>The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site
says that the images *might* be copyrighted,
>when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing).
However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not
privately owned images but images in the public domain or that even if
copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that
anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit as log as they
give the photographer credit and the use is ethical, legal, and the
copyright owner is held harmless for any misuse by the user. I would
suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used
rather than the *is* copyrighted caution. Moreover, some images even when
or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for
certain types of uses - e.g., editorial and educational uses, for use as
legal evidence under certain circumstances one they have been published
(wherein placing them on a web site is treated as publication), and the
like. Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are
may be all the caution that is required or appropriate.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of SKID Photography
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:36 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Alan Womack wrote:
> I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't
be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at
image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the index.
But that (not using descriptive terms) defeats the whole purpose of getting
one's website listed. The point here is not that the image is listed, but
that the Google site says that the images *might* be copyrighted,
when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing).
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
> >> Harvey writes:
>
> >> > The possibility of losses is scary,
>
> >> What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing
thumbnail
> >> images
> >> or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be
stolen
> >> any less
> >> frequently from your own site than from any other site?
>
> Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ:
