2017 Non Crows AFL Discussion Thread

[GreyCrow]

This is because a content creator may make money for selling their content for non-commercial use. For example, a landscape photographer may sell high-resolution digital copies of their work to everyday people who then view it for personal enjoyment (this is non-commercial use).

However, if the content creator doesn't make money for non-commercial use, eg. they already freely post their photos on another website and make no money from doing so, then there are no 'damages' to claim. It is important in any civil case for there to be measurable damages; if not, the claim is largely irrelevant and will be dismissed.

For example, if I take a photo and post it on my personal website that is ad-free and can be accessed for free, I am distributing my work for free. If another website copies this image and posts it on their website, particularly if it is clear who took the photo, there is no way I can claim damages for this other website posting my image. The reason for this is that anyone can go view the image on my personal website for free anyway, so in either case (viewed on my website, viewed on the copier's website) I don't make any gain.

The only claim you can make , and which Sheila Smart is campaigning for is if you as a commercial site used another photo to promote your or another business on your site

 

[GreyCrow]

That quotes not from that page, it's from my notes on the subject from a few years ago, about common myths around copyright, Sorry, I should have been clearer.
And again all I am saying is I would remove it, more so after the creator requested it.

He may do so by reporting. Then it is up to BF Moderators

 

[ad victoriam]

He may do so by reporting. Then it is up to BF Moderators

He also a Port supporter that hates everything the Crows stand for, and he has no affection for any Crows supporter.

 

[GreyCrow]

He also a Port supporter that hates everything the Crows stand for, and he has no affection for any Crows supporter.

That's not relevant to his report

 

[Don Muraco]

It's a blurry anyway. No money to be made here.

 

[Scorpus]

It's pretty funny when people watermark their images as if that means "you can't copy this now"

 

[DD#23]

It's pretty funny when people watermark their images as if that means "you can't copy this now"

you have to start somewhere, probably got the camera for Christmas

 

[ad victoriam]

It's pretty funny when people watermark their images as if that means "you can't copy this now"

Yea that was in a Myths report I was researching, They don't need to if they are the creator there image is covered, I think for their lifetime plus a few years.

 

[Elite Crow]

Which club has soul?


We share our photos

 

[Scorpus]

Yea that was in a Myths report I was researching, They don't need to if they are the creator there image is covered, I think for their lifetime plus a few years.

Yep. Copyright is applied with or without the watermark, and infringements may or may not occur regardless.

 

[Barney_stinson]

He's published the photo on a public webpage.

If you reference him/here as the owner of the work, and don't pass it off as your own work. You will be fine.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

All this copyright law talk is making me thirsty. Time for a drinks break.

 

[ad victoriam]

Which club has soul?


We share our photos

Yea I do find if funny that Ports so-called Official photographer is so fussy about his pic he even requests Port supporter to ask first before using them.
And yet the Crows want everyone to look at their photos. and allow them,

 

[Scorpus]

Does Port seriously not publish training photos on their website?

 

[ad victoriam]

Does Port seriously not publish training photos on their website?

last training Photo's on their web page are from Sat 30th May 2015, yes 2015. the last picture in the Photo gallery is from the best and fairest 13th Sept 2016.

 

[DD#23]

must have blown the budget on propaganda films, looking forward to Triumph of the Shill this year

 

[GreyCrow]

last training Photo's on their web page are from Sat 30th May 2015, yes 2015. the last picture in the Photo gallery is from the best and fairest 13th Sept 2016.

Wow just wow.

That's Poor Power.

 

[Bicks]

you have to start somewhere, probably got the camera for Christmas

Actually if you google him he once won a comp that won him 2 free tickets to a Port game....

 

[FR0GGY]

They're still waiting on a good fotographer

 

[TexForPM]

Rubbish by strikers

 

[TexForPM]

This is brilliant

 

[TexForPM]

Maybe you need to get permission from the photographer (me) before posting Brad Ebert on your page. I want the moderators to delete this photo please.

 

[TexForPM]

All this copyright law talk is making me thirsty. Time for a drinks break.

View attachment 327851

Haha!

 

[GreyCrow]

Haha!

I admit I guffawed as well

 

[Doctor B]

A high end Melbourne fashion photographer called Peter Coulson found one of his photos on a Nena Pasadena (Buddy Franklin is a co-owner) t-shirt, he contacted them and they said he should feel privileged they were using it, he said he was going to his lawyers, they then offered him $200! He demanded that they destroy any stock with his images on them, they agreed, I haven't heard of he has received any compensation.
Professional photographers have their photos stolen by crap start up photographers quite often, there is not much more they can do than ask them to be removed. I don't think the bleeding Ebert photo is a problem.