A question about something I've seen a Competitions

[FSWer]

Ok. I have a feeling I MIGHT know what this is. But if there is a Skater out there the can confurm it,I would really appreciate it. When I went to the Nutmeg Games. I saw Skaters in the Lobby after they got off the ice. Well,you know the part were they go up to a Desk-Top computer after they get off and check it for pics. of themselves on a website? Does anyone know if that is THE REASON (the Arena just letting them see pics of themselves skating) that they check it? Or is there another reason that we don't know? Is there anyone here that has ever had it done that can explain more? I've just been wondering.Thanks.

[Scarlett]

At a lot of competitions, a professional photographer (someone who takes pictures for a living) is available so that skaters can purchase pictures of themselves while they are skating. The pictures can then be framed or sent to grandparents or put onto coffee mugs, or keychains as mementos of the competition.

[techskater]

Another reason that skaters like to look at the stills is that there is sometimes something you can pick out that you really LIKE as a skater that you see in the professional stills in a spin or air position or something you really think needs to be fixed. I looked at my still shots from ANs and I picked out something that's hard to see in real time that could improve my scores.

[rlichtefeld]

Ok. I have a feeling I MIGHT know what this is. But if there is a Skater out there the can confurm it,I would really appreciate it. When I went to the Nutmeg Games. I saw Skaters in the Lobby after they got off the ice. Well,you know the part were they go up to a Desk-Top computer after they get off and check it for pics. of themselves on a website? Does anyone know if that is THE REASON (the Arena just letting them see pics of themselves skating) that they check it? Or is there another reason that we don't know? Is there anyone here that has ever had it done that can explain more? I've just been wondering.Thanks.

The official photographer is there to sell photos to the skaters or their families. The good photographers have the right equipment to handle the strange lighting that rinks have, etc.

The main thing that the competition either gets a royalty of all the sales, or that the photographer pays the competition a fee to set up and sell their photos.

All the other vendors in the lobby also paid the competition either a fee or a percentage of their sales.

Having vendors at a competition helps keep the entry fees down, and gives the skaters a better experience.

Rob

[Schmeck]

They also do this at dance competitions - it's a big money maker for the organization that runs the competition.

[Sessy]

Heh, over the years mom's gotten REALLY good at photoshopping out the photographer's name's tags that they stick all over a photo on their website where you can then order the photos without the tag for a price... :twisted:

[blue111moon]

Which is, in effect, stealing. And not particularly something I'd want to teach my kid. But that's just me.

[Schmeck]

Also violates copyright laws, of which consequences are pretty seriously expensive in the US.

[Sessy]

Are you telling me you can't download a random image off the internet in the US (in which case I do have to wonder how you get around the fact that when you browse the internet, images are already downloaded to your computer into your temporary folder?), or edit it in photoshop and keep it on your hard drive? That's surprising, actually, the class I took in regards to various nation's laws on copyright really hammered on "fair use" and how putting in a lot of your own work and keeping stuff to yourself changed things a bit. :o

Anyway, different country, different laws - we don't have a ban on downloading what's readily available, nor on home copies (unlike the US) and personal use (putting it roughly), only on re-uploading/re-sharing in any shape or form. Not to mention there's the portrait right which limits authorship rights severely (going as far as free republishing if the portrait was made on your behalf or in assignment, but is a personal right, you can only lay claim to pics you're recognizable in, but still - art. 19.1 jo. 19.4 Auteurswet) and lastly, what are the damages (480 pixels free vs high-res for a fiver? please, if anyone had plans to buy they have done so anyway - the big portraits on moms wall sure don't come from a 480 - and so also where is the theft frankly.) Nothing illegal nor immoral imho, as long as you don't re-publish it without the watermark anyway (and obviously, just here, but that's what I was talking about.)

(In this regard and for a bit of a culture shock, BREIN (copyright holders association of some sort) lost its case to block Pirate Bay over here: http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=EB537339-1A64-6A71-CE7519F873B29394 - although they'll appeal.)

[sk8tmum]

The photos the photographers take are their intellectual property, and you are not permitted in Canada or in the US to use them without their permission and you cannot alter them. It's theft of intellectual property. I know that different laws apply in different jurisdictions; it's one of the challenges of the internet world in terms of legalities and consequences.

Practically, though, in terms of quality: the thumbnails etc that they post on the internet are generally low quality/low resolution pictures, and will not reproduce as well as the high resolution ones you can purchase. Sure, you can pull them into PhotoShop and play with them - it's easy - which is why they post low-res, partly to speed up the page load and also to prevent people from getting for free a good graphic image that can be enlarged and reproduced well.

In terms of philosophy: I would not feel comfortable not paying a photographer for pictures; this is their living, after all. Then again, I also refuse to use bootleg copies of movies, pay for every song on my and my kid's iPods, and regularly assign zeroes to my students who utilize images from the internet without citing appropriately the source, which we term plagiarism and is considered to be an academic offense.

[Isk8NYC]

Are you telling me you can't download a random image off the internet in the US (in which case I do have to wonder how you get around the fact that when you browse the internet, images are already downloaded to your computer into your temporary folder?), or edit it in photoshop and keep it on your hard drive? That's surprising, actually, the class I took in regards to various nation's laws on copyright really hammered on "fair use" and how putting in a lot of your own work and keeping stuff to yourself changed things a bit. :o

Yes, that's what we're telling you, so you should stop doing that now that you know the truth.

You and your mother are violating the law by editing and reusing others' images. The web-browsers' temporary files are for viewing only, not for you to keep and treat as if you owned them by taking off the copyright notices, lol.

Photographers post the images from competitions in order to sell them to interested buyers. It's just a preview, tantamount to looking at a photo album. If you were to snatch a photo from someone else's paper album without paying for it, you'd be stealing. It's the same thing to keep images from the internet without permission.

Most image owners won't call out the lawyers unless you start making money from the images. Disney is the most aggressive in protecting images and copyrights. They actually forced a daycare center in Florida to paint over a homemade mural that featured Disney characters.

I'm sure one of our resident member-lawyers could be more specific in legal terms. As you must know, the law varies from country to country and enforcement in your area is quite lax anyway.

[Isk8NYC]

In terms of philosophy: I would not feel comfortable not paying a photographer for pictures; this is their living, after all. Then again, I also refuse to use bootleg copies of movies, pay for every song on my and my kid's iPods, and regularly assign zeroes to my students who utilize images from the internet without citing appropriately the source, which we term plagiarism and is considered to be an academic offense.
ITA :bow:

It's morally wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you and that should really be the first thing you think of before removing a copyright notice from a photo.

Laws come into being because people have differing ideas of what is right and just, so the government has to decide which is the "correct" thing to do.

It doesn't matter that a bootleg DVD at $5 is less expensive than $8/person theater tickets. Bootlegging is stealing.

[drskater]

Yep--that's copyright violation, no question. My profession involves quite a lot of work with images so I do know a little something here. Nothing stops you from downloading an image from the internet, but if you use the image without acknowledgment it is a form of stealing. Anything done prior to a certain date (circa 1926) may be in the public domain but not necessarily. Not only are images copyrighted but there is also the issue of who or what owns the rights to that image. For example, a museum may own a painting but the artists' estate owns the rights. To use the image (say in a reproduction) you need to acquire permission from the copyright holder AND the rights. If your heart is set on a cetain image, simply ask permission. Most of the time the fees are minimal for non-profits (a like a FSC) or for purely educational uses. "Fair Use" is actually specified under the law; you cannot assume that using an image for fun is fair use.

As mentioned above, Disney lobbied for this draconian legislation when it was clear that the rights to Mickey Mouse were going to expire and move into the public domain.

Just get permission to use the image and you should be fine.

[Sessy]

Isk8NYC, I do have a law degree myself I'm not talking out of my bum here. Whether or not it is legal in the US is irrelevant since neither me nor my mom live or compete in your jurisdiction. :) So, let's take a look.

Laws come into being because people have differing ideas of what is right and just, so the government has to decide which is the "correct" thing to do.

And the government HAS decided on a "correct" thing to do namely, the Dutch government has decided there is a right of making and possessing home copies for personal use (art. 16) even of material that you do NOT own the originals of or any rights of. You're allowed to have 2 or 3 copies (music more than others, 1 extra for car), as long as the copy is made for own use, practice/exercise (not sure how to translate this) or study (yes that would include photo editing software study - btw my mom doesn't use photoshop, she uses a different program that came with the pc for free) - meaning you can't give home copy stuff to third parties. This right has been confirmed by courts, appealed, and stood its ground in appeal. The thinking behind this is that the right of people to intellectually develop themselves comes first, and ownership rights come second. The home copy right does not extend to a number of things including computer programs and electronic databases, but it does extend to photos, (printed) music, etc.

This is also why blank CD's are taxed here - the profits of that go to the entertainment industry (even if I use the blanks to burn a copy of my holiday pictures) and furthermore the right to re-publish authorship material with your portrait under certain conditions (art. 19).

That home copy right vexes American copyright holders to no end, but doesn't change that it's our law. It's not as you put it that

enforcement in your area is quite lax anyway.

A lack of enforcement implies there is a law that is violated and then that is not enforced. If there is no law violation, there can't be any enforcement. The law does NOT require that you have a legal copy in order to make a home use copy for personal use, so there is nothing to enforce since there is no crime in downloading it and keeping it saved.

I'm not breaking the law, no matter how much you want to believe I do.

In regards to morality, defining that as the collective perception of right and wrong by a nation (something considered moral by nations embracing the sharia can be considered quite immoral elsewhere, for instance), around here votes from several political parties around here have been going up to have an internet bill of rights with the right to download, for instance, and the right to reproduce any work for not profit intentions without permission. I doubt it'll make it through parliament (although legal scholars have been cheering for a right to information for years around here), but trust me when I say it's not considered immoral to download around here, nor to mess around with anything you download, as long as you don't re-publish.


It doesn't matter that a bootleg DVD at $5 is less expensive than $8/person theater tickets. Bootlegging is stealing.

Now wait a second, if you're talking about bootleg dvd's, you're talking about sharing the author-righted materials, sharing, like I pointed it out, makes things very different - at least over here it does. Worse yet, in this context, you are talking about making profit off it too, which is, even over here, a civil liability suit waiting to happen (profits + spoiled profits, we don't do punishment fees in civil court since that's for criminal courts but there's a criminal provision there too). No one was talking about re-publicising anything. THAT is against the law.


Practically, though, in terms of quality: the thumbnails etc that they post on the internet are generally low quality/low resolution pictures, and will not reproduce as well as the high resolution ones you can purchase. Sure, you can pull them into PhotoShop and play with them - it's easy - which is why they post low-res, partly to speed up the page load and also to prevent people from getting for free a good graphic image that can be enlarged and reproduced well.


Exactly, and this is why if someone wants to buy a picture they will do so anyway (and the large pictures on the wall, mom did buy like I said), and that's exactly what the photographers are banking on. People who want to buy an image of high-res are not going to contend themselves with a 480pxl image, even for free. More over, the small images are not even sold (without watermark or with). However, even that is irrelevant in regards to Dutch law, see above.



This is all I'll say on the subject, since the majority of this board is US-based I believe and Dutch law is highly irrelevant to them. However, I felt the need to defend myself against the accusations you made. It's not illegal here, it just isn't. I'm actually quite surprised it's illegal to download over there, since in my perception that is completely ridiculous (probably as ridiculous as the home copy right is in your perception). I'm quite curious how they define downloading in that case over there (since here it's enough to have illegal images in your temporary folder to be convicted of certain things, and the "I just scrolled past" defence doesn't fly.)

Apologies to FSW for the topic hijack.

[blue111moon]

"Legal" doesn't make it "right."

[Skate@Delaware]

I have enjoyed looking at the wonderful ways the skaters are captured in their skating. They seem to know skating and can anticipate moves. Some of the best photos I've seen have been those with two images blended.

I also like the videos, and I'm a sucker-I get one for each of my competitions. (even the not-so-great ones). I look at them later and over-analyze them, but I also take them to my mother's house and watch it with her. She is elderly and doesn't get out much so it's her way of watching me skate.

[Isk8NYC]

I used to coach two sisters in NY. As a thank-you gift after the big season-ending show, their parents gave me framed photos (purchased from the photographer online) from the show of my own daughters! I hadn't taken the time to look for the girls in the online albums, so I very much appreciated that gift.

[sk8tmum]

Back when we first started going to comps, they used to give you the option of having a print made on site, and we would usually get an 8'10" or, if we were lucky, a 5'7" and 2 wallet sizes. These were framed of course once we got home, and hung on the wall ... and fought over by family friends who all wanted a copy, which we couldn't provide. Plus, you had to pick just one pose - !

Now, we're able to purchase CD's of numerous pictures (one comp I got 158 different images of my daughter, two cameras were on her throughout her routine - the photographers seem to love to photograph her) - and I also get the copyright release for reproduction along with it. So, we're able to e-mail them, share them, and I usually pull them into my video editing software and make a movie of them. It's great ... and it makes the day of a lot of elderly relatives who have never been well enough to go see the kids skate.

Plus, of course, the obligatory copies to our dressmaker!

[icestalker]

<<mistaken>>

Anyway, most skaters just love to see pics of themselves in their pretty dresses doing their pretty program, even if they don't buy a picture they still often flip through the pictures on the photographer's desktop. I like to compare the photographer's pics to my mom's pics, which have weird exposure issues due to taking pictures through the rink's glass/plastic wall thing. Photographers that take pics of skaters are quite talented, they must recognize when a jump is coming up so they can get a mid-air photo, and they also learn to take pics at the peak of a spin or spiral, etc. If you are ever watching a competition again, FSW, go and look at the pictures :D

[Isk8NYC]

I also get the copyright release for reproduction along with it. So, we're able to e-mail them, share them, and I usually pull them into my video editing software and make a movie of them. I didn't know you could ask for that release. Is it on your order forms or do you ask specially?

[sk8tmum]

I didn't know you could ask for that release. Is it on your order forms or do you ask specially?

It's stamped on the DVD and/or USB drive that they come on, and it's also part of the order form statement, that you are purchasing the images and the right for reproduction for personal use. If you were to, say, reproduce them and claim them as your own, for commercial reasons: absolutely not, but, for personal use, certainly. Our club has a professional photographer that comes in every year and does studio portraits of the skaters, and it is a similar situation - you can buy the image file to print your own if you wish.

[blue111moon]

I understand your Dutch law, Sessy. If it's personal use, it doesn't hurt anybody. Frankly I do not understand why American citizens jump all over foreigners with different laws and culture. Makes me ashamed to be American. I apologize on behalf of my country, Sessy.


I never claimed to speaking for all Americans so you don't have to apologise for me. I don't assume that Sessy speaks for all the Dutch people. In fact the Dutch people I know (admittedly very few) are very respectful of property.

In any case, morality isn't bound by laws. The fact is, the no matter what country you're in, taking someone else's property without permission is stealing. The photographer's logo on the pictures marks them as his property. When you lift them off the internet, alter them by removing the logo and display them to your friends, you're claiming them as your own. And that, IMO, is wrong. It deprives the photographer of income and credit for doing the work.

It's the same thing as my copying an article from Steve Hirsch, taking his name off it and hanging it on my wall so that people who see it think it's my writing.

Give credit where credit is due, I say. The photographer deserves credit (and payment) for his work. Once you've paid him for the photographs (digital or print versions) then they're yours to do with what you want.

[fsk8r]

In any case, morality isn't bound by laws.

Morality isn't bound by laws, but it is defined by the individual and the society in which they live. What might be considering immoral in one part of the world is perfectly moral in another.

Sessy's statement about the Dutch law on home use, reflects that country's moral view on the matter. This may or may not be the same as that held in the US or anywhere else in the world.

With regards to US copyright law, what do you all do about program music? Do you request use of the music from the copyright holder, given that you will be editing and manipulating it and then playing it in public (at the rink)?

[blue111moon]

USFS has an agreement with the Music Association people that as long as there is no financial benefit to the skater, music cut for programs is okay.

For skaters going to qualifying competitions, skaters are asked to fill in their music information in detail. If they make it to Nationals, HQ and the broadcast company are responsible to obtaining permission to air the music. There was a whole lot of legal wrangling that went on back in the early '90s over royalties paid to musicians and recording companies for program music broadcast on TV. A few skaters' programs got cut from broadcasts because of it. I remember one show where the music was actually changed between the live performance the broadcast because the production company hadn't been able to get permission to use it.

I had no idea the Dutch laws were so liberal. Next time I'm in Amsterdam, I'll have to see how many tulips I can swipe from the public gardens. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

[fsk8r]

USFS has an agreement with the Music Association people that as long as there is no financial benefit to the skater, music cut for programs is okay.

For skaters going to qualifying competitions, skaters are asked to fill in their music information in detail. If they make it to Nationals, HQ and the broadcast company are responsible to obtaining permission to air the music. There was a whole lot of legal wrangling that went on back in the early '90s over royalties paid to musicians and recording companies for program music broadcast on TV. A few skaters' programs got cut from broadcasts because of it. I remember one show where the music was actually changed between the live performance the broadcast because the production company hadn't been able to get permission to use it.

I had no idea the Dutch laws were so liberal. Next time I'm in Amsterdam, I'll have to see how many tulips I can swipe from the public gardens. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

In the UK it's only OK on the music front if we own the original copy(ies) of the music that's being played and then it comes under the personal use rules, which it sounds like are similar to the Dutch rules. And I've no idea about what happens when it comes to the British, but that's only currently broadcast by NISA TV on the internet so no one's actually watching!

[sk8tmum]

Skate Canada has negotiated an arranement with SOCAN re: music used in program lessons, and clubs pay a fee to use music for competitions and performances. Here's an extract from the SOCAN Info document ... link at the bottom.

An original creative work remains the intellectual property of its
creator(s), and it is protected by law from performance without
their consent.
But the challenge to protect those rights has never been greater than
it is today.
New technology is changing the way music is accessed, used and valued.
Music is an essential element in a dizzying array of mediums, from radio
to the Internet. And more and more businesses are recognizing the value
of using music to attract and enhance the experience of their customers.
With the pervasive nature of music in our culture and the thousands of
music users and copyright owners, keeping track of “who uses what” is a
task far beyond the capability of the individual copyright owner.
In the midst of such change, it’s important for the individual copyright
owner to have strong representation in the use and administration of
their works. SOCAN is that partner.
©copyrights Copyright comprises several different and distinct rights that have evolved,
over time, in response to technology and other changes.
Today, the Canadian Copyright Act creates several separate rights that
belong to anyone who creates music or lyrics, including:
1. The right to produce or copy the musical work (e.g. sheet music)
2. The right to reproduce the work, which includes:
• mechanical rights (i.e. required for audio reproductions such as
sound recordings), or
• synchronization rights (i.e. required for reproductions of the musical
work in audio-visual productions such as films and television shows)
3. The performing right, which gives copyright owners the sole right to
a) communicate their works to the public by telecommunications
(i.e. broadcast); b) perform their works in public; and/or
c) authorize others to do so in return for royalty payments.
Performing rights are usually assigned to a performing rights society, such
as SOCAN, so that licence fees can be efficiently collected and royalties
distributed accordingly. SOCAN is not involved in reproduction rights
(i.e. mechanical or synchronization rights) or in registering the copyright
in musical works. SOCAN focuses exclusively on performing rights.
For more information about how to protect the copyright in your works,
contact the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, The Library of Congress
in Washington, D.C., or the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC).

http://www.skate-eos.on.ca/Documents/General/SOCAN_Facts.pdf

[Isk8NYC]

The original post (mom removes the copyright banners from photos) post didn't say that she was speaking about Dutch law, so don't apologize on my behalf.

As Sessy said above, she has studied international laws, so I was frankly suprised that a law student would be so ignorant, especially since the board has discussed this situation with regards to music editing, as well as video downloading and music sharing.

I think Sessy just wanted to get a rise out of us by getting her back up in being corrected.

[Sessy]

I had no idea the Dutch laws were so liberal. Next time I'm in Amsterdam, I'll have to see how many tulips I can swipe from the public gardens. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Actually, that too is not stealing in the Netherlands. :lol: It's a separate criminal provision ("stroperij" - poaching? according to the dictionary) with an especially low penalty on it, provided a few criteria are met.

In regards to not saying I was talking about Dutch law - the only law of interest is the one in the place where the subject is (save for a few exceptions) in the time (nulla poena sine praevia lege) when the action happens, that's like the first thing we learned in university.

I still honestly wonder how you US guys define downloading if downloading to your temporary folder is not downloading - if anyone can clarify that, it'd be great. :)

As for what we studied of copy right law in the US, it was mainly the differences between notice and take down procedure (the US one and European model differ on a fundamental principe) and other than that very much fair use as well as same vs different work principle. The approach of the subject was mainly comparative, and most of the rest of the course focused on Tiffany's & co. vs. Ebay and why the cases were brought in several countries at the same time (France and US most notably, hint, it's about what judges can put in their ruling in those countries) and why the Dutch daughter of Ebay, Marktplaats, was acquitted on the same charges while Ebay was convicted.

I never claimed to speaking for all Americans so you don't have to apologise for me. I don't assume that Sessy speaks for all the Dutch people. In fact the Dutch people I know (admittedly very few) are very respectful of property.

Respect for property and downloading are two very different things, if you don't believe me, ask your friends for their opinion on the right to home copy ("thuiskopierecht"). There IS respect for property, we pay 40 cents per empty dvd disk just in home copy taxes to ensure that the media industry is getting payed.



The thing about music is interesting actually. How come it's ok to play it publicly if it's not on TV, though?

[fsk8r]

Interesting ruling in the US with regard to copyright law:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/7912048/Jailbreaking-of-iPhones-approved-by-US-government.html
I think this means that it's probably OK to download the pictures if they're for personal use, but as I'm outside the jurisdiction I won't guess.