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

[Paul T.]

No, I’m describing how the www works, or at least how it was designed and built to work. You are describing the www based on your incorrect view of what it is, and how you would like it to be.

You're repeating the same demonstrably flawed logic - when, as we've seen, current law means Rockwell was reimbursed for use of his photo. There's no debating beyond that. In fact, it is you who is describing the www as "you would like it to be" - and you've chosen a really bad case to make your stand, considering a bad writer stole a photo and the creator has been recompensed.

Your other general point about "how the www was designed to work" is so vague it's hardly worth addressing. But Tim Berners Lee specifically did NOT propose the WWW to rip off creatives and I recall proposed a system of micropayments to ensure creators aren't left starving.

I presume your reasoning is naivete rather than immorality - it's that deluded idea that copyright makes Walt Diseny and big corporations rich. and that it's ok to steal from those you don't like .

The truth is the big corporations will be rich whatever happens, and copyright theft will only harm smaller creative individuals. And although I don't like Rockwell, I don't think anyone has the right to steal (and misattribute) his work, as in the incident that inspired this thread.

 

[Paul T.]

There are actually at least these two old, yet still interesting, threads covering the question in question:

Copyright infringement on RFF

An Open Letter to Photography Thieves

Of course, Paul T. and Roger Hicks did contribute also then 😀

LOL! Maybe Roger and I feel it more deeply because we and our friends make a living from words, photos, music etc.

I should add, I've given huge amounts of free stuff to my rivals, on the basis that somehow the world benefits. But if someone steals, I will take great effort to shut them down.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You're repeating the same demonstrably flawed logic - when, as we've seen, current law means Rockwell was reimbursed for use of his photo. There's no debating beyond that. In fact, it is you who is describing the www as "you would like it to be" - and you've chosen a really bad case to make your stand, considering a bad writer stole a photo and the creator has been recompensed.

Your other general point about "how the www was designed to work" is so vague it's hardly worth addressing. But Tim Berners Lee specifically did NOT propose the WWW to rip off creatives and I recall proposed a system of micropayments to ensure creators aren't left starving.

I presume your reasoning is naivete rather than immorality - it's that deluded idea that copyright makes Walt Diseny and big corporations rich. and that it's ok to steal from those you don't like .

The truth is the big corporations will be rich whatever happens, and copyright theft will only harm smaller creative individuals. And although I don't like Rockwell, I don't think anyone has the right to steal (and misattribute) his work, as in the incident that inspired this thread.

Dear Paul,

Yeah, but what do you or I or Tim Berners-Lee know, next to FujiLove?

Apologies for the source, but here's an article on micropayments on the web. I believe it represents Sir Tim's views fairly well.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You feel it’s morally right to use someone’s time while you create an image of them. . . .

How do I "use their time" any more by taking a photograph of them in the street than I do merely by noticing them in the street?

Your arguments (I use the word generously) are increasingly strained.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sumarongi]

How do I "use their time" any more by taking a photograph of them in the street than I do merely by noticing them in the street?

Wait, when taking a photo of a stranger, don't you not only use their time but also suck quite a lot life out of them? At least my wife says *I* do that 😱

😉

 

[Bob Michaels]

You feel it’s morally right to use someone’s time while you create an image of them, then potentially make money from using their image without offering them a share of those earnings? But if someone shares your images, you’re going to be offended and seek compensation? ........................

Are you contending that any photographer who makes any photograph of any person in public for any purpose has a moral responsibility to pay that person?

You have made an erroneous assumption that there is any economic motivation regarding my photography. I decided about 30 years ago to completely disconnect any economic motivation from my photography. That means I never sell any prints or right to use my photos nor ever charge for my work. My motivation was to insure that my photo work was only what I personally thought needed to be done without any influence from what the market or others wanted. The home page of my website says " Please don't steal photos from me or anyone on the web. (legalese: everything here is copyrighted) If you see something of mine that you have a connection to or simply really enjoy, please contact me and I'll probably see about getting you a print. thanks, Bob"

So I have never sought compensation for the use of my photographic work, only the right to control where it is reused.

 

[Huss]

Wait, when taking a photo of a stranger, don't you not only use their time but also suck quite a lot life out of them? At least my wife says *I* do that 😱

😉

There are quite a few societies that frown against having their photos taken as they believe it steals a part of their soul. The Amish see photos as graven images.

For these people, I like to make brass rubbings. But I definitely ask for their permission first.

 

[Sumarongi]

There are quite a few societies that frown against having their photos taken as they believe it steals a part of their soul. The Amish see photos as graven images.

For these people, I like to make brass rubbings. But I definitely ask for their permission first.

(I was alluding on exactly that, but anyways thank you, Huss)

 

[Bob Michaels]

.............. Why does a photographer have the right to take my photo without asking or paying me, and then demand payment from a 3rd party who uses my image? ..................

First amendment to the US Constitution

 

[jawarden]

Sorry to interrupt the copyright proceedings which are bizarre and fascinating in equal measure, but for those interested you might check Adorama. Both articles from Resnick are now gone.

 

[css9450]

Both articles from Resnick are now gone.

Oh, yes. That! I'd forgotten what this thread was about. Thank you!

 

[ptpdprinter]

Sorry to interrupt the copyright proceedings which are bizarre and fascinating in equal measure, but for those interested you might check Adorama. Both articles from Resnick are now gone.

I believe all of Resnick's articles are now gone.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Photographers often spend ages with people they photograph. Posing them, asking them to hold still while they fiddle with cameras, "do that again this way"...you don't think all those Martin Parr photos were lucky snaps, do you?! And what about their image rights? Why does a photographer have the right to take my photo without asking or paying me, and then demand payment from a 3rd party who uses my image? Why do I not get a cut?

That's very dodgy moral ground, if you ask me.

So...back to my earlier question: how did Ken 'lose out' when his image was used elsewhere? I keep asking, but nobody responds.

And 'stealing' is a very loose and emotive term here. Nothing was taken away from Ken. His file was simply duplicated at zero cost to him and used elsewhere. If the person had hot-linked the file straight off the server, complete with watermark, would that have been okay? How about if he had displayed Ken's whole website in an iFrame on his blog, including the image? Would that still be theft?

If someone takes my car keys and drives off, that's stealing. I no longer have a car and am angry and look for justice. If someone zaps my car with a magical copying device and drives off in the duplicate, then good for them and enjoy the drive mis amigos! 😀

By the way, sorry to see the personal insults have started. It would be good to debate without denigrating one another don't you think?

So: whenever I have a conversation with anyone, and use an idea we have arrived at in a mutually enjoyable conversation in an article, I owe them a percentage of whatever I earn for the article? As I said, "increasingly strained".

As for photographers "often spending ages with people", why do you think I chose the street as an example? If you regularly have to spend "ages" fiddling with the camera and asking for poses in street photography then (a) you're pretty incompetent and (b) your pictures are likely to be forced and stagey, i.e. not very good.

If you can't see that stealing intellectual property is stealing, then you presumably don't believe in the existence of intellectual property. You can argue de minimis, but you can't argue that it isn't stealing, even in your fantasy vision of the web which is supported only by the intellectually lazy (i.e. those who have never bothered to think about it) or, yes, thieves. It's certainly unlikely to be supported by those who create any intellectual property of any value, even if that value is quite small.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jawarden]

Oh, yes. That! I'd forgotten what this thread was about. Thank you!

The purpose of this thread is apparently to prove that someone on the Internet is wrong.

😆

 

[doitashimash1te]

Five years down the road, the first band is much more likely to be successful and rich. I see no reason why the same principle shouldn't apply to other creatives.

Shouldn't, or doesn't?

 

[NickTrop]

The reasons the author cited about not continuing to use film are valid ones, which I agree with (didn't always) when the discussion is limited to comparing small format film to full frame digital (and probably crop these days). People need to stop hyperventilating when someone disagrees on a topic on the internet. What is especially unacceptable is the seemingly willful intellectual property theft, especially from someone who is a creative, and especially-especially a professional photographer. Adorama did the right thing in paying KR for usage.

 

[objectowcer]

I also make my living from creating content (code and images).

I read a report a few years back about people who 'stole' music online via the Torrent sites, the old Napster etc. It showed they spent much more - I think it was several times more - than people who were 'honest'. In other words, the 'thieves' were actually the band's biggest fans and sources of income.

Take two talented bands. Post the music of one of them completely free on the Internet in high quality as well as on Vinyl, CD, paid streaming services etc. For the other, lock everything down, enforce copyright at every opportunity and come down hard on the pirates.

Five years down the road, the first band is much more likely to be successful and rich. I see no reason why the same principle shouldn't apply to other creatives.

If a band is on a label, they more than likely don't own the recordings or the copyright on the recordings, so it isn't their decision to enforce the copyright on them or not.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I read a report a few years back about people who 'stole' music online via the Torrent sites, the old Napster etc. It showed they spent much more - I think it was several times more - than people who were 'honest'. In other words, the 'thieves' were actually the band's biggest fans and sources of income.

Total BS...
I earn my living as a musician..so...you read somewhere some "fun" facts....lol..

 

[Paul T.]

Another important lesson for creatives:

Don't waste time when you could be creating stuff, arguing with people who advocate stealing. Just do the thing.

Deadlines call. Often work is a blessed release. Fujilove, have fun creating your code.

 

[ptpdprinter]

It seems there are a lot of people on this forum who are incapable of opening their minds to other people's ideas, and others who are incapable of having a debate without resorting to personal insults, so I'll leave you to it.

By the way, here's the 'total BS' report: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

So people who buy a lot of music should be allowed to steal a lot as well? That seems a little ludicrous. Where else would that be allowed? The local record store? I bought 30 albums so I am just going to steal 7 more as a bonus. But officer, I bought 30 of them, so how could what I did possibly be wrong?

I would also note that the article was written in 2009 - nine years ago - and since then, because the download model was untenable due in large part to piracy, internet music distribution has now moved to streaming.