Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-07-2018   #81
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
From: The Verge

Google shows how easy it is for software to remove watermarks from photos

To highlight the need for more secure copyright protections

By Nick [email protected] Aug 18, 2017, 5:51pm EDT

"Google’s research division today detailed just how easy it is for computer algorithms to bypass standard photo watermarking practices, stripping those images of copyright protection and making them vulnerable to reposting across the internet without credit. The research, presented at a leading computer vision conference in Hawaii back in July, is described in detail in a paper titled, “On the Effectiveness of Visible Watermarks.”

“As often done with vulnerabilities discovered in operating systems, applications or protocols, we want to disclose this vulnerability and propose solutions in order to help the photography and stock image communities adapt and better protect its copyrighted content and creations,” Tali Dekel and Michael Rubinstein, Google research scientists, explain in a post published on Google’s research blog earlier today."

More

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/18/1...oto-protection


.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-08-2018   #82
fdarnell
Registered User
 
fdarnell is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 177
Perhaps many do not know the history of current US copyright law. It was actually championed by Sony Bono of Sony and Cher fame when he became a politician in the 70's. The law was basically set up that when you clicked the shutter, you immediately held the copyright.

Some might say this in an unenforceable law, since there's no real way to know. However, given modern encryption technology, block chain etc, I would think that camera companies would be able to establish this unequivocable ownership within a digital camera.

Of course it would still be up to us to enforce what's ours and what's theirs. The internet has devolved so many aspects of life that photography is just kind of along for the ride of devolution.

The problem for photographers is if you want recognition you can either drink the internet Kool aid or you can go your own way.

Much like the MGTOW movement and third wave feminism, perhaps there will be a group of photographers shunning the internet to broadcast their work worldwide.

New RFF Postcard Project anyone? Maybe I already missed out on the latest one, but it's an enjoyable summer project.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-08-2018   #83
fdarnell
Registered User
 
fdarnell is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 177
No sooner had I posted the above than RFF Postcard Project #10 has come to life!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #84
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
While I don't care for the camera movements (photomatics), this method of public presentation seems fairly safe.

Elliott Erwitt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB36aBbmcQ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDzaCnRyfM
.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #85
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,023
One can copy a copyrighted anything if it's for their use only. Copyrighted books allow short copying and publishing with common sense rules for reviews and teaching, and sometimes requiring approval from whoever holds the rights. Taking a screen grab and reposting it would be fair use to me as long as it did not show the image in a "bad" light. Even then, if you didn't get permission when necessary, it just means a take down. I can copy any image anywhere and not have anything to fear as long as I do not publish it, or display it commercially. I can photograph anything on the street and shot it w/o any problem, but I can't photograph people in their homes and display those photos commercially. I could probably be arrested for trying to shoot photos through your window anyway.

There is no image theft in college that I ever saw. It's appropriation, homage and influence. That's all. I am sure no one ever saw someone make an exact copy of something and attempt to pass it off as their own. That is image theft. Go into any large museum and you will see art students copying old masters works. They're not gonna put them in a gallery with their name on them. I can make an exact copy of a Picasso painting or print and display that online or in a gallery and sell it, but I can't sign my name to it or try to pass it off as a Picasso work. By the same token, anyone can take a photo that for all practical purposes looks exactly like, for instance, Ansel Adams, but they can't attempt to pass it off as one of his prints.

Referencing art is a quagmire anyway, with people like Chagall, who just turned over a sketch to a printer to be made much larger, and then signed his name to the prints. That's what is called "after" Chagall, and anyone in the art game knows it's not by the hand of Chagall.

Of course, gallery sales rep may not point that out, but it behooves the buyer to be up to speed on these things. It's like buying a Dali print.....not in a million years would I expect those to be actually made by Dali. He committed so much fraud it's not even funny.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #86
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post

There is no image theft in college that I ever saw. It's appropriation, homage and influence. That's all.
There are 3 big (1 of them pretty famous) Art Schools in my city. There are also 2 major universities, that offer BFA/MFA degrees.

Some students from these schools commonly "appropriated" digital files from both local and non local photographers. The use was sometimes for school assignments, where they stole photos rather than create them for their assignments. The method was to slightly alter the image .. move a tree a little, add some clouds to a cloudy sky, minor stuff. And then, they would file for copyright on the altered image.

This was the impetus for using hidden watermarks in my work. They are easily discovered at close examination.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #87
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
The perfect business model: post boring images online in high resolution with no protection, then make tons of money in 'damages' when anyone uses them.

Who needs talent when you have a copyright lawyer?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #88
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
The perfect business model: post boring images online in high resolution with no protection, then make tons of money in 'damages' when anyone uses them.

Who needs talent when you have a copyright lawyer?
If someone used the photos, they obviously had real value and the photographer had enough talent to make an image someone wanted. Copyright lawyers protect the rights of creatives to earn a living. Full stop. The only people who see them as anything else are the thieves.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #89
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
The perfect business model: post boring images online in high resolution with no protection, then make tons of money in 'damages' when anyone uses them. Who needs talent when you have a copyright lawyer?
Who would want to use boring images when so many interesting images are available? Sounds like a losing proposition to me, even before the lawyer takes his percentage.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #90
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
EU Court Ruling ..

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...hreadid=165846
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #91
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
The perfect business model: post boring images online in high resolution with no protection, then make tons of money in 'damages' when anyone uses them.

Who needs talent when you have a copyright lawyer?
You mean, who needs talent when you can steal it?

Mr. Prince responded on Twitter: “Phony fraud photographers keep mooching me. Why? I changed the game,” he wrote on Wednesday. His Instagram account, which previously had over 70,000 followers, is currently disabled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/a...t-lawsuit.html

From DP Review

Richard Prince must face lawsuit over image theft, judge rules
Published Jul 27, 2017 | Brittany Hiller

Controversial artist Richard Prince must face a lawsuit over his unauthorized use of photographer Donald Graham's photo 'Rastafarian Smoking a Joint,' a federal judge has ruled. The ruling concerns a 2015 lawsuit Graham filed against Prince after he failed to heed a cease and desist order. Prince and Larry Gagosian, owner of the Gagosian Gallery where the pilfered image and others were displayed, had claimed the work is 'transformative' in an effort to have the case dismissed.

Though Prince has managed to escape past lawsuits unscathed, this latest one may prove different. Talking about the 'transformative' claims, U.S. District Judge Sidney H Stein stated, "The primary image in both works is the photograph itself. Prince has not materially altered the composition, presentation, scale, color palette and media originally used by Graham."

Graham's version of the image was acquired from another Instagram account where it was featured; he had it enlarged and printed with his own Instagram-style comment beneath the original user's caption. The exhibit at Gagosian contained a total of 38 of these 'borrowed' images, including the Rastafarian photo cited in the lawsuit. The court's ultimate ruling on the lawsuit could set a major precedent for fair use as it relates to Instagram images.

More
https://www.dpreview.com/news/527358...ft-judge-rules
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/s...y-07-18-17.pdf
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #92
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,623
Weren't we all hoping this thread was dead and buried? Seems its back for another round...
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #93
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
Weren't we all hoping this thread was dead and buried? Seems its back for another round...
Who is the "WE"?

Maybe you can furnish a list ?
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-09-2018   #94
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Who is the "WE"?
Maybe just me then.

i'm with you. I've had photos stolen and am just a rank amateur but it bugs me. Why that other poster seems to think that's OK is totally beyond me.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #95
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Who would want to use boring images when so many interesting images are available? Sounds like a losing proposition to me, even before the lawyer takes his percentage.
Well, the photo in this case looks nothing special, as was Ken Rockwell's image of an M3. Yet Ken was awarded $10,000 and the photographer in this case was looking for substantial damages. Ken's image was, as far as I can tell, earning him nothing in licence fees before it was used on the other website. And what was the photographer earning from this shot? $5 per use on a stock site?

Neither image justifies the claimed loss of earnings.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #96
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
You mean, who needs talent when you can steal it?
No, I meant what I said: copyright cases seem like an excellent way for photographers to make good money from photos that would otherwise not sell or be lost under the growing mountain of identical photos posted online.

In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft.

So it makes total business sense for every photographer to post everything they own online, in high resolution and with no protection. Wait for someone to use your image and...Bam! $10,000 for an image that would otherwise earn zero.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #97
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
No, I meant what I said: copyright cases seem like an excellent way for photographers to make good money from photos that would otherwise not sell or be lost under the growing mountain of identical photos posted online.

In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft.

So it makes total business sense for every photographer to post everything they own online, in high resolution and with no protection. Wait for someone to use your image and...Bam! $10,000 for an image that would otherwise earn zero.
This is like saying it should be legal to shoplift an item that has sat unsold on the shelf for years. The store wasn't going to sell it anyway, so what right do they have to complain?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #98
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
So it makes total business sense for every photographer to post everything they own online, in high resolution and with no protection. Wait for someone to use your image and...Bam! $10,000 for an image that would otherwise earn zero.

I suppose every occupation has its "ambulance chasers". That doesn't make it the norm.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #99
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
This is like saying it should be legal to shoplift an item that has sat unsold on the shelf for years. The store wasn't going to sell it anyway, so what right do they have to complain?
No, I'm saying the opposite. The illegality of it is obviously making some people lots of money. So logic dictates more photographers should enable copyright theft by leaving their work lying around, so they can also jump on the litigation gravy train.

I tried to find the post where someone mentioned that half the income of a photographer they know came from prosecuting copyright issues, but it must be on a different thread - maybe the Ken Rockwell thread.

Now that Google and others provide tools to easily trace illegitimate image use, I'm tempted to post all my images in high res somewhere. Maybe all my crappy shots could generate a second income?

Anyone know a good no-win-no-fee copyright lawyer? Post their details here and let's all get started. Those dumb small business owners with no idea about copyright law currently trawling around for images to use on their websites won't know what's hit them. They'll literally have no idea that using a photo illegally that they could have licensed for $2 may lead to them losing their business, and maybe even their homes if their legal bill is high enough.

Yay!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #100
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
No, I'm saying the opposite.
It is exactly what you're saying. You've spent this entire thread trying to paint image owners as 'bad guys' for defending their property rights.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #101
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
It is exactly what you're saying. You've spent this entire thread trying to paint image owners as 'bad guys' for defending their property rights.
Dear Chris,

Be fair! Everyone knows that artists, writers, etc. work for the love of it and therefore don't need to be paid. They don't need to eat, have a roof over their heads, wear clothes, or any bourgeois nonsense like that.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #102
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
It is exactly what you're saying. You've spent this entire thread trying to paint image owners as 'bad guys' for defending their property rights.
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request. I agree they should pay something for the use of the image - just like the rest of us do to licence or buy photography - but the sums involved here just make them look like greedy, vindictive ****.

It makes me wonder how the two 'photographers' above would fare if they were visited by inspectors from PRS or the Motion Picture Association? How much pirated music and film would they find? And as they are happy to receive thousands in compensation when their work is ripped off, I guess they would be okay with paying $10,000 for every downloaded track, movie and copied CD they discovered?

Maybe photographers are special and never in their lives steal other people's creative work? Or perhaps this a 'one rule for us, different rule for everyone else' kind of situation?

And I've asked this before, but nobody answered. So let's try again...

Where did Ken source this illustration on his M3 page? Did he create it himself? It has his website watermark on it. Maybe he's an illustrator in his spare time? Or did he actually steal it from Leica? Looks to me like something Leica would put together. Or how about all the manuals on Buktus (http://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html) that lots of people read on here...and which, I'm guessing, are technically all stolen from the camera manufacturers.

If you've ever downloaded one of those PDF manuals from Buktus, it's time to put your hand in your pocket and send $10,000 to compensate your favourite camera manufacturer for their 'loss'

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #103
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell)...

$10,000? Are you sure?
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #104
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request. I agree they should pay something for the use of the image - just like the rest of us do to licence or buy photography - but the sums involved here just make them look like greedy, vindictive ****.

It makes me wonder how the two 'photographers' above would fare if they were visited by inspectors from PRS or the Motion Picture Association? How much pirated music and film would they find? And as they are happy to receive thousands in compensation when their work is ripped off, I guess they would be okay with paying $10,000 for every downloaded track, movie and copied CD they discovered?

Maybe photographers are special and never in their lives steal other people's creative work? Or perhaps this a 'one rule for us, different rule for everyone else' kind of situation?

And I've asked this before, but nobody answered. So let's try again...

Where did Ken source this illustration on his M3 page? Did he create it himself? It has his website watermark on it. Maybe he's an illustrator in his spare time? Or did he actually steal it from Leica? Looks to me like something Leica would put together. Or how about all the manuals on Buktus (http://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html) that lots of people read on here...and which, I'm guessing, are technically all stolen from the camera manufacturers.

If you've ever downloaded one of those PDF manuals from Buktus, it's time to put your hand in your pocket and send $10,000 to compensate your favourite camera manufacturer for their 'loss'
Those merchants sure are vindictive ****, sending people to jail for shoplifting stuff that's worth a few dollars.

There's a reason for high awards in copyright cases. Same reason they send thieves to prison, even if its for theft of something worth only a small amount: Deterrence.

The only reason to get upset about it is if you yourself are a thief. Criminals think laws that proscribe their way of life are unjust. The cold fact is that if you want to avoid paying a big copyright judgement...DON'T STEAL. Its really that simple.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #105
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request.
This is a well-known problem in criminology. The simple-minded imagine that if the death penalty were imposed for every offence, people would be deterred from e.g. speeding.

The trouble is, certainty of prosecution is far more of a deterrent than the negligible prospect of a very severe penalty. In other words, knowing that you would pay $100 for driving faster than the speed limit, each and every time you did it, and that you would always be caught and prosecuted, would be more of a deterrent than a one in ten million chance of prosecution and the death penalty.

This also leads to the question of what is "fair". You object to $10,000. What would you consider "fair"? $1000? $100? $10? Given the hassle of trying to get any money at all, I suspect that $10,000 is reasonable and "fair". Otherwise people just wouldn't bother.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #106
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,148
So you checked with Ken and he told you he stole Leica's image and put his watermark on it? He also told you he got $10k for his M3 image? And you checked and found pirated images on his computer?

You've checked all the photographers who want to be paid and found pirated music on their computers?
And you've done the research to state as true that all these photographers are posting photos, just so they can sue for damages?
You are just blowing smoke. Your basic point is all people do bad things, so everyone should just be able to do bad things with no responsibility for what they do. And make it legal.
Your argument stinks for the good of a civil society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request. I agree they should pay something for the use of the image - just like the rest of us do to licence or buy photography - but the sums involved here just make them look like greedy, vindictive ****.

It makes me wonder how the two 'photographers' above would fare if they were visited by inspectors from PRS or the Motion Picture Association? How much pirated music and film would they find? And as they are happy to receive thousands in compensation when their work is ripped off, I guess they would be okay with paying $10,000 for every downloaded track, movie and copied CD they discovered?

Maybe photographers are special and never in their lives steal other people's creative work? Or perhaps this a 'one rule for us, different rule for everyone else' kind of situation?

And I've asked this before, but nobody answered. So let's try again...

Where did Ken source this illustration on his M3 page? Did he create it himself? It has his website watermark on it. Maybe he's an illustrator in his spare time? Or did he actually steal it from Leica? Looks to me like something Leica would put together. Or how about all the manuals on Buktus (http://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html) that lots of people read on here...and which, I'm guessing, are technically all stolen from the camera manufacturers.

If you've ever downloaded one of those PDF manuals from Buktus, it's time to put your hand in your pocket and send $10,000 to compensate your favourite camera manufacturer for their 'loss'
__________________
Leica M2 / Leica ii
Canon 3.5cm-f2 / Nikkor 3.5cm-f2.5
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #107
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
No, I meant what I said: copyright cases seem like an excellent way for photographers to make good money from photos that would otherwise not sell or be lost under the growing mountain of identical photos posted online.

In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft.

So it makes total business sense for every photographer to post everything they own online, in high resolution and with no protection. Wait for someone to use your image and...Bam! $10,000 for an image that would otherwise earn zero.
"In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft."

I made a comment about Photographer Jim Marshall telling me that, he made as much money on legal actions one year as he made on his photo work. Maybe, that's what you were referencing ?

Here's what i remember, about what Jim told me about that year; i think it was in the late 90s. I don't know how many lawsuits his attorney won in that year but, two of them were big. One amounted to $250,000. The two big ones were with Ralph Lauren and Ford Motor Co., as i recall.

Re: Ford

Jim had done some editorial photos of Alice Walker, author of "The Color Purple" , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_Purple . Ms. Walker received a Pulitzer for that work. Jim told me that, Ford Motor Co. had contacted him wanting to use one of the photos in an Ad campaign. Jim told them no. He said it was editorial work and involved a subject who wasn't "model released" for anything but editorial usage. And, in any case, he wouldn't release a photo without her permission. Ford's Ad agency used the photo in a major Ad campaign, witout the permission of Marshall or Walker. I think they both sued. Jim won his lawsuit. I'm not sure what happened with Ms. Walker.

Ralph Lauren:

The second big lawsuit that brought income to Jim that year involved, Ralph Lauren and a Clothing Ad campaign. Jim and Bill Graham were good friends. Jim often said that, without Graham's help and permission for access, he would never have been a success as a music photographer. Jim went to a lot of after hours "rock band" parties. Graham threw his share. At some event, i don't know the location, Jim photographed Bill "filliping him the bird". Jim was famous for both giving and receiving these gestures. His photo of Jonny Cash, middle finger up, is part of music photo history. Jim refused Lauren's request, saying that, it's a personal photo of a friend and, was published in Rolling Stone with permission from both parties. It was used editorially. Lauren went ahead and used the photo in their Ad campaign, expecting to be sued. And, they were.

One of the two lawsuits brought a $250,000 settlement. I don't think Jim was trolling for legal money. It wasn't his nature to do that kind of thing.

I was taught that, you don't take things that don't belong to you. Your experience may have been different?

http://www.jimmarshallphotographyllc.com/

.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #108
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
. . . I was taught that, you don't take things that don't belong to you. . .
Except perhaps intellectual property, because those who steal such things are not aware of the meaning of the word "intellectual".

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #109
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Except perhaps intellectual property, because those who steal such things are not aware of the meaning of the word "intellectual".

Cheers,

R.
I'm constantly reminded of the Gaussian Curve when intelligence is in question.

Hope you and your wife are well, pkr
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2018   #110
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
I'm constantly reminded of the Gaussian Curve when intelligence is in question.

Hope you and your wife are well, pkr
Highlight: We are, thanks. And you and yours are well too?

For your first sentence, I am reminded of something my dear late father said many years ago:

If you really want to annoy a certain kind of person, remind them that half the population is of below average intelligence

The few who dispute this tend to seize on definitions of either "average" or "intelligence".

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2018   #111
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,971
Hi,

The counter is that most people have more than the average number of arms, legs and eyes...

Edit: but the median figure is two for each...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #112
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
For your first sentence, I am reminded of something my dear late father said many years ago:

If you really want to annoy a certain kind of person, remind them that half the population is of below average intelligence

The few who dispute this tend to seize on definitions of either "average" or "intelligence".
Today we call those people neuroscientists.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #113
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
This is a well-known problem in criminology. The simple-minded imagine that if the death penalty were imposed for every offence, people would be deterred from e.g. speeding.

The trouble is, certainty of prosecution is far more of a deterrent than the negligible prospect of a very severe penalty. In other words, knowing that you would pay $100 for driving faster than the speed limit, each and every time you did it, and that you would always be caught and prosecuted, would be more of a deterrent than a one in ten million chance of prosecution and the death penalty.

This also leads to the question of what is "fair". You object to $10,000. What would you consider "fair"? $1000? $100? $10? Given the hassle of trying to get any money at all, I suspect that $10,000 is reasonable and "fair". Otherwise people just wouldn't bother.

Cheers,

R.
One of the cornerstones of justice, at least in the UK, is proportionality. So taking the three examples mentioned above:

1. Someone drives at 40 mph through a built-up 30 mph zone, potentially risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians. If caught, they would be fined 100 and given three penalty points on their licence.

2. Someone walks out of a shop with 50 of goods without paying, potentially costing the shop owner the 25 which they paid for the goods wholesale. If caught (assuming it's a first offence) they would be served with a penalty notice of 85.

3. Someone steals a cat picture taken by a professional photographer that's for sale elsewhere, and uses it on their blog. If caught, they are hit with a 7,800 fine ($10,000 at today's exchange rate).

That's completely ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #114
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 872
The cat sued them..that makes all the difference in the world..no one fks..with cats..as they don't like..blogs..or the internet..for that matter..
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #115
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
1. Someone drives at 40 mph through a built-up 30 mph zone, potentially risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians. If caught, they would be fined 100 and given three penalty points on their licence.

2. Someone walks out of a shop with 50 of goods without paying, potentially costing the shop owner the 25 which they paid for the goods wholesale. If caught (assuming it's a first offence) they would be served with a penalty notice of 85.

3. Someone steals a cat picture taken by a professional photographer that's for sale elsewhere, and uses it on their blog. If caught, they are hit with a 7,800 fine ($10,000 at today's exchange rate).

That's completely ridiculous.
Obviously you are referring to the shoplifter. I agree; he should have one or both arms severed above the elbow.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #116
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
Obviously you are referring to the shoplifter. I agree; he should have one or both arms severed above the elbow.
السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ‬‎

Nice weather in Riyadh this afternoon?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #117
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,594
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #118
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
One of the cornerstones of justice, at least in the UK, is proportionality. So taking the three examples mentioned above:

1. Someone drives at 40 mph through a built-up 30 mph zone, potentially risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians. If caught, they would be fined 100 and given three penalty points on their licence.

2. Someone walks out of a shop with 50 of goods without paying, potentially costing the shop owner the 25 which they paid for the goods wholesale. If caught (assuming it's a first offence) they would be served with a penalty notice of 85.

3. Someone steals a cat picture taken by a professional photographer that's for sale elsewhere, and uses it on their blog. If caught, they are hit with a 7,800 fine ($10,000 at today's exchange rate).

That's completely ridiculous.
But I repeat: what WOULD you consider fair, given the hassle and expense of pursuing a claim? And how would you suggest that the wronged party should approach their suit?

If it were a simple, automatic, infallible process -- anyone who steals a picture is automatically charged (say) 100 minimum, with the option of pursuing further damages -- it would be a very different matter. And several of us would be millionaires.

Also, damages are not the same as a fine. If you want to see REALLY disproportionate damages, look at what UK courts impose for libel.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #119
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 581
Every time I read a thread like this, I'm amazed that a photographer or other creative will side with someone stealing the work of another photographer/creative.

I, wrongfully, assumed that photographers would side together with one another against theft of images and creative property, yet every time a thread like this pops up, there are a few "who cares" or "you put it on the internet, you deserve it" people.
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2018   #120
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogarth Ferguson View Post
Every time I read a thread like this, I'm amazed that a photographer or other creative will side with someone stealing the work of another photographer/creative.

I, wrongfully, assumed that photographers would side together with one another against theft of images and creative property, yet every time a thread like this pops up, there are a few "who cares" or "you put it on the internet, you deserve it" people.
I think its just mostly one guy.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:40.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.