Thank you, Roy. I will tell the museum today. I have already told
Google Adsense about copyright issue.
Thanks to other group members who also gave advice.
You don't have a copyright interest as you did it as a
request by the photo owner. The usurping website is using
the photograph as an ad. I would have the Museum tell the
website to delete it website name from the photo. I would
also write directly to Google Adsense and ask them to remove
the pictures from their site.
Roy
In a message dated 8/20/2014 6:22:24 P.M. Eastern
Daylight Time, elson@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: You are right. A watermark is
translucent.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/watermark
There is another issue. I just didn't mention this earlier
so as not to complicate the discussion.
The original photos are faded and dirty. They were owned
by a private collector, who gave it to the museum. The
curator asked me to retouch the photos. I did so for free,
as the curator and I are friends and we belong to a group
called The Heritage Conservation Advocates. I know this
isn't what other photographers would suggest -- not to ask
for money in exchange for work -- but I did so anyway.
Now that some people have photographed the retouched,
framed photos, and putting them in cdodev.com with Google
Adsense -- thereby making the website commercial -- I feel
I'm a victim of theft.
Do I have copyright on the retouched photos. I do not yet
know a law regarding this matter in my country --
Philippines -- but in your country, who owns copyright of
the retouched photos?
|
