An Open Letter to Photography Thieves

Roger Hicks said:
ALL economies are mixed, and the idea of any sane economy is to allow people to earn a decent living without exploiting others too much.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well in the context of the discussion I mean that some people like the idea of living off someone else's work; stealing photos that they didn't make. Yeah, in the context of this discussion.
 
presspass said:
Lets ignore the 'is it art' argument and go for craftsmanship. If you create something, it's yours. You can keep it, sell it, or give it away. But it's your decision. That's what copyright is all about. It gives the artist/craftsman ownership of his or her creation. The decision to share should be the creator's not the viewer's. BTW, printers in the United States routinely ignored copyrights from other countries for years. That's one reason Charles Dickens so disliked the U.S. - they printed his books without paying him for them.
Click to expand...
There's also the point that writers and photographers and so forth are as fond of a roof over their heads and food on the table as anyone else. It makes sense to have some sort of reward system for good work.

Cheers,

R.
 
jordanstarr said:
...this open letter is redundant. thegman was right in that copywrite only exists to protect those making a monetary gain from it. Sure, let's go back to pre-copywrite days (1776 or earlier) where art was truly made to what it was.....art....not money.
We all want to think we're entitled to something we create, but in all actuality, nothing is original.

Let's take copywrite to the extreme for a minute. If everything was patented and kept in lock in key. not a single person in this forum would be taking photographs. Who here can actually create a camera like the one they are using (sans pinhole)? Patients and copywrites only exist to a degree and insofar as they allow the economy to run in a very controlled atmosphere.

None of our ideas are original. They feed off other ideas, "re-created" by others. Let's not all let our egos explode thinking that us photographers are the epitome of artists and are entitled to money every time we click that shutter. If we don't want people using our images, don't put them on the internet in high resolution. You can post them in small, web-quality that cannot be printed with any quality whatsoever. We all should know the risks of this by now.

Lastly, as photographers, we need to at least acknowledge the existence and entitlement of our subjects. As x-ray points out, a substantial amount of his/her success is on someone else's life and their unfortunate death. I would imagine that if we are to create a pie-chart on the value of our work, at least some contribution needs to be made to the subjects where possible if we are to be consistent with the ethics of copywrite.

There are a lot of degrees of separation on this issue and larger ethical dilemmas beyond "I clicked the button, therefore it is mine!!!". The issue is far more complex than this letter addresses and it's obviously more emotionally charged than it is being logical in a legal, ethical and artistic discourse.
Click to expand...
What do you think painters and writers lived on before copyrights? Do you believe they just did their art because they enjoyed it, and gave the results away?

"Who Owns the Future" by Jaron Lanier addresses the question of micropayments for creators, but your argument goes way (and insupportably) beyond that. At what point, after all, does the contribution of the content to a created work become significant? Purely practically, using your argument, no-one could take pictures of a crowded square without paying a fraction of a penny to every person in a crowd. Or a picture of a landscape without finding and paying the owner of the landscape. Or a building without paying the architect...

Your example of the camera is completely pointless. We buy tools and materials; we use them. Often, they are patented. Part of the price we pay for these tools and materials is in return for the right to use equipment and materials incorporating patented designs. What was your point?

As for "nothing is new", I'm afraid that's bunkum too. Of course nothing is totally new, but what of it? I'm writing this using what is generally known as the Roman alphabet. Does this mean that what I'm writing is not new? Do I owe someone a royalty because I haven't invented my own alphabet (which no-one else could read)? If nothing were ever new, civilization could never have arisen. At each stage, there must be something new, or nothing would ever change. The novelty may be small, but it must exist, so a lot of things are, in fact, new.

Cheers,

R.
 
Another point - which is related to Roger's - is that some "amateur" photographers may decide that they want to put that roof over their head and food on their table by using a camera to do it rather than a jackhammer or pipe wrench. It's not going to help them ever be able to do so if it is deemed okay to steal their work because they are not "professional" photographers.

"Amateur" or "professional" is irrelevant: Stealing a photographer's work is unlawful and immoral. It is truly amazing that some people on this forum - a photographer's forum - refuse to acknowledge that basic fact and continue to lambaste it tooth and nail. Simply unbelievable. Perhaps we should also decriminalize stealing someone's cameras and lenses - as long as they are not "professional" photographers, of course.

Everyone deserves to enjoy the rewards of their work, whether the rewards are large or small.
 
I am put in mind of something I read a long time ago: "a law that cannot be be enforced in the majority of cases is a bad law". No matter what you call it, "infringement" or "theft", how do you enforce the rights that current law gives you?

The truth is, I submit, you cannot. Even huge corporations, such as Sony Entertainment or Microsoft, can only recover damages in a tiny fraction of cases, by their own admission. In some countries, such as Armenia, it has been claimed that as much as 93% of the intellectual property available is "pirated" and that in China, the figure could be 89%.

Before you can begin the process of recovering "lost income", you need to identify that someone has copied your image without permission. How do you find this has happened, how do you identify the legal jurisdiction in which the alleged loss occurred and how do you provide whatever proof of loss will be required in that jurisdiction? If the defendant is in the same country or state as yourself, it will be time consuming, expensive and, as always in the law, a test of stamina between yourself and the defendant. If it is in another jurisdiction?

This is why I say that the only thing a sensible person can and should do is decide if they wish to keep control of their images or not. If they do wish to keep control of their images, in my opinion, they should never post them on the web or post them in such a way that most people won't consider re-using those images.
 
Personally I believe that intellectual property is a bourgeois concept and any type of infringement against it is an act of civil disobedience that should be lauded.
 
Jamie123 said:
Personally I believe that intellectual property is a bourgeois concept and any type of infringement against it is an act of civil disobedience that should be lauded.
Click to expand...

As I sat in my chair on Miami Beach enjoying the sound of the surf, I noticed the numerous Sea Gulls just hanging out. All of a sudden a huge commotion breaks out - one "lucky" bird finds a chip that was left behind and literally dozens swoop around and chased him for several minutes all trying to get his chip.

I now look down from the twentieth floor from my hotel room and notice that these birds are still patrolling where people are lying about looking for remains of human meals.

Understand that the ocean is just a few feet away and where the beach meets the water all sorts of yummy things (for a bird) can be found with a teeny bit of effort. I know because I used to poke around in the water with my kids when they where young.

Why in the heck would birds patrol all day and fight over a single Dorito chip when it would be easier and maybe more satisfying to just pluck a few crab from the shallow surf?

Do they even know how to hunt for themselves anymore?
 
Thardy said:
What's sad is that I sort of believe you.

Not really.😉
Click to expand...

And here I thought the use of the word "bourgeois" in my first post was a dead giveaway that I was being facetious.

But on a more serious note, I think this whole thread is utterly useless. It's little more than a <deleted> for the OP and other like-minded people to rant about some abstract idea of a "photography thief". This topic creeps up on RFF every now and then and it's always the same. One side argues rationally and realistically about the benefits and shortcomings of current intellectual property laws and the other side just goes "I don't care, stealing is stealing" as if that word alone was supposed to deter copyright infringers from their actions.
 
Jamie123 said:
And here I thought the use of the word "bourgeois" in my first post was a dead giveaway that I was being facetious.

But on a more serious note, I think this whole thread is utterly useless. It's little more than a <deleted> for the OP and other like-minded people to rant about some abstract idea of a "photography thief". This topic creeps up on RFF every now and then and it's always the same. One side argues rationally and realistically about the benefits and shortcomings of current intellectual property laws and the other side just goes "I don't care, stealing is stealing" as if that word alone was supposed to deter copyright infringers from their actions.
Click to expand...
Then again, I thought that "totally unintellectual" could be spotted as a joke, as I know you're not. And it went downhill from there...

The question of micropayments (as treated in the Jaron Lanier book) is however interesting.

Cheers,

R.
 
I feel there's another take on this.

Recently, when out taking photographs, a passer-by asked me if I intended to send any of my photos off to the weatherman on the regional BBC television station, where viewer's photographs are shown on the evening weather forecast.

(For those outside the UK , the BBC is public broadcasting service for which anyone with a TV has to pay for via a mandatory licence costing £145 (for colour TV) whether they watch the BBC or not.)

Anyone who sends any photographs or video to the BBC receives no payment, and while the photographer retains copyright, the BBC can use the photographs for any purpose they see fit - including advertising and passing on to affiliates. The BBC actively encourage submission of such material, and use it in various ways, including news bulletins, etc.

I explained this to the passer-by, also mentioning that I knew of a professional photographer who lived within yards of where we were stood, and that, apart from being ripped-off myself, I was also potentially taking revenue from him by giving away any of my images.

Although this is not theft per se, it is, in my book, certainly denying due payment for photographs, especially as anyone viewing the BBC (or any other TV station) in this country without a licence is subject to a hefty fine.

However, while people are vain or stupid enough to give away material that they then have to pay to subsequently view (in the press or on TV, etc.), then this form of injustice will continue.
 
However, while people are vain or stupid enough to give away material that they then have to pay to subsequently view (in the press or on TV, etc.), then this form of injustice will continue.
Click to expand...

I will put an opposing view. Much of the internet relies on the free donation of time and knowledge. Most internet servers run on Linux; an operating system donated freely to the world by Linus Torvald, with many thousands of man years for expansion and maintenance provided, for no reward, by the community. Most web sites are served by Apache and its derivatives, again the work of volunteers. One of the most important sites on the web, Wikipedia, consists entirely of software and data provided at no cost by volunteers. One of the most commonly used web browsers is Firefox; created and maintained by volunteers.

I rather think that I would like to be just a little bit as vain and stupid as those people.
 
Sorry but does taking a photo of a stranger without permission constitutes to a theft? Subsequently when we print it and sell it away without his agreement is it morally incorrect?

So does the photograph belongs to me when its a picture of a stranger whom did not agree to have his picture taken?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
The War Against Photography is Growing Alongside the Use of Security Cameras
Replies
0
Views
928
noisycheese
N
Back
Top Bottom