Official Pictures of Leica gear?

[ploafmaster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You could try searching Creative Commons-licensed images on Flickr. There's a fair amount of good pictures of Leica gear to be found that way. If you do an advanced search, you can specify to restrict it to Creative Commons only.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[SJP]

Internet's 'tradition of being out in the open' is just that its difficult to 'police'. If you use images without permision when you could ask then its theft

Gerry

Agreed, and I am not suggesting otherwise except that it is a legal quagmire. It is white uncharted territory on the legal landscape.

[keithdunlop]

When asked if you want copyright-free images, your response is:

 

No, just some that I can post on my blog. Don't mind giving credit to the source.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You cannot publish photographs, on a blog or otherwise, unless you are either the copyright holder, or have license from the copyright holder.

 

I realize that the internet can be akin to the wild-west when it comes to people stealing other peoples' images for their own use, but that doesn't make it right or legal. If you find images you'd like to use on the internet, you should make every effort to obtain use permission from the copyright owner. The other option is to purchase images from a royalties free stock photo site.

[SJP]

<snip>

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You cannot publish photographs, on a blog or otherwise, unless you are either the copyright holder, or have license from the copyright holder.

Welll actually you can and there is very little the owner of the picture can do about it. That is exactly the problem, this applies for the whole range of artistic "products" like photos, music, film(DVDs). How do you get the offending website owner to stop doing this? The offending source is often hosted in a different country. Should you claim with the website provider, or the author, maybe the image was copied from another site (and so ad infinitum). Internet and ownership are mutually exclusive. The only thing we have between us and hell is an "honorable attitude". That is as it always has been.

 

<snip>If you find images you'd like to use on the internet, you should make every effort to obtain use permission from the copyright owner. The other option is to purchase images from a royalties free stock photo site.

Agree, but see above.

[gyoung]

Well yes, you can steal whatever you like, providing you can get away with it, and its easier to do that on the internet than, say, in print, but its still theft and morally wrong even if the lawyers can wriggle through it on technicalities.

Gerry

[tdavis]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned our wiki. In keeping with the wiki philosophy of free dissemination of information, none of the images are copyrighted. (Not so, however, on the German Leica Wiki.)

 

My sources for images are first, new or old images from Leica sales brochures and second, sale items that don't contain a watermark or copyright statement. The images are then squared up, shadows erased, and a white background added. If a better image is later found, it is substituted for the original one.

 

I tried asking forum members for pictures of their gear and only 3 responded. Just as well, as I didn't care for the higglety pigglety appearance of everyone's favorite background.

 

Copyright has its place, but it is a hindrance in some endeavors, such as web development and wiki development. If I had to obtain copyright release for all the wiki images it would not have been done.

Tim

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned our wiki. In keeping with the wiki philosophy of free dissemination of information, none of the images are copyrighted. (Not so, however, on the German Leica Wiki.)

 

My sources for images are first, new or old images from Leica sales brochures and second, sale items that don't contain a watermark or copyright statement. The images are then squared up, shadows erased, and a white background added. If a better image is later found, it is substituted for the original one.

 

I tried asking forum members for pictures of their gear and only 3 responded. Just as well, as I didn't care for the higglety pigglety appearance of everyone's favorite background.

 

Copyright has its place, but it is a hindrance in some endeavors, such as web development and wiki development. If I had to obtain copyright release for all the wiki images it would not have been done.

Tim

 

While Wikipedia is a marvellous idea, and I have used it regularly for both information and illustrations for a small journal I edit (nothing to do with photography) I will only use photos where the licence conditions state clearly that I may do so without asking permission.

IMHO some of your assumptions above are rather dubious, sales literature is definately copyright and I would think permission would be quite easy to get for this purpose if the company is Leica, assuming that something is copyright free simply because it doesn't say otherwise is not IMHO sufficient, you have to make reasonable enquiries etc.

The assumption must be that someone owns the copyright, just as you cannot assume that the Leica you see lying on a table is free to do what you want with unless is has a label saying 'this camera belongs to Joe Bloggs'

Intellectual propery is just as personal as physical items.

 

Gerry

[tdavis]

If I had to obtain copyright release for all the wiki images it would not have been done.

Tim

[gyoung]

If I had to obtain copyright release for all the wiki images it would not have been done.

Tim

 

Does the end justify the means? IMHO not if it means potential theft of others property, and you imply that the images on your Wiki entries are for free use, which if you have not received permission to offer them thus is compounding it, they should have a message on that they are NOT free to use and give sources, the ones I have used (not photographic items) have all had full details of source and conditions of use.

 

Gerry

[menos I M6]

"Excuse me, May I use your pen?"

"Oh, could I borrow your car tomorrow?"

"Ah … I forgot my mobile at the desk - may I use your phone for a second?"

"Excuse me Sir, may I use your airplane, I missed my flight?"

 

I have not the slightest idea, how on earth the question in such threads can come up, whether one should ask permission before using one's property or not.

I have not even the slightest clue, how fellow photographers even can encourage other photographers, to just take photographs from somewhere or spread dubious half wisdom, mixed with shady internet rumors.

 

The civilized manners to ask before taking something has not the slightest thing to do with the legal regulations commonly (obviously) unknown to most people, present in different countries.

 

Is asking one question so extraordinary uncomfortable, that people even put great effort in thinking about, how to circumvent this one simple question?

Is time spent on the internet, asking OTHER people about whether or not to ask another person for permission less costly?

 

This is pretty sad, I have to admit, pretty sad.

[Overgaard]

Leica have product photos and I would contact their marketing department to get files. Of course these PR photos can be used for free.

 

As for the copyright discussion: Copyright is when someone holds the rights to an image, and one can then buy the right to use of the image. So if Leica have commissioned photographs of their equipment and either bought copyright, or bought a license that allow then to distribute free PR photos nobody is loosing their rights.

 

There might also be images on Flickr where the owner allow usage. It is usually stated with the photo what category it is in. Make sure to distinguish if your blog is commercial, editorial or non-commerical when looking at rights.