A Quick Note on TTAG’s Copyrighted Materials Usage Policy

IMAGINE IMAGE OF COPYRIGHT SYMBOL HERE

Last night I got into it with some photographers over the use of copyrighted materials on this website. I made the claim that we used their images legally under the “fair use” provision of U.S. Copyright law, a claim that was based on my misunderstanding of the laws involved. I now acknowledge that we were wrong in using their images without their permission and the images in question have been removed. So, if you’ll give me a minute, I wanted to discuss our policy on the use of copyrighted materials and the process for rights holders to get their wrongfully posted material taken down . . .

This site is written by a number of different contributors who all have the ability to create and publish content without any direct intervention from me (the editor) or anyone else. This makes it a lot easier to post content faster and get you guys updates on what is going on, but it also means that each writer is responsible for getting and publishing their content.

Some of the writers (even I am guilty of this) have appropriated content from other places without permission and publishing it on this site, something they did not for malicious reasons but simply because they didn’t understand the way the law works. It’s a problem that we will try to fix going forward by educating the writers on the basics of copyright law and by streamlining the “takedown” process for those whose content has appeared on the site without their permission.

If you see something posted on this site without permission that you created, send an email to thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com and include the following items:

  • Your name and contact information
  • A brief paragraph about what happened and why you are writing
  • A link to the offending content on our website
  • Some proof that you are the original content creator (a link to the source or your own website is perfect)

Anyone who provides us with this information will have their content pulled from our systems within 48 hours. We screwed up. We’re fixing it. We’re sorry. Now on with the news . . .

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

102 Responses to A Quick Note on TTAG’s Copyrighted Materials Usage Policy

  1. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    Robert

    you are human. Glad to know that unlike the antis who troll this site and seek to repress our first amendment rights to espouse our love of the second amendment, you are man enough to admit your mistakes. Keep up the great work.

    • Unlike who? What the hell are you blabbing about? I don’t know anybody like that.

      I join in congratulating Robert on the way he runs the site.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        No – I would never do that b/c I am law abiding citizen who has a lot to lose (law license, concealed carry license, house, car, family), but I know people who know people who know people (well, you get the point). They would love nothing better to know they could jack your house, steal your shit and go to town on your old lady while you watch knowing that you won’t do a thing about it. If you are as “non-violent” as you claim, then shoot us a GoogleMaps link and we can pencil you in for, say Dec. 24th?

      • avatarMarshall says:

        Wow – Spoken like a true coward!

        • avatarMarshall says:

          The above comment was a reply to Dirk Diggler’s posts.

        • avatarDirk Diggler says:

          Glad you noticed, Mikeb, I mean Marshall, but I hate to disappoint you further. If you preach non-violence then live it. Kinda hard when you are living a literally Clockwork Orange moment. Even MLK tried to get a carry permit. Mikeb is full of it so let’s call him out.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          Is it just me, or does he seem to be becoming less stable?

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        I am sure you cried to him in a heartbeat, too.

      • avatarnukemjim says:

        Mike, try looking in a mirror.

  2. Well, you obviously didnt consult your lawyers before posting this because you just openly admitted guilt and opened yourself up for a lawsuit…. “Think McFly, Think!”

    In other news… can you please open up the pics that you post so that I can just copy and paste the url when I link over to your blog. It stays up for about a minute and then wont show up because I “don’t have permission to access” or something.

    Also, stating that you are going to basically just use anything and everything until told to take it down may not be the best “copyrighted materials usage policy” either – I’m not a lawyer so please dont take anything I say as legal advise… Just trying to help.

  3. avatarK.C. says:

    I’m glad you admitted you messed up, because as an amateur photographer and a gun owner, I was considering never visiting this site again if you didn’t. Hopefully educating your writers will reduce the incidences of copyright infringement by this website. Be proactive in this. Don’t just post those take-down instructions, continue business as usual and call it good, because that’s not cool.

    Also, those instructions need to be added somewhere to the site that’s easy to find. 2 years down the road, finding this post will not be easy, and as far as I can tell there’s no contact information elsewhere. Put it in the “About Us” part of the site for easy reference.

  4. avatarChris says:

    I gotta be honest, I doubt the vast majority of people who pull the “Fair Use” card actually understand what the hell it means or what they can do with it. Major kudos (and my personal thanks) for actually taking the time to research the clause. Now if only retards on Youtube would be willing to do the same and stop throwing around the phrase at every convenience…

  5. avatarBWCustoms says:

    Or maybe photographers shouldn’t post something in the public they don’t want shared.

    Ooo look at me I took a picture, now Im gonna be a nazi about it!

    NO PICTURE SOUP FOR YOU!

    • avatarEugene says:

      So is a photographer just supposed to horde their photos all to themselves? Maybe you should learn to respect other peoples work.

      • avatarBWCustoms says:

        Did any of the writers claim that the photo posted belonged to them? Did any of the writers claim they took the photos personally?

        Oh right, they didn’t. So to answer your question – don’t post something on the internet if you worried about it being shared. Duh?

    • avatarScott says:

      So you’d be just fine with me going to your website (once you fix your ssl problems), grabbing the photos of your custom work, posting them on my website, and claiming that it’s my work? After all, you posted them publicly, so you wanted them shared, and I can do anything I want with them, right?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        There’s a difference between posting a picture and claiming it’s yours. Besides, no one really gives a crap about most of the pictures posted online. Unless you’re a professional photographer who actually makes money through taking pictures and selling them, there’s no reason to do the copyright crap other than to just be a jerk.

        Reminds me of a professor I know who created presentations from a textbook and then put copyright notices on each slide at the bottom.

      • avatarBWCustoms says:

        As long as you do not try and pass off any of the work as your own, then I could care less. I mean technically I don’t think I would care if you did try to claim it as your own.

        Why would I?

  6. avatarMarshall says:

    Very poor business practice!

    Why are you putting the burden back on the original creator? Remove all the pictures – Verify them all yourself before posting them again.

    I certainly hope you undertand gun laws better than you understand copyright.

  7. avatarAnother Reader says:

    Just because it’s “on-de-intanet” doesnt mean it should be freely grabbed by anyone – especially when a copyright notice is provided by the creator.

    As a photographer who occasionally finds Flickr images co-opted by lazy content generators without permission or attribution (both of which I play nice when asked), the onus is not on the artist or creator to scour the web but the person taking or using copyrighted materials without consent.

    It’s not being “a Nazi” (as the son of a family with Jewish ties to the camps I take strong offense) to ask people to ask permission BEFORE grabbing an image, article, or other digital material that’s copyrighted and not provided under Creative Commons.

    • avatarmatt says:

      “son of a family with jewish ties”. lol. so your trying to jump on the holocaust sympathy bandwagon, and your not even a jew, wow.

      And you don’t have to “scour the web”, its called google reverse image search, stop being lazy and learn a scripting language, you can then get google to periodically compare your entire photo collection to the internet, chances are someone all ready wrote a script.

      It is being a Nazi, i’ve written programs and code that have been mirrored at other sites with my consent or attribution. Do I freak out about it? No, because some guy isnt making millions off it. Just like no one is making millions off of whatever photo you took, which for some reason you think is valuable, just because you took it with a DSLR. If you dont want your content mirrored, then dont post it on the internet, its as simple as that.

      • avatarMarshall says:

        “If you dont want your content mirrored, then dont post it on the internet, its as simple as that.”

        Isn’t that the same as:
        If you dont want your book republished by thief, then dont publish it in the first place!

        Stealing someones source of income is extremely low, immoral, and illegal.

        Stop being lazy, and learn the law. You can google it.

        • avatarmatt says:

          It is the law to steal anothers income, look up the 16 amendment to the US constitution. And no one is making any income off the pictures in their Flickr album. Just because you own a DSLR and have a Flickr account doesnt make you a photographer, any more than owning a Ferrari makes you a race car driver.

      • avatarScott says:

        “It is being a Nazi, i’ve written programs and code that have been mirrored at other sites with my consent or attribution. Do I freak out about it? No, ”

        Um, why would you be upset if you gave consent for the use and got attribution? The issue here is that proper authorization from the rights-holder was NOT obtained. If you get permission for your use, it’s an authorized use and in-line with copyright law.

        • avatarMiso Beno says:

          That’s my stance on the subject. I’m pretty fair about allowing my work to be used by others, particularly work I’ve generated on my own time and for my own pleasure. That is why a significant portion of the media I produce is released under the Creative Commons A-NC-ND license. That just means you need to contact me if you want to use my images for any other purpose.

          I’ve come to the conclusion that Matt is just being obtuse.

        • avatarmatt says:

          I never authorized it, nor gave permission, nor was I even notified, and I dont freak out about it.

      • avatarBobatron says:

        Don’t be dumb. Is everything on YouTube, netflix, or streaming radio up for grabs? Is every logo ripe for copying? The Internet is a content delivery mechanism, not a copyright and trademark free for all. Are you even serious? Just because you know how to copy-paste doesn’t mean you can use that in any way in another business. If you like and want to continue seeing this site, you’d agree they need to follow the law. They could be heavily fined for this. The copyright holder was at least nice enough to ask for a removal in a civilized manner before wasting everyone’s tax dollars in court.

  8. avatarNathan B says:

    I think, maybe, that it is time to slow down the frenetic pace of content coming from this site, since it is affecting your compliance with major federal laws.

    It should also be of note, that the photo that was in question, taken by one Mr. Benjamin Toombs, of a young Canadian man, with his vz. 52 sitting on a rock outcropping in Canada, is copyrighted, but was also released to the internet under a Creative Commons. Mr. Toombs released that particular image under the Creative Commons License, specifically, the Attribution – Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

    This particular image has had certain rights automatically granted to a person who wished to make use of the content. However, by not acknowledging Mr. Toombs in your post, you violated the Attribution section of the license. In addition, since you advertise on this site, it can be assumed that you are taking in some form of profit or another, be it discounted or free gear for use, or straight capital gains. This violates the Non-Commercial section of the license.

    As per the Creative Commons wiki, under the FAQ,

    “A CC license terminates automatically upon a violation of its conditions. For example, if a user of a work distributed under a Creative Commons license fails to attribute the creator as required, then the user no longer has the right to continue using the work and may be liable for copyright infringement. The license terminates with respect to the user who violated the license, but it remains in effect for all other users so long as they are in compliance.”

    As such, by violating the CC license, this falls back to being a copyright issue, and Mr. Toombs is entitled to have the image taken down, and if he so desires, is able to contact a lawyer and and receive damages up to triple any income that was reaped by this willful use of copyrighted material without permission.

    As to your argument of fair use, which you were so quick to throw when confronted with the accusation of being content thieves, this use does not fall under the fair use clause found in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §107. You were not using it for criticism or comment of Mr. Toombs work. You were not teaching a classroom, writing a scholarly paper, or doing research. The only possible claim you have is that you were reporting news. Arguably the article was news, however the picture was completely unrelated to the story, except for the fact that there was a man, holding a rifle, on some land. I sincerely doubt you would be able to use news reporting as your fair use defense.

    So now I as I see you have remove the offending image, I thank you for finally complying with federal law, and I ask that you please seek permission from any authors whose work you might be using, before posting it on a popular public website, and attribute them properly. Personally, I feel that complying with an important law that has been in use in Britain since long before George Washington was alive, and the basis of which was, in this country, enumerated in the Constitution itself, even before the Right to Bear Arms came about.

    • avatarpcrh says:

      Dude, chillax. You’re going a bit overboard. I normally wouldn’t care, but since you’re into beating people over the head with “major federal laws,” you should try to get the law right. By saying this was “willful” infringement, are you aware that you’re asserting Foghorn is guilty of a federal crime? That could be construed as libel. From the statements given in the post, his infringement arose out of ignorance of the law, which means it was not willful. Willfulness is a specific charge that requires the infringer either knew or had reason to know he infringed copyright. It makes the infringement criminal. You’re calling Foghorn a criminal. In front of lots of people.

      • avatarNathan B says:

        I am not calling Foghorn anything. Foghorn is, from what I can tell from my outside perspective, completely unrelated to this issue. Dan Zimmerman authored the content of the post that was originally in question, and Robert Farago, the proprietor of this site, seem to be the involved parties in this issue. I am not sure who sources the images found in posts, but whoever does on this site, be it the author or one of the editors, is responsible for ensuring the images are used properly in accordance to federal laws.

        “From the statements given in the post, his infringement arose out of ignorance of the law, which means it was not willful.”

        Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and never has been. By the 1989 Berne Convention Implementation Act, a copyright on a protected material (such as the photo taken by Mr. Toombs) is automatically granted. Since any copyrightable work is automatically copyrighted (except when the law requires it to be under another license or released into the public domain), it should be assumed that the infringement is willful.

        The offending image has been removed following a takedown request from the author, so from RF’s standpoint now, he is in the clear, unless Mr. Toombs decides to take legal action against Mr. Farago or TTAG, he is in the clear, at least for that particular infringement.

        Perhaps now, since you are ignorantly calling me a criminal, I shall reciprocate the title.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          Ignorance of the law is no defense against infringement. But that is not the issue I brought up. You asserted willfulness. Willfulness requires actual awareness or reason to believe. It goes beyond the proof of infringement.

          Since any copyrightable work is automatically copyrighted (except when the law requires it to be under another license or released into the public domain), it should be assumed that the infringement is willful.

          Incorrect. If all infringement were assumed to be willful (which is absolutely not the case) then the copyright owner would not have the burden to prove up willfulness. Instead, the copyright owner does have that burden. You’re just wrong on the law here.

          Perhaps now, since you are ignorantly calling me a criminal, I shall reciprocate the title.

          Please reread my post. I never called you a criminal. I said your words could be construed as libel. Libel is a civil offence, not a criminal one.

          My bad on Foghorn. Sorry Nick! (It’s never wise to offend a 7′ rooster. Anyone remember the bad old movie, Food of the Gods? I had nightmares about that giant rooster…)

    • avatarmatt says:

      “Personally, I feel that complying with an important law that has been in use in Britain since long before George Washington was alive, and the basis of which was, in this country, enumerated in the Constitution itself, even before the Right to Bear Arms came about.”

      Where is copyright enumerated in the constitution? And if you want to be technical, the Americans pirated British law instead of developing their own law. I thought the US was founded the basis of ignoring laws, what about the Boston Tea Party?

      • avatarNathan B says:

        “Where is copyright enumerated in the constitution?”

        Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
        “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

        Also known as the Copyright Clause.

        • avatarmatt says:

          A photograph is neither a writing nor a discovery.

        • avatarNathan B says:

          You are clearly ignoring the several other copyright acts on the book that further enumerate copyright. Such as:

          Copyright act of 1790
          Copyright act of 1831
          Copyright act of 1909
          Universal Copyright Convention
          Copyright act of 1976
          Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
          Copyright Renewal Act of 1992
          Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994
          Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998
          Digital Millennium Copyright act of 1998

          In 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a), it is stated that Copyright law protects :
          “(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;”

        • avatarmatt says:

          You implied that photographs were covered by copyrights granted by the constitution.

          If you want to be technical, 17USC111(5) says RF’s use was exempt, because it was a secondary transmission
          “(a) Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted. – The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if…(5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.”
          http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/111

          RF isnt supporting himself or otherwise gaining a commercial advantage from the pictures on this site or the tiny ad revenue this site generates. I think it would be fair to say any revenue generated goes to pay for server space/bandwidth, or other costs of operating this secondary transmission service.

        • avatarNathan B says:

          “You implied that photographs were covered by copyrights granted by the constitution.”

          I did no such thing. Please re-read my post. I stated that the /basis/ of copyright law in this country is enumerated in the Constitution.

          You cite 17 USC 111, which refers to secondary transmission. Secondary transmission refers to the act of transmitting the material over a network.

          For instance, Mr. Toombs has that photo hosted on his website. In order for other people to view it, his site’s ISP takes that image and transmits it to the browser requesting it.

          Posting a photo without permission from the copyright owner is infringement, not secondary transmission.

        • avatarmatt says:

          “Posting a photo without permission from the copyright owner is infringement, not secondary transmission.”

          You lack a understanding of how electronics and the internet work, signal buffering and retransmission is the same as linking or mirroring.

        • avatarBobatron says:

          Negative. You sir are way off. Linking and mirroring are nothing related to retransmission. Neither at the network level nor the legal level. Please don’t misinform people.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Then how is mirroring different from signal buffering? How is linking different from retransmission.

          Its funny howyou say its not so, but fail to giveany explainationas to how.

    • avatarDaniel H. says:

      So basically, always remember to cite your sources……

  9. avatarpcrh says:

    Copyright law is out of control. That said, I am glad TTAG is learning, because the law “is what it is”. Gotta live with it (at least for the foreseeable future). And the penalty for copyright infringement can be lotsa $$$. Better to be proactive in not using copyrighted material, and friendly when contacted by potential infringees, than to be hit with a suit.

    A note on fair use. It generally does protect one from infringement when you cut/paste a bit of text, in order to comment on said text. (Though people have been unsuccessfully sued over doing that, too.) It could also protect you if you use someone else’s picture if you are copying for the purpose of commenting on that picture. Note, “could”.

  10. avatarmatt says:

    Sorry to be a dick RF, but the copy right logo you posted is also copy righted. The bottom of that website you got it from says “All Rights Reserved. http://www.copyrightlogo.org“, in addition the privacy page says
    “2. Use License

    Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials
    (information or software) on http://copyrightlogo.org’s web site for personal,
    non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license,
    not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not:
    modify or copy the materials;
    use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial);
    attempt to decompile or reverse engineer any software contained on http://copyrightlogo.org’s web site;
    remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials; or
    transfer the materials to another person or “mirror” the materials on any other server.
    This license shall automatically terminate if you violate any of these restrictions and may be terminated by http://copyrightlogo.org at any time. Upon terminating your viewing of these materials or upon the termination of this license, you must destroy any downloaded materials in your possession whether in electronic or printed format.”

    I’m all for piracy and ignoring copyright but if you wana play by the rules then it helps to read them.

    • avatarMarshall says:

      “I’m all for piracy and ignoring copyright”

      You’re for stealing other peoples work and income? Why?

      • avatarmatt says:

        Employers steal laborers income all the time, it is the very definition of profit. And no one is making any income off the pictures in their Flickr or Facebook album.

        • avatarMarshall says:

          Not even close! Do you even believe what you say?

          Employers hire employees to do a specific job for a wage. Both parties come to an agreement.

          Photographers make a living off thier pictures, and feed their family with that money.

        • avatarmatt says:

          No one is feeding their family from their Flickr account. Most people who call themselves photographers arent, just as most bloggers who call themselves journalists arent.

          I do believe what I said in my previous post, although that isnt the same as agreeing with it.

        • avatarCharlie Taylor says:

          Guess what Matt, I have to feed myself off my photography. I am a professional photographer. Every time someone takes my work and posts it on flickr I am LOSING income because someone out there decides to reuse that photograph and doesn’t pay me usage rights.
          [soapbox]
          In order to combat copyright infringement many photographers have had to change tactics. Wedding photography is a great example. It used to be that most photographers charged a nominal fee to shoot the wedding, and made a bulk of their profit on printing the album and selling reprints to relatives. A lot of wedding photographers still work this way in fact. But the reality of the situation now is that it’s easier to charge more up front and just hand over the rights of the photos to the clients.

          That doesn’t really work in the world of stock photography and photojournalism though. More often than not there is NO upfront income in these fields. Even if you get a direct assignment to photograph something(HA!), you don’t get a paycheck until (or if) your work is published. Most of the time you retain rights to your work and this allows you to receive supplemental income if others want to use it. The more people want to use it the larger your income. Capitalism at its finest.

          For every person that doesn’t pay for our work but still uses it, either because of ignorance or cheapness, it’s money out of our pocket. That’s why photographers are very touchy about copyright infringement.

          [/soapbox]

        • avatarmatt says:

          Your not losing income, your assuming that some 14 year old kid who posts your pic on thier Flickr album would otherwise pay to do so.

          If you take pictures of a wedding for a living, your as much of a photographer, as a 15 year old kid with a screw driver and a windows install disc is a IT technician.

          Stock photography? Please. If I made a bunch of useless widgets and then tried to sell them to the world, and no one bought one, would you cry for me? It would be analogous to someone finding one of my useless widgets in the trash and propping open a door with it. They are using my useless widget as a door jamb and should therefor pay me a license for that right!

          Cry me a river. You use other peoples work without paying for it all the time, in fact you wouldnt be posting here if didnt. Open source software runs the internet, and all those programmers still manage to put food on their table.

        • avatarmatt says:

          I’m hitting a spam filter so here is a multipart post.

          Your not losing income, your assuming that some 14 year old kid who posts your pic on thier Flickr album would otherwise pay to do so.

          If you take pictures of a wedding for a living, your as much of a photographer, as a 15 year old kid with a screw driver and a windows install disc is a IT technician.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Stock photography? Please. If I made a bunch of useless widgets and then tried to sell them to the world, and no one bought one, would you cry for me? It would be analogous to someone finding one of my useless widgets in the trash and propping open a door with it. They are using my useless widget as a door jamb and should therefor pay me a license for that right!

        • avatarBobatron says:

          Your understanding of this issue is juvenile. Read the law, follow the law.. At worst. At best, understand that a business that’s willing to use an image on their site feel it has value to THEM, and the author is entitled to whatever they ask for it. If its higher than the other party wants to pay for their use, then they don’t use it. Determining this price is the soul of any business. This person asked only for attribution, pretty fair if you ask me.

        • avatarmatt says:

          If I made a bunch of useless widgets and then tried to sell them to the world, and no one bought one, would you cry for me? It would be analogous to someone finding one of my useless widgets in the trash and propping open a door with it. They are using my useless widget as a door jamb and should therefor pay me a license for that right!

        • avatarmatt says:

          Rant about stock photography being a useless profession. Would include it but wordpress thinks its spam.

          Cry me a river. You use other peoples work without paying for it all the time, in fact you wouldnt be posting here if didnt. Open source software runs the internet, and all those programmers still manage to put food on their table.

          Photographs are touchy about copyright because they are greedy and assume they create something of enough value that it should be licensed. People dont buy a newspaper for the pictures, they buy one for the articles. If RF stopped posting pictures here, the site wouldnt die.

          Photographers are much like musicians, they would like to be rich by doing nothing other than enjoying their hobby. As demonstrated by musicians and CDs, they might manage to produce 1 valuable song in their lifetime, accompanied by a dozen tracks of pure crap. Same with photography but even worse, because it takes time to write a song, but all you do is press a button over and over again, occasionally adjusting a few settings.

        • avatarMarshall says:

          Uninformed or Troll.

        • avatarbandaid says:

          Its pretty simple actually…

          If you own a house, your a homeowner, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that.

          If you drive a car, your a driver…..

          Own a gun, your a gun owner….

          shoot a gun, your a shooter….

          take a picture, your the photographer…..

          publish a blog, your the publisher….

          There are laws that govern the use of pretty much everything, granting rights, and prohibiting actions. I really don’t understand how you don’t get this. Just because others dont see you as a “professional” (an opinion) does not mean you forfeit your rights.

        • avatarmatt says:

          According to the law it does matter, which is why bloggers often dont receive the same protection as journalists.

          And no your not a photographer if you take a picture, you r a camera owner. Just as owning a rifle, doesnt make you a sharpshooter or sniper.

        • avatarBobatron says:

          Owning a camera doesn’t makeyou a photographer, usingit does. Using it very well and investing in the insane prices of quality optics, lighting and professional training makea professional photographer. You may not see it as having value, but that in no way means it doesn’t have valueto others. If you want your family photos takenby a 13 year old kid with a pointand shoot, by all means…. Lol.

        • avatarmatt says:

          I just checked your website, no your not a photographer, your some guy with a camera who takes high school graduation pictures and thinks he should be paid $100 per hour for doing so! And based on the grossly disproportionate number of pictures of blacks, it would be fair to say you are a racial bigot as well. Is there even 1 photo on your website of someone who isnt black? The closest I see is a picture of a black man attempting to destroy the cover of a sports illustrated which features a white woman…

        • avatarCharlie Taylor says:

          Umm, what website is that? I have no idea what website your referring to, but that sure as hell doesn’t sound like mine.

        • avatarCharlie Taylor says:

          Not mine, and it’s not like I’m going to listen to someone who has no regard for photography as a an artformor career. So no, I’m not giving it to you.I have better things to do than argue with someone who has already made up his mind.

        • avatarMcNally says:

          What the hell does this have to do with anything?

        • avatarmatt says:

          Charlie Taylor said “Wedding photography is a great example. It used to be that most photographers charged a nominal fee to shoot the wedding, and made a bulk of their profit on printing the album and selling reprints to relatives…”

          matt said “your some guy with a camera who takes high school graduation pictures and thinks he should be paid $100 per hour for doing so”

          It helps to read.

        • avatarMcNally says:

          Yes it does. You should try it sometime.

  11. avatarErik Sivad says:

    I just have to say, that some of the comments are the worst things i have ever read. Good thing you have the internet to post on, because if this was ever said to you in person, you would take great offense.

    I thought this place was a little more sane with the gun owning population, but it seems to be full of ‘the crazies’ as well. Kudos boys.

  12. avatarAnother Reader says:

    Wow… gotta love a site that permits commenters to not only call other readers Nazi for wanting to protect what’s ours, then call us pussies for actually having family who suffered under them. Keep up the good work.

    -Out.

  13. avatarMcNally says:

    Basically what I gather from this is that TTAG’s policy is to continue doing what they’ve been doing until someone calls them on it. Except now instead of flailing about muttering “fair use,” they’ll take the photo down within 48 hours.

    See, this is not at all what we were going for. What TTAG needs to do is get permission FIRST and THEN post the picture.

    And also apologize to Miso, directly and publicly.

    And that case of beer isn’t out of line either.

  14. avatarVinny says:

    You can delete my comments all you want.

    We all know The Truth About Farago now.

  15. avatarAdam Z says:

    My God there are a lot of bull$hit comments here :P

  16. avatarmatt says:

    So I have a question for all the “photographers” in this thread. Do you pay license fees to the models you shoot? Take for instance a wedding, did the guests there sign a release saying you could sell a picture of their likeness for a profit? Every time you sell a license for a photo, do you write a check to everyone in the picture? What about a mother who wants reprints of her kids graduation photos, are you writing that kid a check? Or are you simply stealing their likeness for your own commercial advantage, and then crying to high heaven when someone does the same to you?

    • avatarMiso Beno says:

      >> So I have a question for all the “photographers” in this thread.
      Ok.

      >> Do you pay license fees to the models you shoot?
      Depends on the model and their fee structure.

      >> Take for instance a wedding, did the guests there sign a release saying you could sell a picture of their likeness for a profit?
      I sell a service when I shoot weddings. All photos are property of those for whom I am contracted.

      >> Every time you sell a license for a photo, do you write a check to everyone in the picture?
      Depends on the terms of the model release. Generally no because it is not necessary.

      What about a mother who wants reprints of her kids graduation photos, are you writing that kid a check?
      When I shoot portraits I am hired for a service and do not own the photos at the end of the day. Generally when I shoot individual portraits a release is signed so I can reuse it to continue advertising my services.

      >> Or are you simply stealing their likeness for your own commercial advantage, and then crying to high heaven when someone does the same to you?
      Gotta love a loaded question.

      • avatarmatt says:

        Did you pay the guests a wedding for the right to use their likeness? When did they consent? They are as much a model as some girl with big tits and alot of makeup. It doesnt matter if your only providing a service, your still using their likeness for your personal commercial advantage, without compensating them or providing attribution.

        And when you say that the photos are property of those whom your are contracted, another photographer here disagrees with you, Charlie Taylor said
        “Wedding photography is a great example. It used to be that most photographers charged a nominal fee to shoot the wedding, and made a bulk of their profit on printing the album and selling reprints to relatives. A lot of wedding photographers still work this way in fact.”

        • avatarMiso Beno says:

          As a matter of fact it does matter. Weddings are a private event and the photos are taken on behalf of a private party for their private use. I do not resell the photos, I resell my time and that makes all of the difference. If the wedding couple were to sell their photos to a stock photography house without having a model release from all of their identifiable guests would open themselves up to a lawsuit.

          There is no expectation of publication in a commercial publication and as such there is no requirement for a model release.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Your ignoring everything I said and are attempting to externalize all blame away from yourself. You took them for commerical purposes, for your private gain, without compensating the models who provide your photos with their value. With out those models, your wedding photos would be worthless.

          All the “photographers” I know didnt pay for their copy of Photoshop, how about you, is all your software properly licensed? What about your website, did you properly license the fonts used in your graphics? Looking at the EXIF data on the images on your website, says it uses a Apple color profile, which is copyrighted. Who gave you a license to use and redistribute that color profile?

          What about the models on your website?Did you obtain licenses from Apple, HK or BMW for the right to use the likeness of their products? Ever wonder why they put stickers over the apple logo on laptops on TV? You have a stock photo of a map on your website, do you have a license to republish an image of that map? Maps are covered by copyright as well.

        • avatarMiso Beno says:

          I’m going to entertain your last batch of questions, but as far as I’m concerned you have wasted enough of my time with your goalpost shifting, baseless arguments, and general trolling.
          Your arguments against my use of an individual’s likeness in the production of a privately commissioned art piece are invalid as the works are intended for private publication. Their likenesses are not being republished without any intent to share them with a third unknown party. I’m not sure what your experience with media law and the rights of models and photographers but apparently you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about
          I can use a company’s product as a prop in a piece of art or even in a commercial piece to my heart’s content. Most media organizations remove logos and hide brands because they do not want to provide free advertising, and they wish to protect their product placement contracts with competing companies. Why don’t you just keep making the rules up as you go along.

        • avatarMiso Beno says:

          Regarding my use of ICC profiles –

          http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4076

          You should spend more time reading.

        • avatarmatt says:

          You should spend a little bit more time reading. The profile is copyrighted by Apple, not Adobe. Just because Adobe distributes it, doesnt mean you have a license from Apple to use it. Just as you distribute images on your website, doesnt mean RF has the right to use them.

          Your also using the Lino profile which isnt included in that software package, how did you get a license from HP to use that profile in this image: http://misostudios.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111029-Port-ofTacoma-and-Old-City-Hall-802am.jpg.jpg

        • avatarmatt says:

          It is illegal for you to use Apple, H&K or BMW’s brand without permission, its trademark infringement. See the Citizens Media Law Project:
          http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another

          And what typehouse did you license those font’s on your website from? How about the color profiles for the images, how did you obtain a license from Apple? Your a pirate as much as RF is, the only difference is that your unwilling to admit so.

        • avatarMcNally says:

          Your posts are literally the worst thing I’ve seen today. And I have the shits.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Oh noes, someone who doesnt support rentier capitalism, go get the pitchforks, he must be a commie!
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

        • avatarBobatron says:

          He is why us gun-nuts can’t have nice things.He doesn’t understand open licensing vs open source vs permitted use licensing. Don’t argue, just nod and smile.

  17. avatarAnother Reader says:

    …one more website removed from my bookmarks list.

  18. avatarTotenglocke says:

    *sigh* This is why we need a massive overhaul of the copyright and patent systems. They were created to help further creativity and innovation, but instead they’re just used to hamper it

    Just for that, I hereby copyright this post and anyone who reads it is in violation of said copyright and will be prosecuted.

  19. avatarDon says:

    ::head-desk::

  20. avatarJohn Boch says:

    Who needs anti-gunners as enemies when we have our fellow gun owners/activists.

    Hats off to Oleg Volk for making his works available for pro-gun activism.

    J

  21. avatarBWCustoms says:

    People comparing the sharing of an image for no profit and that of stealing an image to generate some sort of profit.

    Wow.

    I bet you were the little children who took your red ball and stomped home.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.