If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
'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. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen' images,
"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. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen' images,
"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). |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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! |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over'stolen' images,
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HELP!! I screwed up bigtime!! | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 14 | October 24th 12 01:25 AM |
Vercase, Marc Jacobs, Loewe,Hermes Birkin,Chloe Paddington,Fendi Spy -best designers leather bags! | www.evelyna.com | Digital Photography | 0 | October 19th 07 09:00 AM |
Canon screwed themselves (or did they?) | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 22 | October 16th 06 06:00 PM |
FS: Darkroom exhaust fan and vent | Manny Bhuta | Darkroom Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 18th 04 07:39 PM |
FS: Darkroom exhaust fan and vent | Manny Bhuta | Darkroom Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 16th 04 01:39 PM |