Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by KerryS, Apr 18, 2011.
I have the permission of the owner of the picture
Good work on all counts Evan- Rock on doode-
Kerry would never be successfully sued for libel. This isn't England.
I was out with some guys this weekend and one tells a story of fishing a remote Tongass lake when a float plane arrives out of nowhere. Out steps a guide and four Asian fishermen. The guide hooks up with a beautiful fish then proceeds to pass in to each of his clients for a "photo opportunity". They then get back in the plane and leave, mission accomplished.
It's highly unlikely that you need permission. Arguably, you are reporting news, so you would be covered via freedom of press.
Are you implying a law suite? thats whats wrong with this country doesnt anyone fistfight anymore??
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! People who run guide services that are successful should not need to steal photos of fish from other sites, competitors or just off of web fora. If true, this would constitute the greatest act of douchfoolery that I have seen in some time. The guides that I have met have ample photos of their clients with awesome fish that support awesome stories of days on the waters of the PNW. What kind of guide would do such a thing? If true, I hope this person, or any other guilty of such photo theft, gets their just rewards.
Correct, with "credit?" . If the pic's were 'Copyrighted,' then the anti goes up a bit, but doubt any of 'those were.'
Mumb's ... Thumbs up, you've covered it well.
someone needs to make some money off these guys... I hope they steal photos from me, I'll sue the crap out of their asses
No you won't. Here's a reality test .....
First, no Atty is going to take on this type of case 'Pro Bono,' which means you'll be "Buck's Up" thousands of dollars in fees for this or that. So you win? Big deal unless the Defendant has huge assets that you can 'execute and levy' against; what are the odds this Fellow has more than pocket change?
Fred, from your post above it sounds as if you might be confusing copyright with trademark. Copyright is implied in any work that appears in public: an article; a picture; heck, even my words here are assumed to be copyright, even if I don't use the little © mark. Copyright is a form of legal ownership that offers certain minimal protections to a work's creator or owner. Sadly, copyright infringement or violation is difficult to prove and damages are often impossible to collect.
A registered trademark (®) on the other hand, is like a patent and must be applied for (requiring a substantial fee) and vetted by the US Patent & Trademark Office before registration is granted. Registered trademarks are closely associated with specific classes of services or products. Once protected by Registration, the owner of the mark enjoys legal rights that protect it against infringement (including appropriation) by others. BTW, there's a huge difference between a non-registered trademark (™) and a registered one (®): a non-registered trademark offers very little more protection, if any, than a copyright.
And vice versa Fred, no way a lawyer will take a "defamation" case from this bonehead either...not when it's so easily proven that the photos were, at the very least, misleading, and not when it's us average Joes complaining about it, not a moneyed competitor. It's actually the guys with "a dog in the fight" that have the most to worry about when it comes to a lawsuit.
Kent, my choice of words above were 'off the top,' but I think I got it right.
But we all digress.
Tell the sob to sue me. Jezzus, no one has any balls anymore. This stuff was posted up here because what the cat did was wrong, period. I could give two shits what he thinks or what the law thinks. When something is wrong, it is wrong. Bring on the law suits.