'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen'images,

"Joe Kotroczo" wrote in message
...
On 26/01/2013 08:23, sobriquet wrote:

(...)

Employing, manipulating and remixing images one encounters in
one's environment (like on the internet or on the streets)
constitutes artistic freedom.

Yes. And making money with these remixed images constitutes copyright
infringement. Keyword being "commercial use".


Remix without permission = copyright infringement.

"sobriquet" wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 28, 2013 11:58:35 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:



Commercial use isn't the only basis for claiming infringement of

copyright.

Let's make it more concrete.. suppose I find an image online
in two locations with conflicting intellectual property claims:

http://www.desbaratinando.com/2011/0...-do-mundo.html
http://solent.photoshelter.com/image/I0000USltyghmtts

How am I going to determine who's intellectual property it actually
is?

Matters not if it's not yours and you are not authrized to use the work
product. DON'T!

Let's assume for argument's sake that the second one is valid.
What if people only encounter the first link and based on that, they
distribute and reproduce the images while pointing back to the
source where they found the image:
http://imgur.com/a/dnjMj#0

Does that constitute copyright infringement?

Without ownership or permission any use of the image is copyright
infringement.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Joe Kotroczo" wrote in message
...
: If you don't want your pictures to be used without payment,
: only show them to prospective buyers in hard copy form
: where you retain physical possession, or, if on the web,
: in uselessly small versions (smaller than say 80 pixels
: smallest dimension.) If you sell them for digital use
: in large size, make sure you get enough to cover their
: value from the first sale.

And what is "their value" in that context?


It is what is necessary to make a business model work.
It might be $30 for a wedding photographer or $30,000 for
a photographic artist. But the point is ... a business
model built on one photo, one sale, and a profit.

There's an alternative to that of course: join an agency.
Magnum, Getty Images, Corbis, Sipa Press, Alamy, and so on..

That doesn't stop them being reused without permission, it simply allows
you to easily sell them to those who do seek permission.


Does help a bit as some (Getty Images comes to mind) have spiders that go
out and find abuse of copyright. First they send a bill then the send a
process server. Most times they collect (some cases sue a beggar get a
louse).

sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:09:45 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

[..]
Sharing information is a human right. A monopoly on the distribution
and reproduction of information is not.

I DEMAND MY HUMAN RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE EXACTLY YOU LIVE. YOU
DONT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND REPORODUCTION OF
THAT INFORMATION.

Give. Or I'll have you in front of the human rights court

for mishandling my human rights!

Sharing information is a human right, but it's not a compulsory
duty to disclose all information to everyone.

So you say you get to decide whom to share where you live?
You'd probably get upset if your landlord or your town or
your internet provider etc. shared the information (which is
--- as you say --- their human right)?

Then you're a hypocrite, because you want to deny others
that choice.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:05:28 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:19:27 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

Stealing has certainly occurred when you deprive the creator of the
file of an opportunity to sell a copy.

Depriving the creator of an opportunity to scam people with
idiotic licensing bull****.

So you take away the freedom of grown up to enter a contract
as they like it and put that under your(!) control?

Well, people can come up with all kinds of bull**** in a license.

And YOU get to decide what is bull****, i.e. everything that
gives you more leverage and power is fine, everything that
gives other people more leverage and power is bull****.

BTW, we were talking contract, not just license.

But whether people take such a license seriously is another matter.

So if some people come up with a contract that says "we give
you X if you give us Y first" and you give Y because you want
X, and then they say "Fooled you! We don't take our contract
seriously, you get nothing!" then that MUST be fine with you!
After all, you do just the same ... don't you?

In many cases, you may enter a website or accept a download and you're
provided with multiple pages of legalistic mumbo jumbo that you probably
couldn't really follow unless you have a legal background, so most people
just press the OK button without really exploring what terms and conditions
they are agreeing to.

Ignorance is no defense.

The terms being surprising may be a defense, but you NOT being
granted special rights someone else holds by law is not a
surprise at all.


I think there is a kind of disconnect between large corporations who
supposedly are entering a kind of contractual agreement with individual
people.

So every photographer, writer, artist, ... is a large
corporation?

The government is on the side of the corporations, because the government is just a kind of extension of those corporations, so as an individual you're powerless against them anyway, as they can afford to sue you indefinitely.

That must be the reason that large corporations are voted
into power by the people, and the government is voted on only
by large corporations. And there are no laws against
harassment by suing.

Feel free to emigrate to some island withh a couple hundred
or thousand people and no large corporations.

So a typical individual will just accept whatever terms and conditions a corporation seeks to impose on them, but I wouldn't really consider that to
be an example of the freedom of adults to enter into a contractual agreement.

It's not the system's fault if you are unwilling to negotiate
and it's not the system's fault if a source offering a specific
product is unwilling to barter. In case of art: go make your
own if you don't like the terms of all the sources offering
them.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:50:05 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
sobriquet wrote:



Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who

claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp

the most basic aspects of information technology.



So you'd just love every last wannabe terrorist in the world

cooking up some *really* nasty epidemic bioweapon and some

really nasty chemical weapons? Add in the details to the

security of head of states and the like? Maybe give them

Flame and StuxNet and RedOctober, too? Because *that* sort

of information really belongs to the public domain!



Please also send us a couple naked photographs of you, how

you look naked is information and it really belongs in the

public domain. Don't forget you (to be created) diary of

your love life.



Or do you have your head stuck up your ass and fail to grasp

the most basic aspects of information technology?



-Wolfgang


DO FIX YOUR F***ING NEWSREADER! Remove all these spurious
empty lines! I don't care how you do it, but you show you're
not even intelligent enough to use your tools. So why should
anyone take *you* seriously about information and internet?


There *might* be good reasons to prevent people from sharing certain
information, but copyright sure isn't one of them.

Having much more information to share in the long run and much more
information in the short term isn't a reason?


But it's an interesting philosophical debate to what degree information
can be harmful to individual people or to society in general and to
what degree the government would be entitled to restrict access to
such information.

Perhaps information that would allow someone to construct a weapon of
mass destruction at home from readily available items they can
easily purchase at local stores.
I doubt that it's a sensible approach to try and prevent such information
from being disseminated, if we suppose that such information would exist.

What would be your approach?


I think an intuitive/natural idea would be to draw the line where
information promotes hate/violence as a reason for the government to
interfere with the freedom of people to share and exchange information.

Why?


But one might equally well argue that there are better ways to prevent
such information from being disseminated (for instance by improving
the level of education of people, so they are less likely to act upon
information that might otherwise incite people to hate or violence).

So you magically educate 8,000,000,000 people --- and manage
to do away with all resentments and hate. Nice brain washing
scheme. At least a couple 10,000 of the world's approximate
160,000,000 psychopaths will build the WMDs, just because
they can and because people don't do as they like and
because, being educated, they know well how to avoid being
caught quickly.

BOOOM. 99.999% of the world is destroyed with WMDs, because
it was no good idea to make that knowledge restricted.

Clever you.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:03:26 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
[..]
One more observation, I see that you are also in violation of Article 30.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.

There you have it. That means that your attempts to demonize filesharing
actually aims at the destruction of the freedom to share and exchange
information as granted by Article 19 of the UDHR and it can certainly
not (as declared by Article 30) be justified on the grounds of
Article 17 (2) and Article 27 (2).

There you have it. sobriquet simply can't read (except very
selectively) and thinks --- after being told explicitely ---
that *it* may trample over all other peoples' rights.

-Wolfgang

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-31 05:34:53 -0800, sobriquet said:
[...]

Anyway we have establish that you are a closet/basement/loft anarchist
^
long-haired, bomb
throwing, archduke killing[1]

and that nothing which has been said over these many months is going to
change anything in your self-serving mind. So once more I am done with
this futile debate.

-Wolfgang

[1] and willingly embracing the historical results!

sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:30:27 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

So, nobody has given it to you. You just want to claim it. What
responsibilities do you accept in return?

I pay taxes.

Isn't the basic living stipend tax free?

In particular, when I buy a new storage medium,

Aren't you entitled to receive your new storage media for
free, as a dolist?

I pay an additional special tax to compensate for the legal freedom
I'm entitled to to collect things via p2p sharing for personal use.

No. You're not entitled to use p2p, since that means you
upload and therefore *COPY* the stuff --- and NOT for personal
use, either. You're merely entitled to download and copy *for
personal use*.


So that UDHR is just a preliminary sketch as far as I'm concerned.

You _are_ a lonely particle.

Yeah, me and millions of other filesharing enthusiasts.

There were millions of Nazi snitches, too. You want them back?

-Wolfgang

sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:47:07 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
[..]
You, like many criminals read selectively. I first bring your attention
to Article 17. of the document you have presented us:
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property as well as in association
with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Doesn't really apply, given that bitstrings all belong to the public
domain and hence they can't be considered to be property.

Where in the UHCR does it say that 'bitstrings' all belong to
the public domain?

And where do you live? That's a bitstring, it belongs in the
public domain ... you know the drill. Give.

Furthermore, nobody is deprived of their property due to filesharing,
as nothing (neither physical property, nor bitstrings) is ever being
taken away from anyone.

So you consider money as bitstrings, not as property? FINE.
Please copy it.

-Wolfgang