There it is.
Link: aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/earthkind/roses/cultivars/else_poulsen.html
Thanks Neil…should have checked that addy before I posted it.
Meg
Paul I love how it is your responsibility even though the statement from google makes it clear as day it is their responsibility to do the homework. Plus don’t you think if you were marketing something you would work a little harder. Don’t any of these companies have plants that they can take pictures of. I would think also that a good company would know what is in their stock and would not have to at the last minute go “Oh! wait I have got to have a picture of so and so. So I guess I will find it on the internet.” I wonder how many times I see a picture of a plant on the internet and it is not the correct variety or sometimes even the right plant that they just googled the image.
Really enjoying reading this thread. I can totally understand Paul’s frustration. I have recently begun writting the Newsletter for our local Rose Society and would like to include more pictures in our newsletter but fear stepping on anyone’s toes. I guess I should not be so tardy in preparation and leave myself more time to request permission from the photographer. So far I have settled for including links to photographs.
I think this subject matter would be great for inclusion in the RHA Newsletter. I would like to know more about copywritting my own photos and protocol for using other images in newsletters, etc.
Hoping someone with more experience and education in this subject matter would step forward and enlighten us with an article.
I would like to know more about copywritting my own photos and protocol for using other images in newsletters, etc.
No need for an article, it’s pretty simple. Copyright vests with the creator at the moment of creation, whether it be a photo, book, song, video or whatever else you create. If you want to use an image still in copyright - which in most cases is the author’s life plus 70 years - then you need to get permission.
I know very little about copyright laws, and found this very informative and condensed site that explains the ins and outs of copyright law, both legally and morally. Not a bad read, and the laws are not quite that simple. After reading it, I can appreciate more fully the frustration and upset this generates. Like many people out here, I give it very little thought, but ignorance is never a really good excuse.
It is a great picture of ‘Teasing Georgia’, I “wonder” why they did not use one of DA’s pictures (laughing) maybe DA has someone looking all the time at this problem.
With photographry, which I know little, can you ‘embed’ something in it to say it is yours ?
David, Paul, and many others, already DO embed watermarks in their photos. None of them are permanent and there is nearly always some way to remove them. Add the complaints that they “damage” the image and make it less enjoyable and you begin to get the idea. I’m sure it damages the image, more often than not, making it either unusable for the intended misuse or more difficult to lift. It’s already been stated the watermarks and copyright information have been, and are removed all the time.
I’d bet Austin does have someone policing his images all the time. To prevent your property from going into the public domain and stop being yours, you have to police them. Xerox nearly lost rights to their created word because people said to “Xerox it” instead of photocopying it, even when some other machine than Xerox was used. “Give me a Kleenex” nearly cost them the rights to that name, too. You don’t necessarily want a “Kleenex”, but a tissue. Not policing them implies permission. Kim
Along the lines of what Don said, the issue is fairly straightforward in terms of what you can and cannot do with someone else’s creative content. Essentially, if you did not create it, then its not yours to do with as you please. If you want to use it, ask for permission. If you follow that protocol, you cannot possibly go wrong.
One exception would be material posted on creative commons services, where people post their work with the specific intent that their stuff be used and distributed freely.
“Fair use” is, at best, a big honking gray area that relies a great deal on some very vague terms to define “fair”. (See URL below) Suffice it to say that I am speaking specifically to the issue of entities (nurseries, etc) who take my work without asking and use it to help generate revenue. By no stretch of the imagination does such abuse fall into the “fair use” category.
If its your web site, you can run script to prevent theft, but those adept at Adobe know how to bypass this with Print Screen, Control + V, and edit. So… its not preventable.
I’ve made it a policy over the last many years to never post anything on the web unless I don’t care whether it gets ripped off or not.
@Fa: precisely why I quit adding my best photos to my web site a couple of years ago. I could be guaranteed that it would be taken within weeks and used in ways I did not approve of.
I am not in your league here, I am on a learning curve. Thanks for explaining this to a novice. Is it like ‘IP’ interlectual property ?. Regards David.
David, I think IP usually refers to ideas, that get reduced to practice in some particular way. So how to take a picture might be IP. But a picture is tangible property. where it gets complicated is with radio waves, like a music broadcast. The exact rendering by Leonard Bernstein and the NY Phil might be copyright even if Beethoven is long out of copyright.
A rose is a rose, so you can’t patent Dr. Huey. But you can copyright your photo of it. According to one of the sources linked above, (iusmentis),if you sell a copy of the photo to someone, the purchaser can resell it and your copyright doesn’t prevent that. It is called exhaustion of copyright. But they can’t make and sell copies, as I understand it. Internet postings are treated as radio waves according to this source, because they are not in themselves a photo, just the information describing how to regenerate an approximation of the photo using a screen and computer. Much as Beethoven comes out different in every concert, with the same score, every internet photo will come out different depending on the computer and monitor.
So I think Paul would be actually be better off making a copyright of a bit string, like a computer program, not a photo per se. Any manipulated version of it would still be under his copyright, or treated as plagiarism, if manipulated while retaining similarity to his original work.
I don’t know that this argument has been used for works of art but it certainly protects computer code.
A lot of case law has to be considered to figure out what is legal and what is right. Those two are not the same thing. Paul’s point is well taken- ask first.
Wow! I just want to worry about not being one of the six or so people killed by coconuts every year.
Seriously though,last year a link was put up that I explored and there was the most fantastic site by a photographer and roses and rose bushes was among the many photos in his collection. One of the things done was to enlarge the photos to four by four ft. and remove any small imperfections. All his work was kept in special filing cabinets and a special room with temp. and humidity controlled. If anyone even thought of using one of his photos without permission a Jackal might of showed up.