Discussion on Copyright, Privacy and Other Information

Lisa wrote:

I cannot think Viggo would do such a thing. Because he wants that his Fans read his Poems and what he has to say. And we cannot write to him and ask if it is OK for him for us to take his poems and everything.

Well,Tatiana is quite right for everything she said!
And it is not fair to Viggo to steal his work and to post it in any website.Even if we ask him,I am sure that he gonna say"No"!It is his work and no one has right to take it and out it somewehere!
Think about a poem of yours that you have posted somewhere and someone re-post it,without asking you!You gonna feel bad.!Or even if they ask you..I am sure you will say No,or at least I will!

That's a good example,Tatiana and very helpful!Thanks!

So what is with the pictures we have here then?

[quote="Snowy"]

Lisa wrote:

And it is not fair to Viggo to steal his work and to post it in any website.Even if we ask him,I am sure that he gonna say"No"!It is his work and no one has right to take it and out it somewehere!:

Well.. right said, Snowy, but is it fair to an unknown, or in somecases known photographer to steal his work whis is a shooting he did with actor Viggo Mortensen?
I mean is Viggos work more entitled to be protected then the one of "ordinary ppl"?
I can't see a reason for this .
So we are in trouble.

well,look it depends on where you get them from!
There are many pics in VFB and you can re-post them,but ONLY if you do not hotlink!
Same I guess is with Brego.net or pictures that you find in another boards!
BUT pictures that are protected with copyright MUST NOT be posted in public places,or you gonna have much troubles!

Well,you better ask someone else about this,I am not very good in explaning things,especially when I know only the half of it!

Well, Let's put it simple:
The is almost no picture, that is NOT protected by copyright laws!
This is not something you apply for. You create something . you are the owner of the copyright.
In some countrys pics are free to be used from everybody after a timespan like 70 years ( currently in Germany).
But apart from this there is no pic wich has no copyright.

Then when I understand you right every picture here in the Forum that is posted and not with permission of the Fotografer who made it is then against the law and we can get trouble for it?

Well,I've never posted protected pictures and I don't think anyone else did...
Did someone????

But then for example the Picture of Viggo that is on the top page and what you have as Avatar, then you must have shoot it for yourself of Viggo that you can use it? For when somebody else have made it then you are not the owner and you have not the right to use it and then it is against the law. Do I understand that right, Tatiana?

Now I have better take away all the picture I use for I not want to get trouble.

The logo picture is made by myself!I have a player on my computer,that can help me to get pics from movies.
the other one picture is token from the net,not copyright protected!
So I made this picture,no one can accuse me in anything!
About the avatar..I don't remember where I took it from!!

Well, Lisa,
Let's have a look at Lisa Signature.
The picture in it contains an altered sreencap from Lord Of The Rings.
The Copyright belongs to New Line and you would have to ask them for permission to alter the original image and to publish the result.
If you don't do so,...Yes it is illegal.
This happens all the time and right now no one is paying all that muxh attention but still it is illegal.
The same goes for her Avatar whis is generated fron a shooting that a photographer did in australia. His work is course copyright protected.

But Snowy you sayd that when you don't know who to ask it do not mean the picture is free to take. Now you say you do not know and then it's ok. That confuses me a lot.

Well,when you find the picture in the net and you have no one to ask what you gonna do?Post it of course!When you click on google images,you can find many many pictures!Do you think you have to ask someone before taking it?
Okay,then who?

Oh,I see Tatiana knows much about this pics!I have no idea...
I gues I will have to make me another sig pic!!and another Avatar!

I think it will be the best that you take a picture that you made of Viggo yourself. I mean with your Camera and everything, when you meet him in real. Because when I understand Tatiana right you are not allowed to change a picture, then it is still not your own. I am very happy that Tatiana knows so much about it and will help us here, so we can all learn from her and not make mistakes in the future any more.

Ok, if you want to be on the dafe side, you are right, Lisa...
Posting an image, that you have taken yourself is safe.
Posting an image, that you found on the internet is not safe.
If your work ends up on google images it does not mean you loose the copyrights on it!
but many ppl never had the chance to meet Viggo in person and to take pictures of him.
These ppl have to decide whether they want to take the risk of posting someone elses work without their permission or not.

But when somebody postes it and I only look at it or if I find it at googel and look at it, then I am safe, right? Only looking is ok?

Simply looking at a picture is legal at all times... What possible crime could it be to look at a pictute of Viggo - to the contrary

Ok then I be fine. I just look at the Pictures and everything is ok. Thank you so much for all the help you give us.

Don't wory too much, Lisa

So what about when thoses who can not meet Viggo in person and can not take pictures???What then

But Tatiana says that only to look at the Pictures is safe. Then we only look, or not?

Ah I got confused too!I don't know!!!!!!!!

Tatiana wrote:

I'd like to give you an example here:
A german student had uploaded some wallpapers to his homepage that he found on the internet, advertized as free.
What he did not know, as he was only 17, they where free for downloading and for personal use but not free for publishing aka reposting them on the internet.
They brought up a lawesuit against him - He lost and he had to pay about 12000 Euro of fees and compensation.
He did not realise that he did something wrong but that didn't save him.
So much for your galaxy theory.
I don't mean to frighten anyone here but I do suggest that ppl who don't seem to know what they are actually talking abou tshould restrain themself from copying and pasting information about legal issues and interpreting these bids according to their personal beliefs.
This is not helpful too naive users who seek for guidance.

Welcome to our discussion Tatiana! I was hoping someone would pop in with far more infinite wisdom on the subject. Thank you for your views. There is so much to learn and understand about copyright and infringement.

I agree that there is no need to frighten anyone on the subject of copyright or intellectual property whatsoever. That being said, I am sure you can elaborate on your example of the 17-year old student. Long before it reached the legal stage would it be safe to say that he would have been asked to take down the copyrighted postings first? Then when he did not comply certainly legal action could be taken, right? And that there must be some extenuating circumstances for the proceeding to go ahead, I would think. It is not often that this happens when one person with little to no income is sued by those who have been sleighted by copyright infraction.

I don't think it is fair to call those of us who are not completely up to speed on all the rules as naieve. Do you think? The word naieve has a negative connotation. Unaware must be the word you were thinking, eh?

Also I am most curious about your information on where Viggo had to have lawyers protect his work from being pirated. Can you tell us all about this? Was it on another Viggo fan site? You don't have to mention names. But just a few more details would give some substance to your post.

Welcome aboard Tatiana and join us on the other threads starting with an intro thread. See you there.

Tatiana wrote:

Ok, if you want to be on the dafe side, you are right, Lisa...
Posting an image, that you have taken yourself is safe.
Posting an image, that you found on the internet is not safe.
If your work ends up on google images it does not mean you loose the copyrights on it!
but many ppl never had the chance to meet Viggo in person and to take pictures of him.
These ppl have to decide whether they want to take the risk of posting someone elses work without their permission or not.

Lisa, Tatiana is right when she talks about risk. It might be useful to put the 'risk' in three categories as my understanding of the copyright rules from what little I have read:

Low risk: pictures you find here and there for which you have no idea who took the picture and there is no indication whatsoever.

Medium risk: you know who the copyright owner is but have decided to post it or use it anyway.

High risk: you are using the copyrighted material for personal gain -- either monetary or status; depriving the copyright owner of income they would normally receive if it were not for the infrringing distribution; you have taken a well known copyrighted work and changed it so drastically as to upset the artist or shown it or the subject in a bad or unfavourable light.

Low risk and medium risk usually (if found out) will have the copyright owner ask you to remove it or at least give credit to them. Very little damage is done.

High risk: As serious and irrevocable damage has been done, the copyright holder may try to get compensation for either their loss of profits or what they feel is damage to their creation and artistic reputation.

All print, broadcast and internet media do a certain amount of risk management concerning copyright infringement. Remember it takes time and money to bring legal charges against someone. It is not always in the best interests of the copyright holders for low and medium risk infringements.

A lot of fan sites claim 'fair use' for posting copyrighted pictures etc. Most fan sites are bringing news to the fans as well as discussing it. That can be considered fair use.

Again I go back to my first post on this thread. Read up on it. Find out the rules in your own countries. I am not too sure but for example if I post a picture of my own and someone from France posts it I would think they would be subject to the laws of the copyright holder in my case - Canadian laws. Anyone know?

Good discussion by the way. And Lisa, don't fret so much. Try to enjoy being a Viggo fan. There is much to enjoy.

As I was asked to clarify on some issues I will try to give you the information I have.
On the case of the 17 year old student:
No, he was not asked in advance to take down the copyrighted material.
He got a letter from a lawyer called “kostenbewehrte Abmahnung” which roughly translates into: “official reprimand accompanied by a fee”
It was a lot of money they demanded from him and he went to court because he thought he hadn’t done something illegal.
That wasn’t a wise decision .
He lost the trial and had to pay even more money in the end.
There are a lot of comparable cases at least in Germany. The reason is that it is not the copyright holders themselves out in the internet looking for copyright infringements but lawyers looking for big money which is obviously easy to be made in the world wide web.
This is a special situation over here in Germany. There is no such term as fair use. You are not allowed to post any picture ore text or whatever on the net unless you have the written consent of the owner.
Kaladhar tried to classify the risks you take when you post a picture despite the fact that you are not the copyright holder.
A few remarks on that:
The question where you found the original picture does not matter at all.
The question if a certain images turns up on google search for instance is defined by some rather technical matters. They have very little to do with the probability of being sued with a case of copyright infringement.
The fact, that you can’t find the name of the copyright holder does not matter too.
You are expected to do a thorough research on the question of ownership and I can tell you it is easier to find out who is holding the copyright than you think.
If in doubt, ask the major pictures agencies, they will be glad to help you out!
There are criteria that might define the risk in a way:
When you post a picture of Viggo the value of that picture to the agency is defined by the age of the picture: An old picture that was published and/or reposted a number of times has less value than a new one which has not been published before. The size matters as well. A high resolution picture -suitable for a large print – makes a higher value of claim.
If someone find a picture on this board or another fan board it is not safe to be reposted unless you are pretty sure that the person who posted it first has asked the owner of the picture.
The basic line is: You are responsible for your actions on the internet.
“But I didn’t know ..”will be no excuse when a letter from a lawyer sits in your mailbox.
If you decide to go on posting pictures or articles of Viggo anyway you might consider that the risk of being caught is depending on the accessibility of the site in question.
A big site with many hits visible to everyone without registration is riskier than a small board in which the pictures are only visible to registered members of the board.
To the question concerning Viggos lawyers involved:
As you suggested Kaladhar, I won’t name anyone here but going into details would mean the same here. So you just have to believe me here, that I am not making something up.