The above might apply except for one thing. The pictures were taken on private property that is clearly marked with "no commercial photography" signs everywhere.

For what it's worth, I've never heard of the artist before. However, I see two regular volunteers in his pictures. I know they never gave their permission to use their likeness in a commercial endeavor. Hmm....

But it is the business of other photographers who may have had their work misrepresented. The photographer in question highly doubted that someone would take ONLY their photos, and furnish them to the webmaster of said organization, without taking other photos in a similar fashion. He asked me to post here in an effort to alert other photographers as to what happened, so they could either: 1. get proper credit for their photo, or 2. ask to have them removed. That's it ... nothing "sinister" about it. I made it very clear in my original post that the person in question HAD contacted the webmaster of the site directly, and that Mr. Rowland and his site were not suspected of taking the photos directly. Apparently, some of you have problems with reading comprehension, saw Mr. Rowland's name, went right into "defense mode," and skipped over the parts where they were not accused of being the guilty party. Any "bashing" only started after a rather callous response from the organization in question, where it was insinuated that a photographer should be nothing but honored to have his photos featured on his website, and the Ross fan-boy club started lining up in typical fashion to defend said response.

As of now, the photographer still believes the responsible individual was a former member of RYPN who has been long banished, and has a known history of starting "official" web pages for organizations he is not authorized to speak for (which has been documented here on RYPN in other threads). That is, when he isn't searching for sunken steam locomotives in quarries.

Since the photographer in question belongs to other forums, but is not a member here, and knows that many in preservation ARE active in rail photography, he asked me to post here on his behalf. Handling the matter strictly "in house" with the site in question would not have given other photographers a chance to make sure their photos are attributed correctly.

But, if you want to believe that everything is some sort of conspiracy against Mr. Rowland, I would suggest taking time away from working on your "Doomsday Preppers" audition tape, step outside your bunker, and get a breath of fresh air.

This thread needs to end. lets get back to RAILWAY PRESERVATION. who cares about photo copywrite laws. get over yourself and move on

Dan

Nobody is forcing you to read it. If you don't care, click on another thread and move along on your own.

I think in this day and age, it's every man for himself if he posts any photos on the internet anywhere.
What blows my dress up is when I spend good money buying a negative on ebay or from an individual (I've been buying and trading Frisco steam negs for years) and post it on Frisco.org or TO, I know it's going to show up everywhere. The bad part are these bottom feeders who show up on ebay selling prints from negatives that I own. I've jumped a couple of them and they pulled them down. I'm getting ready to go after a guy in FL who is really rampant with this practice.
I try to put stuff out there that I know people will find interesting or enjoy rather than sit in the dark and cackle that I own it and nobody else is ever going to see it, but I don't want some other toad making money on something I own.
Our organization used to feel like that over some of the demands we would get concerning the 1522 so they could merchandise photos or videos of it and only a couple of the good guys ever reciprocated by showing their appreciation.

Step back, way back, and take a long view of copying of others' creation.

First the creation
Scenario 1. Ross puts millions of dollars worth of blood sweat and cash into restoration of a mainline steamer, and affixes a custom, special paint scheme.
Scenario 2. Millions are invested in an ultra-readable road-sign font called Clearview.
Scenario 3. Chiluly spends millions in learning-curve and broken glass making 3-D art so beautiful even a moron can get book-quality photos of it.
Scenario 4. A Belgian engineer creates a 350 foot tall obelisk in a park area with a lot of activity.
Scenario 5. An architect designs a famous tower, which dominates a railroad-yard area.
Scenario 6. A lighting architect designs a beautiful lighting scheme for the Eiffel Tower.

Then the copying
Scenario 1. Al pushes a button on a camera and lucks into a nice shot of Ross's impeccably painted engine. He posts it on his blog. Which has ads.
Scenario 2. Bob creates a new font called Bobview by carefully tracing over the curves that define Clearview.
Scenario 3. Chuck photographs a Chiluly outdoor exhibit from public space, and sells it in a coffee table book.
Scenario 4. Dieter is a photo reporter covering a bike race, and he can't get an angle without the obelisk in there.
Scenario 5. Edward takes a picture of a UPRR train against the tower. It makes it into TRAINS.
Scenario 6. Fiona shoots photos all over Paris and publishes a photo book.

See where this is heading? A train wreck!

Who do YOU think is in the right or wrong in each case? I bet no matter what position you take, it will require a very convoluted set of arguments to justify it relative to the others and fairness at large. (good luck trying to say certain things are art and others not.)

Yes, I know you have foreknowledge of the answer to #1. But you see? If you had not, it would be JUST as much of a puzzler as the other cases.

And the government isn't doing any better with this puzzler. The law is a morass. Different countries are all over the place, but the law always says something. I think we all agree that Bob's the dirtiest and Dieter is the cleanest of hand... but what the law SAYS is that Bob is in the clear (!!) and Dieter is in as much trouble as anyone.

And you gotta admit... morally it is a bit of a stretch to suggest a subject worth photographing deserves no credit whilst the guy who images a copy of it should get it all.

No, you are merely enjoying loopholes, bugs if you will, in the copyright laws which happen to work in your favor, and it could just as easily have gone another way. But you've been doing that so long, and thinking that way so long, that it's escaped your notice that your rights are just dumb luck, and really you're not that far from doing what Bob does. Putting a small amount of work into a product whose entire value comes from somebody else's large amount of work.

So no, a photographer of others' work has no firm moral ground from which to scream absolutes.

But the OP has other ground to stand on. I see now that we have done him injustice. We've overlooked the plagiarism.

Irregardless of everything else, falsifying an attribution is the far more serious business.
It won't merit the same volume of talk, only, because on that we all agree.

"Heads up to all"
A great intro to bring attention to a misjustice. Bringing up the "theft" of a image and it being used without permission. Great! Understandable. A generic warning would have sufficed. By naming the website it becomes a attack. And then to single out Mr. Rowland turns it to a personal attack.
To warn people that this is happening out there would have been a good thing. It happens to thousands of photographer and websites. The web has become a nightmare of cut and paste.
I would have reacted the same as Mr. Rowland as it was a non issue as it had been corrected. No reason to bring to the public eye a problem that had been addressed between the two party's. Them to imply that there images are stolen is a final dig. NICE!

I am glad that there are fair and impartial watch dogs out there to warn people

[quote="Contrary to your earlier claims, you clearly don't understand copyright law. You are confusing trademarks and copyrights.

You don't undertake an act of "copyrighting" a photo. Under US Law (Title 17), the work is afforded copyright protection the moment it is created. Once the photographer releases the shutter, and creates the image, it comes under their ownership (excepting, or course, if they are hired to take the photograph, at which point it becomes property of their employer). [/quote]

I think that there is STILL some confusion here. A bride hires a photographer to take pictures of her wedding. She pays the photographer a fee for the photographers time and must also pay for copies of the photos taken. The work product of the photo session, the negatives or the digital files, are the property of the photographer and NOT the person who hired him (or her). The bride could certainly buy the negatives or files from the photographer, but that is usually not done because of the expense and the neccessity of hiring ANOTHER photographer to make prints.

On the other hand, if the photographer is the employee of a corporation, all of his (or her) work is the property of his employer.

Is the distinction that the corporation employs the photographer, while the bride only hires him? Could the bride, as a sole proprietorship, or ain a partnership with the groom, employ the photographer and thus own his work, without having to incorporate the marriage into a family corporation?

Basically, as Hamster outlined correctly above, the employer-photographer distinction applies when the photographer is directly employed by the entity needing the work. A good example would be the NS company photographer. He is employed to create the images, but since NS hired him to do such, they retain the copyrights. In the case of wedding photography, the client (bride) is entering into a contract for a service, and not considered to be employing the photographer directly. The photographer is either considered to be self employed, and retains the copyrights, or employed by the photography company, who owns the rights. The exact definition of "employed" probably comes down to who furnished the IRS all your wage and withholding data, and who sends the government their cut of the money.

The rights, and who has the ability, to reproduce the images, CAN be written into the service contract. Thus, the bride could negotiate for rights to reproduce at will ... but to do so with any professional photographer escalates the cost dramatically.

In any case, I will take this moment to apologize for my abrasive tone during this thread. While I it is understandable that many can't see why a photographer being upset about his work showing up in a forum where he didn't authorize it is a big deal, the copyright owner has to keep in mind what could happen if they don't exercise due diligence. Lack of consistency can bite you if you aren't careful.

I know some have questioned how this thread relates to preservation, but with som many organizations now having web pages and social media presence, where you get your promotional material from CAN have an impact on your organization.

Agree so far, but hold on. These bottom feeders. Where are they getting these prints? If from your negative, they clearly bought them before you bought the negative. In shutting them down, how do you get around First-Sale Doctrine?

There are a lot of them that were made by scanning prints and selliing computer printed images. Some of the aforementioned negs have been in my posession for over 40 years and had never been out of the hands of the guy who took them before I acquired them from him. I have posted some images on Frisco.org to share them with my Frisco buddies.
I can't stop them from selling prints scanned from prints, but I sure can jump their butts about it if I still own the negs.
The internet has opened the floodgates for this kind of stuff.

I agree with your intention and I think it's wise to go after them when certain. However, if the fellow you bought them from sold you negatives, he certainly did make prints. He may have sold some or given them away, and of course a steam-era photographer may have died and his family may have had a garage sale or auction. Pretty much any print he ever made has a reasonable chance of dribbling into the marketplace. How do you distinguish a case of these old, legitimate prints from someone printing newly made, illegal ones?

It's not always all bad. Or easy.

I found a copy of one of my own original historic builders photographs on Ebay, of all places.

The ensuing investigation ended by by recovering the original book manuscript they were published in, which had been missing for a decade.

The original manuscripts were eventually appraised, and donated, to the appropriate state railroad museum involved, for tax credits. It was a sensitive, but not contentious, negotiation.

It got interesting because as the new, legitimate owner of the original material (which had been legally purchased), and an expired copyright, the photo copies were legally owned, and the negative was already owned by the museum.

But yes, people cared, and yes, there was money involved, and yes, it was rather satisfying to make sure it didn't all get sold off in pieces. This stuff still matters.