cameron.knight
Member
This is a response/offshoot of the online piracy theft thread. To sum up, the argument was that online piracy is not theft. It's still bad, but it's something different.
I'd like to comment. Consider this: a software developer writes a program. It's great. He sells it on discs which are sent to people. Those people copy and "hack" that disc, and place the data on the internet for people to get for free. I think this is a crime. I'm going to assign it a weight. Let's say 6.
Someone creates an object like a custom made bicycle. For argument's sake, it's has the same market value as the aforementioned software. It get's stolen. Weight = 9 (it is a worse crime than software example). The work in this instance must be repeated in order for the creator to have the same thing.
Now, let's talk about photos. You take a great photo. You place it on Flickr with all the appropriate copyright notices. Someone comes and does a screen grab of it, and uses it in their blog. What weight does this have for you? To me, the weight is zero. I would never do it, but I don't care when it happens to me.
Putting a photo you want to protect on Flickr, Facebook or even your personal blog is the same as driving your car into the most crime ridden part of your city, dropping the keys in the front seat, opening all the windows, and walking away.
I'm not saying that this type of "theft" is right, I'm just saying it's kind of dumb to get upset about if you're a photographer.
I shoot professionally, and when I say that, I mean it's my full-time + another 30 hours a week job. Photography is all I do. And if I put a photo out of the internet, I basically consider it stolen. Granted, I'd love credit and a check would be even better, but my time is more valuable than trying to hunt down people who wanted to use some crappy low-rez image on another website.
There are two instances where my photos end up on the internet. One, I put it up myself in a forum like this or on my Flickr account or Facebook. Anything I consider "high value" has not and does not go in these places. Secondly, my photos run online alongside editorial stories for newspapers and magazines. In these cases, I was already paid for the work, so I don't really care.
There are two exceptions to these rules. The first, someone attempting to get work as a professional photographer and passing off my images as their own in their portfolio. That's a problem, but it's practically unenforceable, so I don't lose sleep over it.
Secondly, instances where an "artist" is "appropriating" my work without my consent when they themselves do not allow their work to be appropriated. Take Sheperd Fairey, for example, and his HOPE poster for the Obama campaign. That's f**ed up. "Appropriation" is not an art or an art technique. It's stupid and lazy. But if you let stupid and lazy people mess with your art in return, I'm totally ok with it. Fairey does not. My opinions on appropriation do not stem from any legal or moral ground, they stem from simple hatred and disgust. It's a complete perversion of the artistic process. Being inspired by or even "reimagining" a work of art is not the same as putting a filter on an image it photoshop and printing out a stencil.
That being said, just last week, someone emailed me from the other side of the planet and wanted to paint one of my photos. I said, sure, and my only request was that I got to see it when it was done. Seeking consent, politeness and their end goal were present. If it ends up starting a revolution and is printed a million times on posters, so be it.
I'd like to comment. Consider this: a software developer writes a program. It's great. He sells it on discs which are sent to people. Those people copy and "hack" that disc, and place the data on the internet for people to get for free. I think this is a crime. I'm going to assign it a weight. Let's say 6.
Someone creates an object like a custom made bicycle. For argument's sake, it's has the same market value as the aforementioned software. It get's stolen. Weight = 9 (it is a worse crime than software example). The work in this instance must be repeated in order for the creator to have the same thing.
Now, let's talk about photos. You take a great photo. You place it on Flickr with all the appropriate copyright notices. Someone comes and does a screen grab of it, and uses it in their blog. What weight does this have for you? To me, the weight is zero. I would never do it, but I don't care when it happens to me.
Putting a photo you want to protect on Flickr, Facebook or even your personal blog is the same as driving your car into the most crime ridden part of your city, dropping the keys in the front seat, opening all the windows, and walking away.
I'm not saying that this type of "theft" is right, I'm just saying it's kind of dumb to get upset about if you're a photographer.
I shoot professionally, and when I say that, I mean it's my full-time + another 30 hours a week job. Photography is all I do. And if I put a photo out of the internet, I basically consider it stolen. Granted, I'd love credit and a check would be even better, but my time is more valuable than trying to hunt down people who wanted to use some crappy low-rez image on another website.
There are two instances where my photos end up on the internet. One, I put it up myself in a forum like this or on my Flickr account or Facebook. Anything I consider "high value" has not and does not go in these places. Secondly, my photos run online alongside editorial stories for newspapers and magazines. In these cases, I was already paid for the work, so I don't really care.
There are two exceptions to these rules. The first, someone attempting to get work as a professional photographer and passing off my images as their own in their portfolio. That's a problem, but it's practically unenforceable, so I don't lose sleep over it.
Secondly, instances where an "artist" is "appropriating" my work without my consent when they themselves do not allow their work to be appropriated. Take Sheperd Fairey, for example, and his HOPE poster for the Obama campaign. That's f**ed up. "Appropriation" is not an art or an art technique. It's stupid and lazy. But if you let stupid and lazy people mess with your art in return, I'm totally ok with it. Fairey does not. My opinions on appropriation do not stem from any legal or moral ground, they stem from simple hatred and disgust. It's a complete perversion of the artistic process. Being inspired by or even "reimagining" a work of art is not the same as putting a filter on an image it photoshop and printing out a stencil.
That being said, just last week, someone emailed me from the other side of the planet and wanted to paint one of my photos. I said, sure, and my only request was that I got to see it when it was done. Seeking consent, politeness and their end goal were present. If it ends up starting a revolution and is printed a million times on posters, so be it.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Araakii
Well-known
I don't understand how the jury, a group of people who know nothing about law, can be the only ones to decide on a case. That's like having 5 layman who know nothing about gymnastics to be the judges at the Olympics.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'Weight' is a very useful concept when deciding how to deal with infringement, but there still needs to be a law to allow suit when the 'weight' is too great.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
presspass
filmshooter
The poster makes a good point - if you put it on the web, it's an invitation to steal. So I don't. Not the perfect solution, but it's the only one I've come up with.
ferider
Veteran
Do we really need three threads on the same subject ?
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
MickH
Well-known
Looks to me that two people may have stolen an original idea.
wblynch
Well-known
The Internet is Public Domain. You have donated your"work" to the Public Domain the moment you post it.
Sparrow
Veteran
jarski
Veteran
how many of these piracy threads we have already? how about merge them to one?
Merkin
For the Weekend
it is a simple fact that any data, be it software, music, or photos, once put on to a computer, can be perfectly copied an infinite number of times. This is the fundamental difference between data and tangible objects. posting a photo online is the equivalent of standing on a street corner and handing out free prints to passers by- the image is literally out of your hands. if you give a physical print to someone, they are perfectly free to hang it on their wall, burn it, or anything in between. The thing that they are not allowed to do is turn around and use your print in an advertising campaign, or sell any sort of rights to the image. This is the fundamental issue in regards to online piracy of images, and it is different from issues of music and movie piracy. Let's say that you take the best picture of your life, and you put a big, fat, hi-res version up on flickr to show off to your friends. Someone pops a link to it up on facebook. Everyone that sees it loves it so much that they set it as their desktop background. It goes viral. in 48 hours, over a million people have your image as their desktop background. At this point, you can do one of two things. You can commence with the wailing and the pulling of hair and the gnashing of teeth because of the one million ruthless internet thieves that have taken a copy of your work without paying you, or you can jump up and down, celebrate, and throw up a link where people can buy signed prints of your work, as well as contact info so galleries interested in showing your work can get in touch with you. In the latter case, "online piracy" has just made you money that you otherwise wouldn't have made, potentially a lot of it. People copying digital files for personal use is often good for the artist, regardless of the medium. The Grateful Dead made millions and millions of dollars off of the free publicity generated by people recording their concerts from the audience. Online piracy has been a major financial boon to the BBC. Doctor Who and Top Gear have become two of the world's most watched tv shows (top gear is THE world's most watched show now), and both shows got there because of online piracy. The Beeb is now raking in money hand over fist from DVD sales and overseas licensing fees because of it.
For these reasons, it is silly to conflate bit torrenting an album with piracy of photography. Piracy for personal use is good for the photographer- it is basically free advertising, and if you don't want people to pirate your images for personal use, you have the option of not posting the images, posting very low res images, or posting heavily watermarked images. It is incredibly easy for a photographer to keep his or her images from being pirated. Again, though, taking other's images and using them for profit is an entirely different can of worms, and is where the real issue lies for everyone.
For these reasons, it is silly to conflate bit torrenting an album with piracy of photography. Piracy for personal use is good for the photographer- it is basically free advertising, and if you don't want people to pirate your images for personal use, you have the option of not posting the images, posting very low res images, or posting heavily watermarked images. It is incredibly easy for a photographer to keep his or her images from being pirated. Again, though, taking other's images and using them for profit is an entirely different can of worms, and is where the real issue lies for everyone.