Illegal Use of Photos

[ronaldhanko]

Originally Posted by Ray

As to linking: I have not seen the ebay listing, but if the listing is along the lines of "Click HERE to see a photo on Ronald Hanko's web page", that's OK. If, on the other hand, it is the use of a link to embed the image on the ebay page, that is theft of intellectual property for commercial purposes.

It may not be strictly illegal, but it would be no different than if I set up to sell semi-hydroponic supplies and other orchid supplies and for my pictures and information linked everything I was selling to the information and pictures on First Rays. You'd be the first to holler about that, Ray. I say again, illegal probably not, but unethical and immoral for sure!

[NatalieS]

As far as I'm aware, as long as you don't have specific terms of use on your site/blog which prohibit linking to it for commercial purposes, and as long as the person doesn't use content from your site (like embedding images owned by you or copying text), then posting a link to the site as a reference is perfectly legal - as Ray said.

While some may view this as not being especially ethical, if it is not illegal then I would be careful about cautioning people on a public forum about doing business with someone. This could be viewed as tortious interference and could be quite serious from a legal viewpoint.

I stand to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

[Paul Mc]

Unfortunately, I think I may agree with Natalia on this to a degree. I spoke with my partner, an attorney, on this subject and those were the words I got back. However, he said that you should speak with a copyright attorney about this as its not an area of law he's really that familiar with. If it were a pic of a person, then that would be one thing. But unfortunately a pic of our chids is something entirely different. Does OB have a written statement about the use of photos from the website?

[ronaldhanko]

I have talked to quite a number of others whose photos (Flickr, OB, other forums, and even various other sellers, Orquivalle, Troy Meyers, etc., and IOSPE where there is a specific request that the photos and info NOT be used for commercial purposes), are being used in this way. I've done this by way of informing them of the use that has been made of their material, and only one of them said that he did not care. The legality of this is really not an issue with me - it is the ethics of it all that bugs me, and it is unethical to use someone else's material (descriptions and photos) to sell your products and especially so when this is done without the author's knowledge and contrary to their wishes. I've said enough, however, and believe that in the rather tight-knit orchid world this seller has done herself a serious disservice by alienating the people whose material she is using.

[Paul Mc]

True, there is a difference between ethical and legal conduct. That's why I stated I agree to some degree. It's very unfortunate that the law, in any country, does not also adhere to ethical standards, although as a student of religion and philosophy, I also understand why it doesn't, from a political stand point.

[Arenalbotanicalgarden]

I've always asked for permission over the years and have never been turned down. Not once.
It's ethics. Not law. If you post a photo on the internet you'd better not really give a damn because it WILL get used.

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by Arenalbotanicalgarden

I've always asked for permission over the years and have never been turned down. Not once.
It's ethics. Not law. If you post a photo on the internet you'd better not really give a damn because it WILL get used.

Totally agree. The moment you post a pic on internet you lose control over it, no matter what the laws are. I store many of my pics on webshots, and though they are not exceptional for the most part, I was shocked to see how many times they have been downloaded by others. My album of the keukenhof gardens in the netherlands only has 60 pics, but there are over 5000 downloads in only 3 years! I have no idea where they went nor for what use. It bugs me, but what can I do? Posting on internet is an invitation for theft.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by ronaldhanko

It may not be strictly illegal, but it would be no different than if I set up to sell semi-hydroponic supplies and other orchid supplies and for my pictures and information linked everything I was selling to the information and pictures on First Rays. You'd be the first to holler about that, Ray. I say again, illegal probably not, but unethical and immoral for sure!

Yeah, you're probably right. Whenever I've done either, it's with the image owner's permission.

[NatalieS]

The point of my earlier post was simply to highlight that people need to be cautious about making allegations on a public forum - whether or not they are ethically justifiable.

From a purely unbiased point of view:

• By including links and not embedded images, the person has not done anything illegal (as long as they have not violated the T&Cs of the site being linked to) - copying content is not the same as linking to content.
  
• A thread has been created on a public forum which is titled 'Illegal Use of Photos' which is therefore misleading and possibly libelous if there has not been any illegal activity.
  
• Posting a potentially libelous allegation on a public forum which is related to the person's mode of business (in this case orchids) could be considered tortious interference relating to business.

In an ideal world, as Paul said earlier, the law would uphold ethical standards and common sense. Unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way. I'm not trying to scare anyone, but things are becoming more and more strict re public internet discussions, so just be careful about how posts are worded. I know it can be hard when you are justifiably outraged.

As before, I am open to correction - this is just my understanding.

[FairyInTheFlowers]

If I remember correctly from a similar thread a while back, anything posted onto the Internet (at least in the US) that is a persons own unique work is automatically under copyright laws. Posting a disclaimer on one's blog stating to never use their photo is therefore redundant, and should not have to be done, because regardless if that warning is posted, those photos are under copyright laws. To me, I think linking to content without permission is like trying to sidestep the copyright laws, and I find it more detestable than downright breaking the law and imbedding a photo.