scrub anything. Thanks,
--John

Not Bob

Great work and great suggestions all around!

In an attempt to bring some value, here's some pix from yesterday posted on a local blog:

http://stokereport.com/rant/ocean-beach ... 7-2010-8am

Don's in town getting some slightly smaller version of this now. Hope to get some before the rain.

[JohnS]

Oops! Sorry Bob

And.... Go Giants

Looks like Paul Wuslich's Mohawk is paying off

[C J Gagner]

GET A ROPE!

[ScottMac]

I'm gonna say this once

I posted those pics.

It was a private post, no commercial value whatsoever.

The title on the post was "Stocked"

Look that up on the ERBB if you're clueless.

It gave a positive insight to kneeboarding, to a huge audience
beyond KSUSA. Nobody responded in a negativr fashion.

All I see on this site is bitching and whining.

People on The ERBB were stoked to see those photos.

WTF????

Nobody is doing anything with them, Your're all safe and sound
as a group.

All it did was give you all some cred and you flip you fvckin lids.

No wonder ther KSUSA community gets smaller and smaller every day.

[Moderator]

Scott - rationalizing your actions and insulting us doesn't change anything. We can read, and it's clear your Surfer Mag post was meant to be a positive deal. That doesn't make it okay. If you had given the boys credit (originally or after we contacted you) this never would have been an issue.

[Mike Fernandez]

Scott, nobody says you have to make money to get into trouble, and nobody says anyone here is going to go after you, but you might pinch the wrong item someday from the wrong person. Just putting out some advice here, or ignore it at your peril like this woman.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527284,00.html
The topics I wrote about are not debatable.
I think we are trying to enlighten people here, because if it's being done by our members here, it's probably being done by our members in other places, but we have chosen to educate ourselves.
The wild frontier that was the internet is slowly being reeled back in, and if your not paying attention, or choose to disregard, then you could end up like the woman in the above link, or you could fall victim to newspapers and others who are hiring law firms to go after story thieves like this example. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11448
Most of what I am saying here, I already said on the other post.

[Smokin Rock]

i'm curious Mike. you have a pic of Paris Hilton, EQ has a pic of Robert Shaw and i at one point had a pic of Bob Denver as my (our) avatars..... all without permission or credit given to either the photog or the celebrity. is'nt this kind of the same thing? where is the line drawn?

[Mike Fernandez]

Good question Mike. I'm covered. There is such a thing as "royalty free" which for some reason, are free to use, and there is no credit on the photo to name. You can buy CD's that have thousands of royalty free images on them. I'm thinking it's a business idea some genius came up with like paying photogs a huge one time fee for unlimited usage of a photo, then compile a CD with a bunch of images that maybe cost $50k to make, and sell the CD by the hundreds of thousands.
All kinds of business ideas out there that work, like selling printers for dirt cheap, but charging $60. for the ink.

[Smokin Rock]

the internet world has really changed things