Theft is always theft!

[Rob Wright]

One of the positives that has come from this is education. The truth is, a lot of people just don't know what is right, and what is wrong. I'll admit that I have added KS photos to a few eBay sales in the past. I never thought of it as being a copyright issue. Now I do.

As far as Alex not throwing any bones Tony's way. If he was smart, he would send a bunch of work to him. For one, Tony takes excellent pictures. Second, it could go a long way to him repairing his reputation with a lot of collectors. Even though things are settled between Alex and Tony, there is still a bad taste in the mouths of many collectors.

[Card Player]

You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice.  You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.

Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped.  The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place.  The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing.  Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings.  It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.

I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen.  At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.  I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality.  They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright. 

Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.

Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.

I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)

I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.

So, if I shoot you walking on the street and include you in my motion picture without obtaining a model release from you, I can simply say, "oh, but I gave you exposure."?  No.  What if such exposure isn't desired?  What if I used that footage of you in a porn film?  What if I used it in a commercially-sold religious video and you don't believe in that religion, or worse, its beliefs are antithetical to your own?

As owner of the copyright, Anthony has the right to determine how and in what context his work can or can't be used for any purpose not covered by Fair Use Doctrine.

The image was used briefly in a message about a limited-time offer - it's unlikely that the image owned by Tony would have been used again, nor is there any guarantee that Alex would have "thrown him a bone."  BTW: as far as your livelihood goes, do you prefer getting fair and just legal compensation for your work, or do you prefer that you occasionally get thrown a bone?

I never said he does not have the right. I'm saying the value of getting exposure from the right people is worth more "to me" then the cost of one image. Anthony is in the business of reporting playing card news. Someone (Alex) who's website and company are well known by all in this industry makes a mistake and uses a photo that has Anthony's watermark on it. I'm not going to nail Alex to the wall or post private emails. Especially if the subject of the photo is a product of that company.

There are other examples that I would inforce copyright, which I will not explain here.

[Don Boyer]

You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice.  You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.

Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped.  The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place.  The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing.  Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings.  It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.

I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen.  At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.  I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality.  They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright. 

Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.

Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.

I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)

I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.

You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright."  One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.

I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere.  Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.

If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything.  Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.

[RandyButterfield]

There's also a similar theft that happens on a daily basis - eBay sellers using Renders, Photos or Presentation Graphics created by the designer of the Deck. I remember how PO'ed I was the first time I saw a bunch of my Renders on a few eBay listings for some original ORNATES (back in 2012). 3d Renders take a LOT of time to setup, Render and cleanup. I didn't send any e-mails to the eBay sellers, but I definitely wasn't happy about it. Over the years I've gotten a lot more blasé about it.

You could eBay almost any modern Deck and find the original images from the designers Kickstarter project or online store, including Product Photos from Theory 11, Ellusionist, Dan & Dave, Blue Crown, Kings Wild, Encarded..... It's such a common occurence, I think most designers have also given in to the blasé attitude that I have about it.

I did a test before writing this, and searched eBay for "Artisans Playing Cards". There's so many professional Product Shots in sellers' listings that it almost looks like Ellusionist has dozens of eBay accounts!

What do some of you other designers on here think about the eBay sellers using their Renders, Photos or Presentation Graphics?

thanks, Randy

[Card Player]

You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice.  You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.

Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped.  The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place.  The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing.  Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings.  It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.

I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen.  At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.  I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality.  They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright. 

Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.

Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.

I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)

I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.

You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright."  One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.

I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere.  Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.

If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything.  Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.

I'm not confusing anything. I fully understand. Your not reading it correctly.

Removing metadata is not difficult. People do it everyday and don't realize it. I'm not going to explain it here.

Corporations (not in stock photography) aren't in business to sell photo's, they're selling the objects in the photos. The user agreement is understood by most corporations who use social networks. Ownership of the image still exists but your giving social networks a license "basically" do what they want with your photo.

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/

[Don Boyer]

You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice.  You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.

Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped.  The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place.  The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing.  Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings.  It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.

I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen.  At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.  I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality.  They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright. 

Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.

Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.

I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)

I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.

You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright."  One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.

I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere.  Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.

If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything.  Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.

I'm not confusing anything. I fully understand. Your not reading it correctly.

Removing metadata is not difficult. People do it everyday and don't realize it. I'm not going to explain it here.

Corporations (not in stock photography) aren't in business to sell photo's, they're selling the objects in the photos. The user agreement is understood by most corporations who use social networks. Ownership of the image still exists but your giving social networks a license "basically" do what they want with your photo.

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/

Quoting from your post:

At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.

They are not.  THAT'S why I stated you were still confusing "copyright mark" with "copyright."  A copyright mark is a symbol that can be incorporated into a watermark, but a copyright is not.

I never said removing metadata was impossible or difficult!  Just that most people don't bother to do it.  You are understanding the difference, I hope.

I'm not going to dig into the article you linked - it's the opinion of one law firm, and it's out of date, having been posted over two-and-a-half years ago (an eternity in Internet time).  There have certainly been many changes in the TOS for the social networking services listed in that time, rendering what was written questionable if not moot.

But, to play devil's advocate again, if Facebook received a complaint from the USPC and parent company Jarden that I was using their FB-posted images and altering them to show their products in a bad light, I would find it hard to imagine that Facebook wouldn't remove the content.  Similarly, if Facebook themselves created the offending images, basing them off of USPC's own FB-posted work, I could easily see a lawsuit stemming from it, one that could potentially challenge the constitutionality of such blanket rights statements found in TOS agreements that, in reality, few people truly "agree" to but accept because they want to use the service.  Either way, the first time a major company gripes about their content being abused and FB says the digital equivalent of "screw you, you gave us permission when you signed up," companies will be abandoning that ship and watching it burn from the water...

[Card Player]

You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice.  You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.

Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped.  The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place.  The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing.  Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings.  It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.

I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen.  At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.  I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality.  They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright. 

Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.

Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.

I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)

I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.

You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright."  One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.

I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere.  Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.

If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything.  Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.

I'm not confusing anything. I fully understand. Your not reading it correctly.

Removing metadata is not difficult. People do it everyday and don't realize it. I'm not going to explain it here.

Corporations (not in stock photography) aren't in business to sell photo's, they're selling the objects in the photos. The user agreement is understood by most corporations who use social networks. Ownership of the image still exists but your giving social networks a license "basically" do what they want with your photo.

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/

Quoting from your post:

At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.

They are not.  THAT'S why I stated you were still confusing "copyright mark" with "copyright."  A copyright mark is a symbol that can be incorporated into a watermark, but a copyright is not.

I never said removing metadata was impossible or difficult!  Just that most people don't bother to do it.  You are understanding the difference, I hope.

I'm not going to dig into the article you linked - it's the opinion of one law firm, and it's out of date, having been posted over two-and-a-half years ago (an eternity in Internet time).  There have certainly been many changes in the TOS for the social networking services listed in that time, rendering what was written questionable if not moot.

But, to play devil's advocate again, if Facebook received a complaint from the USPC and parent company Jarden that I was using their FB-posted images and altering them to show their products in a bad light, I would find it hard to imagine that Facebook wouldn't remove the content.  Similarly, if Facebook themselves created the offending images, basing them off of USPC's own FB-posted work, I could easily see a lawsuit stemming from it, one that could potentially challenge the constitutionality of such blanket rights statements found in TOS agreements that, in reality, few people truly "agree" to but accept because they want to use the service.  Either way, the first time a major company gripes about their content being abused and FB says the digital equivalent of "screw you, you gave us permission when you signed up," companies will be abandoning that ship and watching it burn from the water...

And I explained In my first paragraph, I understand you don't need the copyright (mark) on the image to be a copyright. The act of placing text (c) on the image is a mark, not the implementation of copyright. Your going to argue that you did not know what I meant. What else could I have meant that would have made sense? Typical Boyer

I don't see the non removal of metadata as being sloppy. Most people that use it, want it and grant permissions for its use. That also depends on the device your using and how your using it.

Corporations have many protection options that don't all fall under copyright. There's a difference.

Not very much has changed with regard to Facebook image use. Its fine if you want to avoid the content of the link I provide prior. Here is the official TOS per Facebook #2(1): https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

[Don Boyer]

Quoting from your post:

At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.

They are not.  THAT'S why I stated you were still confusing "copyright mark" with "copyright."  A copyright mark is a symbol that can be incorporated into a watermark, but a copyright is not.

I never said removing metadata was impossible or difficult!  Just that most people don't bother to do it.  You are understanding the difference, I hope.

And I explained In my first paragraph, I understand you don't need the copyright (mark) on the image to be a copyright. The act of placing text (c) on the image is a mark, not the implementation of copyright. Your going to argue that you did not know what I meant. What else could I have meant that would have made sense? Typical Boyer

I don't see the non removal of metadata as being sloppy. Most people that use it, want it and grant permissions for its use. That also depends on the device your using and how your using it.

Your sentence made perfect sense - it's just not the sense you thought it made because you left out a word that altered its meaning.  I'm terribly sorry, but I left my crystal ball in my other pair of pants, my Ouija board is at the shop for an overhaul and my telephone psychic is on vacation, so I'm not able to read your mind and know what you mean, especially when you're writing one thing but mean something else.  Typical Card Player...

You appear to be talking about the copyright owner removing metadata from his/her own photo - meanwhile, the issue was the presence or removal of metadata by the person "pirating" the photograph for their own purposes, not its IP owner.  Yes, it's easy to remove or alter metadata in order to cover your digital tracks if you swipe someone's photo for your own use - but many people simply don't bother, making even a slightly-altered version of someone's photograph easier to identify as belonging to that copyright holder.  It's a simple matter for them - copy, paste, and (maybe) resize/crop before saving, done; metadata left unaltered, still intact; the equivalent of stealing someone's car and repainting it but not removing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), making it exceptionally easy for the police to track the car to the original owner.  Please, if you're going to continue the discussion, remember what it is we're talking about, because otherwise it's too tedious to bother.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you're this strongly opposed to a creator/owner of a piece of intellectual property having the right to determine how that work gets used.  At the very least, it's what you're making it sound like.  You mentioned Facebook and Twitter - are you certain that's where the photo was borrowed from?  What if it was borrowed instead from this forum, United Cardists, Kardify or any of the other places Anthony might have displayed his photo?  Doesn't he still have the right to say, "I want my photo used in this way and not in that way."?  Posting it on Facebook gives Facebook the right to re-use it many different ways according to their TOS agreement - but did Alex approach Facebook about using that image for his own commercial purposes, and if so, did Facebook grant him any rights to do so?  I'd consider it very unlikely.  If one could grab and use any photos on Facebook simply because they're on Facebook, what would legally stop me from grabbing photos and other images created by Facebook to use on my own website?

You mentioned corporations having protection options other than copyright.  Well, what protections, aside from trademark?  Can one trademark a photograph?  Trademarks don't extend to property rights - they exist as a form of consumer protection for letting the public know that a given product or service comes from a specific company.  One example would be taking a photo of a branded motorcycle and making it into a poster for sale.  The poster itself is perfectly fine and violates no trademark laws - but if you added the logo of the manufacturer to the poster, one could be led to believe that the poster was an official product of that manufacturer, in which case it would be a violation.  So, since it's not copyright and it's not trademark, what are these protections you're talking about?

And also of great importance - has anyone ever challenged the legality of the TOS as written?  Because one can put all kinds of things in a contract - that doesn't automatically make them legal and binding.  In New York City, it's a common practice for parking garages to post signs disclaiming any responsibility for the loss of any possessions you leave in your vehicle when you park it at their facility - but New York City law doesn't automatically absolve them of theft in a manner as described by their sign.  In New York State, many auto parts stores sell clear plastic covers for license plates - but the use of such covers violates the state vehicle code, despite the fact that there are no laws restricting their sale.

Your argument about being recognized and "thrown a bone" are immaterial - taken just a little further, it could be used to justify outright theft.  Say you own a car dealership selling "Players" automobiles, your own exclusive brand.  I'm Joe FamousCarDriver, I walk into your shop and I take your car and use it without bothering to ask you.  Am I to be lauded by you for recognizing the value of your car by wanting one badly enough to steal it from you?  If I later, after the fact, promise to buy a few cars from you at some later time, does that somehow justify the theft?

[Card Player]

You appear to be talking about the copyright owner removing metadata from his/her own photo - meanwhile, the issue was the presence or removal of metadata by the person "pirating" the photograph for their own purposes, not its IP owner.  Yes, it's easy to remove or alter metadata in order to cover your digital tracks if you swipe someone's photo for your own use - but many people simply don't bother, making even a slightly-altered version of someone's photograph easier to identify as belonging to that copyright holder.  It's a simple matter for them - copy, paste, and (maybe) resize/crop before saving, done; metadata left unaltered, still intact; the equivalent of stealing someone's car and repainting it but not removing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), making it exceptionally easy for the police to track the car to the original owner.  Please, if you're going to continue the discussion, remember what it is we're talking about, because otherwise it's too tedious to bother.

Nope that's not what I was talking about. As I mentioned I was not going to explain that here.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you're this strongly opposed to a creator/owner of a piece of intellectual property having the right to determine how that work gets used.  At the very least, it's what you're making it sound like.  You mentioned Facebook and Twitter - are you certain that's where the photo was borrowed from?  What if it was borrowed instead from this forum, United Cardists, Kardify or any of the other places Anthony might have displayed his photo?  Doesn't he still have the right to say, "I want my photo used in this way and not in that way."?  Posting it on Facebook gives Facebook the right to re-use it many different ways according to their TOS agreement - but did Alex approach Facebook about using that image for his own commercial purposes, and if so, did Facebook grant him any rights to do so?  I'd consider it very unlikely.  If one could grab and use any photos on Facebook simply because they're on Facebook, what would legally stop me from grabbing photos and other images created by Facebook to use on my own website?

Your making accusations. That's what it sounds like to you. I'm not strongly opposed to a creator/owner of a piece of intellectual property having the right to determine how that work gets used. I'm opposed to people taking "voluntary" photo's of another companies products thinking they deserve compensation for work they were never commissioned for.  I would never ask for compensation in this case. As I mentioned, I would enforce copyright in other situations. This situation would be a waste of my time.

I never said the photo was borrowed from Facebook or Twitter. I was questioning Alex's understanding between social network sharing and using on his own website.

You mentioned corporations having protection options other than copyright.  Well, what protections, aside from trademark?  Can one trademark a photograph?  Trademarks don't extend to property rights - they exist as a form of consumer protection for letting the public know that a given product or service comes from a specific company.  One example would be taking a photo of a branded motorcycle and making it into a poster for sale.  The poster itself is perfectly fine and violates no trademark laws - but if you added the logo of the manufacturer to the poster, one could be led to believe that the poster was an official product of that manufacturer, in which case it would be a violation.  So, since it's not copyright and it's not trademark, what are these protections you're talking about?

OMG with your devils advocate examples. (If Mr.X wanted to make a jelly doughnut and someone took a picture of it...) LOL

Your original example was "if Facebook received a complaint from the USPC and parent company Jarden that I was using their FB-posted images and altering them to show their products in a bad light, I would find it hard to imagine that Facebook wouldn't remove the content."

My response was not everything falls under copyright. If their was a complaint in the example that you used, would it get taken down? I'm sure it would. I doubt their would be a complaint, except for the fact you altered it and then re-posted it as your own content.

I'm not disagreeing that Alex violated Anthony's copyright. I would have handled it differently given the cercomstance and the way in which the photo was used. That's all.

And also of great importance - has anyone ever challenged the legality of the TOS as written?

I don't know the answer to that. From what your writing it does not seem as if you know the answer either? I think its funny your using a question you don't have an answer for against me. Until you prove someone has challenged this in a court of law and won, I stand by the terms of service which I have provided to you.

Your argument about being recognized and "thrown a bone" are immaterial - taken just a little further, it could be used to justify outright theft.  Say you own a car dealership selling "Players" automobiles, your own exclusive brand.  I'm Joe FamousCarDriver, I walk into your shop and I take your car and use it without bothering to ask you.  Am I to be lauded by you for recognizing the value of your car by wanting one badly enough to steal it from you?  If I later, after the fact, promise to buy a few cars from you at some later time, does that somehow justify the theft?

Your example is immaterial. We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost. I don't see Anthony losing his next meal over one digital photo. I do see Alex Pandrea never doing an interview for Kardify. I do see Alex Pandrea never sending free samples for review. I do see friends of Alex Pandrea following suit. Ain't that a bitch.

[Anthony]

We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.

Interesting

One last comment, this situation is based on what I believe to be right or wrong, now you may not agree with me on it, but that's what makes us who we are. We all have opinions. I equate it to the moral question "If a man steals to feed his children, is it stealing?" Yes, an extreme example, but you get my point. There is no overwhelming right answer to this question. Your last comment on what Alex may or may not do, and what Alex's friends may or may not do is your opinion. The last conversation I had with Alex we were both in a good place of mutual respect and , in Alex's words.....

"......I believe any bad situation can be turned into a good one! We can make the best of this by teaming up on something! Contests, prizes, whatever. I am always up to work on great things with awesome people who further the community. Together, everyone achieves more "

You may think my work is "Just a picture" and again, your entitled to your opinion, but you also don't know everything that was said and your making assumptions. Maybe your assumptions are right, and that's just fine. If I had to do it all again would I have done things differently? No. Would Alex have done things differently? ...........you would have to ask him.

[Rob Wright]

We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.

Interesting

I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well? 

[Card Player]

this situation is based on what I believe to be right or wrong.

Your absolutely right.

My opinion has nothing to do with the quality of your work. I hope you don't feel that way. It's been slow on the forum as of late. This was the most interesting thread I've seen in 2-3 months.

We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.

Interesting

I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well? 

I understand this as much as anybody. I still would not have asked for compensation under these "specific" circumstances. Thats just me I guess.

[Don Boyer]

Your example is immaterial. We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make. I don't see Anthony losing his next meal over one digital photo. I do see Alex Pandrea never doing an interview for Kardify. I do see Alex Pandrea never sending free samples for review. I do see friends of Alex Pandrea following suit. Ain't that a bitch.

Well, it doesn't appear that Alex took it hard, based on what Anthony's telling us.

Just because the product is digital, doesn't make it any less of a product.  It costs money to produce a photo, just as it would cost money to produce a car, a bag of potato chips, your sneakers, whatever.  If you're an author and you write a book, you'd get good bucks for a hardcover first edition, not as much for a paperback but still a respectable amount - but are you saying that just because it's digital, an e-book edition should be free?  No, it shouldn't, because the author spent as much time and effort.  Perhaps it should be priced lower, since there's no delivery fees, no paper used, etc., but the author works just as hard creating an e-book as he does creating the hardcover.

And I think that right there is the key - that you don't place a real value on his work because of its intangible nature, thus don't consider it a big deal that someone else used it without permission.  I don't even produce a "product" - I provide my intellect and experience to my clients as a service.  Is my work worthless because, as erroneous as this statement is, it doesn't have "an associated cost to make?"  It would be more accurate to say it doesn't have an apparent cost to make - to you, and to you alone.  But Anthony's photo and my consulting services do indeed have an associated cost to make - the accumulation of skills, knowledge, the purchase of a collection's worth of playing cards from which to glean the experience, time spent in places like this online discussing cards with people who know what they're talking about, etc.  In your example, NO digital photo has a value attached to it.  I know there are countless photographers who would vehemently disagree with you, especially since the age of the "pre-digital" photo is pretty much over.

[Rob Wright]

We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.

Interesting

I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well? 

I understand this as much as anybody. I still would not have asked for compensation under these "specific" circumstances. Thats just me I guess.

I know you and Don have been going back and fourth on this, so I thought I would throw a little fuel on the fire. 

I see what you are saying. I don't disagree with what Tony did, but if it was me. I may have handled it different. I may have just sent an email to Alex asking him to take it down. That's easy for me to say, because it hasn't happened to me. When people take and take from you, eventually you have to do something about it.
In Alex's defense, maybe he didn't know better. The thing that really got me was the "FU" style response he sent Tony. Very unprofessional to me. 

The good news is, it sounds like it may become a positive for both Alex and Tony. Good to hear.

[Card Player]

Your example is immaterial. We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make. I don't see Anthony losing his next meal over one digital photo. I do see Alex Pandrea never doing an interview for Kardify. I do see Alex Pandrea never sending free samples for review. I do see friends of Alex Pandrea following suit. Ain't that a bitch.

Well, it doesn't appear that Alex took it hard, based on what Anthony's telling us.

Just because the product is digital, doesn't make it any less of a product.  It costs money to produce a photo, just as it would cost money to produce a car, a bag of potato chips, your sneakers, whatever.  If you're an author and you write a book, you'd get good bucks for a hardcover first edition, not as much for a paperback but still a respectable amount - but are you saying that just because it's digital, an e-book edition should be free?  No, it shouldn't, because the author spent as much time and effort.  Perhaps it should be priced lower, since there's no delivery fees, no paper used, etc., but the author works just as hard creating an e-book as he does creating the hardcover.

And I think that right there is the key - that you don't place a real value on his work because of its intangible nature, thus don't consider it a big deal that someone else used it without permission.  I don't even produce a "product" - I provide my intellect and experience to my clients as a service.  Is my work worthless because, as erroneous as this statement is, it doesn't have "an associated cost to make?"  It would be more accurate to say it doesn't have an apparent cost to make - to you, and to you alone.  But Anthony's photo and my consulting services do indeed have an associated cost to make - the accumulation of skills, knowledge, the purchase of a collection's worth of playing cards from which to glean the experience, time spent in places like this online discussing cards with people who know what they're talking about, etc.  In your example, NO digital photo has a value attached to it.  I know there are countless photographers who would vehemently disagree with you, especially since the age of the "pre-digital" photo is pretty much over.

Not what I'm saying though. I'm not saying there's no value in the digital photo. I'm saying there's no associated cost. There's an associated cost to the camera, but the cost of the photo created by the camera is determined by it's copyright owner. As Anthony stated, its up to him to determine right and wrong, just like its up to Anthony to determine the cost.  To my knowledge, Anthony does not sell photos. We don't know the cost.

Your example: You lose a car, the car cost is $35,000. You no longer have that car. Real example: You lose a photo, you still have your $3000 camera. Your comparing a stolen car to stolen copyright (infringement). They are different.

Edited:
What your saying is widely understood. However, let's not confuse cost and expense. I was not implying Anthony's expense.

Cost vs Expense (example):
Nikon spends 50 million to produce D810's. Nikon determines based on their expense, a D810 will cost $3000. Anthony buys a D810. Anthony now has a $3000 expense. Anthony produces a photo with the D810. Anthony determines based on his expense, a photo will cost $100. Alex buys a photo from Anthony. Alex now has a $100 expense.

We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.

Interesting

I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well? 

I understand this as much as anybody. I still would not have asked for compensation under these "specific" circumstances. Thats just me I guess.

I know you and Don have been going back and fourth on this, so I thought I would throw a little fuel on the fire. 

I see what you are saying. I don't disagree with what Tony did, but if it was me. I may have handled it different. I may have just sent an email to Alex asking him to take it down. That's easy for me to say, because it hasn't happened to me. When people take and take from you, eventually you have to do something about it.
In Alex's defense, maybe he didn't know better. The thing that really got me was the "FU" style response he sent Tony. Very unprofessional to me. 

The good news is, it sounds like it may become a positive for both Alex and Tony. Good to hear.

We also don't see Anthony's letter to Alex. We only saw Alex's response.

[Rob Wright]

............We also don't see Anthony's letter to Alex. We only saw Alex's response.

It's in the first post.

[Don Boyer]

To my knowledge, Anthony does not sell photos. We don't know the cost.

It doesn't matter.  It's still his work, and still protected by copyright, even if the cost to him was nearly zero - it can't be zero unless he places absolutely no value on his time.

As far as cost - if he spent time and effort, expending man-hours, then yes, there's a value in it.  If I wanted a photo of something and didn't want to take it myself, I'd have to pay someone or find a volunteer to take it, with payment being the much more easy of the two tasks.  The hardware costs also come into play as well - the $3,000 spent on the camera is indeed spent on the camera and not the photos it takes - but without a camera, there are no photos...

The car is property.  The photo is property.  I take property without permission of the owner, that's theft.  In your example, it's like I'm saying that I stole your car, but you still have the factory that you used to make the car...  That doesn't really replace the car or change the fact that I took it from you without permission, does it?

The only difference one could draw that would be of any meaning is that, as a digital artifact, the photo can be replicated at no cost beyond the cost of the memory needed to store the data file.  But again, you still run headlong into the fact that the creation of the photo in the first place has a cost, and the photo itself has a value.  By taking Anthony's photo and posting it into his corporate email, Alex didn't have to hire a photographer to take a photo for him, nor did he have to use his own time, effort and talents to take a photo of his own.  Without the photo, Alex would have had to expend resources in the form of time, money or a bit of both - thus, there's a value to it.

[Card Player]

To my knowledge, Anthony does not sell photos. We don't know the cost.

It doesn't matter.  It's still his work, and still protected by copyright, even if the cost to him was nearly zero - it can't be zero unless he places absolutely no value on his time.

As far as cost - if he spent time and effort, expending man-hours, then yes, there's a value in it.  If I wanted a photo of something and didn't want to take it myself, I'd have to pay someone or find a volunteer to take it, with payment being the much more easy of the two tasks.  The hardware costs also come into play as well - the $3,000 spent on the camera is indeed spent on the camera and not the photos it takes - but without a camera, there are no photos...

The car is property.  The photo is property.  I take property without permission of the owner, that's theft.  In your example, it's like I'm saying that I stole your car, but you still have the factory that you used to make the car...  That doesn't really replace the car or change the fact that I took it from you without permission, does it?

The only difference one could draw that would be of any meaning is that, as a digital artifact, the photo can be replicated at no cost beyond the cost of the memory needed to store the data file.  But again, you still run headlong into the fact that the creation of the photo in the first place has a cost, and the photo itself has a value.  By taking Anthony's photo and posting it into his corporate email, Alex didn't have to hire a photographer to take a photo for him, nor did he have to use his own time, effort and talents to take a photo of his own.  Without the photo, Alex would have had to expend resources in the form of time, money or a bit of both - thus, there's a value to it.

None of this actually matters, as far as you and I are concerned. The issue has been resolved. You can write until the cows come home, that's not going to change my opinion about not asking for compensation. Moving forward from my first post regarding "Fair Use", I'm not disagreeing with anyone about copyright infringement. No need to repeat ourselves and keep saying the same things over and over again.

In the interest of keeping communication channels open between you and I... Rather than write what I'm thinking which could irritate the powers that be (as I'm now reading the EPCC terms for the PCF deck design competition) we should end this copyright discussion.

[Don Boyer]

In the interest of keeping communication channels open between you and I... Rather than write what I'm thinking which could irritate the powers that be (as I'm now reading the EPCC terms for the PCF deck design competition) we should end this copyright discussion.

The contest should have no bearing, really - and the last thing you need to fear is "the powers that be."  I encourage open discussion, and I never deny someone the freedom to disagree with me personally as they see fit, as long as they're not spewing hate speech, making personal attacks or breaking any laws.  I welcome disagreement if for no other reason then the fact that it leads to open discussion such as the two of us have been engaging in!  I might or might not agree with your point of view or your arguments, but I have respect for you and all the other members here as a person.  If I met you in a bar, I would probably have bought you a drink by now!

Please, if you have a question or an issue regarding the 2DCC rules, I encourage and invite you to speak up and be heard.

[Card Player]

The contest should have no bearing, really

Ironically, this topic and its contents will have no bearing on the competition or its terms. I agree.

the last thing you need to fear is "the powers that be."

Fear is not the word I used. I don't fear anyone.

All actions have consequences. I'm not willing to accepted those consequences.

Please, if you have a question or an issue regarding the 2DCC rules, I encourage and invite you to speak up and be heard.

The questions should be asked by those whom the competition terms pertain. It does not affect me.