Stealing is stealing...

[Bill Pierce]

To me, this is an exceptionally important article. Many people are not concerned with picture theft and won’t find the article of interest. On the other hand, stealing is stealing…

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...our_work.shtml

[boomguy57]

Great...now there is a whole cottage industry evolving around tracking down photographs on the Internet.

[Bill Pierce]

Originally Posted by boomguy57

Great...now there is a whole cottage industry evolving around tracking down photographs on the Internet.

Cottage industry? The photographer taking certain precautions, using search services that are free and copyrighting his pictures is a “cottage industry?” Or, do you just think that theft is OK or professionals shouldn’t charge for their services?

[emraphoto]

When I see photographers getting bent out of shape about this (still) I can't help but imagine gigantic, bloated and ill designed dinosaurs migrating across the plains to extinction as the little rodent and bird predecessors look on.

It's somewhat like putting your favourite old Vector Research turn table out on the curb and then writing a blog about the ills of modern society because someone took it home with them.

It's very, very late in the game to be swindled by this sort of thing. If you haven't already adapted to this reality and your livelihood depends on your work, you are in serious trouble.

Sort of line the photographers that spend countless hours moaning about cheap folks on Craigslist?

Originally Posted by photomoof

I think if a photographer has not gotten the word that putting one's images on the web is bound to subject them to copyright infringement -- that really annoys some photographers, and does not bother others very much is a reality.

In the past the photographer would never have known if his image appeared on a poster for a contest at a university -- now through the miracle of the internet he knows.

It has happened to me -- the most egregious instance was when this photo was used full page by the Ad Council for a full page in the NY Times.



A non-profit, I could have sued, I did not, they begged, I let it go. I was mostly ticked off that the "free publicity" did not include the credit, stamped on the back of the photo.

<importantpoint>Those who want to make a living as a photographer, cannot depend on the photos they have put up on the web at high resolution as a source of income.</ip>

Don't waste your life searching them down (although it is now quite easy with Google image). Find some new clients and do some new work, or put low rez in stock.

[jippiejee]

... and that a student had won a contest for a poster design featuring my image.

The fact that that poster design won a contest is even more worrisome than the infringement...

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by jippiejee

The fact that that poster design won a contest is even more worrisome than the infringement...

Hey! It's thought-provoking, and hence MoMA-worthy art!!


But seriously, Me-ism + ignorance + disregard for others (a variant of "who cares!"-ism) is a dangerous long-term poison:

What’s shocking is that the teacher who supervised this contest did not see anything wrong [with] that. She did not teach her students about copyright law, and did not tell them to ask the copyright holder for permission. When she called me she seemed surprised to learn that use of copyrighted work is subject to terms defined by the copyright holder.

In this day and age, the certitude of being right is enough and Syllogisms are used as irrefutable backup. Arguments are less than often reasonable, and anything that challenges our (no matter how proven otherwise) truths are felt as attacks to the core of the person itself: how can I...I!! not be right?


I've had my photos also copied, but never have felt the need to pursue legal action, since my requests to either give me compensation, full credit or remove the image completely have been granted.

In a few occasions, they took the photo and either cloned or cropped out the copyright notice. When I contacted them they were offended! that I asked them to either purchase the image or both put the copyright notice back and give me full credit.

I remember years ago when I started making my website disable downloads people were outraged --outraged, I tell ya!-- that I was thwarting their freedom to download my photos: "once I can see it on the browser, I have a copy, so why can't I keep it?" was as baffling to me as an argument as "the plane is already on its way to Paris, why can't I just jump in a seat that nobody's paid for anyway?"

I've resorted to adding hard-not-to-notice frames --and idiotically enough, some people complain about the frame when looking at photo-sharing sites...but that's a different topic-- simply because this is yet another *deterrent*.

The least one can do is be vigilant.

[kshapero]

I have lost faith years ago in the university community teaching young people any real values. Case in point.

[kansas_parker]

Originally Posted by kshapero

I have lost faith years ago in the university community teaching young people any real values. Case in point.

This is what happens when parents leave it to educators to teach their children values and things other than academia. Why should we have ever put faith in the university community to teach values?

I would like to know if the student was disciplined after this all came to light.

[mdarnton]

Originally Posted by kshapero

I have lost faith years ago in the university community teaching young people any real values. Case in point.

It is definitely not the university's job to teach values. The problem is not the university: it is people who think it's the university's job; namely, the parents and the surrounding community. If you don't have values by the time you go to college, it's way too late. Parents no longer parent, elementary teachers no longer teach, TV . . . well, I can't watch TV at all, because of the values it projects, and if I had kids they would not be watching it.

After reading the whole thread, I see the same old suspects popping up arguing against values, anyway: people who don't understand property, don't understand theft, and don't understand copyright. Along with one person who apparently blames the victim for making nice pictures when there are so many people who want to steal them, and thinks that once something is stolen, the person who stole it now is the owner.

[daveleo]

Ownership of ideas is a modern illusion (mostly 20th century). The patent was designed to give the inventor a head start not make ideas belong to any one person. Seldom is any patent truly the idea of one human -- nor literature or painting truly "owned."


@ photomoof . . .

[presspass]

The only solution, and you have to be a real Luddite like me, is not posting images on the internet. That removes a valuable source of knowledgeable criticism as well as a chance to share. I would like to participate, but I do sell images and publish them - on paper. Bill is right - stealing is stealing.

[zauhar]

It is not true that the professor "ignored" copyright law as implied in the article; in fact she was fully aware of it as evidenced by her belated attempt to contact the photographer. She found copyright law INCONVENIENT when she heard the price.

Here is what happened (I guarantee) - student produces poster with "found" photograph, professor discovers after the fact that it is not a public-domain image, gets nervous, contacts photographer, hears price she doesn't like, decides to ignore the whole issue and hopes it goes away.

A long time ago I received a manuscript to review - one of the figures looked weirdly familiar. I realized it was one of my own drawings, from published work, with additions layered on. The paper was by a student of an academic I greatly respect, so I let it by with a comment to the editor asking for appropriate citation. The "theft" was of an illustration that was really a cartoon, so the motivation was pure laziness on the part of the student. But that cartoon represented over an hour of diligent work on my part, effort he student did not have to put in, and it was clearly theft of my TIME if nothing else.

Randy

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by zauhar

It is not true that the professor "ignored" copyright law as implied in the article; in fact she was fully aware of it as evidenced by her belated attempt to contact the photographer. She found copyright law INCONVENIENT when she heard the price.

Here is what happened (I guarantee) - student produces poster with "found" photograph, professor discovers after the fact that it is not a public-domain image, gets nervous, contacts photographer, hears price she doesn't like, decides to ignore the whole issue and hopes it goes away.
Randy

The difference between the market and the law is precisely what fuels copyright violations in the first place. In a world of 100% copy utility the price of a unique work that can be indefinitely reproduced falls proportionately to its mass appeal.

Technically, much copy and paste functions and "quotes" are violations. The law is bent into a pretzel to allow such transgressions, but there are no firm boundaries because there is no market nor legal consensus on exactly where those lie as lawsuits--mostly futile--attest.

It is an analogous to caveat emptor. The buyer must protect themselves up front or the law bars them from not doing so through expensive court remedy afterwards.

Here, the copyright holder should protect themselves up front or suffer from infinite reproduction, difficult to trace, and almost impossible to collect revenues.

In this particular case, the inflexible "minimum fee of $250" appears to be completely out of line with:

1) The nature of the image's use in this context
2) The willingness of the consumer to pay that amount
3) The apparent (and stated) lack of bargaining
4) The cost of remedy or redress

In short, the "market" for trade of copyright materials is stunted right from the start. This is, in part, the copyright holder's fault. This should have been conveyed in the article. Note how the term "unauthorized" is in the negative. It is up to the copyright holder to "authorize" their works. It is not up to the end-user to verify authorship much less market compensation.

Requesting "immediate payment" of an item already in use without an up-front contract is simply poor protection, and instead tries to rely on moral suasion rather than sound business economics and a persistent knowledge of the law. Copyright is not passive; it must actively defended and protected by the producer. We do not ring-fence the free exchange of ideas but only allow those who produce to ring-fence at their own cost their products. This was not done in this case and these are the consequences. To get to the heart of what occurred here one must step away from moral arguments and look at the value, the legal responsibilities, and the contracts (or lack thereof).

[sepiareverb]

Well there is some generally accepted "educational use" allowed for images, but this certainly was not that as I understand it. Images can be used by students if they are not to be published beyond the classroom- tho this certainly does spread the notion to students that one can take images freely.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

In the case in question, the far more troublesome thing is that that typographic abomination won a contest - or that a place where such a thing can win a contest claims to be a university!

It's all a bit odd, really. I'm not that taken by the picture, either, myself.

Does anyone know how many hours it would actually take to get such a case through an American court? In the UK, we have the excellent Small Claims Court system: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...oney/DG_195118 surely something similar is available in the US?

[Paul T.]

Sadly, last time I checked (as in, last time a big chunk of my work was used on a commercial site) the Small Claims court considered Copyright outside of it expertise.

[Bike Tourist]

As one who uses microstock to generate a little retirement income, these sites operate on volume, not premium pricing. As a result, I have a LOT of images out there, most of which were paid for. At one site my current count of images sold is 21,500!

Now, I am almost sure that some additional images are in use without my being paid but they are very difficult to identify. All the ones I am able to track via Yahoo or Google have the proper credit line attached, but those identified are just a small portion of the ones uned on the internet to say nothing of print media.

I hear music artists are having a tough time, too.

[Jockos]

Stealing is stealing, copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

At least in Sweden

[Al Patterson]

Originally Posted by Jockos

Stealing is stealing, copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

At least in Sweden

Stateside they can be exactly the same...

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by Al Patterson

Stateside they can be exactly the same...

Copyright is not criminal theft except in cases of mass infringements for commercial intent, which is more akin to fraud.

Copyright violation is primarily a civil matter between private parties.

Calling the police to report a copyright infringement will get you no response. Calling a lawyer will cost you $300/hour.

[Gabriel M.A.]

It was not a student who stole an image, but a teacher (who organized the contest) at the university who used a copyrighted image without permission as the image used for posters, letterheads, etc. for the contest promotion, etc.

[GoneSavage]

What a terrible poster.

[furcafe]

Have you seen this thread?:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=117686

Or this 1?:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...hreadid=117885

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce

To me, this is an exceptionally important article. Many people are not concerned with picture theft and won’t find the article of interest. On the other hand, stealing is stealing…

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...our_work.shtml

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by furcafe

Have you seen this thread?:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=117686

Careful!

When one begins equating eating a hamburger to murder, it is 1) extreme, 2) an insult to victims of murder, and 3) diluting the issue.

Things aren't absolutely black and white, and a long argument cannot be reduced to a headline sentence. It is exactly this kind of fallacy which leads to the other end of the spectrum: "if you're sharing online...you shouldn't charge for sharing".

Extremes hate nuances. Not to mention those who exploit nuances...


Not all things are the same to all other things.

[SimonSawSunlight]

isn't it a nicely simple world we live in?