US October Vogue

[darren]

Hi

 

Some great scans from the October issue of US Vogue at: http://www.bwgreyscale.com/discussion_boards/viewtopic.php?t=5688&sid=95fb7ddc8203216909e11f2e43592871

[ReFur]

Very nice!

 

Question. Are pictures like this copyright protected? I have some that are from fur magazines that I could scan.

 

Linda

[White Fox]

I believe we decided earlier that as long as the photos are over maybe two or three months of age that they would be ok Linda. Only thing is that Playboy, Coldfair, FHM, and Private are extremely demanding about their photos so we ask that absolutely none of theirs be posted.

 

W

[Guest]

W/O being funny Darren Big Thx to Sheeny over at Mikhail's softspot is in order here unless Sheeny goes under an assumed named nowadays?

 

If your a newbie you may wanna bookmark MK's site

 

http://softspot.myqth.com/softspot/

[darren]

W/O being funny Darren Big Thx to Sheeny over at Mikhail's softspot is in order here unless Sheeny goes under an assumed named nowadays?

 

If your a newbie you may wanna bookmark MK's site

 

http://softspot.myqth.com/softspot/

 

Whoops - sorry. I had a quick look at the softspot but hadn't gone down that thread enough to see that Sheeny had posted it. My apologies to Sheeny.

[Patience]

I believe we decided earlier that as long as the photos are over maybe two or three months of age that they would be ok Linda. Only thing is that Playboy, Coldfair, FHM, and Private are extremely demanding about their photos so we ask that absolutely none of theirs be posted.

 

W

 

I don't want to see anyone get in trouble. You should reconsider what you wrote here.

 

Copyrights do not expire in two or three months. What you are really saying here is that if the copyright owner doesn't complain, then it's all right to post the material.

 

Patience

[Worker 11811]

What I think he's saying is that many copyright holders are selective about how they enforce their rights. If, after a few months, the magazine that originally published the photo has made all the money they think they can from the photo, as long as the other person isn't selling the photo or passing it off as his/her own work, they are likely to let it slide.

 

There are several factors at work.

 

Mainly, it costs money to prosecute. If the violator is a small-potatoes outfit, companies aren't likely to spend a lot of money on court costs and lawyers fees to fight a battle that, even if they win legally, they will lose money on in the long run.

 

Second, there is the "Tribute Factor". People who like a certain picture and post it on the internet are really a subtile form of advertisement for the original publisher of that photo. For example, if I post a frame grab from the trailer for the movie "Fur" starring Nicole Kidman, aren't there people who will be more likely to go watch the movie and PAY for the privilege? The studio benefits from my actions. And, as long as I am not blatant about it, as long as I am not selling the work or passing it off as my own, most studios will turn a blind eye to it.

 

So, does that make it OKAY? No. Not really. But, in the real world the situation is a lot more "grey" than it appears on paper.

[Guest]

What Worker is saying I think is particularly true for any fashion magazine publishing furs.

 

Would we ever fear being attacked by SAGA or Nieman Marcus for instance?

 

 

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

If there was a snowball's chance in hell that somebody could see a picture of a fur from "Needless Markup" on the internet and be spurred into buying it, those greedy bastages would jump at the chance!

 

Sure! They'll gladly use ourbandwidth for their own advertising!

 

[FurLoverinFL]

I do not claim to be an expert on copyright law - however commercial speech (that is, advertisements) have always received less protection from the courts than 'works-for-hire' (that is, the pictorals in Playboy).

 

FLinFL

[DKMain]

Even a letter to your mother is copyrighted! Virtually everything that shows up on the Web as a posted picture or story (inter alia) is copyrighted. The chance of your being "caught" or of the actual copyright holder asserting the copyright, however, is fairly remote, most particularly if the infringement is on a non-commercial site such as this. Virtually all of the magazine photos are copyrighted, however, unless they are particularly vintage. The law does not make a distinction between whether a picture is lifted from a "Vogue" editorial or an advertisement in "Vogue". Whether the picture is owned by the photographer or some company that hired him or her is legally beside the point: Someone owns that copyright, and posting the copyrighted picture on a site (as opposed to linking to a Web page where it is legally used) is technically an illegal infringement on the copyright holder's intellectual property, punishable under the law, both civilly and criminally.

 

...

 

A reformed lawyer

[Earendil]

First of all DKMain, WELCOME TO THE FURDEN!!

 

Secondly, You are indeed correct on the copyright issues. There have been many discussions on this both in public and between us moderators regarding the same principal, especially before we launched our Gallery-section of the site. Rest assured that all your words here have, on previous occasions, been discussed and reviewed, as I listed more or less the same info to our admins before we expanded the site.

 

I believe the grey-zone of the copyright-coin is big enough for any website to have a controlled enviroment of copyrighted material, as long as we have good disclaimer-information, and as long as we have staff prepared to review the gallery every single day. Should we ever encounter a problem with a given copyright-holder, the pictures in discussion will be removed within hours. We also have a set of guidelines to keep us away from the blazing fire of the obvious dangerous ones.

 

Again, thank you for the input - I will forward this info to our admins as an extension of the information we already obtain.

 

I hope you enjoy our site DKMain, and I, on behalf of everyone, hope that you will continue posting in the forums

 

Have a good day!

[DKMain]

Thanks, Earendil! I am not trying to dissuade anyone from posting material on this or any other particular site. (I am only a "reformed"-- i.e., former-- lawyer, after all!) If all copyrighted material being infringed on the World Wide Web were to be removed at once, the Internet would collapse like the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy! The Internet, after all, was contrived for the very purpose of exchanging information. It just so happens, however, that most information in our era is neither generic nor in the public domain. Thus, infringement is the rule rather than the exception on the Web, and it is virtually impossible for either the powers-that-be or most copyright holders to control most such infringements. If it is done in a non-commercial environment, and is not obviously stealing someone's income stream (e.g., posting an entire Lana-in-Furs or custom-made Chelsea-in-Furs video), I see no reason for anyone to panic-- including, frankly, the copyright holders!?! At any rate, as I am no longer an officer-of-the-court, any such legal problem is beyond my purview, outside of my bailiwick, and above my pay grade! 8)