Jennifer's Joyous Journal

the link is not appearing as such for me. It just looks like underlined text.

Sorry about the link problem. I misspelled the html code to create the link...it's all fixed now. If not, you could also follow the link under "Recent Comments".

I don't know what to think. The link to her site still doesn't work because she doesn't have room to maintain pictures from past events, so the list of events is there to see but the pictures are no longer up on the site.

I would have thought that what you had done was okay--the picture was clearly marked as a copyrighted picture and wasn't any good for anyone to print out, and I would have thought she would have appreciated the link in case someone did want to purchase the picture. Perhaps she did appreciate the link (although she sounded pretty crabby) and just didn't want the image displayed?

I suppose if you have to have her permission, then you'd have to take it down since she's obviously not about to give it. What a shame. I agree that it doesn't seem like anything worthy (whether ethically or legally) of "measures", again since the copyright notice was clearly posted, no profit was made from it, and credit was duly given. But as I said, I don't know the laws.

I will say that her aggressive, rather nasty message to you certainly did *not* inspire me to purchase any pictures from her. Seems like if she wanted to be an adult about it, she could have sent you a message privately letting you know that she did not wish said image posted, even with a link to her own site, and requesting that you remove it.

This piqued my interest, and I found a website which entails fair use.

http://www.shortcourses.com/how/protecting/protecting.htm

My opinion, based on this article, is that you have violated a copyright law.

It sure is a cute picture of you :)

Courney, I assume your opinion is based on the following text from the site you've mentioned:

Problems begin to arise however, when you decide to incorporate some of the text or photographs in one of your own reports, presentation, or Web sites. Now you are using the materials for other than your own personal use.

My rebuttal is the fact that this journal is for my own personal use. Was your opinion based on anything else in the mentioned article?

It's a tricky issue. I do agree that the woman won't get anything other than the bad vibes she's inspired in such a nasty message and perhaps, if pursued in court, the $10.50 the picture was worth in the first place.

Upon further thought, the picture you used isn't the picture at all but rather a proof of the picture clearly marked with her ownership. Is the clearly marked proof also subject to copywright laws? My instinct is that Jfer was a primary intended customer of this pic and her use of it without paying for it could be considered a violation of copyright.

It's a pity this business owner wasn't more diplomatic in her quest for justice. She could have invited Jenny to pay the $10.50 or so. That way Jen would have a nice copy of the pic both on paper and for the web and The Angry Photographer could have had a new customer with a rather large family interested in photos. Instead. The A.P. burnt a bridge and created bad feelings about her and her work. At this point, I'd sooner vote Bush than pay this woman a dime...and that is saying something. She was hateful, mean-spirited and stupid. A small business owner should be a little smarter than to put that sort of sentiment on a public website. Take the photo down but leave her comment.

Obviously you're not guilty of plagiarism since you don't represent her image as your own -- her copyright message is clearly visible on the photo and you attribute it in the text.

I'm not sure whether a blog qualifies as "personal use". Your use of the picture doesn't seem to fall under fair use, i.e. "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". On the other hand, she's not suffering a financial loss by your displaying it -- it's not like she's in the busines of selling low-resolution, watermarked JPEGs or that you'd be buying one of her photographs, considering that we had planty of snapshots of our own.

I had never seen anyone complaining about an attributed photo on a blog before. Still, I'd take it down. If she still feels that you owe her something, I'd send her $0.25 and let her know that from now on you'll be no longer providing free advertising for her site on your blog.

I don't suppose you ASKED her to take your photo, did you?

Anyway, she was mean, and I agree with mermu... you should take the photo down and leave her comment for all to see. Next time someone does a Google on Karen Thibodeaux, they'll see her own nasty words and think twice about hiring her to shoot an event.

I've posted a new picture. Let me know what you think of it.

Actually, Cecily has an incredibly valid point. Email this nasty photographer back and tell her you'll consider paying damages when she shows you the waiver you signed to model for her business.

Infringement my ass.