[gd1418]

That's what Sridhar is trying to find out. Could be from his book and or from Sridhar's site

Originally Posted by greenhorn

My doubt was, what were the terms & conditions imposed when/where these pictures were originally uploaded ( and from where this guy has taken these from) .

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by harit

I am wondering if I can ask this here, maybe someone can give an opinion.
I own a lot of old photos which I have actually purchased, many have been put up in the Nostalgic thread of the vintage car section. What about the copyright of these pictures? I never claim a copyright because I do not know from where and how these pictures were sold on, and I do not know the rules applicable. I have traced some former owners of the photos purchased from others, I never discussed ownership of the prints, and sometimes made and gave them copies. Instead of mentioning a copyright, I just mention "my collection".
In some cases I even aquired the negatives. And I am clear that I never took these pictures.
So where do I stand? Opinions are most welcome.

Cheers harit

By purchasing the photos, you become the owner of the physical photos. This is not copyright ownership. Copyright in the content remains with the copyright owner. Similarly, when you purchase a book, you become the owner of the physical copy of the book that you have paid for. Copyright in the book's literary/artistic contents remains with the author or the publisher, depending on the terms of the agreement between them.

According to the Copyright Act, the photographer is the first owner of copyright in a photograph. However, if the photographer had been commissioned to take pictures by someone and paid for, the person who had commissioned him is the first owner of copyright, unless the agreement between the two states otherwise. If the photographer takes a photo in the course of his employment with a magazine/newspaper/periodical, the proprietor of the magazine/newspaper/periodical automatically becomes the first owner of copyright, unless the employment agreement states otherwise.

There's nothing illegal if you use the expression "My Collection". However, you will only become the copyright owner if the copyright owner assigns the copyright to you through a written agreement that fulfills the requirements of Section 19 of the Copyright Act.

Hope that clarifies.

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by gd1418

What I understand from your statement is that if I upload my pictures on Picasa, I've to choose licence that shall limit or delimit the distribution. Right?

What if the uploaded pictures themselves are stolen/usurped?

Yes, that is correct. If the uploaded pictures are stolen, there is no question of any rights and the author can contact Picasa to get them taken down.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

My doubt was, what were the terms & conditions imposed when/where these pictures were originally uploaded ( and from where this guy has taken these from) .

Usually, the terms and conditions of such sites prohibit uploading of infringing material. However, since the web site owners cannot physically check each and every uploaded material to find out if it is original, they exclude their liability through their terms and conditions. Even the law makes an innocent web site hosting agency not liable for infringing third party content that has merely been hosted by the web site host in good faith (see Section 79 of the Indian IT Act). The web site terms also usually state that if you are the owner of a copyright work and see it hosted on the web site without your permission, you should write to the web site and point out the exact URL of the content, among other things. Thereupon, the content will be taken off. It is usually taken off but of course, the infringer can upload it again under a different URL and then you have to write to them again.

Originally Posted by gd1418

What if the uploaded pictures themselves are stolen/usurped?

There's no copyright in stolen works.

Originally Posted by pranavt

Try sending a cease and desist order.

That's what the court issues. You only send a cease and desist "notice".

Originally Posted by gd1418

To me it appears that some of these pictures are stolen from the pictures taken by Dr. Abheek & Fazal ..........GD

You say "to me it appears". So, first of all, the person who wants to take action needs to be sure if the work is indeed infringing. There is a possibility that the suspected infringing work was produced independently of the original. If it was produced independently, it will enjoy its own independent copyright notwithstanding the fact that it looks identical to what we are calling the original. If two persons with similar skills take a photo of the Taj Mahal from the same angle using similar equipment, the photos will look identical and none will infringe the other.

[harit]

Originally Posted by directinjection

By purchasing the photos, you become the owner of the physical photos. This is not copyright ownership. Copyright in the content .............................................illeg al if you use the expression "My Collection". However, you will only become the copyright owner if the copyright owner assigns the copyright to you through a written agreement that fulfills the requirements of Section 19 of the Copyright Act.
Hope that clarifies.

Thank you.
I was almost on the same wave length, and so I did not mention "copyright harit" when I gave some photos for a book recently launched. We just mentioned "Harit Trivedi collection".
But I am not fully clear about this matter of copyright. From what I understand, copyright pertains to the photographer, or the person who commissioned the photos, i.e. the person who has paid for them. What about family photos? There maybe no commerce/hobby involved. Many times the persons who were photographed or the photographer are today unknown.
What about a photo of an important person, say Nehru in a parade, taken by someone who happened to be passing by, who was not commissioned to take the photo but took one casually? Does he, who is unknown, have the copyright too?
And if I purchase the negative, what happens to the copyright?
As far as I am concerned, I will always mention "collection", but it will be interesting to know what are the "copy" rights.

Cheers harit

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by directinjection

The web site terms also usually state that if you are the owner of a copyright work and see it hosted on the web site without your permission, you should write to the web site and point out the exact URL of the content, among other things. Thereupon, the content will be taken off. It is usually taken off but of course, the infringer can upload it again under a different URL and then you have to write to them again.

I guess that's what the report abuse link in picasa is for. I hope you have already reported it.

An even more extreme step would be sending a DMCA takedown notice to google. I imagine they respond to DMCA takedowns pretty quickly in order to stand on the correct side of US law, as opposed to indian law which they might not be as concerned about

[gd1418]

Wouldn't that be too much of a coincidence? Secondly, both have them have to be together at the same place at the same time with the same equipment and similar skills. You also, I'm sure, would know that a scene shot twice within a minute would not be the same, given all the other parameteres are same.

Originally Posted by directinjection

If two persons with similar skills take a photo of the Taj Mahal from the same angle using similar equipment, the photos will look identical and none will infringe the other.

[Daewood]

FORD FIGO DEBUTS IN KERALA | Autonews - Used Cars In Kerala

See this link. Clear lift of GTO's test drive of Figo.
They have just changed the order of the paragraphs.

[sammyboy]

^^ Lol he has even copied GTO's comment on the boot release button :"These type of soft-plastic buttons break after 2+ years of use (based on my experience of using a similar key in the Benz)." or he owns a Benz too . Amazing coincidence.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by gd1418

Wouldn't that be too much of a coincidence? Secondly, both have them have to be together at the same place at the same time with the same equipment and similar skills. You also, I'm sure, would know that a scene shot twice within a minute would not be the same, given all the other parameteres are same.

What I had meant was this: If two works have been independently created by two persons, each will enjoy copyright, notwithstanding their similarity or even identical character. If work B looks identical to a pre-existing work A but was produced without reference to A through application of skill & effort, copyright in work A is not infringed by work B. You can take a photo of Taj Mahal yourself or you can simply copy a pre-existing photo taken by someone else. Copyright is infringed in the latter case but not in the former even if the photo taken looks identical to the pre-existing photo which is not impossible.

[Samurai]

Somewhat related... EU is about to pass a law that will tax linking URLs and uploading Pics you don't own. Crazy times ahead.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/1...11-13-approved

[deehunk]

Originally Posted by gd1418

He is claiming them as his own which is an intellectual property right violation
he has the copyright mark...stating they are his

It is not a big deal to prove who owns the photos, whatever watermark he may have added, the data property of the original image cannot be modified.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by deehunk

It is not a big deal to prove who owns the photos, whatever watermark he may have added, the data property of the original image cannot be modified.

You are responding to a 8 year old query, by a BHPian who is no more.

[deehunk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

You are responding to a 8 year old query, by a BHPian who is no more.

Thanks Samurai, never saw this thread in 9 years. Google has disabled the Image save option, earlier if you right clicked on a image the save option was visible.

[V.Narayan]

Sites like say Bharat Rakshak or Getty Pictures (just using them as an example)paste their watermarks over each photo on their site. But those photos don't belong to Bharat Rakshak - many belong to the Indian Armed Forces or individuals who served in them and several are in books of earlier years long before internet. In the threads I write on aviation & ships many of the photos are from books of the 1960s to 1990s and often I find the same photo on a website with a water mark. I would be grateful if the experts could offer their views on this. Thanks in advance.