I enjoy the openness and immediacy of the internet, and the fact that we can communicate ideas effectively using photos/diagrams instantly.. and though I am against people using someone elses material for profit etc.. I have no problem with photos being shared for study purposes

My advice to anyone who shares photos on the net is to make a copy and reduce the resolution (some prefer 'watermarks') - that way, you still have control over the originals.. of course this doesn't help if it is an original concept you're illustrating ... but then, it wouldn't be prudent to do such a thing anyway..

Jack

Imagine if someone leaves an item of value in their garage. There's no fence up, no security system. Does that mean that it's OK for Johnny bad guy to walk right in there and steal the item?

No, of course not. It's easy to understand that situation, but for some reason people think it's OK to steal photos from any website whenever they wish. Google does this systematically with their "image search" tool. Then other people, who perhaps think that they are just borrowing, use the stolen goods (the photos) for their own purposes.

This whole thing burns me up. Please don't say that "you ought to know better." That's a cop-out. After all, leaving your garage door open does not make it OK for Johnny to steal those items.

Does anyone else on this forum feel like I do about this?

Gee, that's funny --- I could have sworn I posted something on this thread about the ethics of impersonating others in an Internet forum. It seems to have disappeared, like some other similar comments in the past. How interesting.

Lee

I agree with you, Bahama. But to be realistic it's pretty hard to prosecute the offenders at this point. At least that's the case until Google gets sued by someone. The Napster lawsuit was several years ago and despite the ruling that copyright issue is still in flux. I'd recommend you follow Asuka's advice that is posted above.

OK --- on the subject of copyrights.....

I believe copyright law is rather complicated. Any copyright lawyers lurking out there?

Based on my limited understanding, it's not illegal to look at a picture or to read a book. It's not illegal to take a book out of a library, take it home and read it (even though you did not pay for it).

It IS illegal to pretend you are the author of a photo or piece of writing. It IS illegal to copy material without permission and use it for your own profit (i.e., in a for-profit business). This would apply to graphics lifted from one publication, altered slightly and reprinted in a for-profit publication, for example.

I believe the "for profit" angle is the important part here. I do know there are special rules concerning use of copyrighted material for educational purposes.

Lee

My understanding of the use of any printed/published material is based on non profit and educational use. Any material can be used for these purposes for "limited distribution" as long as the material is not covered by a specific statement to the contrary.

Now, is posting something to the www for the purpose of sharing knowledge without the possibility of profit still considered "limited distribution"? And what effect does siting credit for the material used have?

Don -- anyone posting to the www would presumably already be familiar with the nature of the beast.. so..I'm not sure what "limited distribution" would mean in this context - other than limited to this planet :)
As for rightfully crediting someone with authorship/ownership - I think it illustrates the goodwill of the person doing the borrowing..ie not taking credit for it / plagiarising /or profiteering in any way

Jack

Photo snatchers abound on the net. I limit what I put out there because of this, and usually I present a very reduced image both in terms of quality and size. This is an unfortunate aspect of instant anonymous access the net offers. It's the wild west out there right now and how it will ever be reined in is anyone's guess! PF

Google is just a search engine. It will pull in anything ever published on the world wide web, protected or not, I think it's up to the publisher to protect it via PDF, etc.

check this out
www.flickr.com/

Maybe the short, practical answer is that if somebody else makes money out of using one of your photographs then, in theory, you're entitled to the going rate for their use of that sort of picture. That's fine - if you get to know about it - & if you can prove that it was your picture. Even then, bear in mind that the going rate may not be very much.