Michael Alestra wrote:
i wonder if lawyers argue over f-stops and shutter speeds on their message boards.

Generally, f-stops and shutter speeds have no bearing on a lawyer's day to day business, hence there is little need to discuss these issues.

On the other hand plastic surgeons and dentists may use photography to document their work, and I would not be surprised to find doctors and dentists asking their peers for advice on f-stops, shutter speeds, and color balance.


Copyright law, and laws concerning rights of privacy/publicity are an important issue for many photographers.   It is natural for photographers to discuss those aspects of the law that so greatly impact our business.


I would be surprised if photographers were routinely discussing areas of the law not related to photography  Such as the issues surrounding what may or may not be included in the instructions to a jury.  Or, should someone be convicted, which aspects of a criminal forfeiture are to be decided by a jury, and which aspects by the judge?

Michael Fryd wrote:
Are you suggesting that Google, Yahoo, Bing, and other search engines are breaking the law hot linking images in their search results?

How is this different from a model having a page labeled "search for my images on the web", which is a collection of hot linked images?

They may be. In places where people are charged for server use by bandwidth, hot-linking can be actual theft, increasing the costs of their bandwidth and literally stealing money out of the website's pocket by increasing their hosting costs.  Btw, Google images DOESN'T hotlink. It stores small versions of the images on Google's servers and provides the link to go to the website. And they fought a lawsuit on whether THAT was copyright infringement. Maybe there is a reason Google does that?

Search won't do much good if the photos aren't under her name or some other criteria that will show up in a search (assuming that the photos are titled or tagged with something that is viable as search criteria).

Leighthenubian wrote:
So what?

Send her an email if it bothers you so much. You can't control everyone and everything. Seems to me that it's your client that should have the problem.

+1

Al Lock Photography wrote:

They may be. In places where people are charged for server use by bandwidth, hot-linking can be actual theft, increasing the costs of their bandwidth and literally stealing money out of the website's pocket by increasing their hosting costs.  Btw, Google images DOESN'T hotlink. It stores small versions of the images on Google's servers and provides the link to go to the website. And they fought a lawsuit on whether THAT was copyright infringement. Maybe there is a reason Google does that?

Search won't do much good if the photos aren't under her name or some other criteria that will show up in a search (assuming that the photos are titled or tagged with something that is viable as search criteria).

I want to get back to my original comment.  Owning the Copyright does not give you complete control over an image.

My point was that "hot linking" is the online equivalent of a physical "tear" sheet.   Using a page you tore out of a magazine, or hot linking to an image, is likely not a copyright violation.   While there may be other legal issues (i.e. perhaps you stole a copy of the magazine), Merely owning the copyright would not give you standing.

If the hot-link does constitute theft of service, then this is an issue for the web site owner to pursue.  It is not a violation of copyright law.


As to your comments on hot linking being theft of service, you bring up some interesting issues.


First of all, the fact that one increases traffic for another web site is not necessarily theft of service.

For instance, if I recommend that people look at the food photography on your website, your bandwidth may go up, yet I don't think this would constitute theft of services.

In the US, most web sits are on non-metered plans.  Hence an increase in web traffic would not cause additional cost to the web site owner.  If stolen services are "free", then it may not be chargeable offense, or even a crime.  I am not sure what the courts think in this situation.

As it turns out, this morning I was observing a trial in federal court.  During closing arguments the defense attorney argued that a "theft" has not occurred unless you have deprived the owner of something.   If there is not additional cost to the web site owner, and they have not been deprived of anything, has a theft actually occurred?  The jury is still out (literally) on that question in that case.


I think it there are circumstances where hot linking is not a legal problem, and circumstances where it is.  A lot depends on the context of the situation.

Consider a situation where a company has posted a JPEG of an advertisement.  A model who appears in that ad, hot links to it from her portfolio page.   Has the model committed a crime?  Normally the company would pay for placement of the ad, yet the model has given them placement for free.  You could make the case that the model's hot links constitute a valuable gift to the company, not a theft of service.

Another question.  Does it make a difference if the model uses a hot link, or places the entire page in an embedded frame on her site?

But I digress.  The important issue is that hot links allow one to place an image on your web page without violating copyright.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
There are a few hundred countries worldwide and 50 states in the USA as well as various jurisdictions within all those legal entities. At least in some jurisdictions, hot-linking is a violation of the law. It has been ruled theft of services.

Just because people do it doesn't make it legal everywhere.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Are you suggesting that Google, Yahoo, Bing, and other search engines are breaking the law hot linking images in their search results?

How is this different from a model having a page labeled "search for my images on the web", which is a collection of hot linked images?

To be fair, there have been many arguing, for a long time, that hotlinking is a form of bandwidth theft.  They make a persuasive argument, but if it were accepted, it would totally alter the character of the Internet.

My point is that AI isn't arguing anything that others haven't.  The reality though, particularly in the US and most of Europe, the argument hasn't gotten traction in the courts.  To my knowledge, there has never been a case in the US where hotlinking has been found to be unlawful.  Indeed, the Supreme Court here, found the opposite with Google and thumbnails.

I expect site operators to argue, ad infinitem, that hotlinking is theft, because they don't want their images hotlinked.   That having been said, until the courts agree, it is a legal theory but not a legal reality.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Owning the Copyright does not give you complete control over an image.

You said this before, you talking about Fair Use?

j3_photo wrote:
You said this before, you talking about Fair Use?

Not primarily.

Owning the copyright allows you to place certain limits on copying/reproducing an image.  It does not allow you to control how those copies are used.   Thus, I would not call this "complete" control.


For instance the copyright holder can grant or withhold permission for someone to make posters from their image.  However, once those posters are legally made, copyright law does little to allow you to control how those posters are used/displayed.  A poster buyer is free to hang the poster in his bedroom, living room, or even use it to line the bottom of his birdcage.  He only needs the copyright holder's permission if he wants to make further reproductions.


If the image contains an image of a recognizable person, then that person can place restrictions preventing the image from being used in certain contexts (generally "commercial use").  Even though the the photographer may own the copyright, he may not have the authority to use the image in an advertisement.


As to "fair use", this refers to a limited set of circumstances where copies can be made without the copyright holder's permission.


My point is that copyright allows significant control over one aspect of an image (reproduction).  There are many other issues for which copyright does not give you authority to use the image, or for which copyright does not allow you to restrict others from using the image.

Michael Fryd wrote:

Not primarily.

Owning the copyright allows you to place certain limits on copying/reproducing an image.  It does not allow you to control how those copies are used.   Thus, I would not call this "complete" control.


For instance the copyright holder can grant or withhold permission for someone to make posters from their image.  However, once those posters are legally made, copyright law does little to allow you to control how those posters are used/displayed.  A poster buyer is free to hang the poster in his bedroom, living room, or even use it to line the bottom of his birdcage.  He only needs the copyright holder's permission if he wants to make further reproductions.


If the image contains an image of a recognizable person, then that person can place restrictions preventing the image from being used in certain contexts (generally "commercial use").  Even though the the photographer may own the copyright, he may not have the authority to use the image in an advertisement.


As to "fair use", this refers to a limited set of circumstances where copies can be made without the copyright holder's permission.


My point is that copyright allows significant control over one aspect of an image (reproduction).  There are many other issues for which copyright does not give you authority to use the image, or for which copyright does not allow you to restrict others from using the image.

Copyright wasn't created to give us complete control.

j3_photo wrote:

Copyright wasn't created to give us complete control.

It sounds like you agree with me, and disagree with

Al Lock Photography wrote:
...
The creator of a photograph has COMPLETE control over where that photograph can be displayed. etc. with the exception of specifically stated exceptions within the statute. Model portfolio use is not one of the specified exceptions.
...

My position is that once the model has a legal copy of the image, the copyright owner may not prevent her from displaying it in her printed portfolio.  Additionally the copyright owner does not have the right to prevent her "hot linking" a  legally uploaded image to her web site (Although there is a question as to whether hot linking is legal - this is not a copyright issue).

Michael Fryd wrote:

Not primarily.

Owning the copyright allows you to place certain limits on copying/reproducing an image.  It does not allow you to control how those copies are used.   Thus, I would not call this "complete" control.


For instance the copyright holder can grant or withhold permission for someone to make posters from their image.  However, once those posters are legally made, copyright law does little to allow you to control how those posters are used/displayed.  A poster buyer is free to hang the poster in his bedroom, living room, or even use it to line the bottom of his birdcage.  He only needs the copyright holder's permission if he wants to make further reproductions.


If the image contains an image of a recognizable person, then that person can place restrictions preventing the image from being used in certain contexts (generally "commercial use").  Even though the the photographer may own the copyright, he may not have the authority to use the image in an advertisement.


As to "fair use", this refers to a limited set of circumstances where copies can be made without the copyright holder's permission.


My point is that copyright allows significant control over one aspect of an image (reproduction).  There are many other issues for which copyright does not give you authority to use the image, or for which copyright does not allow you to restrict others from using the image.

To amplify, the amount of 'control' a photographer has over an image changes once an image is published especially concerning the issue of display which is at the core of the argument with model's portfolios. I have been all buy pilloried in this thread for describing this common practice in the industry specifically in terms of displaying published work. I have been personally insulted in this thread for merely pointing out that display does not necessarily constitute infringement and that absolute control does not exist.

A number of photographers participating in this thread made overly-simplicitic views of a highly complex issue. The idea that copyright can be summed up in a single sentence is naive. A few chose to attack me personally for bringing up legitimate exceptions when they themselves are displaying copyrighted material from published work including page layouts and logos they don't have the 'absolute' copyright for. Somehow they don't understand that irony.

Dan Howell wrote:

To amplify, the amount of 'control' a photographer has over an image changes once an image is published especially concerning the issue of display which is at the core of the argument with model's portfolios. I have been all buy pilloried in this thread for describing this common practice in the industry specifically in terms of displaying published work. I have been personally insulted in this thread for merely pointing out that display does not necessarily constitute infringement and that absolute control does not exist.

A number of photographers participating in this thread made overly-simplicitic views of a highly complex issue. The idea that copyright can be summed up in a single sentence is naive. A few chose to attack me personally for bringing up legitimate exceptions when they themselves are displaying copyrighted material from published work including page layouts and logos they don't have the 'absolute' copyright for. Somehow they don't understand that irony.

You are correct that copyright is a complicated issue. 

I believe the photographer loses control once a single legal copy of an image is released.  "Publishing" is a typical (but not the only) method for releasing copies.

If the photographer makes only a single print, and gives/sells it, then he loses control over that print.  Should the model legally acquire that print, she does not need permission from the copyright owner in order to display that print in her physical portfolio.

My understanding is that giving or selling a single print in a private circumstance is not considered "publishing" under copyright law.