DMCA takdown notices

[thegman]

something is not worth "what someone is willing to pay for it".

a demand curve is a schedule of people's reservation prices. if you apply such simply logic to it each subsequent copy of the item is worth less than the first.

Although that basically is true, most things do go down in price, the more that are made. The Leica M9 sells at greater than RRP when it first appears, just because people want them so badly. And like you say, as those people are satisfied, the price goes down to the price the rest are willing to pay. Is that not the case with pretty much any non-consumable?

It sounds over simplified, but how else can a worth be decided, other than what a particular customer is willing to pay? It varies from person to person of course, some will pay over the odds to get an iPad the day it comes out, personally, I wouldn't give you £50 for one, simply because I have no interest in them.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical situations, but the reality is that the image is worth nothing and no damage has occurred.

The amateur photographer assigns all sorts of fantastic values and qualities to his "work" that simply doesn't exist.

I ask again, why do you care? So what? In what way have you been injured, except for your ego?

You keep repeating this nonsense, and it just makes you look even more stupid each time. The fact that the image was taken without permission shows it does, in fact, have commercial value. Surely you are not that dense.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have extensive experience in the real world of publishing, photo rights and the legal system.

There is a vast difference between what the amateur thinks about how everything works and what really happens.

It has nothing to do with "better than others". I am pointing out the reality of the situation as applies in the real world.

No you don't. Your posts in this thread shows a complete lack of knowledge in this area.

The REALITY is that amateurs have the same copyright protection that professionals do. A lot of corporate media people wish it weren't so, and many of them will gladly steal an image, paying only when forced by the law, because if they don't get caught, it cost them nothing, but its still illegal for them to do it. The original poster has every right to demand his photos be taken down from sites using them without permission. Every right.

Unlike you, I do this for a living and I don't hide behind a fake username.

 

[mdarnton]

And then, on the other hand, there's the truth:
http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html

That is an entirely different subject-- and I don't agree with that bs either. Unfortunately the people holding their hands out are becoming more numerous insisting that they are entitled to what many of us barely scraping by, have made for ourselves. Since when has anything in life been an entitlement. The squirrel that doesn't save nuts before winter starves. Such a pity that no one is willing to work for anything anymore. More pitiful is that they drive cadillacs and use food stamps to purchase liquor while we keep mending our beater cars and if we want a drink, after a double shift of work of course, have to pay for it. And that has nothing to do with copyright either but.. yeah, I hear you there.

 

[redisburning]

It sounds over simplified, but how else can a worth be decided, other than what a particular customer is willing to pay? It varies from person to person of course, some will pay over the odds to get an iPad the day it comes out, personally, I wouldn't give you £50 for one, simply because I have no interest in them.

nothing has intrinsic value.

all "value" that an object has is an arbitrary assignment by human beings. price is a much better word, anyway, which refers to how much one has to give up in order to get something.

 

[Steve M.]

I figure anything posted online is fair game, so I've never bothered to see if someone has used my photos. Wouldn't like it if they did, but it would be just one more thing added to the long list of things I don't like. But what if someone photographed one of my actual photos that was in my portfolio or hanging in a gallery, and then exhibited it? Or worse, used it to sell their product? I'd be off to the lawyer's office in a thrice. So maybe it just depends. Either way I'd feel good that someone thought enough of one of my photos to "steal" it.

As for the photo of a painted sign, I think Rene Magritte addressed that here:

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/rene-magritte/the-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe-1948


Marcel Duchamp took it even further here

http://thebrainpolice.blogspot.com/2012/03/your-daily-duchamp.html

by creating a "fake" rip in the Tu m' work and repairing it with real safety pins, along with hiring a professional sign painter to paint a painting of a pointing hand on Duchamp's own canvas.

Probably the best example is when Robert Rauschenberg took one of William de Kooning's drawings, erased nearly all of it, and exhibited it with the curious and wonderful title of "Erased de Kooning". The link below contains a PDF link to the story behind this, and it's fascinating.

http://boingboing.net/2008/05/19/the-story-of-erased.html

 

[divewizard]

No you don't. Your posts in this thread shows a complete lack of knowledge in this area.

The REALITY is that amateurs have the same copyright protection that professionals do. A lot of corporate media people wish it weren't so, and many of them will gladly steal an image, paying only when forced by the law, because if they don't get caught, it cost them nothing, but its still illegal for them to do it. The original poster has every right to demand his photos be taken down from sites using them without permission. Every right.

Chris,
That is exactly the point. They used the images without my permission. Most times when people ask I say yes, but not always. I always insist on a link back to my web site when I do allow their use.
Last night I sent out 6 DMCA notices to the ISPs. As of now, less than 12 hours later 4 of the 6 have removed the content.

Chris

 

[TXForester]

The amateur photographer assigns all sorts of fantastic values and qualities to his "work" that simply doesn't exist.

How much value is debatable, but obviously others disagree with you on its existence. If it had no value, why are others using it?

 

[I Love Film]

OK, yes, it has a value. Exactly what is the value?

You're also totally avoiding the topic that the photographer took a photo of someone else's work (the sign), and it claiming it as his own.

I forgot the name, but there is an artist who goes around making exact copies (by photographing the original) of other photographer's work. For example, she shoots a Diane Arbus print, then exhibits the print in a gallery under her own name. I believe (not sure), she won a case allowing her to do so as "artistic expression". If she copied your work and exhibited it, would you defend her "rights". (I will have to look this up, my memory is drawing a blank)

You keep repeating this nonsense, and it just makes you look even more stupid each time. The fact that the image was taken without permission shows it does, in fact, have commercial value. Surely you are not that dense.

 

[I Love Film]

You are not comprehending what I wrote. Amateurs have the same rights as professionals. However, amateurs (broadly) wildly overestimate the "price" or "value" of their work, with unrealistic expectations of what something is worth, if anything. I never said he had "no right" to pursue it. Of course he has the right. Let him write a thousand emails if he wants.

I would also say that about 75% of the people here are "hiding" behind nicknames. That argument is nonsensical and makes no difference to the subject at hand, you're trying to set up a straw man.

I have also made a living from my intellectual property my whole life. I do nothing else. That is also a point which has no relevance to this topic.

No you don't. Your posts in this thread shows a complete lack of knowledge in this area.

The REALITY is that amateurs have the same copyright protection that professionals do. A lot of corporate media people wish it weren't so, and many of them will gladly steal an image, paying only when forced by the law, because if they don't get caught, it cost them nothing, but its still illegal for them to do it. The original poster has every right to demand his photos be taken down from sites using them without permission. Every right.

Unlike you, I do this for a living and I don't hide behind a fake username.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

As for the photo of a painted sign, I think Rene Magritte addressed that here:

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/rene-magritte/the-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe-1948

I clicked the link:- Due to copyright law restrictions this image is not available for your country
😀😀😀😀😀

 

[I Love Film]

OK, you defended your "rights" and had the photo removed from some websites. You devoted a lot of effort to it, and your ego and sense of self-worth were presumably stroked.

What else did you gain from all this effort? Do you now feel a sense of control over your environment because you defended your right to demand that they ask permission?

(I have a photo that is very unique of a certain person that has been stolen from a website where I provided it to the creator of the website. It has been copied maybe thousands of time now, and since very few images of this individual exist, it was swiped every time someone needed a photo of him. It is even in "official" encyclopedia sites. At first I had the same reaction, I sent emails demanding photo credit and/or removal. Then, I realized, "so what". What am I to gain by this nonsense? Even if I rigorously pursued copyright enforcement, all my anxiety and effort MIGHT end up with me making a couple of hundred bucks. THAT'S what the image is worth. Nobody is making a fortune off my image, it's a small likeness of a famous guy. Now, I just enjoy seeing it all over. I do not need the ego gratification of being in "control".)

Chris,
That is exactly the point. They used the images without my permission. Most times when people ask I say yes, but not always. I always insist on a link back to my web site when I do allow their use.
Last night I sent out 6 DMCA notices to the ISPs. As of now, less than 12 hours later 4 of the 6 have removed the content.

Chris

 

[karlori]

I do not need the ego gratification of being in "control".)

No you don't you are trying to feed your ego right here...

 

[celluloidprop]

The fact that the image was taken without permission shows it does, in fact, have commercial value. Surely you are not that dense.

Not exactly true. The image we see was taken without permission for a personal blog.

There aren't even GoogleAds on that blog, it doesn't appear to be a commercial enterprise.

Which doesn't make the image theft right and proper (though I do think there's some merit to the question of how much artistic ownership one can claim over a picture of a sign that takes up 95% of the frame), but doesn't mean there has been commercial infringement.

 

[celluloidprop]

I also tend to think that DMCA letters were a bit over the top, if no other attempt at contact had been made.

 

[redisburning]

OK, yes, it has a value. Exactly what is the value?

You're also totally avoiding the topic that the photographer took a photo of someone else's work (the sign), and it claiming it as his own.

I forgot the name, but there is an artist who goes around making exact copies (by photographing the original) of other photographer's work. For example, she shoots a Diane Arbus print, then exhibits the print in a gallery under her own name. I believe (not sure), she won a case allowing her to do so as "artistic expression". If she copied your work and exhibited it, would you defend her "rights". (I will have to look this up, my memory is drawing a blank)

you should look that up, because it sounds like straight up bull****.

if you point a camera that shoots 23 frames per second at a movie screen in the US you go to jail.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I also tend to think that DMCA letters were a bit over the top, if no other attempt at contact had been made.

The law says other attempts at contact are meaningless. If you want your work removed from a website, you have to go through the DMCA procedure.

 

[divewizard]

The law says other attempts at contact are meaningless. If you want your work removed from a website, you have to go through the DMCA procedure.

When I have asked ISPs without using this format I have been sent back messages that they will only respond to signed DMCA notices.

 

[I Love Film]

you should look that up, because it sounds like straight up bull****.

if you point a camera that shoots 23 frames per second at a movie screen in the US you go to jail.

Certainly, here is some "straight up bull****" for you:

http://www.afterwalkerevans.com/

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=appropriationist+artists

 

[redisburning]

well at least for the Walker Evans bit Levine was clear on her ability to use those pictures because she either got the rights to reproduction or they were in the public domain (as per the Metro).

if she made an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted photograph she would get the **** sued out of her.

in the US if you do not substantially change the image, you are not covered under fair use. the law is clear in that regard.

After Walker Evans is not art, I appreciate that she was at least trying to say something about ownership but she should have at least painted smiley faces on the pictures instead of being lazy about it.