Rockwell's image of M3 is 1K$ worth!

[Faintandfuzzy]

in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.

You must be correct... he used a googled image from Rockwell as a spacemarker... he accidentally removed the watermark... he accidentally then claimed that it was a coincidence that his camera looked like Rockwell's... and he accidentally removed the image and has now remained silent for a week.

At this point, it doesn't matter. Adorama has chosen to leave his article up, and as such, shows support of the author. In my book, they are now just as guilty as the author.

 

[Michael Markey]

Let's see what Bellamy has to say.

He`s claiming infringement of his article on Sean Flynn`s Leica M2 on FB this morning.

 

[Sumarongi]

in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.

You must be correct... he used a googled image from Rockwell as a spacemarker... he accidentally removed the watermark... he accidentally then claimed that it was a coincidence that his camera looked like Rockwell's... and he accidentally removed the image and has now remained silent for a week.

At this point, it doesn't matter. Adorama has chosen to leave his article up, and as such, shows support of the author. In my book, they are now just as guilty as the author.

Johny, Johny -- Yes, Papa? -- Eating sugar? -- No, Papa! -- Telling lies? -- No, Papa! -- Open your mouth. -- Ah, ah, ah!

 

[Brian Atherton]

In my book Image theft is… image theft. Pure and simple.

I liken it to someone entering my home while I’m not there, taking one of my paintings off the wall - I paint - and putting it up in their home. Then by chance I get to visit their home and see my painting on their wall with my signature removed…

“Ah, it’s just a placeholder until I paint my own painting”, I’m told.

A few years ago I had digital images stolen - nothing major, just a local company using one or two for their own website, which were taken down when I challenged them… no less than three times. No offer of payment, no apology.

Since then, on my website I limit my images to 600x400 pixels. I regret not being comfortable in showing larger images, but then I dislike large images with watermarks to protect them, so smaller images is my answer, alas.

Image theft and content appropriation is rife on the Internet and I hate it. I hate this shameless sense of entitlement that what is yours is mine, simply because one chooses to share on the Internet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Fair use" normally involves crediting the author/photographer, and even when it doesn't, it normally has to be "transformative", e.g. criticism, comment or even parody. This was none of the above. It was straight theft of an image which the author of the article was too lazy, mean or incompetent to create for themselves or to pay for.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aizan]

You must be correct... he used a googled image from Rockwell as a spacemarker... he accidentally removed the watermark... he accidentally then claimed that it was a coincidence that his camera looked like Rockwell's... and he accidentally removed the image and has now remained silent for a week.

At this point, it doesn't matter. Adorama has chosen to leave his article up, and as such, shows support of the author. In my book, they are now just as guilty as the author.

i already wrote in a previous post that we don't know if resnick removed the watermark or if somebody else at adorama did, how i doubt resnick did it for various reasons and it's more likely that someone else at adorama did. if that's true, then adorama as an institution would be responsible collectively, and the crime was not performed by a single person that could be characterized as nefarious.

the rush to conclusions, pitchforks, and torches are what i'm saying are signs of toxic fandom. i explained how that one screen shot taken by mike fraser published on jch was misleading. let's start by noting the single statement by resnick that we have on record: "We have identical Leicas, apparently. I've posted a new photo of my old M3 from a different angle so there's no confusion."

(click on the images to go to the source webpages)





if all you read was that, you'd think resnick replaced this image:


image 1

with the image in this screenshot:


image 2

when in actuality this was the photo that resnick was talking about (mike fraser's second comment was referring to image 2, not to image 3):


image 3

see how resnick wasn't lying about replacing the photo?

on adorama's apology, we read an indirect statement by resnick:

"Mason told us that he inadvertently placed an image from Ken Rockwell’s site in his article that he wrote for us, and never intended to publish with that photo."

like i explained earlier, i'm inclined to believe that he never intended to publish with that photo. the apology isn't worded as clearly as it should be, because i do think resnick purposefully placed rockwell's image (unedited, with the watermark still there) in the article as a placeholder while drafting the article. that wasn't inadvertent. the thing that was inadvertent was the article being published before he swapped out image 1 with image 3. image 2 is what i suspect somebody else at adorama did, not resnick. this makes adorama collectively responsible for the image theft, and means that resnick isn't a liar and a crook like everyone's saying over and over. that's my argument until we hear more details.

 

[aizan]

"Fair use" normally involves crediting the author/photographer, and even when it doesn't, it normally has to be "transformative", e.g. criticism, comment or even parody. This was none of the above. It was straight theft of an image which the author of the article was too lazy, mean or incompetent to create for themselves or to pay for.

Cheers,

R.

there are actually four factors in the determination of fair use, not one.

here's a good article on fair use as it applies to blogging:

In regard to blogging and fair use, you can often copy a portion of someone else’s work into your blog under fair use if you add your own thoughts about the subject. It’s also good etiquette to include an attribution to the original author and a link to the original source, so your readers can see the copied portion in its original context. If you copy the exact verbiage of another’s work into your blog without adding any original thoughts of your own, that is likely copyright infringement and not protected by the Copyright Act because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to control where his work is reproduced. This is true even if you give an attribution to the original author.

If you are sued for copyright infringement and you want to claim that your use was protected by fair use, the court will consider four factors:

1. The purpose and character of the use

2. The nature of the copyrighted work that was copied

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion from the original work used compared to the whole copyrighted work

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work

 

[Roger Hicks]

there are actually four factors in the determination of fair use, not one.

here's a good article on fair use as it applies to blogging:

Sure. I'm familiar with it from both sides, and for that matter I have a law degree. But for an example, someone once lifted a quote from one of my books and put it in their book about HH Dalai Lama. I'd cheerfully have given permission, but they really should have asked, and it was right on the edge for fair use with "purpose and character". I pointed this out mildly and they apologized and that was it. But just stealing an illustration because you need one, no credit, no explanation, deleted watermark: there's no excuse for that. It's like my famous pictures of the Raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima, or my well-known portraits of the Queen, or my footage of Kennedy being shot*. It's stupid to pretend that a picture is yours when it isn't, and it's dishonest.

*I hope most people will spot the three deliberate mistakes in this sentence.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul T.]

there are actually four factors in the determination of fair use, not one.

here's a good article on fair use as it applies to blogging:

I've dealt extensively with copyright and licensing, buying and selling, under European and US law, dealt with some of the most litigious people on the planet and managed to get fair use from their products and... that article is irrelevant to photos.

There's no fair use to lifting a photo when you need it to illustrate an article.

Even if you were following some of the fair use guidelines - for instance, including a photo as part of a critique or analysis - you'd still be in a legally grey area and open to a charge of infringement. (it happens, often, which is why Kershaw couldn't use key Capa photos in his biography, even though it discussed them extensively).

It's an infringement, end of.

 

[aizan]

sorry, roger. i mistook your post as referring to the prior discussion on fair use concerning resnick's blog post on bellamy hunt's blog post about finding sean flynn's leica m2.

sean, see above.

 

[css9450]

If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.

And you're perfectly OK with that? Sure, we all realize it happens, but I think most of us would prefer it not.

 

[Paul T.]

It's like me donating a shirt to a homeless charity, then complaining that I wasn't paid for it. It's my own tough luck if I didn't realise it was a non-commercial transaction.

If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.

Always startles me, the naivete of those who think creators should give away their art, or non-creators can steal, so that Google, Facebook and other can make billions.

 

[Sumarongi]

see how resnick wasn't lying about replacing the photo?

aizan, you're not as well informed as you pretend to be.

In fact, this one ...

... with the (new) text

*My trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.*

was the *real* Mason-M3, apparently. (At least -- meanwhile -- on the adorama-site.)

 

[aizan]

thanks, sumarongi. the image link to adorama that i put in that post breaks: https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/filmleicarev-923.jpg

as you can see, it's the same image from the internet archive that you just posted. =P

 

[Corran]

It's like me donating a shirt to a homeless charity, then complaining that I wasn't paid for it. It's my own tough luck if I didn't realise it was a non-commercial transaction.

If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.

No, this is like if you stole a shirt and then donated it, and then the owner of the shirt complained. Just because you give something away doesn't make it Fair Use, and just because something is available freely on the WWW doesn't make it Fair Use - full stop. Read that again and digest it. aizan and you seem to have fundamentally flawed understanding of Fair Use and its application, which is pretty common, especially related to the WWW. I am not a lawyer but I do deal with Fair Use regularly and also used to teach a component on it related to media and its usage. There is certainly arguments for fair use when it comes to remixing and commentary, neither of which applies when a very large percentage of an article's content was dropped into another article with no relevant change or commentary - regardless of attribution!

 

[ptpdprinter]

If you share images online you should expect them to be re-shared, re-used, download, saved, re-mixed, re-packaged and anything else someone wants to do with them within the realms of the www.

I believe the word you are looking for is "stolen". But I take your point with respect to expectations. I think that if you post your images on the web you should expect them to be stolen. Doesn't make it right.

 

[sepiareverb]

Removal of a watermark takes the KR image beyond a simple screen grab. And count me in the camp that even the simple screen grab is theft.

With the JCH article he clearly states at the bottom of the page that one cannot use the images without permission. So taking them is theft, whether Adorama gives him “exposure” is irrelevant, exposure is not payment.

 

[css9450]

I've been building websites, creating images and writing code almost since the www was born. In that time I must have published tens of thousands of images and millions of lines of code. I'm more than happy for anyone to right click an image or the web page and use the media in their own projects. If that's a commercial project and they make money, then good for them. I've studied and used fragments of loads of other people's code over the years, particularly when I was learning different languages.

Share and share alike I say.

That reminds me.... Do you have a Flickr site or perhaps a gallery here? I need some pics to finish a few projects I'm working on. No credits or money, of course, but you understand.

 

[Corran]

I simply believe...

What you believe is completely irrelevant to any discussion of Fair Use and Copyright Law, sorry.

 

[Corran]

You continue to show your ignorance on FU and also setup a strawman that has no resemblance whatsoever to the articles in question. You are free to act (or not act) as you please with regard to your images, but how you personally feel about copyright/FU...doesn't matter.