cameron.knight
Member
This is a response/offshoot of the online piracy theft thread. To sum up, the argument was that online piracy is not theft. It's still bad, but it's something different.
I'd like to comment. Consider this: a software developer writes a program. It's great. He sells it on discs which are sent to people. Those people copy and "hack" that disc, and place the data on the internet for people to get for free. I think this is a crime. I'm going to assign it a weight. Let's say 6.
Someone creates an object like a custom made bicycle. For argument's sake, it's has the same market value as the aforementioned software. It get's stolen. Weight = 9 (it is a worse crime than software example). The work in this instance must be repeated in order for the creator to have the same thing.
Now, let's talk about photos. You take a great photo. You place it on Flickr with all the appropriate copyright notices. Someone comes and does a screen grab of it, and uses it in their blog. What weight does this have for you? To me, the weight is zero. I would never do it, but I don't care when it happens to me.
Putting a photo you want to protect on Flickr, Facebook or even your personal blog is the same as driving your car into the most crime ridden part of your city, dropping the keys in the front seat, opening all the windows, and walking away.
I'm not saying that this type of "theft" is right, I'm just saying it's kind of dumb to get upset about if you're a photographer.
I shoot professionally, and when I say that, I mean it's my full-time + another 30 hours a week job. Photography is all I do. And if I put a photo out of the internet, I basically consider it stolen. Granted, I'd love credit and a check would be even better, but my time is more valuable than trying to hunt down people who wanted to use some crappy low-rez image on another website.
There are two instances where my photos end up on the internet. One, I put it up myself in a forum like this or on my Flickr account or Facebook. Anything I consider "high value" has not and does not go in these places. Secondly, my photos run online alongside editorial stories for newspapers and magazines. In these cases, I was already paid for the work, so I don't really care.
There are two exceptions to these rules. The first, someone attempting to get work as a professional photographer and passing off my images as their own in their portfolio. That's a problem, but it's practically unenforceable, so I don't lose sleep over it.
Secondly, instances where an "artist" is "appropriating" my work without my consent when they themselves do not allow their work to be appropriated. Take Sheperd Fairey, for example, and his HOPE poster for the Obama campaign. That's f**ed up. "Appropriation" is not an art or an art technique. It's stupid and lazy. But if you let stupid and lazy people mess with your art in return, I'm totally ok with it. Fairey does not. My opinions on appropriation do not stem from any legal or moral ground, they stem from simple hatred and disgust. It's a complete perversion of the artistic process. Being inspired by or even "reimagining" a work of art is not the same as putting a filter on an image it photoshop and printing out a stencil.
That being said, just last week, someone emailed me from the other side of the planet and wanted to paint one of my photos. I said, sure, and my only request was that I got to see it when it was done. Seeking consent, politeness and their end goal were present. If it ends up starting a revolution and is printed a million times on posters, so be it.
I'd like to comment. Consider this: a software developer writes a program. It's great. He sells it on discs which are sent to people. Those people copy and "hack" that disc, and place the data on the internet for people to get for free. I think this is a crime. I'm going to assign it a weight. Let's say 6.
Someone creates an object like a custom made bicycle. For argument's sake, it's has the same market value as the aforementioned software. It get's stolen. Weight = 9 (it is a worse crime than software example). The work in this instance must be repeated in order for the creator to have the same thing.
Now, let's talk about photos. You take a great photo. You place it on Flickr with all the appropriate copyright notices. Someone comes and does a screen grab of it, and uses it in their blog. What weight does this have for you? To me, the weight is zero. I would never do it, but I don't care when it happens to me.
Putting a photo you want to protect on Flickr, Facebook or even your personal blog is the same as driving your car into the most crime ridden part of your city, dropping the keys in the front seat, opening all the windows, and walking away.
I'm not saying that this type of "theft" is right, I'm just saying it's kind of dumb to get upset about if you're a photographer.
I shoot professionally, and when I say that, I mean it's my full-time + another 30 hours a week job. Photography is all I do. And if I put a photo out of the internet, I basically consider it stolen. Granted, I'd love credit and a check would be even better, but my time is more valuable than trying to hunt down people who wanted to use some crappy low-rez image on another website.
There are two instances where my photos end up on the internet. One, I put it up myself in a forum like this or on my Flickr account or Facebook. Anything I consider "high value" has not and does not go in these places. Secondly, my photos run online alongside editorial stories for newspapers and magazines. In these cases, I was already paid for the work, so I don't really care.
There are two exceptions to these rules. The first, someone attempting to get work as a professional photographer and passing off my images as their own in their portfolio. That's a problem, but it's practically unenforceable, so I don't lose sleep over it.
Secondly, instances where an "artist" is "appropriating" my work without my consent when they themselves do not allow their work to be appropriated. Take Sheperd Fairey, for example, and his HOPE poster for the Obama campaign. That's f**ed up. "Appropriation" is not an art or an art technique. It's stupid and lazy. But if you let stupid and lazy people mess with your art in return, I'm totally ok with it. Fairey does not. My opinions on appropriation do not stem from any legal or moral ground, they stem from simple hatred and disgust. It's a complete perversion of the artistic process. Being inspired by or even "reimagining" a work of art is not the same as putting a filter on an image it photoshop and printing out a stencil.
That being said, just last week, someone emailed me from the other side of the planet and wanted to paint one of my photos. I said, sure, and my only request was that I got to see it when it was done. Seeking consent, politeness and their end goal were present. If it ends up starting a revolution and is printed a million times on posters, so be it.
