Brenden's cargo hold photo (from 'Qantas Depressurisation' thread)
 

So Brendan, is that cargo area photo yours???

If it is I'd be ****ed at the Murdoch Press, because it got a run in the papers today......

Hey all,

The image taken by Brenden was used in the Daily Telegraph today on page 11. The caption states how it is "how oxygen tanks are stored in an aircraft's baggage compartment". I thought in that particular image the tanks were for water.

ps. Sorry Stephen, just missed your post

If it is yours Brendan, i would go after some kind of money...or let them know that u disapprove if it hasn't got your name in the caption...

edit: anyone got a scan?

Just out of interest Rhys, what level of knowledge do you have of copyright law?

If it's lots, then by all means provide advice, although I suggest you do it via PM or email. If it's none, then I'd suggest you let those who do have some knowledge take it from here.

Cheers

why do you want a scan? its right there on the previous page...Rhys, don't use SMS text!

Not a great deal, and while i know if you post something on the internet it is a bit of a grey area i believe, i would've thought that whoever took the photo has the right to have themselves known by way of their name in the caption!

Opinion only, not legal advice...if you would rather me stay out, maybe i will.

Not of the news article with the picture in it i dont...

And when i dont have much time to post i find myself using sms speak a lot...but i try not to:p

Copyright law
 

It is a breach of copyright to reproduce another person's work without attribution or permission. If the copyright owner or a licensee suffers damage as a result of either, then damages can be claimed as well as an injunction to restrain further breaches.

not quite...Brenden didn't identify himself as the owner of the shot, could be anyones, infact, I could write the terrograph and say its mine and demand money for it...but I won't get any because I didn't copyright the image put on public display in the first place.

;)

I do not know, and therefore did not mention, the identity of the copyright owner of what Brenden posted. It may have been an adaptation of someone else's work for all I know - I just stated the core principles of copyright.

Which is why i also said "If it is yours Brendan"

But lets not get the thread too off track so its closed:)

The picture is also on PPRUNE so who knows who has ownership. At the same time there is no Copyright water mark on the picture or surround text. Without this, can an individual use a picture without permission since they may not have any means of communicating with the owner?

Also, related news story:

News.com.au

There is also the issue that if a picture is taken in the course of doing ones duty (at a business) the IP of that picture belongs to the employer not the person who took the picture.

maybe brendan stole it in the first place? :D

speculating is fun! :rolleyes:

If the company owns the camera. what would you do if it was my camera that took the shots on company time.I own and paid for the camera i can do what i want with the shots.As far as safety you cut now you see what happens and yes passengers will leave.

If you took the shots on company time, irrespective of whose camera it is, then I think the company would have the right to be feeling cheated somewhat for the lost productivity.

As for doing what you wanted with the shots, then we'd be possibly getting into corporate security issues, breach of ASIC conditions of use issues etc, etc, etc. if it wasn't authorised by the property owner.

My 2 cents.

The Person who took the photo, well this is their FLickr Hompage, and there is a image of them in a photo, Is this Brendan??

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...afilter=images

Hope I solved the problem

i think it is..going by his avatar and i remember seeing those baby pics on here a little while back..

yes it's him...too bad he didn't copyright his own photo, it would've made him some money.

Not required, according to the Australian Copyright council.

Have no idea if their interpretation has actual standing in law, but it's likely as close as one gets without hiring lawyers etc!

Copyright is not a verb
 

Copyright is automatic in all countries, including Australia, that are members of the Berne Convention.

Thanks to everyone, yes it is my photo and yes I have been in contact with the daily telegraph. They are getting back to me after several lengthy phone calls. I will however copyright the image now. But to all be warned put a copyright on the image.

A work colleague wen to a AIPA (?) meeting last week, and was given this article. Its from the Australian Copyright Council.

It talks about a magical date of 30 July 1998 reegarding ownership. Also mentions copyright of images taken during work / at palces of work etc etc. A good and interetsting read for those concerned.

Copyright as it pertains to Photographers PDF information sheet.

You will need Acrobat to read the information sheet.

Thank you so much Adrian.

Can I please confirm that if there is no Copyright watermark or reference on the photo that it can be replicated without permission as it would make it impossible to know who the owner is?

Copyright is personal property
 

No Josh - that's total rubbish. A photographer owns copyright in photos he or she takes. If you are employed as a photographer then photos taken as part of your job belong to your employer.

A copyright watermark or other explicit claim may help people figure out from whom they need permission to reproduce, and who to give the attribution to, but its absence is irrelevant - it just means they have to try harder to find out who owns the copyright.

In the case of something posted on this board, it shouldn't be hard to post a question or send a PM to the poster asking the question, so there's no excuse for anyone to reproduce anyone's contribution from this board and publish it unattributed. That is just straight theft.

Also of relevance is clause 3.3 of the conditions of use of this board, the relevant portion of which states:

This is enough for me to make a watermark, and batch apply it to all my photo's i take (when i get a decent lens:p).

Have one copy with watermark, one without.

I'd suggest others perhaps do the same.

Thanks for that mate will keep it in mind good idea!

never crossed my mind with the 3500 shots I have in two databases...

look forward to screening your work.

:confused:

wish someone would steal my photos... :mad:




;)

Make them good enough, and they might.;)

Thanks to all involved, the matter has now been solved.

Good to hear Brenden, hopefully this isn't experienced by other members :)

Although its great if we get pics in the newspapers!

Hey Brenden,

WITHOUT to much information, how is it resolved? A (belated) acknowledgement in the paper, with apology, and/or did they pay you for it?

Just curious thats all...

I got paid and we came to a arrangement. Unfortunately I am not going to disclose it here.

Then, I think you got 'just what was due'!!!

Goes without saying, we don't need to know anything more....

It might be for nothing if Boeing or who ever it is that owned the 747 diagrams he posted decided to come looking for Brendan because of his breach of their copyright.

Those diagrams were found on the umm internet.... ;)

Hi Brenden, I know it doesn't worry you any more.....but how does it go down if we sell photos taken on Qantas property?

I'll pay that one. BTW wasn't having a go as such, the diagrams were very informative.