An Open Letter to Photography Thieves

Pikapig said:
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?
Click to expand...
No.

Cheers,

R.
 
Very soon the web can be divided into two categories of photographers: those that strictly copyright their photos and demand payments for any use (aka known as 'heading for obscurity'), and those that accept the way (web) culture and sharing works (aka known as 'actually being seen'). Trey Ratcliff comes to mind as an extremely successful example of that latter group: allowing free usage of all his photography besides to commercial parties. He understands how the web can be used to market yourself, and that's not by sending attorneys after kids and fans while mailing out take-down notices all day.

My newspaper already exclusively uses free Creative Commons-licensed photos from Flickr for its online illustrations to news articles now. Photographers who want to make money off their web photos should try harder to use the web as marketing tool for their work instead of fighting it.
 
jippiejee said:
. . . My newspaper already exclusively uses free Creative Commons-licensed photos from Flickr for its online illustrations to news articles now. Photographers who want to make money off their web photos should try harder to use the web as marketing tool for their work instead of fighting it.
Click to expand...
What are they actually "marketing", if they're already giving everything away?

Most photographers I know feel the same as I do. We cheerfully accept that some of our stuff is going to be ripped off, and don't really care, but equally, if someone is making any real money off it, they can damn' well pay us.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
What are they actually "marketing", if they're already giving everything away?
Click to expand...

In the case of Trey Ratcliiff: he allows free web posting of his work for non-commercial use, doesn't even care to watermark either, but he does send his attorneys after commercial parties infringing on his copyright. His marketing strategy is about sending traffic to his website I think, which can be monetarized too with ads and affiliate links. But he does sell quite a lot I understood. If an audience (created through that free proliferation of your photos) loves your work, they might want to order large prints that cannot be done from the web resolution files. Just guessing here, not sure what makes him so successful commercially. My bet would still be that his website's huge traffic is the main source of income.


... if someone is making any real money off it, they can damn' well pay us.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think anyone would dispute this. There's a time and place for attorneys. That'd be one of those.
 
jippiejee said:
In the case of Trey Ratcliiff: he allows free web posting of his work for non-commercial use, doesn't even care to watermark either, but he does send his attorneys after commercial parties infringing on his copyright. His marketing strategy is about sending traffic to his website I think, which can be monetarized too with ads and affiliate links. But he does sell quite a lot I understood. If an audience (created through that free proliferation of your photos) loves your work, they might want to order large prints that cannot be done from the web resolution files. Just guessing here, not sure what makes him so successful commercially. My bet would still be that his website's huge traffic is the main source of income.

[... if someone is making any real money off it, they can damn' well pay us. ]

Yes, I don't think anyone would dispute this. There's a time and place for attorneys. That'd be one of those.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This makes sense. But isn't it what most people already do?

Then again, I have a law degree...

Cheers,

R.
 
What about "stealing" photographers?

What about "stealing" photographers?

My wife had an exhibition of her paintings in a church in honor of Pentecost.
Without asking her, a photo of one of her paintings was printed on the front cover of the Pentacost Sunday program, with only the name of the photographer mentioned and her name was nowhere to be found. . .
icon9.gif
.
Theft, infringement, I don't know, but at least carelessly and sloppy
 
If I buy a photograph, put it on my front door and photograph it from a public road is it a breach of the copyright?
 
sig said:
If I buy a photograph, put it on my front door and photograph it from a public road is it a breach of the copyright?
Click to expand...

If a judge considers it "transformational", then no (ie if it is simply a part of the larger image of your house). If it occupies teh majority of the scene (ie you add your door frame as framing), then yes, it is infringment.

This has become an issue with statues in public places. For some reason I don't understand, the sculptor owns the copyright for the statue, even in public places. Several scupltors ahve sued and won cases where photographers made money selling photos of the statues, and even photos where the statue is not the promenent part of the image (ie an image of a park or town square where the statue is central to the park or square).

It is complex and not always consistent; every country has different rules - in Britian a photographer won an infringement case because a photo of his was 'recreated', a b&w backdrop of buckingham palace with a colour red double decker. Because the new image looked too close to the 'original', the second photographer was found to be infringing. This has set a bad precedent in Britian where one man now essentially "owns" the idea of a red bus in front of a b&w buckingham palace.
 
defconfunk said:
If a judge considers it "transformational", then no (ie if it is simply a part of the larger image of your house). If it occupies teh majority of the scene (ie you add your door frame as framing), then yes, it is infringment.

This has become an issue with statues in public places. For some reason I don't understand, the sculptor owns the copyright for the statue, even in public places. Several scupltors ahve sued and won cases where photographers made money selling photos of the statues, and even photos where the statue is not the promenent part of the image (ie an image of a park or town square where the statue is central to the park or square).

It is complex and not always consistent; every country has different rules - in Britian a photographer won an infringement case because a photo of his was 'recreated', a b&w backdrop of buckingham palace with a colour red double decker. Because the new image looked too close to the 'original', the second photographer was found to be infringing. This has set a bad precedent in Britian where one man now essentially "owns" the idea of a red bus in front of a b&w buckingham palace.
Click to expand...

.. I thought it was London bridge myself
 
Defconfunk, thanks for the answer.

I wonder when we can copyright our outfits, buildings etc, and what will happen to street photography.
 
Sparrow, I could be wrong, could easily be the bridge. I didn't to a reference check before posting.

sig said:
Defconfunk, thanks for the answer.

I wonder when we can copyright our outfits, buildings etc, and what will happen to street photography.
Click to expand...

We're getting close to that point with some things, cars in particular. Fashion is (currently) not copyrightable. However, with cars, the very shape of them is trademarked. Porsche is litigous in protecting the image of the 911. Stock agencies are pretty clear - you cannot upload an image that shows a car's badge, or a highly identifiable body shape (such as the 911). The 'image' of a car is very lucrative these days, with video games (and I assume other media) paying big bucks to license cars.

In California there is a grey area called The Right of Publicity (publicity rights / personal rights). Celebrities use it to protect themselves from being used in commercials just for appearing in public (ie a store can't promote itself by showing a photo of Brad Pitt walking in front of the store). It is also being used to censor unflattering images.

So, yes, if Beyonce happened to be in your street shot, made a stupid face, and you posted the image online, she could try to have it taken down. Depending on where the server is located, and how censor-resistant the isp/host is, it may stay up, it may come down.
 
In general, thieves do not care for what they steal. Why should such persons care about such open letters?
There is a moral side in things. If one is missing it then a plain letter cannot put things back where they belong.
 
Nikos72 said:
In general, thieves do not care for what they steal. Why should such persons care about such open letters?
There is a moral side in things. If one is missing it then a plain letter cannot put things back where they belong.
Click to expand...
Dear Nikos,

Very true. But equally, some people think, "It isn't really stealing if..." They are probably the only ones this "open letter" will affect.

Cheers,

R.
 
At least it is not stealing if it is a copyright violation. Calling it stealing does not make it stealing and I do not think it helps.

But I have no idea on how to fix it.
 
sig said:
At least it is not stealing if it is a copyright violation. Calling it stealing does not make it stealing and I do not think it helps.

But I have no idea on how to fix it.
Click to expand...
How is copyright violation NOT stealing? It is stealing the right to use a picture, a legally defensible right. Or believe that only material goods can be stolen?

Cheers,

R.
 
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