An Open Letter to Photography Thieves

[noisycheese]

From Peta Pixel and author Cheri Frost comes a scalding indictment of the parasites that are referred to as image thieves and copyright infringers.

While stealing a photographer's images is not a crime equal to murder, it is still nonetheless a crime; that's why the scumbags who do it are called thieves.

While there are lower forms of human life than thieves, the list is pretty damn short.

Link: http://petapixel.com/2014/01/23/ope...mail&utm_campaign=Feed:+PetaPixel+(PetaPixel)

An Open Letter to Photography Thieves

Cheri Frost · Jan 23, 2014

Dear Photography Thieves,

I’ve always known you were out there, even in the days of film. In a photography world filled with negatives and prints, you crept quietly in the shadows and, let’s face it, it was

*copyright moderation edit - read link*

You will continue stealing from legitimate photographers, but be warned, they are angry. Like, Braveheart angry. Don’t be surprised if they paint half their faces blue, form an army and yell, “You may start a Facebook page, but you will never take our images!”

So be ready for a fight.

 

[defconfunk]

While stealing a photographer's images is not a crime equal to murder, it is still nonetheless a crime; that's why the scumbags who do it are called thieves.

Some will even claim it isn’t stealing; it’s simply copyright infringement.

Legally, they are not called thieves, they are called infringers. There is an important distinction. When I steal something from you, you no longer have it. If I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I steal your print, you no longer have it.

If I infringe, you still have your copy. It may now be worth less than it was (especially in the case of a photo for a breaking news story), but this is an opportunity or a potential that has been lost, not a thing. This distinction matters.

While photo thieves who use others photos for direct profit (selling it as their own), indirect profit (plumping up a portfolio, web hits), or none of the above (hey look, a new meme on facebook!) are scum bags. Certainly anyone passing off someone else's work as their own, and gets work because of that, is damaging absolutely everyone involved (the original artist, the client, and themselves). They are not thieves. Copyright infringement is a civil issue. You do not got to jail for infringement (yet).

This is important when we start talking about intellectual property rights of all sorts; photos, music, writing.

There are plenty of examples of morally wrong infringement. I can't even think of a photographic infringement I consider acceptable. But here is a literary example.

Fan Fiction. Fan fiction, unless blessed by the copyright holder of the original work, is an infringement. The fan is using intellectual property (characters and likenesses) that belong to the copyright holder (not always the author). They are using those character because they love them and want to tell their own story. I've never encountered fan fiction that attempted fool the reader into thinking this was a canon story, nor have I seen anyone try to make money off of it. None the less, it is infringement, or as you say, theft.


How do you feel about a fan made music video on Youtube that mashes together an edit of a movie or show and a song? That's clear infringement. But is it theft?


I am very concerned about the current state of Intellectual Property laws in the world; as written, as enforced, and as assumed by the general public. I don't have a good answer, especially for online photo copying. But it is important that we remember art has never existed in a vacuum, and if we tighten IP laws too much, we cut off all legal ways to take inspiration from, reuse, and remix our culture.

 

[thegman]

That's all well and good, but far too much vitriol for me.

Copyright infringement is unwelcome (I'm a software developer by trade, Copyright is the only thing that makes me money), but hate and bile will not help.

Copyright infringement is required for our current capitalist system to work for intangible goods, and that's about it. Talk of 'low forms of life' does not help anyone, there are countless crimes, and Copyright infringement is among the least harmful of them.

I need Copyright to make money, so believe me when I say I want strong laws to protect my Copyright, but I don't think for a second those laws are important for good of anything other than making money. It's not about protecting art or anything like it, it's about protecting our ability to make money from it.

That's fine, I like making money as much as the next man, but of all the crimes around, and all the things we could direct our hate at, copyright infringement is not high on my list.

Whether we call it 'theft' or not is pretty immaterial, but I'm not sure it meets the definition, really.

I don't see many people rushing to the defence of movie makers, or musical artists when they wish to protect their Copyright, then it just becomes talk of 'fair use'.

 

[noisycheese]

@defconfunk,

You make some valid points.

JMHO but I agree with Mme. Frost and will continue to call copyright infringement theft. While it is true that an infringer/thief will not go to prison for his/her crime, it is still an unlawful act - which is also known as a crime.

If the wronged photographer has properly registered the image(s) in question with the U.S. Copyright Office and pursues legal action, money will change hands from infringer to infringee - either in the form of a pretrial settlement or by an award of damages as determined by the jury and judge at trial.

If the infringer is destitute or bankrupt, the photographer will at minimum secure a court judgement against all earnings, inheritance or other monetary windfall received by the infringer at any time in the future.

For the infringer, this is decidedly not an enviable position to find him/herself in.

I am very concerned about the current state of Intellectual Property laws in the world; as written, as enforced, and as assumed by the general public. I don't have a good answer, especially for online photo copying. But it is important that we remember art has never existed in a vacuum, and if we tighten IP laws too much, we cut off all legal ways to take inspiration from, reuse, and remix our culture.

I would not lose much sleep over that concern, based on what I have seen up to this point.

There are more than a few billion dollar corporate entities who have a financial interest in watering down or altogether destroying copyright and IP protections for artists, scientists and authors as mandated by law.

Given the influence they wield with lawmakers, that fact is something worth fretting over.

 

[charjohncarter]

From the birth of Christ (and probably many thousands of years before) until 1776 it was always more profitable (in the US) to use your energy to plunder and steal than to work. And those days have returned.

Do you think the Target hack was for some esoteric exercise?

 

[x-ray]

I've spent countless hours dealing with copyright infringement of my work. Its one series in particular of the late Appalachian moonshiner Popcorn Sutton. I spent three years and thousands of dollars documenting the last three years of his life including his illegal moonshine operation.

The images I made are iconic and historically significant and can not be recreated due to the suicide of the subject. My images are registered with the US copyright office as well. I make 100% of my living from my photography with a significant part coming from my documentary work and especially these images. I obtain royalties from them and from a very successful book I published.

I regularly find my images used without my concent in ads, billboards, professional music videos, playing cards, reproduction prints, note cards and shirts. I've teacher the thieves down across the US, Italy, Norway and the UK. In every case I've been successful in stopping them and in some cases collecting fees for their illegal use. I'm very tough on those that think they can use anything on the internet free and without permission.

Another series of my work is x-ray art that I sell through high end galleries. Again I make a significant income from this art and have found it ripped off many times also. I even found a person at the Chicago Art Institute copying and reproducing my work and selling it without concent.

I have no problem getting tough with them and do not hesitate to have my attorney deal with them.

 

[noisycheese]

The reason people keep stealing other people's work is simple: They know the chance of them getting their butts busted for it are slim to none.

People who have no honor or integrity - that would be thieves and/or copyright infringers - will do what they do when there is virtually no likelihood of penalty involved.

If photographers will make copyright infringement and/or image theft hurt often enough and bad enough, it will at least slow down, hopefully significantly.

 

[bushwick1234]

hate and bile will not help

and unfortunately it is full of hate and bile in this "open" letter.

 

[Thardy]

That's all well and good, but far too much vitriol for me.

Copyright infringement is unwelcome (I'm a software developer by trade, Copyright is the only thing that makes me money), but hate and bile will not help.

Copyright infringement is required for our current capitalist system to work for intangible goods, and that's about it. Talk of 'low forms of life' does not help anyone, there are countless crimes, and Copyright infringement is among the least harmful of them.

I need Copyright to make money, so believe me when I say I want strong laws to protect my Copyright, but I don't think for a second those laws are important for good of anything other than making money. It's not about protecting art or anything like it, it's about protecting our ability to make money from it.

That's fine, I like making money as much as the next man, but of all the crimes around, and all the things we could direct our hate at, copyright infringement is not high on my list.

Whether we call it 'theft' or not is pretty immaterial, but I'm not sure it meets the definition, really.

I don't see many people rushing to the defence of movie makers, or musical artists when they wish to protect their Copyright, then it just becomes talk of 'fair use'.

I guess you don't know that there are a bunch of folks here who hate the capitalist system. You're spitting into the wind, my friend.

 

[noisycheese]

Copyright infringement is unwelcome... but hate and bile will not help...

Hmm, interesting.

My worldview regarding image theft is full of "hate and bile" - but copyright infringement is not?? 🙄

I guess you don't know that a bunch of folks here who hate the capitalist system. You're spitting into the wind, my friend.

...And therein lies the rub.

Point well taken, Thomas.

 

[defconfunk]

If photographers will make copyright infringement and/or image theft hurt often enough and bad enough, it will at least slow down, hopefully significantly.

While I can't say anything about photography, other more prosecuted industries (specifically music and movies) have shown that increased penalties do not deter people at the none-commercial scale.

http://boingboing.net/2014/01/24/study-french-three-strikes-la.html

So, basically, even upping the prosecution would not deter people from stealing your image and using it as a wall paper or re-posting it somewhere else (facebook, reddit, etc). Personally, I don't consider those practices to be harmful.

I haven't seen any reports on the effects of increasing the pressure on commercial operations (ie trying to make people reselling your stuff, or using your image in their portfolio).

 

[back alley]

can i remind some of you that rff is a family site…some of the language here is not!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess you don't know that there are a bunch of folks here who hate the capitalist system. You're spitting into the wind, my friend.

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.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

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.

Exactly right, Roger.

In my experience, human beings can only live in large groups by compromising. I will also suggest that the best working definition of a good compromise, is that everyone ends up equally unhappy. From this, I draw the conclusion that the central compromise governing the internet is: you should not post anything on the internet that you are not happy to share.

 

[presspass]

Amen. It is theft, no matter how much you dress it up. Someone who takes another's work and passes it off as his or her own is as much of a thief, morally, as someone who walks off with a table or a painting.

 

[sig]

Technically, is it theft to copy text from a blog and paste it here at rff?
Or is it ok when you add a link / reference?

 

[Addy101]

From the birth of Christ (and probably many thousands of years before) until 1776 it was always more profitable (in the US) to use your energy to plunder and steal than to work. And those days have returned.

Do you think the Target hack was for some esoteric exercise?

Well, the USA didn't exist before 1776 :bang:

According to Wikipedia the copyright clause was added to the constitution in 1787. In Britain the Statute of Anne was adopted in 1710. So, 1776 is an odd year to choose in this context...

Back on topic - I guess the copyright thieves are very scared by this strongly worded letter..... :angel:

can i remind some of you that rff is a family site…some of the language here is not!

I like this kind of moderation - it appeals to ones own responsibility!

 

[noisycheese]

I find it laughable that supposedly intellectual people have no problem with image theft, which they try to justify as "internet sharing."
Meanwhile in the world of academia - which is revered by supposedly intellectual people - there has been a decades long jihad against plagiarism, which is defined as

"the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person."

If there were no double standard afoot, plagiarism would be called "idea sharing" by those supposedly intellectual people and it would be considered nothing more than good, clean fun - which is the way they regard image theft.

What a flagrant example of double standard absurdity. 🙄

 

[jordanstarr]

...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.

 

[presspass]

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.