Per our topic of discussion in class today, I've decided to blog about it and state my views and beliefs. There is really no fine or clear line on where ownership begins or ends on photography. It gets especially fuzzy when the internet is involved. I believe that there is really no true ownership of any photography unless you declare it for yourself along the lines of the law using copyright law. Photography is along the same lines as art which includes paintings, movies, and sculpture. In order to declare ownership the artist must declare it so I believe that the same should go for photography.
However, when the internet is involved there is absolutely no line or regulation. The government cannot keep up with the upcoming technology because it is constantly changing and becoming more and more advanced and the courts and decisional law cannot simply keep up with it. This presents a problem for ownership of anything that it put onto the internet. If you agree to put your pictures on the internet without copyright, you have to be able to understand and accept the possibility that your photographs can be stolen and used for something else by someone else. You have no rights to anything that you put onto the internet because it is used worldwide and it is next to impossible to keep up with it. Even if you were offended by someone stealing your photography, there are no laws to back you up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cara, I am just trying to stir up some trouble but you say that "Photography is along the same lines as art which includes paintings, movies, and sculpture. In order to declare ownership the artist must declare it so I believe that the same should go for photography," and I would say does that mean that at anytime the actual artist can walk into someone's house and take their painting they paid for off the wall or their DVD off their shelf because the person does not really own it and it is the artists property???
ReplyDeleteI think it is an interesting concept to apply the laws of art ownership to picture, especially when it comes to distribution. Whoever owns the copyright should be responsible for the pictures. But what happens when the person took a picture that is illegal and doesn’t distribute it. Therefore, copyright laws are unnecessary. I think if someone posts an illegal picture on the internet and it is stolen and copied, then the person that posts the picture should be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteIf a person takes an "illegal picture" then they would be held accountable regardless of who does what with it because it has been established that its mere existence is illegal. In addition, I agree with Rob's criticism because there must be a distinction made between owning the rights to a work of art and "owning" the work itself.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I agree with the idea that there "is no true ownership of photography unless you declare it for yourself." If YOU take a picture (as the photographer), then it should be YOURS. Someone should not be legally able to take a picture from you without at least citing the work as yours.
ReplyDeleteI think that when new technologies are brought into play, people should take personal responsibility for their actions. The general public will probably know more about new technologies than legislators will at first. So why can't people stop taking advantage of others? If something is mine, I should know that it is mine, as well as other people's things. There should, however, be copyrights for any type of ownership on the internet. It would still be pretty easy to use copyrights falsely.
ReplyDelete