First Prev
of 2
Next Last
2ManyMorons

Ithaca, NY

#1 Mar 1, 2013
On the VERY OUTSIDE CHANCE that someone in Gouverneur can actually read (better than they write) here is a link to FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS!
The Trib IS in the wrong and that is FEDERAL LAW, not Gouverneur Topix Rules!
Now, please, for my entertainment, go ahead and tell me how the law is wrong and doesn't apply to ShortDick Sterling.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse...
Agree

Fayetteville, NY

#2 Mar 1, 2013
Small minded people! They are going to all look stupid when Impressions Studio tells her side of the story! Keep running your mouths with only half of the story and I'll be the first one to laugh in your face when you realize your little bias newspaper isn't so innocent!
Moron

Moravia, NY

#3 Mar 1, 2013
Read before you post moron. It's called the limited used doctrine and it includes news reporting. Why don't you post your name if you're so confident? Just another upstate idiot who can barely read trying to interpret a federal law. And you're the one pointing the finger.
A photographer friend

Powell, OH

#4 Mar 2, 2013
As I have stated before limited use doctrine will be up to the courts to decide and is very hard for the paper to prove, and it will be up to the paper to do so. With prior violations and an absence of credit given to Impression Studio after their 'talk' 4 years ago may be enough to show willful infringement.

For everyone else trying to understand copyright infringement, you can almost easily replace that with plagiarism.....

Do you remember writing papers for your English teacher in school, you were also taught to ' site your source' when you were using another persons words. Copyright infringement is basically the same thing - using someone else's images without proper permission from the copyright owner. How it is displayed in the paper does not matter, it is an infringement just to use it without that permission and damages are clearly stated in the law for statutory damages for willful use, if that is what it is deemed.The newspaper is well aware of this law and their requirements to follow that law - it is an industry staple that also protects them from people reprinting their articles without permission. To those who are worried about Amy 'coming after them' for using her images should be equally afraid of the newspaper coming after you if you scan and distribute a story about your child that was named in the paper....if Impession Studios is filing a civil copyright infringement law suit against the Governeur Tribune, this is one business to another business, not a personal dispute. Please understand that Amy has probably gone through 6 or 7 other courses of action to get them to comply with the laws, and the Tribune has refused to comply. Now they are trying to use the 'court' of public opinion to get her to back down, which she should not.
A photographer friend

Powell, OH

#5 Mar 2, 2013
Oops, sorry about the double post
Dunce

Ithaca, NY

#6 Mar 2, 2013
Moron wrote:
Read before you post moron. It's called the limited used doctrine and it includes news reporting. Why don't you post your name if you're so confident? Just another upstate idiot who can barely read trying to interpret a federal law. And you're the one pointing the finger.
Post before you go to Nina's, Einstein!
There truly is not as much grey area in this law as their is in your skull!
thanks

Ithaca, NY

#7 Mar 2, 2013
A photographer friend wrote:
Oops, sorry about the double post
Thanks for the information Michelle. Very helpful.
Photographer Friend

Ardsley, NY

#8 Mar 3, 2013
Dunce wrote:
<quoted text>
Post before you go to Nina's, Einstein!
There truly is not as much grey area in this law as their is in your skull!
Okay tough guy, we will see in the end. You will eat your words, guaranteed. And the law is nothing but grey, but you wouldn't know that because you most likely for your education at home or online.
Dale Ra

Ithaca, NY

#9 Mar 3, 2013
A photographer friend wrote:
As I have stated before limited use doctrine will be up to the courts to decide and is very hard for the paper to prove, and it will be up to the paper to do so. With prior violations and an absence of credit given to Impression Studio after their 'talk' 4 years ago may be enough to show willful infringement.
For everyone else trying to understand copyright infringement, you can almost easily replace that with plagiarism.....
Do you remember writing papers for your English teacher in school, you were also taught to ' site your source' when you were using another persons words. Copyright infringement is basically the same thing - using someone else's images without proper permission from the copyright owner. How it is displayed in the paper does not matter, it is an infringement just to use it without that permission and damages are clearly stated in the law for statutory damages for willful use, if that is what it is deemed.The newspaper is well aware of this law and their requirements to follow that law - it is an industry staple that also protects them from people reprinting their articles without permission. To those who are worried about Amy 'coming after them' for using her images should be equally afraid of the newspaper coming after you if you scan and distribute a story about your child that was named in the paper....if Impession Studios is filing a civil copyright infringement law suit against the Governeur Tribune, this is one business to another business, not a personal dispute. Please understand that Amy has probably gone through 6 or 7 other courses of action to get them to comply with the laws, and the Tribune has refused to comply. Now they are trying to use the 'court' of public opinion to get her to back down, which she should not.
Ok Genius, You forgot that this is a civil action, she has to prove that they did something wrong first. She can say anything but that doesn't matter in court without proof.

She has to prove limited use does NOT apply.
A photographer friend

Powell, OH

#10 Mar 3, 2013
Her proof will be simple won't it... If she is not credited in 'news' stories but all other sources are - she will win. Civil court requires less proof than criminal court and all she 'has' to prove is that it is 'more likely than not', that the newspaper used her images without obtaining proper permission when they could not beyond a 'reasonable doubt' required in criminal court. It will be up to the paper to try and prove odtherwise. As stated several times by people in many of the threads, her images were not credited even in stories where others were. There would also be a difference if people had to pay for a place in the picture that included a submitted image to the paper. Because the paper is making money from the submission and not obtaining proper permission, they are gaining money on commercial infringement.

Have you gone to Wal-Mart and tried to scan professional images? They will not allow you to do that unless you have a release from the photographer. Even as a photographer, we have to fill out the forms stating that we are the original creators of the images and if we allow images to be printed by clients, have to provide permission with contact info so that they can check out the legitimacy. This is because Wal-Mart had been sued for infringement and either lost or settled.

Just because it is in a news report doesn't mean that the paper doesn't have some responsibility to obtain permission, they still have steps to go through to reasonably obtain permission... and like I said, it may be a mute point if they had made an agreement 4 years ago and violated the agreement, thereby not covered under limited use.

By the way, my info comes from personal experience and dealing with the laws in this type of case as well as a lot of research before settling with a company that had infringed on my images. And before you ask, as part of the settlement, we agreed not to disclose identifying information. I didn't want my business with them publicized and they didn't want to either.

You want to defend the newspaper for whatever reason, but they are in the wrong - and in civil court, it is up to them, not Amy, to prove otherwise. Have you never gone to civil court? The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. The defendant has to prove that the allegations filed against them are not true and then prove how. There is no grey - sorry.
opinion

Colonial Heights, VA

#11 Mar 3, 2013
A photographer friend wrote:
Her proof will be simple won't it... If she is not credited in 'news' stories but all other sources are - she will win. Civil court requires less proof than criminal court and all she 'has' to prove is that it is 'more likely than not', that the newspaper used her images without obtaining proper permission when they could not beyond a 'reasonable doubt' required in criminal court. It will be up to the paper to try and prove odtherwise. As stated several times by people in many of the threads, her images were not credited even in stories where others were. There would also be a difference if people had to pay for a place in the picture that included a submitted image to the paper. Because the paper is making money from the submission and not obtaining proper permission, they are gaining money on commercial infringement.
Have you gone to Wal-Mart and tried to scan professional images? They will not allow you to do that unless you have a release from the photographer. Even as a photographer, we have to fill out the forms stating that we are the original creators of the images and if we allow images to be printed by clients, have to provide permission with contact info so that they can check out the legitimacy. This is because Wal-Mart had been sued for infringement and either lost or settled.
Just because it is in a news report doesn't mean that the paper doesn't have some responsibility to obtain permission, they still have steps to go through to reasonably obtain permission... and like I said, it may be a mute point if they had made an agreement 4 years ago and violated the agreement, thereby not covered under limited use.
By the way, my info comes from personal experience and dealing with the laws in this type of case as well as a lot of research before settling with a company that had infringed on my images. And before you ask, as part of the settlement, we agreed not to disclose identifying information. I didn't want my business with them publicized and they didn't want to either.
You want to defend the newspaper for whatever reason, but they are in the wrong - and in civil court, it is up to them, not Amy, to prove otherwise. Have you never gone to civil court? The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. The defendant has to prove that the allegations filed against them are not true and then prove how. There is no grey - sorry.
is a "mute point" something like a moot point?

can you explain exactly how you sued someone without identifying them or yourself? "details of a settlement are often kept private but not identity."

can you show me a single law that has no gray area?

you are also wrong about who the burden of proof is on.

if and most likely when she loses. will it be up to her to prove it was not a frivolous lawsuit when they counter sue?

you really should stick to your walmart policy arguments they might be more in your league.
A photographer friend

Powell, OH

#12 Mar 3, 2013
I did mean moot and mute.....

The settlement was no disclosure to the public of who either of us are, not to each other.

And what will it be if she wins - I guess not frivolous, but the paper was in the wrong.
Tom

Ithaca, NY

#13 Mar 3, 2013
A photographer friend wrote:
I did mean moot and mute.....
The settlement was no disclosure to the public of who either of us are, not to each other.
And what will it be if she wins - I guess not frivolous, but the paper was in the wrong.
Oh for christ sakes AMY, just tell us your real name, we know its you.
loser

Ithaca, NY

#14 Mar 3, 2013
I hope she loses business and all. Her actions are not needed here in our town. Who knows who else will end up sued by her. Be cautious of her and take your business else where.
A photographer friend

Powell, OH

#15 Mar 3, 2013
Nope not Amy....
Not even in Ny state. I am a supporter of her and any photographer who stands up for their rights, though.
A photographer friend

Powell, OH

#16 Mar 3, 2013
Here is another question - would you be just as offended if the newspaper pursued a local blogger for posting their articles online? They would have the same coverage under the copyright laws and would have the same claim for damages.

Or are you just arguing it isn't going to happen because you don't like the plaintiff?

My personal opinion is if someone is violating your rights to distribute, go for it...regardless of personal opinions.
Cameraman

West Hartford, CT

#17 Mar 4, 2013
She is going to win!
Agree

Fayetteville, NY

#18 Mar 4, 2013
Cameraman wrote:
She is going to win!
I agree and the front page article in the Tribune didn't help their case at all! I wonder if their lawyer knew about that stupid stunt?
hey

East Syracuse, NY

#19 Mar 17, 2013
I have a question if parent bought their childrens pictures from amy are you saying they have no right to have that picture put in the news paper without her permission? if that's the case I think i'd be doing my own pictures
Please

Fayetteville, NY

#20 Mar 18, 2013
hey wrote:
I have a question if parent bought their childrens pictures from amy are you saying they have no right to have that picture put in the news paper without her permission? if that's the case I think i'd be doing my own pictures
of course you can as long as that newspaper gives photo credit to the photographer!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Antwerp Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
way 9 hr :) 12
ryan gibson 15 hr higherup 9
does anybody know robert mceathron (Jul '11) 15 hr robert fowler 6
always remembered. 17 hr fawn McIntosh 2
oswegatchie coffee shop (Aug '12) Mon Ridiculous 88
Who is Adam and Aliza LaRock Mon Amanda 3
dope buyers Mon sweetapples0111 11

Antwerp Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Antwerp Mortgages