http://disqus.com/by/popimages/enSun, 17 Jul 2022 00:21:53 -0000https://www.carscoops.com/2022/07/1300-hp-mercury-comet-violently-rear-ends-minivan-after-brake-failure/#comment-5919737327<p>He did shift into neutral. You see it in the video.</p>popimagesSun, 17 Jul 2022 00:21:53 -0000https://patch.com/massachusetts/beverly/mystery-yacht-has-beverly-buzzing#comment-4006548564<p>The problem with media in this day and age, spelling. Nobody can "sale" a yacht but a yacht broker.</p>popimagesWed, 25 Jul 2018 21:33:36 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3622023278<p>You can't credit the photographer, (what she was upset for,) without putting a proper copyright on the photo. How would he know who's photo it is. Like the Jimmy hendrix case he could argue his image is his trademark (his guitar does have a trademark) .For all we know it could be an image she stole from a website and is claiming as hers because there was no explicit copyright when she stole it. Implied copyright in the digital age is a hard thing to prove</p>popimagesSat, 18 Nov 2017 09:44:31 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3621998560<p>Except she posted it without her copyright printed on it so he had no way of knowing who's it was. Look up Orphan Copyright .</p>popimagesSat, 18 Nov 2017 09:21:44 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3621029185<p>you understand the three types of copyright?<br>1)implied<br>2)explicit<br>3) verified<br>her "copyright" was implied.<br>Anyone can take an Orphan image and claim ownership under copyright law. It is only once it is contested that she must prove ownership. Saying it's yours doesn't cut it when you have not protected it prior to distribution.</p>popimagesFri, 17 Nov 2017 14:24:40 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618532515<p>I guess you answered my question</p>popimagesThu, 16 Nov 2017 02:16:28 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618450455<p>Cleveland ,Cincinnati all in ohio the midwest. Drew Carey land<br>So she says she tried to Contact Brian May which she just needed to contact his management. I can get a hold of him in 2 phone calls. Friend of a friend he played on his album,played at the Queen tribute show in Wembley. He is an accesible rock star. She ruined a lot of the good will some bands have towards photographers by going for a fame grab to get her 15 minutes. problem is it kind of backfired.</p>popimagesThu, 16 Nov 2017 00:10:56 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618383206<p>you do uderstand copyright and usage are 2 different laws. she has an implied copyright Usage must be explicit and contracted. she can only use the image for sditorial purposes without a release from the venue and subject. furthermore if Queen had a photographer there and they do any photos she took that are similiar to his are a derivative of his work as implied copyright is formed at the idea and prior to the shutter release meaning in order to get those releases the paid photographer can make her delete any images similiar to his as they violate his/her implied copyright and devalue his or/her work.<br>4 years of photography school which included 14 weeks of photography law currently work for an intelectual property lawyer</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 23:11:53 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618366169<p>If you have never seen concert staff remove film it is because all concerts pre cell phone prohibited you from bringing in a camera. I was at a Prince Concert with a Band whose members are very close Friends with Brian May and my camera and film taken camera returned at the end of the concert. we all had passes but not photo passes.<br>A lot of Bands see photographers as leeches making money off of them so unless you are askes by a band to be there or with a news agency, photographs are for personal use only .posting to instragram means you have reproduced an image . she is a "photographer"that means she is using an image for promotion which could give her a monetary gain and has not contracted for usage of the image. Again usage and copyright being different things. Most people on this forum dont understand that<br>This women didn't protect her copyright as Brian May always gives credit when the photographer prints a proper copyright on their photo. you seem to know copyright law so you understand implied copyright. what most people dont understand is that although she has an implied copyright, usage must be explicit and contracted. she cannot use that image except for editorial purposes without a property release(she was on private property) and a model release. she obtained neither of these. The attention she has garnered for herself will only make it tougher for photographers as most bands now hire there own photographers which means any work you do as a non-hired photographer becomes a derivative of their work and they have the right to edit your work as to not devalue theirs before giving you a release. That is because implied copyright is formed as an idea prior to the pressing of the shutter essentially stating because at a "moment" you both shot a similiar picture you are infinging on their copyright because it is their job to be there. It is a brave new world out there and people who have not went to school for photography and are calling themselves "Photographer" have a higher standard as does any "profesional" I can't call my self a profesional race car driver becauae I own one, The same holds true with photographers</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 22:52:20 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618127512<p>she cant even post it to facebook. there is no Implied usage. All usage and reproduction must be explicit(needs a contract and releases) Once she called herself "photographer" that makes her a profesional which makes any publication of the image promotional.<br>Protect your photos with explicit Copyrights <br>your name 2017<br>Do not write <br>Your Name photographer 2017<br>or<br>your name photography 2017<br>why because now you are held to a higher standard,that of a profesional photographer<br>also Send all your work to the copyright office at the end of the year as a compilation. Now you have an explicit and acknowledged copyright.<br>Don't do what she did get her information from the internet. She will probably be banned or refused entrance to any concert where she is recognized. No musician is going to allow her to photograph them. Was it worth it for her?</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 19:06:50 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618113949<p>even if the venue allowed photography it is an implied copyright. reproduction and usage are seperate from a copyright. If she has not obtained a release from the venue and the perfomer to use or reproduce the photo she has violated the law. Reproduction and usage must be explicit and can not be implied. Meaning if you take a pbotograph at a club or concert you can't post it anywhere it is for personal use only.</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:55:05 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618104543<p>any reproduction is usage . Usage must be explicit and contracted. You can not use a concert photo for "fine art" unless it is for your personal use,nor can you use it to promote your business because you would be profiting from it without express consent for usage. Usage is different from copyright .look up The rock and roll hall of fame copyright lawsuit from Cincinatti.</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:47:14 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618088974<p>A public event is still on private property. Without a property release you cannot use the picture. I think you are confused about definitions public event does not mean public property. Public property is a sidewalk a government building anywhere where you are allowed to walk free at any time and cannot be removed for trespassing. A concert venue, a rodeo, a state fair are all private events that allow the public to attend. They are not on public property. So if you do something illegally they can say you are trespassing and have you removed. You cannot trespass on public property such as a sidewalk because it is owned by you. You paid taxes for it</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:34:16 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618083232<p>Jen, let's throw copyright out the window. We are talking about usage law. There is implied copyright. There is no implied usage usage must be explicit. If a venue allows cameras it is not for commercial usage. I just asked my boss and I am correct all I do 8 or 9 hours a day is research</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:29:37 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618065872<p>she owns the copyright . Even the idea of an images copywritten. What she doesn't own is usage for publication which must be explicit. It cannot be implied. It must be in a contract. If a photograph is obtained illegally it can be destroyed. She will still own the copyright because she will still own the idea of the image</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:15:20 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618063608<p>you should really learn the law because unlike others on this thread you take Great photos. Protect yourself from what others say and join ASMP. go to their legal workshops order their guides. Pretty sure working for an intelectual property lawyer and seeing people who thought they knew the law getting sued gives me a better insight into this than most.</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:13:33 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618058737<p>when you say photographer it implies profesional .I f I said I was a veteranian it would imply I am a profesional</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:09:43 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618025328<p>A concert is a private venue. your admission by ticket is your membership for that evening. That is basic Tort Law. you learn it in high school.</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 17:44:08 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3618020228<p>lack of education and lack of knowledge of industry standard practices tells me you are not a "Profesional" also I have seen your photos.</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 17:40:21 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3617999335<p>actually what it means is that if you were at a venue that didnt state photography for commercial purposes is allowed then they have the right to destroy that work. If they were photographing the show they can also claim it is a derivatve of their work and because you did not seek property releases or contract for usage prior the copyright is yours but any money for usage is theirs. <br>when weasels try to weasel out of the law they get buried</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:08 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3617987889<p>looks to me as if you are an HVAC technician . Where did you go to school for photograhy or copyright law. The problem with the advent of digital technology is any idiot can take 100o picss get 10 good ones and then they call themselves photographers with no formal education at all. The differenc being a photogapher takes 10 shots and they have 10 great shots</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 17:16:57 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3617967760<p>my friend owns one of the largest privately owned stock agencies. you will still be sued if you have improper or inadequate usage releases which is different than a copyright. usage can not be signed away it is an explict contract that release usage for specific compensation. If you think a standard model release for no compensation covers you for infinite usage for publication, please retain the law firm I work for my commision on you will buy me a brand new mercedes</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 17:02:09 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3617938155<p>1.most venues do not allow photography they tolerate because with cellphones it is near impossible to police. <br>2 because she has an implied copyright it does not give her explicit usage. usage can only be explicated by contract.<br>3 because she only has an implied copyright she is only protected by copyright law prior to the copyright act of 1976 Which means all images and likenesses of a performer cannot be used with out a property release from the venue and person photographed. <br>There is an expectation of people reading the rules of the venue as stated 9n your ticket and avaulable at the box office. Anytime you photograph on private property you MUST obtain a property release.<br>4 years of photography school, 14 weeks if photography lawand I work for an Intelectual property lawyer. <br>let me dumb it down for you because you seem to be "simple". You walk into a store and shoplift and get all the way home with the product of your labors,you still don't own it because it was obtained without consent or payment to the store owner.</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 16:42:13 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3617673622<p>when did you get your law degree. you shoulf probably get a refund</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 13:59:17 -0000http://petapixel.com/?p=294023#comment-3617644223<p>You could use them on YouTube but you would have to mark the videos so that they couldn't be displayed to the public. If you release them on a public forum with Queen in the background then you are subject to a lawsuit</p>popimagesWed, 15 Nov 2017 13:41:25 -0000