PKR
Veteran
In my case, and in the cases of many others in my field, it's select exposure to a particular set of individuals that's important. Exposing my work to the general public, is a waste of time and energy for me and others. I sometimes spend serious money on a portfolio of work that's created to impress just one person, or group working at one agency.
For me, putting my work on the web would be an act of vanity, and I'm not inclined in that thing.
More exposure on the web (there is some by agents) get's me nothing but trouble and image theft.
So, you're wrong in your remark, as it pertains to many working photographers.
FujiLove
Well-known
The judgement is going to be appealed.
More here:
https://www.pixsy.com/copyright-case-threatens-creatives/
More here:
https://www.pixsy.com/copyright-case-threatens-creatives/
Steve M.
Veteran
"For me, putting my work on the web would be an act of vanity, and I'm not inclined in that thing."
Vanity has zero to do with this. People post images online for many reasons. To show how a lens or film images, to illustrate something they might want some feedback on, to share w/ friends and family. What's the definition of a working photographer who shoots for clients or agencies anyway? A commercial photographer by any other name? Someone who is a hired employee. No thank you.
"Because there is no benefit to working with someone who stole your work to begin with." Amen. That would seem to be self evident, yes?
Vanity has zero to do with this. People post images online for many reasons. To show how a lens or film images, to illustrate something they might want some feedback on, to share w/ friends and family. What's the definition of a working photographer who shoots for clients or agencies anyway? A commercial photographer by any other name? Someone who is a hired employee. No thank you.
"Because there is no benefit to working with someone who stole your work to begin with." Amen. That would seem to be self evident, yes?
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Interesting thread. I like to hear all these viewpoints and then think critically about them.
I can say that there are many content users who are ruthlessly exploiting photographers with the "exposure con". Its absolutely disgusting. And as pointed out in previous posts, the exposure con is not the same as volunteer work.
When I volunteer, its clear that my content is valued and appreciated by the people/groups who use my photography. I absolutely gain something from genuine volunteer work -- including genuine exposure: I feel good about the cause I'm supporting (I have several), and when people see my credit they associate me with the good cause I'm supporting. Just knowing I helped my cause is an immediate direct benefit to me, and the "higher value" exposure being associated with my cause has led to actual work. BTW, I tend to volunteer for environmental and social justice groups.
I must clarify that this is true only when its a genuine volunteer situation -- I've seen the "exposure con" wrapped up in the volunteer disguise. When I see that, it makes me sick to my stomach and think violent thoughts. And it can come from what would seem like a great cause. Its a life skill to know when you are being "played" and then respond accordingly.
Years ago I made money as a photographer. I doubt I could have made a living at it though. It was a tough gig 20-30 years ago, and its much harder now. I feel bad for David's son. He's experiencing that difficulty and is clearly being taken advantage of; and, its such a hard process to fight, as evidenced by the discussion in this thread. FujiLove has some points about how to try and work with current technology and attitudes. However, the internet has facilitated theft and appropriation in such an amazing way, I just don't know. I wish the best of luck to David's son. FWIW, I personally know a few genuine successful professional photographers. They do exist!!! Some here at RFF. So there must be a way....
Personally, I mostly post images that "only a mother could love", and keep resolutions low. My "good" photographs exist as digital files on an external HD, and/or as physical prints. I'm old fashioned; a photo a photo until it exists as a print. My print sales this year: $0. Year before: $250. I'm a little worried the IRS will track me down
I can say that there are many content users who are ruthlessly exploiting photographers with the "exposure con". Its absolutely disgusting. And as pointed out in previous posts, the exposure con is not the same as volunteer work.
When I volunteer, its clear that my content is valued and appreciated by the people/groups who use my photography. I absolutely gain something from genuine volunteer work -- including genuine exposure: I feel good about the cause I'm supporting (I have several), and when people see my credit they associate me with the good cause I'm supporting. Just knowing I helped my cause is an immediate direct benefit to me, and the "higher value" exposure being associated with my cause has led to actual work. BTW, I tend to volunteer for environmental and social justice groups.
I must clarify that this is true only when its a genuine volunteer situation -- I've seen the "exposure con" wrapped up in the volunteer disguise. When I see that, it makes me sick to my stomach and think violent thoughts. And it can come from what would seem like a great cause. Its a life skill to know when you are being "played" and then respond accordingly.
Years ago I made money as a photographer. I doubt I could have made a living at it though. It was a tough gig 20-30 years ago, and its much harder now. I feel bad for David's son. He's experiencing that difficulty and is clearly being taken advantage of; and, its such a hard process to fight, as evidenced by the discussion in this thread. FujiLove has some points about how to try and work with current technology and attitudes. However, the internet has facilitated theft and appropriation in such an amazing way, I just don't know. I wish the best of luck to David's son. FWIW, I personally know a few genuine successful professional photographers. They do exist!!! Some here at RFF. So there must be a way....
Personally, I mostly post images that "only a mother could love", and keep resolutions low. My "good" photographs exist as digital files on an external HD, and/or as physical prints. I'm old fashioned; a photo a photo until it exists as a print. My print sales this year: $0. Year before: $250. I'm a little worried the IRS will track me down
Corran
Well-known
And with that attitude I'd be less likely to work with you, because I would guess you'd steal my work and think it was okay.
The problem here is you seem to have missed the part where the photographer has an issue with an image taken without consent, without credit, and without any useful benefit to the photographer. It is true that pursuing every last case of copyright theft is unreasonable (due to cost vs. benefit) but it is still important that the creator gets, at the very least, notified and then credit/compensation or disallows the use. This is basic human decency.
Two stories. Years ago the local paper where I lived used to use my photos ALL the time, no credit, and once even credited their own in-house photographer. I talked to that photographer and told them they needed to stop. I didn't sue them but I mentioned that it was not right and they could be liable. They seemed to get the message but I moved away so who knows.
Second story: once I donated a large print to a charity auction. Pretty big one. It sold for triple what I was "asking" for when it was in a gallery. The two people fighting over it was a doctor and the owner of an interior decorating firm. I talked to both of them about the work and mentioned I had many other similar images and could print to whatever size they needed. I followed up with them afterwards. Neither of them talked to me again and obviously no sales were made. "Exposure" is a complete waste of time in many cases. In this instance, some rich people wanted to flaunt their money in a "charity" auction.
PKR
Veteran
The agent, in the instance of my web exposure, is an art gallery. As far as getting photo work, I do that without outside help.
And, I would prefer that my gallery work not be included in their "artists" site. artnet also has my bio online. That again, is the galleries PR machine. It was a problem for a time, but not so much lately. My work has shown up on eBay. I got an email from someone I didn't know, regarding an auction/sale. It was a secondary sale and, had nothing at all to do with me. I was interested in the final price, as it was an early dye transfer print. The inquiring party got the address with little trouble. My email address isn't published anywhere on the web. Likely a call answered by a current or previous gallery, got them the address. Now, they forward any inquiries, and give out nothing.
The portfolios I create are in the form of a book of prints or memory media. They are made, as I said before, for a specific person or group. Group meaning the people working on a project. The print books are returned to me. A DVD is left with the recipient.
Because of problems with image and intellectual property theft, few ever question my lack of web exposure. I often launch temporary sites that are project specific. The only people who would know about them, are those involved in the project. They rarely stay up longer than a month. I've never had any problem in doing this kind of thing.
FujiLove
Well-known
That makes no sense at all. You wouldn't work with a client who sees value in someone working hard and being determined to succeed? I guess you'd rather work for people who hire graduates with neither experience nor portfolio, just a certificate and a huge sense of entitlement?
Two things I've noticed on this thread:
1. Despite the ire directed towards the Internet, most examples of image theft seem to have occurred offline.
2. Maybe it's due to the subject being discussed, but the pro photographers on here come across as being rather bitter and cynical. Character traits which are not conducive to getting hired or being successful in business.
Corran
Well-known
Stealing someones work IS NOT OKAY.
NO I do not want to work for someone who does that to me!
You are delusional.
FujiLove
Well-known
I don't understand how you equate hiring someone (fully paid!) who has demonstrated they are determined and hard working, with stealing their work. Where on earth did I say I'd not pay them, steal from or exploit anyone? You're not making any sense...but you are confirming conclusion (2) above.
FujiLove
Well-known
Corran
Well-known
You have clearly outlined your position here:
So a photographer should be flattered a company stole his image, and then hope that said company, after stealing their work, would "hire" them for paid work? In no universe does this happen. Stealing work online to use, as happened in the court case in question, is not some kind of pre-interview selection process.
You have a defective moral compass with regards to stealing. As already seen by your statements on the internet and how everything is free.
So a photographer should be flattered a company stole his image, and then hope that said company, after stealing their work, would "hire" them for paid work? In no universe does this happen. Stealing work online to use, as happened in the court case in question, is not some kind of pre-interview selection process.
You have a defective moral compass with regards to stealing. As already seen by your statements on the internet and how everything is free.
PKR
Veteran
You come across as someone who has lifted photos, and thought nothing of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong? If that's the case, it makes you an image thief, correct ? Or, in simpler terms, a thief.
My photos, the ones that have been stolen, are sometimes images that were made for clients or taken when working for a client. I prefer that these are the ones taken, as an Ad Agency's legal bull dogs go after the thief.
So, you are again wrong. I've never had a client think it foolish of me to protect my work. Just the opposite.
An old friend, who's passed away, Jim Marshall, was the most tenacious of all the photographers I've known, in going after image thieves. He told me that one year in the late 90s, he collected as much money in settled law suits for image theft, as he made that year on his photography. Jim was a professional AH. You would know that about him, if you knew him. He worked about as much as he wanted to. He died a wealthy man.
Marshall's site is pretty well covered as far as copyrighted work goes.
http://www.jimmarshallphotographyllc.com/
.
FujiLove
Well-known
Nope. I simply understand the nature of the Internet and choose to embrace, not fight it. Perhaps it's because I've worked in a community for decades where people share their hard work with others for no reward. Some developers spend months, even years on projects, and freely share the code on places like Github so other people can use it in their own projects. It's what they do for a living and yet they don't ask for credit or payment. I realise it's a different medium, and what's being shared are often 'components' rather than entirely finished pieces of work, or projects, but it still feels like the antithesis of the 'copyright and sue' culture that we see with other professions these days.
And how about your moral compass?...I presume you must have been the kid who didn't copy a few of their friend's albums onto tape?
FujiLove
Well-known
You are completely wrong. I've never used any image that I haven't either purchased from a stock library, commissioned or created myself. I've bought thousands of stock photos over the course of my career, some of which were easily £5000+ for a single-use 12 month licence, and the commissioned work several times that amount.
I've spent thousands on commissioned and stock illustrations and a small fortune on desktop fonts and web font licences. I've also commissioned logos, and had typefaces customised by their original designers.
I've created and shot thousands of my own images, illustrations and graphics for use online and offline, mostly for use on websites as background images, textures etc.
How much have you spent supporting the creative industries I wonder?
Corran
Well-known
Thank you for pointing out that your example is not relevant at all.
Equating end-user piracy with someone stealing work for commercial usage is idiocy.
The Internet has nothing to do whatsoever with the issues of Copyright. Just because the phonograph was invented doesn't mean all music should be free. Just because the VHS was invented doesn't mean all movies should be free. The Internet is just a data storage and transmission medium. Just because it is easier to send data to anywhere in the world doesn't mean creators shouldn't be compensated.
What you are saying is that people who make a living from their creative output don't deserve to be able to put food on the table or have a roof over their head, unless I guess they are working for someone else. Screw creatives, right? Just get back to making that caramel frappucino and keep pumping out those nice photographs freely so MY business can use them and profit from your work.
This is an insane worldview.
Now there is plenty to discuss and debate when it comes to copyright. I think copyright laws need some serious revamping. The case of the 'Happy Birthday' song is a great case study. But citing the "Internet" as some talisman that should allow everything to be free? Absolutely insane.
Regardless, as has already been discussed, this case will probably not stand. It is obvious to everyone here that mere cropping is not transformative, as it pertains to Fair Use. I am certain the higher court will overturn this decision.
FujiLove
Well-known
My apologies, did I misunderstand your reply?
You didn't reply to my direct question about music piracy, so I assumed that you DID copy music onto blank tapes. Did I get that wrong? If not, my point is that it's a bit rich for you to be whining about the theft of copyrighted photographic material if you have been ripping off musicians by depriving them of income from their album sales.
[And BTW, you want to quit with the personal insults? You've now called me 'delusional', told me I have a 'defective moral compass', inferred I'm an idiot, said I have an 'insane world view' and finally told me to 'grow up'. I'm happy to forcefully debate with your alternate point of view, but I don't appreciate being called names you wouldn't dare to use if we were sat in the same room. Okay?]
You didn't reply to my direct question about music piracy, so I assumed that you DID copy music onto blank tapes. Did I get that wrong? If not, my point is that it's a bit rich for you to be whining about the theft of copyrighted photographic material if you have been ripping off musicians by depriving them of income from their album sales.
[And BTW, you want to quit with the personal insults? You've now called me 'delusional', told me I have a 'defective moral compass', inferred I'm an idiot, said I have an 'insane world view' and finally told me to 'grow up'. I'm happy to forcefully debate with your alternate point of view, but I don't appreciate being called names you wouldn't dare to use if we were sat in the same room. Okay?]
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
"It was only a crop."
Okay, but then is it OK to copy just one chapter from a copyrighted book? That's only a crop, too.
Okay, but then is it OK to copy just one chapter from a copyrighted book? That's only a crop, too.
Corran
Well-known
Tu quoque fallacy. And you are still ignoring the concept. End-user piracy is not being discussed. Commercial appropriation of a piece of media is.
PKR
Veteran
If you consider all the image theft over the years that wasn't pursued (local Art School students, etc.), more than my fair share.
I donate my time and money to feeding the poor. The internet creative community seems well cared for.