Molly Ivins: where is a copyright-free photo available?

[eppur_se_muova]

Wiki has no photo of her. Surely one (preferably, not an unflattering one) is out there?

[lame54]

1. How about this one...

[eppur_se_muova]

3. That's verifiably uncopyrighted, or copyright elapsed? TIA. nt

[lame54]

5. what are you using it for?

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Want to volunteer it for her Wiki entry. Currently, no photo. nt

[SeattleGirl]

2. Just do a google image search.

You'll find plenty of photos.

[whistle]

4. Molly Ivins died of cancer in 2007

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Molly+Ivins+photo&btnG=Search

[Lex]

6. That doesn't mean photos of her are in the public domain and

without copyrights of the photographer.

[whistle]

8. I don't understand your point I just posted two

[Lex]

12. how do you know they are free from copyright

is my point, and the point of the OP.

[TexasObserver]

9. But it does mean they aren't marked as copyrighted, and the owner is not attempting to protect them.

If one goes online, finds a photo of Molly that does not have a notation of copyrighting, and they are able to download it, the use of that photo will be unlikely to draw any attention from the photo's owner whatsoever. If the owner of the photo had desired to assert their rights, they would mark the photo as copyrighted and would program the display of the photo in such a manner as could not be downloaded or copied.

Assuming the photo owner learned of the use of the photo, as indicated above, and wanted to assert their ownership, they would have to first issue to the offender a cease and desist letter establishing their rights and bona fides. Then they would have to file a case in a federal court of appropriate jurisdiction, if their request went unanswered.

The reality of enforcing copyright is a far cry from theoretically having such a cause of action. Intellectual property rights require active pursuit and enforcement of such rights by the owner of such properties, and few owners of photos can afford to file and pursue a case in federal court.

The best approach for the author of this thread is to find a photo of Molly he or she likes, and simply get permission in writing from the owner of the photo to use it, as long as credit is given for the photographer. I'm not advocating stealing copyrighted materials, but noting that enforcing copyright is anything but cheap or simple.

[Lex]

11. They *don't* have to be marked "copyright" in order to retain

copyright.

[TexasObserver]

13. Well, duh.

Maybe you should leave copyright law to those who understand it. Clearly, you don't.

Have you ever tried a single intellectual property case in federal court? No.

Have I? Yes.

Are you sure you want to do this? You can't rebut a single statement in my posts, can you?

Practically everything printed has some copyright rights, but enforcement of copyright is limited to a very, very few cases, and there are requirements upon the owner to enforce those rights, or see them eroded.

[Lex]

14. Aren't you so very special?

I guess you dispute the point in my post--that it doesn't have to be marked with a copyright in order to retain the rights of the photographer?

Or are you just busy patting yourself on the back about how wonderfully smart you are?

[TexasObserver]

15. copyright law is about enforcement that is economically feasible

Of course I didn't dispute your point that copyright requires no mark to exist. I pointed out that almost all written and published material has some copyright available to it. But copyright law is about enforcement that is economically feasible. 99.99% of the copyright infringements (or more) never result in any action of any kind by the owner of the copyrighted materials.

[Lex]

16. LOL. As I thought, then.

Your post was just an exercise in "look at me."

The OP was looking for a non-copyrighted photo to upload to Wiki, which has certain rules about uploading photos.

But I'm sure we are all duly impressed with your treatise on economic feasibility of copyright infringement actions. Hahahaha.

[TexasObserver]

17. Let me know when you need educating on some other topic.

You cannot prevail on the merits or your skill, so you resort to lying.

I advised the OP to seek written permission from the owner of the photo he or she wanted to use. You see, that's what real lawyers do. They offer advice on how to accomplish a task at hand. You failed to do that, because you don't know how. So kindly stop lying about the advice I gave the OP.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Thanks, it looks like this may be solved through Creative Commons licensing. nt

[Bluebear]

10. Would this work?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/monagrrl/376258380/

You are free:

* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work
*Under the following conditions:

* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Attribute this work:
What does "Attribute this work" mean?
The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.

* Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
* Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Probably! It's Creative Commons License, which is what Wiki uses. Thanks! nt