I Thought They Were Just Photos

A friend works as a Real Estate Agent, and recently he was representing a property that an owner wanted to rent. When putting together the listing for the property, the agent took some photos of the property because, as he says, the clients often provide terrible pictures. A month or so later - before the property was rented - the owner changed his mind and decided to sell the property. The owner also decided - as was his right - to choose a different agent and agency to sell the property.

Because he works on commission - and the property hadn't been rented - no money was paid to the original rental agent for the work he'd done in listing the property.

A few weeks later, the rental agent happened to notice that the pictures he had taken were being used by the new selling agent in their listing. When he contacted the agent, they said that the owner had provided them...

...and when he contacted the owner to find out why they had provided his pictures to the new real estate agent, he got the response "Oh, I thought they were just photos."


Which got my wondering; what does that mean? That photos have no value? Or that the owner did not value the time and effort used to take the photos? Is this ignorance, or someone with an exaggerated sense of entitlement? Or is it that the internet makes people think that any photo is in the public domain?



Coincidentally, Larry Jordan posted today about an experience he had where someone took videos he'd posted on YouTube and reposted them as their own.
...a reminder to everyone that when you make copyrighted material available for free, or download a program from a source like Pirate Bay without paying for it, you are depriving someone of an income, and possibly someone from having a job.
Fortunately, the person took down the offending videos after Larry sent them a complaint.

Meanwhile, the Social Times just published "The Complete Guide To Fair Use & YouTube" which is mostly taken from a YouTube talk on fair use, "Mashups, Parodies & Lip Dubs: Ask A Legal Expert About Fair Use," by Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project and associate director Julie Ahrens. It covers the various interpretations of Fair Use, though be warned:
Before you read any further it is important to point out that this information should be taken only as general guidance and not legal advice. If you aren’t sure one hundred percent about how fair use law relates to your specific situation then you should consult a lawyer.
See also:
Larry's Blog: Copyright and Communication
Social Times: The Complete Guide To Fair Use & YouTube
YouTube: CIS Fair Use legal experts answer questions about YouTube

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sony GV-D200 review

Image
Sony GV-D200 I've been using a Sony GV-D200 deck to transfer old Video8 and Hi8 tapes. Some of these tapes are over twenty years old, and no longer having a Hi8 camcorder that worked I was concerned that if I didn't do something about transferring them to a more modern format soon, I might never be able to. While Sony no longer make camcorders that use these tapes - that I know of - Sony does still sell the GV-D200 deck (or Video Walkman, as it's sometimes labelled.) They also offer the GV-D800, which is almost identical but adds a small LCD screen for about $120 more. I didn't think I'd need a screen since I was using this to capture to the computer, but you will need an external monitor when you first set it up. Physically, the device is small. At 5 7/8" wide, 5 3/8" deep and 2" high, it's the smallest video deck I've encountered. I used to have a Video8 deck that I thought was small; and it was twice as deep and twice as high. The t...
Read more

Response: Which iPhone to Get?

Image
In response to my iPhone musings, I got the following reader email which actually sums up a lot of my second and third thoughts too: You might have a point about the fancier camera, but otherwise I would buy the smaller model. Its screen is about the same size as that of my Nexus 4, and I don't feel at all like it limits me with a too-small screen. But I do sometimes stretch to get my thumb the reach to the other corner of the screen. It is plenty big for a phone. A phone is a pocket thing. (Well, in my case it lives an ancient REI soft sunglasses case that I have on my belt.) Ubiquitous, handy, convenient, almost always with me. Small is crucial for all of that. Certainly a large screen is cool, but you need a place to put it: don't break a fundamental feature of a pocket phone by getting too big. That is what your small tablet is for. I have my phone with me almost always. I have my Nexus 7 tablet with me nearly as much. The bigger screen is great, yet it fits in some...
Read more

Should you buy the Sony NEX-FS100 Kit Lens?

Image
The Sony NEX-FS100 is available in two configurations: B & H : NEX-FS100U Camcorder only $4,999 B & H : NEX-FS100U (with 18-200mm lens) $5,599 But what does that extra $600 get you? It get's you this: Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens for NEX Camera This lens is also available separately for $799.99, so at $200 off you'd think everyone would be jumping on it. But not so fast... In his article about switching from the Canon 5D Mark II to the Sony NEX-FS100 , Paul Antico  at Need Creative says of the kit lens: 7) Its 18-200 F3.6-6.3 kit lens absolutely sucks and should be avoided (thankfully, you can order it without one) [ 1 ] But is it that bad? At B & H 's site, 43 reviews give it an average of 4.6 out of 5 stars. That's not a bad rating, though many of these people are using it for stills, and the most common complaint noted is how large and heavy it is. Of course this feeling of size would be exacerbated when you put it on a tiny camera ...
Read more