Ethics of copyrighting

[PenMan]

Before I got in the reefs I was very active ih photography. You own the copyright on photos. It does not have to be registered. He could be in big trouble at least professionally. This is from about.com

All photographs you take now are automatically copyright, and unless you are employed with a contract including photography among your duties, you own the copyright. If you are employed as a photographer, your employer will own the copyright. Freelances own the copyright on work whether it is commissioned or not. Copyrights can only be assigned to someone else in writing. If you have been photographing for a very long time, different laws may apply to your earlier work.

In some countries it is still necessary to include a copyright endorsement, marking the work 'indelibly' with the copyright symbol ?, the maker's name and the date of creation. Given that the Internet is an international medium it is always wise to include this information on any page containing your pictures. Some photographers like to include this information actually within the image area, so that if the image is copied this will also be copied. Of course such information can easily be retouched out by the unscrupulous.

In the USA there are legal advantages in registering your copyright and this can be done for batches of images at a time. Registration of your images enables you to claim damages in US courts for breach of copyright that exceed the actual financial loss. So far as I am aware there is no similar advantage in other countries, and registration in the USA will not alter your position in foreign courts.

 

[maurod]

As someone who is about to make a living from photography, I find I am far less tolerant of this type of forgiveness. When I spend my time, money and creativity to produce and image, I want to be compensated with money or recognition at a minimum, depending on the circumstances....

An image or a paper is your intelectual property and/or art. No one has a right to take ownership of it, without prior release from the owner. With photography, the image can be valuable enough to have rights sold for only a single publishing in a magazine with no reprint rights allowed whatsoever.

No amount of "good" that this person has done should counteract theft, which is what this unauthorized use of intellectual property is. If he "stole" this image, who is to say any of "his" "work" is really his?

Greg could easily sue the person who falsely copyrighted his photograph, but all Greg wants is recognition of the mistake and for the mistake to be corrected in the published article.

You can find more discussions of this topic over at photo.net forums http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=23&category=Legal+(incl.+Copyright)

M.

 

[SteveDola]

Greg-
The theft of intellectual property is becoming rampant in today's society thanks mostly to the internet and the ability to find practically any information fairly quickly. It?s truly ashamed to have a so called expert commit this crime when he depends upon his ideas and intellectual property for a living and should respect your rights. It would be nice if the person would simply acknowledge your property and give the photos their just recognition. The fact that this person was arrogant enough to claim his copyright on them is appalling. He/She's indignity should be penalized with the very least an apology and proper recognition given to you. The first thought that came to my mind was "how many other ideas/pieces of property have this person claimed as their own?" Many times the first offense is simply the first time they were caught. To correct this situation, I think the offender should make public acknowledgement of his ?oversight? and replace his copyright with yours. If he/she doesn?t believe their action was unethical and refuses to admit fault then expose the situation. Stand up for your rights because no one else will.
Best of Luck,
Steve

 

[Matt L.]

Scientific Malpractice

Greg,

You are 100% in the right here.

This is an egregious, deliberate, and inexcusible transgression on their part. I started writing a response 30min ago, but decided it would be best for me to calm down before continuing on.

In short, after your repeated efforts to contact the person and request an apology, their silence can only be construed as a sign that their actions were not accidental (read: deliberate) and that they feel above the law.

Both mindsets are in need of elimination from a place of prominence on RC. Moe is right, in that being just a fraction as wrong as this individual would be grounds for expulsion from a University. Even a negligent use of someone's copyrighted material as your own is sufficient to end a career.

As such, I feel that you should go forward with the evidence, if not for you, for the next victim, for surely such people act and act again. While you are known in the reefkeeping community, what if myself or someone else on the BRS made a contribution, and this individual passed it off as their own work? No one would believe me over this individual, I bet.

I don't know who posted the picture, and whether it was an "expert" or someone playing "expert". Regardless, my chief criticism of the RC "experts" revolves around their playing scientist like it was a dress up game.
I can try to draw connections between this transgression, and other scientific malpractices of the past on RC and associated "journals", namely a salt study experiment where inappropriate controls were used, there was no peer review, and there was questiosn regarding a connection to a salt manufacturer (please note I'm not connecting this indivudual to past RC instances).

Many of us rely on the words of these "experts" as if they were gospel. If this individual is drawing a conclusion (about a product or technique), can it be trusted? They are already guilty of theft and fraud. Can their recommendations be trusted by others? The answer is no, and while I know it is the harder road, all of us on BRS give you our support. This individual, if they are in a place of prominence or have some voice on RC must be removed and silenced,

Matt

 

[~Flighty~]

Lets go kick his @$$.

 

[Brian]

I heard he tried to pass off Moe's avatar as his own too...

 

[nunofs]

Greg, as someone who's had photos and other content stolen online, I totally sympathize with you here... stealing your image was bad enough (and reason enough for a copyright infrigement suit), but deliberately putting his own copyright notice over your image was just unnaceptable.

If this was a case of someone putting your photo up casually to illustrate a point, or someone doing it out of cluelessness, despite still being copyright infrigement, I wouldn't worry (as I haven't when it was my images)... but this guy is making money, and getting recognition, from using your image... I'm not "lawsuit-trigger-happy" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd consider suing him -- especially after it's clear he doesn't intend to offer an apology or make things right.

And that's in addition to exposing the matter publicly on RC, which I think you should do... doesn't matter if he's an "expert" or not... actually, him being an "expert" only makes it more important to expose this situation.

Nuno

 

[PenMan]

The bottom of the page from your article its say that the picture and article are copyrighted. I think that this guy is in trouble, and his lack of response indicates that he realizes it! It might be worth it to have them contact the author also.

 

[Moe_K]

I heard he tried to pass off Moe's avatar as his own too...

Heheh I think I'll be talking to a lawyer!
Howard, where are you?

 

[Greg Hiller]

Wow....255 views and 29 posts in 3 hours...I really touched a nerve in you guys. I don't know, or at least don't think the photo has been used to make any $, but I suppose it could be in the future. Really it would not be that hard to just put the buggers under a scope and take the photo yourself. I still think this was likely all an oversight, but to not clear the air and immediately make right by PMing me, or emailing me and saying....'Yeah, I screwed up....I didn't realize your photo was in with those I put my watermark on' seems pretty arrogant to me.

 

[denvig]

Yea Greg you really know how to stir up a mob. I agree that if he just used the photos innocently to help with his post/article it wouldn?t be so bad. But he must have known that he didn?t take the photos when he put the watermark on them. I say expose the son of a b.

 

[jango]

I still think this was likely all an oversight

Greg there is no way that this was an oversight. He knew exactly what he was doing.

IMO you should post it publicly ...

 

[SteveDola]

It was arrogant and unprofessional. He should apologize in a public venue or people should be made aware of his actions to ensure that this doesnt happen again.

 

[jango]

Lets go kick his @$$.

or you could just give us a link to the forum so we can voice our opinions..

 

[Deafasa]

If he is not making money off the image, I don't think you want to get lawyers involved (although it never hurts to consult with one.) A better route might be giving credit where credit is due by putting the correct label, copyright Greg Hiller on the image.
You also might want to tell the person, and the moderator, that while you are technically okay with the image being posted (if you are okay with it) that it does not imply any type of consent for use or copyright transfer and that you are not granting any rights for using this image anywhere else.

 

[One Eye]

Let's beat him like a Rhode Island cop killer!!!

 

[nunofs]

I don't know, or at least don't think the photo has been used to make any $

My bad, I misread and thought it had been published in an Advanced Aquarist article, but now I realize that's your old article and the photo was "just" used on a post in a forum.

If he is not making money off the image, I don't think you want to get lawyers involved

Agree, see above.

It's still infringement even if they're not doing it for profit, but you'd be less likely to get/recover any money by sueing.

Nuno

 

[Piscevore]

oof.

 

[lactrain]

so why dont you tell us who he is .... feed him to the Lions ..... so to speak .... no sense in protecting one who has commited such a hideous act.

Len

 

[Fragged Up]

As the owl says Who? Who?. That's not right! What site was it??