I R pissed

[mmartinfan]

Back in late July I was invited up into the Port Columbus ATCT I took some pictures no big deal. Here is the thread I posted about it. Port Columbus ATCT photos Well it was a long know fact that some controllers were unable to see the field from the tower due to a low floor. Well the FAA finally funded an improvement there. Well the great "news" channel called WBNS saw my photos here on RR.com and added their own info to it, and stole the photo to use in a newscast


The photo in question!

 

[FPO703]

I'd go over to WBNS and talk with them and inform them that since they didn't have your written permission, they need to make things right. I'm sure they can figure something out.

 

[CVPI4Ever]

He posted them on the internet! You cannot expect for someone not to use the pictures you put on display. I will bet he goes down to WBNS and they tell him to pound salt.


Neat and great pics BTW.

 

[k9gunner]

If I remember correctly, you posted pictures of police vehicles on a website, and when someone used the picture on here as a reference, you came unglued. Funny how that works.

If he owns the picture, they need his permission to use it.

 

[hoser147]

Id have to agree with K9 what are you out by contacting them...........hoser147

 

[mmartinfan]

Situation has been resolved.

 

[CVPI4Ever]

If I remember correctly, you posted pictures of police vehicles on a website, and when someone used the picture on here as a reference, you came unglued. Funny how that works.

If he owns the picture, they need his permission to use it.

You remember wrong. Someone else posted pictures of police cars on a website and I used them for reference on these forums and the photographer became unglued because I used them. It became ok for some reason since I was formerly affiliated with a law enforcement agency

 

[k9gunner]

You remember wrong. Someone else posted pictures of police cars on a website and I used them for reference on these forums and the photographer became unglued because I used them. It became ok for some reason since I was formerly affiliated with a law enforcement agency

I stand corrected, I do remember that, and I have my people mixed up, sorry about that. I remember the person who had a website showing the cars, or in this case, a OSP bike, came unglued when you used the pic. Sorry for the confusion.

Jeff

 

[CVPI4Ever]

I stand corrected, I do remember that, and I have my people mixed up, sorry about that. I remember the person who had a website showing the cars, or in this case, a OSP bike, came unglued when you used the pic. Sorry for the confusion.

Jeff

No prob.

 

[shaft]

He posted them on the internet! You cannot expect for someone not to use the pictures you put on display. I will bet he goes down to WBNS and they tell him to pound salt.


Neat and great pics BTW.

Its a copyright violation to reproduce someone elses work without permission.

 

[CVPI4Ever]

Where are they copywritten? If that was the case, there needs to be writing under the pictures that states no one can copy, reproduce, use without permission, etc.

 

[pappy1]

OK Shaft, DID you get CVPI4Ever's permission to use his post in your quote?

You just made a copyright violation, ha ha lol.

 

[wa8pyr]

Where are they copywritten? If that was the case, there needs to be writing under the pictures that states no one can copy, reproduce, use without permission, etc.

Incorrect. The photograph is automatically copyrighted to the creator at the moment of creation; the © symbol and other notations or declarations are not necessary. The copyright belongs to the image creator for his/her lifetime plus 70 years, unless otherwise transferred by them.

Tom WA8PYR

 

[wa8pyr]

Incorrect. The photograph is automatically copyrighted to the creator at the moment of creation; the © symbol and other notations or declarations are not necessary. The copyright belongs to the image creator for his/her lifetime plus 70 years, unless otherwise transferred by them.

More on this...

"Fair Use" allows an image to be freely used for a few purposes, including news reporting by a legitimate news organization. It's generally considered poor form not to give credit to the author of the work, however. Shame on WBNS, but they're pretty much in the clear as far as a copyright violation.

Sorry, Kevin...

Tom

 

[k9gunner]

Correct, it is not a copyright violation unless you have a registered trademark or copyright on the picture. We trademark our pictures on our website, easier to enforce if someone uses them. You have to ask permission to use a photo. If it is used, you can send a C&D order to remove it, however it is not a copyright violation. We have had to actually file a claim in court about our pictures on our websites turning up on other peoples websites. They were removed, and we got a check for the damages, and legal fees involved.

 

[FireHousesOfOhio]

Well now isn't this all special. There used to be a really nice msn group that had good pictures until a few individuals decided to misuse them w/out the photographer's permission.

Then when they were called out on to the carpet one of them attempted to pose as their fire dept's "official photographer" making various "unofficial threats", long story short someone managed to lose their butt while impersonating something they weren't .

The easy way around all of this is to send a cd to washington on a regular basis, those images are then recorded hence protected.

I'm extremely picky whom I provide images for as they do appear from time to time on only 2 Columbus television stations, those are the single digit stations. I as well provide additional images for a Columbus am station's internet news page on a regular basis. Never has there been an issue of credit taken by anyone other than the original photographer while working w/these truely professional news organizations.