Recognise anyone?
http://www.trainingtroop.rocky-dog.c...eg-poster2.jpg

It's 777KB. And I had no design input.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

On 5 Jun 2006 01:27:04 GMT Rocky whittled these words:
Recognise anyone?
http://www.trainingtroop.rocky-dog.c...eg-poster2.jpg

It's 777KB. And I had no design input.

That's neat. I remember that picture very well. Once more one of Matt's
dogs hits the limelight.

--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming to abhor violence
while preaching with violent words.
http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplayshops.com/

said in rec.pets.dogs.activities:

That's neat. I remember that picture very well. Once more
one of Matt's dogs hits the limelight.

Both of my dogs actually made it to that poster - Rocky coming
out of the chute, Friday from the tunnel, and Friday in the
weaves. It's that last background image that had to be pointed
out to me.

A question about copyright, Diane. That same picture of Rocky
was grabbed from my website and altered for printing on a t-
shirt as a fundraiser for a dog group (nothing to do with the
group referenced on the poster). Permission was asked of me
after the image had been altered (Rocky's copper made black, the
chute moved over and maple leaf added to the chute material) and
I said "OK, just give me a t-shirt." No big deal. The response
was "No t-shirt and we didn't really have to ask you anyway
because we altered the original picture."

Somehow, I doubt this is true, though I'm going to reserve
judgement until I see the final product.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

On 5 Jun 2006 03:12:04 GMT Rocky whittled these words:
A question about copyright, Diane. That same picture of Rocky
was grabbed from my website and altered for printing on a t-
shirt as a fundraiser for a dog group (nothing to do with the
group referenced on the poster). Permission was asked of me
after the image had been altered (Rocky's copper made black, the
chute moved over and maple leaf added to the chute material) and
I said "OK, just give me a t-shirt." No big deal. The response
was "No t-shirt and we didn't really have to ask you anyway
because we altered the original picture."

Somehow, I doubt this is true, though I'm going to reserve
judgement until I see the final product.

Not true at all. An alteration does nothing to change the copyright
violation. Changing an existing work is a derivitive work and the
rights to it belong to the owner of the original creator. The t-shirt
company is at risk for getting sued.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...se.html#change
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Legally speaking some of the image playing around with I've done is a
violation of copyright. Re-publishing a work without permission of the
copyright holder (generally the creator) - altered or not - is a violation
of copyright. It doesn't even matter whether the republication is
bringing in money. The primary issue from the view of the violator is
risk of being sued and risk of the award - if the work was registered then
statutory damaages are available, if the work is unregistered then only
actual damages are available. To be valid permission must be in writing,
signed by the copyright holder.



--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming to abhor violence
while preaching with violent words.
http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplayshops.com/

said in rec.pets.dogs.activities:

Changing an existing work is a derivitive work and the
rights to it belong to the owner of the original creator.
The t-shirt company is at risk for getting sued.

And it was the t-shirt company who told my acquaintance that the
photoshopped alterations were enough to bypass copyright.
(Thanks for the links - I've looked up Canadian copyright law
and it seems almost identical.)

Legally speaking some of the image playing around with I've
done is a violation of copyright.

Like this one?
http://www.rocky-dog.com/PicturePageMenu/Misc001.html
And is that Murphy's silhouette on one of your banners? Heh. A
nice tribute, TTYTT.

Re-publishing a work without permission of the
copyright holder (generally the creator) - altered or not -
is a violation of copyright. It doesn't even matter
whether the republication is bringing in money. The
primary issue from the view of the violator is risk of
being sued and risk of the award - if the work was
registered then statutory damaages are available, if the
work is unregistered then only actual damages are
available. To be valid permission must be in writing,
signed by the copyright holder.

I suppose that in the case of agility pictures taken by a
professional photographer, the copyright holder is the
photographer. But what does one do when the photographer
disappears? This happened a couple of years ago when I tried to
get permission for one of Rocky's pictures to be published in
_Dog World_. As it turned out, the photographer had moved to
the Northwest Territories to live in a rustic (no water, no
power) cabin in the woods and I had no way of getting in touch
with her. I did credit her, but her name wasn't published (and
they misspelled my name AND put Rocky down as a BC).

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

On 5 Jun 2006 16:09:55 GMT Rocky whittled these words:
said in rec.pets.dogs.activities:

Legally speaking some of the image playing around with I've
done is a violation of copyright.

Like this one?
http://www.rocky-dog.com/PicturePageMenu/Misc001.html

Yup

And is that Murphy's silhouette on one of your banners? Heh. A
nice tribute, TTYTT.

Yup - it is.

I suppose that in the case of agility pictures taken by a
professional photographer, the copyright holder is the
photographer. But what does one do when the photographer
disappears? This happened a couple of years ago when I tried to
get permission for one of Rocky's pictures to be published in
_Dog World_. As it turned out, the photographer had moved to
the Northwest Territories to live in a rustic (no water, no
power) cabin in the woods and I had no way of getting in touch
with her. I did credit her, but her name wasn't published (and
they misspelled my name AND put Rocky down as a BC).

Well technically it is a violation. But then a lot of things we do in
daily life can be techinical violations of the law. Techincally speaking
if you can't find the copyright holder you just can't use the work.
Handling things on a more practical basis isn't awful but I understand the
reasons for the variation of opinion on that.

--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming to abhor violence
while preaching with violent words.
http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplayshops.com/