Copyright

I've had a few stolen and published to my amazement. Gave me the same negative feeling as when my 50 Summicron was stolen. How can they be so.....well you know.

Thanks for the link.
 
I think the issue is that, in most cases, there is a feeling that it's not a crime if there's no victim. Looks like those emails and registered letters in France are showing the offenders that there is indeed a victim.
 
I think it is hard to argue against really. Its a slippery slope to think that pop stars are 'all rich' and so can 'do without' because that same mentality disproportionately penalises the marginal artists and those struggling to create art in its various forms under generally financially difficult conditions. Its a mind set that surely permeates to all art?
 
If I've paid for the travel costs, camera equipment, processing, software and then posted a photo that is MY work then, however humble or crap it may be, it is still MY work and anyone who uses it without written permission is a thief - according to my definition.

The sleazy scumbags who set up websites and then, in the small print, get you to agree that anything you post on their site is "theirs" or that they can sell it / lease it / use it to their advantage and make money however they wish to are the worst kind of thieves and we should all boycott such sites, IMO.

If someone asks me if it's okay to use one of my photos non-commercially, then I'l usually say yes. I've had a few such requests and it's always a pleasant surprise. However, I don't expect to make money out of other peoples' property without their express permission, so why should the reverse be true - and enforcible by law - just because some big picture library / social media site, etc say so?
 
I see this as a complex situation with no easy answers. Sure, no one wants to have their work misappropriated off the internet. But the complexity arises in who is responsible for aiding and abetting that act, sometimes unwittingly. It is a large gray area determining who is a knowing participant and who is without blame.

Remember Napster was no more than a on line data base of individuals who would allow others to download files from them. Remember Wikipedia going dark for a day last month because they did not want to be held liable for user contributed content that my have been pirated? Two companies, one considered to be the classic example of bad and one the classic example of good, who were conceptually doing the same thing.

We all champion freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. We Americans believe in a totally free internet, most others come close. How do we reconcile those thoughts with prevention of piracy? There are no easy answers in the real world.
 
I once saw a commercial photo I took for Mercedes Benz printed about 2 meters tall on a wall for a housing development showing off high class lifestyle living. This being in China I didn't bother trying to find out anything else about it.

I think that in our age trying to keep a copyright on your own stuff is pretty much impossible. Us Americans have a lot of things to get straight before a solution will ever come to be. Piracy is sort of a way of life we have to deal with now. I just hope that people much smarter than I (which rules out every politician) are working on the problem.
 
One of my photos was pirated off my website and appears as a lead in on a website that I find racially offensive. Who is responsible and should be held liable? Is it the anonymous poster who stole my photo? Is it that website for permitting it? Is it the advertisers who support that website? Everyone is complicit to some degree.

FWIW: The photo is of a white person. I am white. The website is negro specific. I believe my photo was used in a context that that is racially offensive to white people. All unrelated to the fact that I am in the 7th year of a project documenting a nearby historic negro community.

Again, there are no easy answers.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I see this as a complex situation with no easy answers. Sure, no one wants to have their work misappropriated off the internet. But the complexity arises in who is responsible for aiding and abetting that act, sometimes unwittingly. It is a large gray area determining who is a knowing participant and who is without blame.

Remember Napster was no more than a on line data base of individuals who would allow others to download files from them. Remember Wikipedia going dark for a day last month because they did not want to be held liable for user contributed content that my have been pirated? Two companies, one considered to be the classic example of bad and one the classic example of good, who were conceptually doing the same thing.

We all champion freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. We Americans believe in a totally free internet, most others come close. How do we reconcile those thoughts with prevention of piracy? There are no easy answers in the real world.
Click to expand...

You make some good points. However, when we have laws, why do we not enforce them rather than make new ones that make it easier for the companies to recoup money rather than relying on our laws? The industries could use copyright law already existing.

Instead, they pay for new laws to allow them to pick on college students they know are struggling to be in college. Why didn't they pick on rich college kids? I don't condone theft, but in my opinion the computer and music companies didn't make themselves look good.

I also dislike the music companies advertisements for the new laws, claiming how the artists are being ripped off. They are, but from the little I have heard from artists, by the music companies themselves.

Clearly there are problems, but I don't know if the recent laws benefit anyone but the large interests. If I am wrong in anything, somebody with better knowledge please correct me.
 
The point I tried to make (badly, I suppose) is that, whilst I accept 100% there are no easy solutions, 99.99% of the world's population understands the principle behind right and wrong and not taking and benefitting from something that doesn't belong to you.

Most of what we photographers post online is usually captioned and identified as being copyrighted to us. Many of us would be delighted to allow our photos to be used by someone else (even for free) so long as the work is credited to us or at least not passed off as being the end user's property. To do that would take little more than a quick email.

It's bad enough when some chancer just copies and pastes your image into their website and says it's theirs but when massive corporations and social network sites start claiming ownership or licensing rights on photos posted on their sites it goes way beyond acceptable, IMO.

If I copied a top band's / recording artist's song, mimed over it and told everyone it was my original work and / or posted it on my website and claimed it as mine, would the music world come after me? Damn right they would - because there's money being lost (or not made - whichever way you look at it).

One of the only reasons, I believe, amateur photographers are regarded as easy meat is that our photos don't have a price tag attached to them and there's no implied threat that we will be able / prepared to chase down the culprit and extract money for what they have stolen.

No easy solutions, I'll admit, but I think it's very easy for the thieves to know that what they are doing is wrong.
 
I recently had a forum exchange on another website with a photographer who also is a tech blogger. He wrote at length about why he pirates commercial music and video and games. He wrote:

When I buy something, I want to be free to enjoy it however I like. I don’t want to be forced into “borrowing indefinitely” or only being allowed to play a movie through iTunes, on a computer. [And I pirate] because digital games, movies, and music are overpriced and don’t kick enough money back to the original artist.
Click to expand...

I was fascinated to see that he was a very active photographer, using the Creative Commons license in publishing his work. He's fine with his work being used for free, even commercially, but he does require credit be given to him. So I asked him why he expected others to respect his choice. Whether the artist says, "If you want to use my work, put my name by it," or "If you want to use my work, pay me for it," it's still the artist making the choice. Why would someone else get to make that choice FOR the artist? Which, of course, is what a pirate does.

My part of the discussion thread was small but the whole thread is worth a read. Mostly quite respectful and with a wide range of interests represented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Pierce
Of Interest??
Replies
10
Views
2K
kbb
K
Back
Top Bottom