Photographer tells Conservatives to remove illegal picture

[oneh2obabe]

Remove shirtless Justin Trudeau images from ads, B.C. photographer tells Conservative Party.
Marnie Recker says the party used her copyrighted images in attack ads on social media and its website.

<snip> "For a national political party to take my photo, which is clearly watermarked, blow it up so the watermark isn't visible and use it in this way is unlawful and they should be held accountable," Recker said in a written statement Wednesday. <snip>

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3716218

[Veovis]

Be interested if she gets anywhere with this as the photo has been used other places such a memes and joke articles and she didn't say a word which then makes her already in agreement about the photo being public domain.

Certainly it might be more complicated than that, but I don't imagine she gets to pick and choose after the fact she would have had to be granting permission to all other uses as well.

[FreeRights]

Be interested if she gets anywhere with this as the photo has been used other places such a memes and joke articles and she didn't say a word which then makes her already in agreement about the photo being public domain.

Certainly it might be more complicated than that, but I don't imagine she gets to pick and choose after the fact she would have had to be granting permission to all other uses as well.

Not taking immediate action for some use of a photo doesn't mean that you've accepted it's availability in public domain. That's not the law.

[Rwede]

Not taking immediate action for some use of a photo doesn't mean that you've accepted it's availability in public domain. That's not the law.

Link?

[Veovis]

Not taking immediate action for some use of a photo doesn't mean that you've accepted it's availability in public domain. That's not the law.

Not taking ANY action against any other groups however is where the grey line will be established. Hey it was her photo and she could have kept it, but used it for media and other purposes as well as had others use it without consent with no previous filings against them.

To be honest I'm sure the Cons will just take it down and move on as they got what they wanted out of it. As I said, just curious if she really gets anywhere with it due to the fact she made it appear ok for everyone else before this point.

[FreeRights]

Link?

Do you have a copy of the statute or an example of case law that sets the standard that an owner of intellectual property relinquishes ownership of an items likeness of its used in the application of memes?

[maryjane48]

Be interested if she gets anywhere with this as the photo has been used other places such a memes and joke articles and she didn't say a word which then makes her already in agreement about the photo being public domain.

Certainly it might be more complicated than that, but I don't imagine she gets to pick and choose after the fact she would have had to be granting permission to all other uses as well.

No it is actualy really simple . Get caught using copyrighted material . Pay the price .

[maryjane48]

She may have given permission for the others . What this really proves is the cons love breaking laws

[kgcayenne]

https://nowtoronto.com/news/mirror-image-tarnished/

An interesting excerpt from the article:

You see, in Canada, a commissioned work actually belongs to the person commissioning it, not the person snapping the shot. This is a strange point in Canadian copyright law that doesn't occur internationally and some photog associations have been pushing to have it altered as part of Bill C-61.

In all other cases, the person who takes the shot owns it. Even when they die, they still own it for 50 years - that's better than patents.

And thanks to the Bern Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, your photo property remains yours internationally (though some countries require the © symbol).

[oneh2obabe]

Indicating copyright
Marking a work with the copyright symbol is not mandatory under Canadian copyright law but some other countries do require it. The marking consists of the symbol ©, the name of the copyright owner and the year of first publication.
Marking a work with this symbol serves as a general reminder to everyone that the work is protected by copyright. You can use this symbol even if the work is not registered.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointern ... 02281.html

Copyright comes into existence automatically, at the time the work was created, and, in the case of most works, it continues until the end of the calendar year in which the author of the work dies (regardless of whether the author has sold or assigned the copyright in the work or not), and continues for an additional period of 50 years. There are some notable exceptions to this rule however. One such exception relates to photographs, which are protected by copyright from the time the photograph was taken, up until the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken , and for an additional period of 50 years (that is, the termination date of copyright protection for photographs is linked to the date the photograph was taken, and not the date of the photographer's death).

"Moral" rights are also protected under Canadian copyright law. Moral rights include the author's right to be associated with the work by name, or pseudonym and the right to remain anonymous, and include the author's right to the integrity of the work (that is, the author's right to stop the work from being distorted, mutilated or modified, to the prejudice of the author's honour or reputation, or from being used in association with a product, service, cause or institution).

http://users.trytel.com/~pbkerr/copyright.html

[kgcayenne]

But wait... in 2012:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... hotographs

The Copyright Modernization Act, which came into force on November 7, 2012, altered the rules with respect to the term of copyright with respect to photographs so that the creator holds the copyright and moral rights to them, and the general rule of life plus 50 years thereafter applies all such works.

[Gone_Fishin]

She may have given permission for the others .

Did Castanet get permission to display the picture on here? Of course they didn't. How very lame of you, trying to insinuate that the thousands of social media sites were granted any type of permission.

What we are dealing with is a bitter leftist "art-eest" who is raising crap because she holds other political views.

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[dontrump]

Quote:"I haven't slept in days. I am waging a war on Twitter. I am demanding a public apology from the Conservative Party," said Recker on her Facebook page.


obviously this women is not playing with a full deck here

saw this answer on the castanet news comment forum
I have to agree

[Dizzy1]

Is she asking everyone else to remove the picture? Or is this just a political stance for her?