I'm in somebody's ad!

[Ole Anderson]

Ran across this video on FB this morning. An ad for a drill press clamp. They used one of my pics 18 seconds in (unauthorized, obviously taken from the Creek) to show how dangerous a drill press can be. Only problem, pic was from my G1023 table saw kickback! My shirt, my gut, thankfully my face wasn't in the pic!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=3642580832462806

[Bill Dufour]

Sounds like you were multitasking. Was it a shopsmith combo machine or one of those tablesaw,jointer, drill press, and one motor set ups from the 1950's?
Bill D

[glenn bradley]

Ah, the free, unauthorized, and incorrect use of information available to the youth of today :D

[John K Jordan]

Ran across this video on FB this morning. An ad for a drill press clamp. They used one of my pics 18 seconds in (unauthorized, obviously taken from the Creek) to show how dangerous a drill press can be. Only problem, pic was from my G1023 table saw kickback! My shirt, my gut, thankfully my face wasn't in the pic!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=3642580832462806

Send them a bill for using your copyrighted image. Maybe include enough of the original picture to prove you know where they got it. I'd be tempted to start the note with "You morons" but that might not be a good approach.

JKJ

[Kev Williams]

"...your copyrighted image."

If the pic was harvested from the Creek, maybe you don't have a copyright-?


With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In any such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
I'm no lawyer, but it the above portion of the Creek's TOS says that anyone posting anything to this forum gives license to it to the Creek, who can do with it what they please...

[Dave Mills]

I'm no lawyer, but it the above portion of the Creek's TOS says that anyone posting anything to this forum gives license to it to the Creek, who can do with it what they please...

You are reading far more rights into their TOS that I do from that quote. From my reading, the whole statement has specifically excluded photos ("text or data...") and even for that data it says the submitting user retains ownership of it, and never mentions transfer of copyright.

[roger wiegand]

Whether the creek has a license to use your image is irrelevant-- that doesn't give anyone else the right to use it.

[John K Jordan]

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In any such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

I'm no lawyer, but it the above portion of the Creek's TOS says that anyone posting anything to this forum gives license to it to the Creek, who can do with it what they please...

My suggestion to confront the advertiser was tongue-in-cheek. Seems to me Facebook and similar platforms reside in a different universe where almost anything goes. I quit following years ago: these days wood forums are my sole "social media" platforms!

That paragraph is somewhat confusing to my elderly and feeble-mind concerning "retains ownership", "statistical content", "incorporate [such content]", "transferable license", "any applicable license", etc.

I'm about the furthest possible from a lawyer (or I'd have a continuous headache) but I understand the creator of any photograph (and other artwork, music, writings, etc.) retains an automatic copyright. It's not clear to me if the copyright is void if the user grants certain permissions. I read many years ago this was affirmed by the US courts. Registering the work can reportedly make this easier to defend:

From https://www.wikihow.com/Copyright-Photographs
According to the Berne Convention, you automatically own the copyright on any original photograph that you take. The problem arises when someone else tries to rip you off and you have to prove that you are the owner of the copyright on your photos. By registering your photographs with the U.S. Copyright Office, you'll obtain independent, legally-permissible proof that you own the copyright on your work. This can make it much easier to navigate intellectual property lawsuits.

I've read about cases where someone used a photo without permission then decided to compensate the originator when confronted. Perhaps this is more likely when the 2nd party's use is for profit.


Here are some photos of me some advertiser may want to use.

BEFORE: my normal look around the farm:

461865

AFTER: possible complications from not using their product, whatever it is:

461866 461867 461868 461869

JKJ

[Kev Williams]

Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but I do know how to read ;)

Below is extracted from the Martin IP Law Group website, dealing with Instagram and Facebook's Terms of service regarding intellectual property rights and ownership of "works" (which included photos)-
MYSELF, I don't see much difference in the wording of their TOS and the Creeks...

-Below these social-media's TOS are the Martin Law website's samples of 2 infringement lawsuits that were lost, which I found very interesting reading.

Until lawyers and judges get involved to translate the legal jibberish, who knows? I know I don't! I simply find legal stuff fascinating :)


INSTAGRAM Permissions from Terms of Use (https://help.instagram.com/1215086795543252): When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
FACEBOOK Permissions from Terms of Use (https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms): Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products you use.This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
TRANSLATION OF LEGALESE: Note that in both permissions, the license is described as being royalty-free. That means Instagram and Facebook don’t have to pay you a dime for authorized use. The language in both also indicate that the licenses are transferable and sub-licenseable. That means that Instagram and Facebook may, without the author’s further permission, authorize others to use the work at its discretion. Moreover, the rights granted by the license – hosting, using, distributing, modifying, running, copying, publicly performing or displaying, translating, and creating derivative works – when compared to the rights listed above that are granted to the author upon creation, strongly suggests that the licenses applies to ALL rights of the author. Bottom line – by posting on Instagram or Facebook, you are allowing them (for free) to do anything with your work that you otherwise could do yourself, AND you are allowing them to authorize anyone else they choose (also for free) to do the same.
COURT CASES DO NOT FAVOR THE CREATOR This is not just my interpretation. Last year, in two separate cases, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York came to the exact same conclusion! The first case, Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC and Mashable, Inc. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13706919873727466857&hl=en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1), involved the use of professional photographer Sinclair’s copyrighted photograph entitled “Child, Bride, Mother/Child Marriage in Guatemala”. Sinclair posted the image on her Instagram account. Mashable contacted Sinclair to request a license, and Sinclair refused. Shortly thereafter, Mashable published an article on its website which included a copy of the copyrighted photograph by way of an embedded link to Sinclair’s Instagram post. Mashable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for copyright infringement, alleging that it used the photograph pursuant to a valid sub-license from Instagram. The court agreed, finding that Sinclair, by creating an Instagram account, agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use, and therefore “granted Instagram the right to sublicense the photograph, and Instagram validly exercised that right by granting Mashable a sublicense to display the Photograph.” In the second case, McGucken v. Newsweek, Inc. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11792676083877719760&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), McGucken, a photographer who focuses on landscapes and seascapes, operated a public account on Instagram where he posted some of his photographs. One day after he posted a photograph depicting a large lake in Death Valley National Park, Newsweek published an article on its website incorporating the photograph from McGucken’s Instagram post through embedding. In ruling against McGucken, the court made flattering reference to the judge’s decision in Sinclair, and went on further to say that “insofar as [McGucken] contends that Instagram lacks the right to sublicense his publicly posted photographs to other users, the Court flatly rejects that argument. The Terms of Use unequivocally grant Instagram a license to sublicense [McGucken’s] publicly posted content.”

[Mike Henderson]

I had a paper I wrote (See here (https://www.michael-henderson.us/Papers/SONET-SDH.pdf)if you're interested in the paper) appear as chapter 6 in a book on communications (ISBN 1580535283). However, I had never been contacted about it - I just happened to find the book and the chapter.

Seems that my ex-employer gave permission to use it. While they had the right to do so (since I wrote it on company time), I felt it would have been nice of the book author to contact me to let me know it was going to be used.

The publisher sent me a copy of the book after I contacted them.

Mike

[Alex Zeller]

I'm not sure if that's the same Kev. What you posted is embedding a link to a picture. What happened is a person or business copied a picture and included it into a video they made. The second issue is that the video was made to promote a product. What a company can do and what a private citizen can do are different. Plus at any point the person who posted the picture could take it down and the embedded link would no longer work. I don't think it's worth bothering with but if one wanted to they could send a cease and desist letter to the company.

[Rick Potter]

Congrats Ole,

I have heard of hand models, but you might want to get an agent to enhance your gut model career.

Can I get your autograph?

[Ole Anderson]

I guess my "tongue-in-cheek" reply on their FB ad paid off. They just confirmed shipping for one of their drill press clamps at no cost to me. Man, I just am wishing SawStop would have been the one to abscond with my now-famous bruise featuring my old Maui shirt and incredible gut!!! Hey SS, if you are following, PM me and I would be glad to license this pic in exchange for some "goodies"! BTW the pic was taken 11-16-2004 and was about 6 months before I joined the Creek.
461932

[Mel Fulks]

Not the tattoo I would have picked….but it sure is realistic ! Glad you are healed , enjoy your fame !