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 04-10-2018   #81
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.
You must be correct... he used a googled image from Rockwell as a spacemarker... he accidentally removed the watermark... he accidentally then claimed that it was a coincidence that his camera looked like Rockwell's... and he accidentally removed the image and has now remained silent for a week.

At this point, it doesn't matter. Adorama has chosen to leave his article up, and as such, shows support of the author. In my book, they are now just as guilty as the author.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #82
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 3,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Let's see what Bellamy has to say.
He`s claiming infringement of his article on Sean Flynn`s Leica M2 on FB this morning.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #83
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
 
Sumarongi's Avatar
 
Sumarongi is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faintandfuzzy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
in previous posts, iíve already talked about how resnick didnít lie, and how we donít know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think weíre dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. itís less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means thereís no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnickís head on a platter. i donít think thatís a good sign of film photographyís revival.
You must be correct... he used a googled image from Rockwell as a spacemarker... he accidentally removed the watermark... he accidentally then claimed that it was a coincidence that his camera looked like Rockwell's... and he accidentally removed the image and has now remained silent for a week.

At this point, it doesn't matter. Adorama has chosen to leave his article up, and as such, shows support of the author. In my book, they are now just as guilty as the author.

Johny, Johny -- Yes, Papa? -- Eating sugar? -- No, Papa! -- Telling lies? -- No, Papa! -- Open your mouth. -- Ah, ah, ah!
__________________
**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #84
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 499
In my book Image theft is… image theft. Pure and simple.

I liken it to someone entering my home while I’m not there, taking one of my paintings off the wall - I paint - and putting it up in their home. Then by chance I get to visit their home and see my painting on their wall with my signature removed…

“Ah, it’s just a placeholder until I paint my own painting”, I’m told.

A few years ago I had digital images stolen - nothing major, just a local company using one or two for their own website, which were taken down when I challenged them… no less than three times. No offer of payment, no apology.

Since then, on my website I limit my images to 600x400 pixels. I regret not being comfortable in showing larger images, but then I dislike large images with watermarks to protect them, so smaller images is my answer, alas.

Image theft and content appropriation is rife on the Internet and I hate it. I hate this shameless sense of entitlement that what is yours is mine, simply because one chooses to share on the Internet.
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #85
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,965
"Fair use" normally involves crediting the author/photographer, and even when it doesn't, it normally has to be "transformative", e.g. criticism, comment or even parody. This was none of the above. It was straight theft of an image which the author of the article was too lazy, mean or incompetent to create for themselves or to pay for.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #86
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faintandfuzzy View Post
You must be correct... he used a googled image from Rockwell as a spacemarker... he accidentally removed the watermark... he accidentally then claimed that it was a coincidence that his camera looked like Rockwell's... and he accidentally removed the image and has now remained silent for a week.

At this point, it doesn't matter. Adorama has chosen to leave his article up, and as such, shows support of the author. In my book, they are now just as guilty as the author.
i already wrote in a previous post that we don't know if resnick removed the watermark or if somebody else at adorama did, how i doubt resnick did it for various reasons and it's more likely that someone else at adorama did. if that's true, then adorama as an institution would be responsible collectively, and the crime was not performed by a single person that could be characterized as nefarious.

the rush to conclusions, pitchforks, and torches are what i'm saying are signs of toxic fandom. i explained how that one screen shot taken by mike fraser published on jch was misleading. let's start by noting the single statement by resnick that we have on record: "We have identical Leicas, apparently. I've posted a new photo of my old M3 from a different angle so there's no confusion."

(click on the images to go to the source webpages)





if all you read was that, you'd think resnick replaced this image:


image 1

with the image in this screenshot:


image 2

when in actuality this was the photo that resnick was talking about (mike fraser's second comment was referring to image 2, not to image 3):


image 3

see how resnick wasn't lying about replacing the photo?

on adorama's apology, we read an indirect statement by resnick:

"Mason told us that he inadvertently placed an image from Ken Rockwell’s site in his article that he wrote for us, and never intended to publish with that photo."

like i explained earlier, i'm inclined to believe that he never intended to publish with that photo. the apology isn't worded as clearly as it should be, because i do think resnick purposefully placed rockwell's image (unedited, with the watermark still there) in the article as a placeholder while drafting the article. that wasn't inadvertent. the thing that was inadvertent was the article being published before he swapped out image 1 with image 3. image 2 is what i suspect somebody else at adorama did, not resnick. this makes adorama collectively responsible for the image theft, and means that resnick isn't a liar and a crook like everyone's saying over and over. that's my argument until we hear more details.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #87
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
"Fair use" normally involves crediting the author/photographer, and even when it doesn't, it normally has to be "transformative", e.g. criticism, comment or even parody. This was none of the above. It was straight theft of an image which the author of the article was too lazy, mean or incompetent to create for themselves or to pay for.

Cheers,

R.
there are actually four factors in the determination of fair use, not one.

here's a good article on fair use as it applies to blogging:

Quote:
In regard to blogging and fair use, you can often copy a portion of someone else’s work into your blog under fair use if you add your own thoughts about the subject. It’s also good etiquette to include an attribution to the original author and a link to the original source, so your readers can see the copied portion in its original context. If you copy the exact verbiage of another’s work into your blog without adding any original thoughts of your own, that is likely copyright infringement and not protected by the Copyright Act because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to control where his work is reproduced. This is true even if you give an attribution to the original author.

If you are sued for copyright infringement and you want to claim that your use was protected by fair use, the court will consider four factors:

1. The purpose and character of the use

2. The nature of the copyrighted work that was copied

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion from the original work used compared to the whole copyrighted work

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #88
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
there are actually four factors in the determination of fair use, not one.

here's a good article on fair use as it applies to blogging:
Sure. I'm familiar with it from both sides, and for that matter I have a law degree. But for an example, someone once lifted a quote from one of my books and put it in their book about HH Dalai Lama. I'd cheerfully have given permission, but they really should have asked, and it was right on the edge for fair use with "purpose and character". I pointed this out mildly and they apologized and that was it. But just stealing an illustration because you need one, no credit, no explanation, deleted watermark: there's no excuse for that. It's like my famous pictures of the Raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima, or my well-known portraits of the Queen, or my footage of Kennedy being shot*. It's stupid to pretend that a picture is yours when it isn't, and it's dishonest.

*I hope most people will spot the three deliberate mistakes in this sentence.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #89
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
there are actually four factors in the determination of fair use, not one.

here's a good article on fair use as it applies to blogging:
I've dealt extensively with copyright and licensing, buying and selling, under European and US law, dealt with some of the most litigious people on the planet and managed to get fair use from their products and... that article is irrelevant to photos.

There's no fair use to lifting a photo when you need it to illustrate an article.

Even if you were following some of the fair use guidelines - for instance, including a photo as part of a critique or analysis - you'd still be in a legally grey area and open to a charge of infringement. (it happens, often, which is why Kershaw couldn't use key Capa photos in his biography, even though it discussed them extensively).

It's an infringement, end of.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #90
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,395
sorry, roger. i mistook your post as referring to the prior discussion on fair use concerning resnick's blog post on bellamy hunt's blog post about finding sean flynn's leica m2.

sean, see above.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #91
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.
And you're perfectly OK with that? Sure, we all realize it happens, but I think most of us would prefer it not.
__________________
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 04-11-2018   #92
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
It's like me donating a shirt to a homeless charity, then complaining that I wasn't paid for it. It's my own tough luck if I didn't realise it was a non-commercial transaction.

If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.
Always startles me, the naivete of those who think creators should give away their art, or non-creators can steal, so that Google, Facebook and other can make billions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #93
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
 
Sumarongi's Avatar
 
Sumarongi is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
see how resnick wasn't lying about replacing the photo?
aizan, you're not as well informed as you pretend to be.

In fact, this one ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumarongi View Post
... with the (new) text

*My trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.*

was the *real* Mason-M3, apparently. (At least -- meanwhile -- on the adorama-site.)
__________________
**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #94
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,395
thanks, sumarongi. the image link to adorama that i put in that post breaks: https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-conte...icarev-923.jpg

as you can see, it's the same image from the internet archive that you just posted. =P
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #95
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
It's like me donating a shirt to a homeless charity, then complaining that I wasn't paid for it. It's my own tough luck if I didn't realise it was a non-commercial transaction.

If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.
No, this is like if you stole a shirt and then donated it, and then the owner of the shirt complained. Just because you give something away doesn't make it Fair Use, and just because something is available freely on the WWW doesn't make it Fair Use - full stop. Read that again and digest it. aizan and you seem to have fundamentally flawed understanding of Fair Use and its application, which is pretty common, especially related to the WWW. I am not a lawyer but I do deal with Fair Use regularly and also used to teach a component on it related to media and its usage. There is certainly arguments for fair use when it comes to remixing and commentary, neither of which applies when a very large percentage of an article's content was dropped into another article with no relevant change or commentary - regardless of attribution!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #96
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.
I believe the word you are looking for is "stolen". But I take your point with respect to expectations. I think that if you post your images on the web you should expect them to be stolen. Doesn't make it right.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #97
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,098
Removal of a watermark takes the KR image beyond a simple screen grab. And count me in the camp that even the simple screen grab is theft.

With the JCH article he clearly states at the bottom of the page that one cannot use the images without permission. So taking them is theft, whether Adorama gives him “exposure” is irrelevant, exposure is not payment.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #98
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I've been building websites, creating images and writing code almost since the www was born. In that time I must have published tens of thousands of images and millions of lines of code. I'm more than happy for anyone to right click an image or the web page and use the media in their own projects. If that's a commercial project and they make money, then good for them. I've studied and used fragments of loads of other people's code over the years, particularly when I was learning different languages.

Share and share alike I say.
That reminds me.... Do you have a Flickr site or perhaps a gallery here? I need some pics to finish a few projects I'm working on. No credits or money, of course, but you understand.
__________________
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 04-11-2018   #99
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I simply believe...
What you believe is completely irrelevant to any discussion of Fair Use and Copyright Law, sorry.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #100
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,187
You continue to show your ignorance on FU and also setup a strawman that has no resemblance whatsoever to the articles in question. You are free to act (or not act) as you please with regard to your images, but how you personally feel about copyright/FU...doesn't matter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #101
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
. . . Even if you were following some of the fair use guidelines - for instance, including a photo as part of a critique or analysis - you'd still be in a legally grey area and open to a charge of infringement. (it happens, often, which is why Kershaw couldn't use key Capa photos in his biography, even though it discussed them extensively).

It's an infringement, end of.
Dear Paul,

True enough, but I strongly suspect that few if any photographers are likely to complain if you give an example of their work, and describe it favourably in a way that will further promote their work, or a work in which their photography appeared.

Even so, it always makes sense to ask, if you can get hold of them or their heirs and assigns. This can however be difficult with (for example) books from the 1930s and earlier. It rarely makes much sense to ask the publisher, even if they are still around, as some will claim copyright as a matter of principle, whether they own it or not.

Of course you know all this, but others may welcome the information. I am frankly astonished by FujiLove's thesis that intellectual property is worth nothing to the creator, but can be used by anyone else (including Google, etc.) to make money.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #102
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I've been building websites, creating images and writing code almost since the www was born. In that time I must have published tens of thousands of images and millions of lines of code. I'm more than happy for anyone to right click an image or the web page and use the media in their own projects. If that's a commercial project and they make money, then good for them. I've studied and used fragments of loads of other people's code over the years, particularly when I was learning different languages.

Share and share alike I say.
Sounds like the Chinese approach to intellectual property.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #103
kuuan
plays with lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I simply believe the www is a medium which should fundamentally be used for collaboration and information sharing...
nevertheless I'd consider common sense:

If someone likes a photo of mine, even if copyrighted, downloads it, prints it out and hangs it on the wall of his private home..maybe I won't know about it, but it would be fair if he asked me first, I'd readily give permission and feel happy about it.
If he puts in on an internet site he should ask me first, put credits, my name and where he got the image from.
If someone puts it on a commercial place, if internet site or physical shop, he not only should ask me first but also offer money.
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #104
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Paul,

True enough, but I strongly suspect that few if any photographers are likely to complain if you give an example of their work, and describe it favourably in a way that will further promote their work, or a work in which their photography appeared.

Even so, it always makes sense to ask, if you can get hold of them or their heirs and assigns. This can however be difficult with (for example) books from the 1930s and earlier. It rarely makes much sense to ask the publisher, even if they are still around, as some will claim copyright as a matter of principle, whether they own it or not.

Of course you know all this, but others may welcome the information. I am frankly astonished by FujiLove's thesis that intellectual property is worth nothing to the creator, but can be used by anyone else (including Google, etc.) to make money.

Cheers,

R.
Absolutely. Of course it's all a question of degree. Copyright is always evolving - one intriguing area is how the guggenheim assert image rights over the bilbao building, and you can encounter problems even posting your own photos of the museum!

I guess intellectual property is often seen as worthless by those who haven't created any.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #105
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
This is exactly why all content that has been shared on the www should be freely available to use anywhere else on the www.
Resnick claimed it was a photograph of not just any old M3, but his M3. So regardless of how you feel about the applicability of copyright law to text and images on the web, he was lying. Should free use of text and images of others include appropriating them and claiming them as your own?

By the way, Adorama has now taken the article down, undoubtedly because of the hundreds of negative comments that were posted.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #106
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Here's another good example:

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/books.htm

Did he get permission to reproduce those book covers? Did he scan them himself or rip the ones off from Amazon (who spent a lot of money scanning and editing them)?

I bet that example looks silly because everyone is so used to seeing thumbnails like this dotted all over the web. But if copyright of images applies in one place, then it applies everywhere.

This is exactly why all content that has been shared on the www should be freely available to use anywhere else on the www.
What you cite as a 'good' example shows you have no understanding of copyright. Funny things, laws. They're actually defined, written down, and you can't make them up.

Fair use applies to (your own) photos of mass market artefacts like book and album covers. They haven't caused loss of income to the publisher, for one thing. Rockwell's use there is entirely legitimate. And of course, Amazon don't scan book covers - the publishers supply them.

I've actually, one time, had a photographer demand payment for reproduction of an album cover which featured his photo in a magazine. The case failed. (If you crop it, then it's less likely to be fair use - Jamie Reid has successfully claimed for use of crops of his Sex Pistols artworks).
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #107
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,991
When something is shared it is handed over, that's not the same as letting people look at your photos, or read your words, on the internet or on a wall, page etc.

In the past I have sweated blood for weeks to create things and finding others copying and selling them for US$35 a time isn't funny. After a lot of aggro I got it stopped but never got the money. And that's one of the reasons I don't waste too much time on today's photos...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #108
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
When something is shared it is handed over, that's not the same as letting people look at your photos, or read your words, on the internet or on a wall, page etc.

In the past I have sweated blood for weeks to create things and finding others copying and selling them for US$35 a time isn't funny. After a lot of aggro I got it stopped but never got the money. And that's one of the reasons I don't waste too much time on today's photos...

Regards, David
Dear David,

Exactly. "Letting people look at" and even "charging people to look at" are rather different from "giving away". They are different kinds of "share". The same is true legally, however much FujiLove may indulge in fantasies.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #109
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
. . . that doesn't make my opinion irrelevant. . . .
Well, it does, actually, until you win a precedent-setting lawsuit or persuade people to change the statutes.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #110
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 33
Posts: 1,037
from same adorama author, saw this pop on a FB group
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2018   #111
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I simply believe the www is a medium which should fundamentally be used for collaboration and information sharing. You can use the www for commercial applications, but in doing so you have to accept that you are building your application on top of a foundation of sharing and collaboration. Sharing media is part of the www's core, which is why people shouldn't share anything they wouldn't want to be accessed and shared by billions of people.
While I believe the web is for sharing, such must be done with the creators permission and in the same context as the creator intended. I am generous with those who ask permission to reuse my work without charge in a manner that I find meritorious.

I have a photo used in a web documentary about the Daytona Beach Boardwalk. That same photo which just happened to be of a white teenage girl and two black teenage boys was used in a sexually explicit website that was racially offensive. Is that the "sharing and collaboration" Fujilove is talking about just because someone found it on my website?
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #112
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
By the way...shame on all those people above who reproduced my written content without permission. My lawyers will be in touch and I'll be expecting $1000 in the post forthwith.
LOL You mean like when we click on the "quote" button? LOL

This thread just gets weirder and weirder.
__________________
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 04-12-2018   #113
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
I have a photo used in a web documentary about the Daytona Beach Boardwalk. That same photo which just happened to be of a white teenage girl and two black teenage boys was used in a sexually explicit website that was racially offensive. Is that the "sharing and collaboration" Fujilove is talking about just because someone found it on my website?
And that is the problem with sharing... someone will always utilize it in a way that does not gel with how you see your photo or the world. Your's is an extreme example. I can only imagine how that felt.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #114
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Is it not a fantasy to post copyrighted images on a platform that was designed from the groud up to enable sharing, and expect them not to be shared?

If I had a photograph published in a magazine, I wouldnít expect them to use scanning resistant paper for that issue, especially for me, so my precious image wasnít copied. I wouldnít try and change a medium that works perfectly for the job it was designed to do simply because I didnít approve of what could happen to my images. Iíd stay away from the medium or ensure I only published images th
You've described your view of the world, which we've heard before - but it's inconsistent with how the world works.

Rockwell put a watermark on his pic to show at the very least he wanted credit. Someone stole the photo - and ended up paying him. End of.

You're defending an offender who pleaded guilty.

And similarly, a one-off scan of an image of a mag for your own use wold be fine. And if someone were photocopying for other use, that would be fine too - as in, it's administered and paid for, and authors (and photogs for all I know) get a few hundred dollars a year for exactly that use.

Likewise, quoting someone, as I have you, is fair use for the purpose of criticism and review - as in pointing out a statement is demonstrably ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #115
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Yeah, you donít really get sarcasm, do you?
Your other statements are so illogical it's hard to detect the ones that are purposefully ludicrous. Going on a photographers' forum and claiming it's ok to steal others' photos is just as silly as arguing for copyright of forum quotes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #116
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
. . . Donít break the www simply because it doesnít support archaic copyright laws.
And don't steal, or deny common decency, simply because you have no problem with either.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #117
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
.................. So regarding that photo: did you pay those three teenagers for their time or image rights, or perhaps take down their details so you could share any money the photograph made? Or did you expect them to give that to you for free?
US Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech insures I have the right to photograph anyone in public. As a matter of courtesy, I always obtain implicit permission by their non-action to photograph any person. I also have the legal right to publish such for non commercial purposes.

US Copyright law insures that no one can download and reuse my work.

It appears that the actual law and what you wish the law was are different.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #118
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 3,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Whereas youíre using an information system built for sharing content, and complaining about people sharing content!

LOL
Weren`t you doing the same thing in another thread re Facebook data sharing ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #119
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
 
Sumarongi's Avatar
 
Sumarongi is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
Rockwell put a watermark on his pic to show at the very least he wanted credit. Someone stole the photo - and ended up paying him. End of.

You're defending an offender who pleaded guilty.
There are actually at least these two old, yet still interesting, threads covering the question in question:

Copyright infringement on RFF

An Open Letter to Photography Thieves

Of course, Paul T. and Roger Hicks did contribute also then
__________________
**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #120
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by majid View Post
Thatís not even one percent of what they pay him in affiliate commissions.
So what?

Adorama paid fair compensation for unauthorized commercial usage of that image. Commercial usage is usually compensated based on pixel dimensions. Pixel dimensions determine the display size for electronic and print usage. The other factor is viewership (impact). In this case, Adorama has a moderate viewership.

It is possible the copyright for water marked photo was not registered. Compensation for unauthorized usage of an unregistered photo is much lower than one where the copyright is registered. Damages for usage of an unregistered copyright are limited to actual damages (loss of income to the holder) and all profits gained by the infringer (hard to calculate).

If the copyright was registered, then Adorama could have been liable for a much higher payment. But that would require a trial. There's no guarantee the court would have awarded the maximum copyright infringement amount of $150K. It's possible the court would have awarded the original $1,000 offer.

The possible penalties for infringement of a registered US copyright are:

o actual damages and profit loss
o $200 to $150K for each instance
o all attorneys fees and court costs
o an injunction to halt usage
o impound any illegal materials
o impose a jail sentence.

An Adorama employee made a mistake. Adorama admitted to the mistake and fairly compensated the copyright owner. It's embarrassing, but Adorama made things right.

I realize Ken Rockwell would not bite the hand that feeds him. That is only common sense and how any rational person would behave.
__________________
ďTo see what is in front of oneís nose needs a constant struggle.Ē George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  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 02:22.


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.