♥ PosetteForever ♥

While doing the postwork on "Valley in Summer" I began to think about a private messeage I got a while ago from someone giving me a warning about my posting the landscape images into gallery that are from free downloads packages as though they were my own works. In the warning it was stated that I would be reported to the administration of that site and the the copyright owner, if I didn't remove those images from the galleries within a few days of that time. It also included the names of the 12 images that I was supposed to remove.

I replied to the message with, thanks for the persons concern and vigilance. I also suggested that before he takes any actions he should check my username against that of the person who created, packaged, and uploaded thoses images for use as backgrounds.

I assume that he did check that information and discovered that the person who did that was also me. I can only assume this because I have not hear from him again. ;-)


Pangor

Yes he did, didn't he.

Never heard of such a thing :mmmh:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lol:


:roll:

I have a better one..

Kodakgallery.com (formerly Ofoto.com) prints most of my digital art proofs and some finals work.
For [u:3b97a42bcb]years[/u:3b97a42bcb], and hundreds of prints, I had no problem. Then I have them print some sets of digital babes I'm working on (naked from the waist up). I get a letter from them saying that these are copyrighted art and they can not print the material.

I call them and say:

1) If they took the time to look at who owned the copyright (me) duh they wouldn't have had to
waste both of our time. :prrr:
2) Why did they have no problem over the years with my copyrighted sci-fi art or landscapes but when
some technician on the line saw boobies, he stopped the presses and finally paid attention to the copyright notice (which is present on all my art.) HA HA. :lmao:

They felt embarrassed about the whole situation and sent me a personal release form enabling me to print what ever I want using their service. :oops:

It doesn't stop here.
A friend of mine is just starting in digital photography as a hobby. He's pretty good and like most of us, has a good eye. The result is great photos. One day he has Walgreens (the drug store chain) print his photos and from a CD he created and gets a letter and no photos stating that these are too professional looking a therefore must have been copied from some other source ([i:3b97a42bcb][u:3b97a42bcb]possibly[/u:3b97a42bcb][/i:3b97a42bcb] copyrighted)! With that, the photo-service police, on their own guess work, refuse to liable themselves by printing the photos! I assume they prefer photos with red-eye and under/over exposed shots to feel secure enough from the lawyers of the world. Hilarious! :roll:

I thought this was an isolated case until I searched the internet and found plenty of articles about this new trend in photo finishing practices. I wonder how long it will be before we won't be able to print a picture of Uncle Peter wearing his copyrighted Budweiser cap or little Mary in her copyrighted PowerPuff Girls dress! :uuh:

LOOOL :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: !!! The only similar thing happened to me is when someone comments a Posy :heartbeat: picture saying that it's impossibile that she is a Posette (I don't understand why, Posettes are so cute :heartbeat: :heartbeat: :heartbeat: )

Are you really a "it"?

:heartbeat: :heartbeat: :heartbeat:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Tormentor";p="26838 wrote: 

The only similar thing happened to me is when someone comments a Posy :heartbeat: picture saying that it's impossibile that she is a Posette (I don't understand why, Posettes are so cute :heartbeat: :heartbeat: :heartbeat: )

That sounds familiar! Got the same reaction once or twice.

Try asking the Milk Mystic.

This is not a new problem.

I did a film editing course a few years back and we were warned about taking any film that may be shown in public that had anyone appearing who hadn't singed a release form. Makes sense in a commercial production, no big deal.

Then he went on to say that lawyers were looking at finding ways to start invasion of privacy suits against anyone (that you can proove) who takes your picture without your express permission. That would include anyone! If taking a picture of the Washington Capitol building, you would either have to wait until all the people were out of the way (!?) and no one appeared in the frame, or get permission of everyone there to take their picture!

HUH!

:snooty:

We musicians have the same problem with GEMA :sick:
We have to pay for playing our own music in public :sad:
But only the million sellers get some money back, this is a sick world :snooty:

In spite of all this worry about taking photographs without permission, there are now cameras built into many of those cellphones. The advertisement for them on television promote them as way of takeing pictures without the subject knowing it.

It is getting so crazy.

Pangor

Yep, sure is crazy :thumb:

But we'll all fit right in :whistle:

pangor";p="26859 wrote: 

In spite of all this worry about taking photographs without permission, there are now cameras built into many of those cellphones. ... way of takeing pictures without the subject knowing it.

Laws in parts of USA are now being passed requiring new cell phones to make loud "clicks" to alert people that photos are being taken in place such as in locker rooms, bathrooms, etc. :nono: :lmao: