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

PeterN wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2013 11:51 AM:
On 1/25/2013 4:49 PM, GMAN wrote:

snip


I just caught Harley Davidson using one of my images.


Go get 'em.



Thanks for snipping, I was just about to start yelling...

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:19:13 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
[..]
Quite right. There is no true freedom of freedom or anything else. Try

taking all your clothes off and going into the crowded theatre of your

choice and shouting 'FIRE' when no fire is present.


There are good reasons to put certain limits on freedom of expression, for
instance in case where people abuse freedom of expression
to promote hate or violence. But copyright is not a good reason to limit
freedom of expression, just like attempts to criminalize art based on
the argument that it lacks artistic merit (like the way the nazis
in former nazi germany banned 'degenerate art').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

--



Regards,



Eric Stevens

On 25 Jan 2013 13:44:10 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: Whisky-dave wrote:
: On Friday, January 25, 2013 10:16:53 AM UTC, John A. wrote:
: On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:26:53 +1100, Rob
:
: wrote:
: Its worth reading the article and viewing some of the images.
:
: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...118-2cx6x.html
:
: [snip]
:
: Who pays for such things that's the main point.
: Must be plenty of solicitors/lawyers etc.. willing to work for nothing ;-)
:
: I was recently talking to a friend who's a lawyer about protecting my
: photographs from unauthorised use. For example I currently have a lot
: of images on Flickr. I declare that I reserve all rights and those
: wishing to use my images should get in touch, but there's nothing
: except conscience to stop anyone from stealing them. Should I perhaps
: add a copyright watermark to the image itself?
:
: "Wrong strategy!" he said. "You'll make FAR more money than you'd get
: from selling your images by letting people steal them and then suing
: them!"

That's what you say if you think like a lawyer. But I can't imagine any
photographer wanting to get tied into the legal system to try to defend his
work. (Well, with the possible exception of Peter N, who would know what he's
doing in a way that the rest of us wouldn't.)

Of course half my work gets labelled with a "City of Cambridge" copyright
notice. (Thanks, EOS Utility, for making that fairly easy.) And we have a
cadre of in-house lawyers, if we ever have to make trouble for a thief. ;^)

Bob

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:51:00 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:
:
: The problem is common sense:
:
: 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?

Bob

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:21:52 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
wrote:
:
: The problem is not copyright infringement. But copyright.
: Copyright is retarded and people who complain about copyright
: infringement are totally clueless

Says someone who has never produced anything worth protecting or infringing
on.

: and shouldn't be allowed to use the internet or computers in
: the first place.

Says someone who has never had the slightest role in creating or improving
either computers or the internet.

Bob

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:32:25 PM UTC+1, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:21:52 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

wrote:

:

: The problem is not copyright infringement. But copyright.

: Copyright is retarded and people who complain about copyright

: infringement are totally clueless



Says someone who has never produced anything worth protecting or infringing

on.


So, what have you ever produced that is worth protecting or infringing on?



: and shouldn't be allowed to use the internet or computers in

: the first place.



Says someone who has never had the slightest role in creating or improving

either computers or the internet.



Bob


So, what is your role in creating or improving either computers or
the internet?

Seems like you have no substantial arguments contradicting my point
of view and hence you resort to attacking me personally instead of
refuting my arguments.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:25:21 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
wrote:

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:19:13 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
[..]
Quite right. There is no true freedom of freedom or anything else. Try

taking all your clothes off and going into the crowded theatre of your

choice and shouting 'FIRE' when no fire is present.


There are good reasons to put certain limits on freedom of expression, for
instance in case where people abuse freedom of expression
to promote hate or violence. But copyright is not a good reason to limit
freedom of expression, ....

That's your opinion. The consensus of other people as expressed in law
is that works of art deserve certain defined protection against
copying. The problem is that you don't agree with this.

... just like attempts to criminalize art based on
the argument that it lacks artistic merit (like the way the nazis
in former nazi germany banned 'degenerate art').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

You are dangerously close to bringing Godwin's Law down on yourself.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-01-26 12:58:24 -0800, sobriquet said:


So, what is your role in creating or improving either computers or
the internet?

Seems like you have no substantial arguments contradicting my point
of view and hence you resort to attacking me personally instead of
refuting my arguments.

It's that irresistible self adhered target on your forehead. It makes
you SO attackable when it comes to this subject.

The issue of this thread is not your puerile game playing, but
photographs lifted by corporate entities to use in and on their
products, from book covers to brochures, to advertising to billboards
without paying the creators. Those photographers and graphic artists
depend on [payment for the use of their work so they can earn a living.
A living you seem to feel they don't deserve, so you can continue to
cut and paste in your parents' basement.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:48:43 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-26 12:58:24 -0800, sobriquet said:





So, what is your role in creating or improving either computers or

the internet?



Seems like you have no substantial arguments contradicting my point

of view and hence you resort to attacking me personally instead of

refuting my arguments.



It's that irresistible self adhered target on your forehead. It makes

you SO attackable when it comes to this subject.



The issue of this thread is not your puerile game playing, but

photographs lifted by corporate entities to use in and on their

products, from book covers to brochures, to advertising to billboards

without paying the creators. Those photographers and graphic artists

depend on [payment for the use of their work so they can earn a living.

A living you seem to feel they don't deserve, so you can continue to

cut and paste in your parents' basement.


Those photographers and graphic artists shouldn't be on the internet to
begin with and then this whole problem wouldn't occur.
It's clueless people who put their work on the internet and subsequently
complain about copyright infringement, instead of acknowledging that
there is no copyright on the internet and people can share things freely
with no consequences whatsoever in the vast majority of cases.



--

Regards,



Savageduck

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:47:47 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:25:21 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

wrote:



On Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:19:13 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

[..]

Quite right. There is no true freedom of freedom or anything else. Try



taking all your clothes off and going into the crowded theatre of your



choice and shouting 'FIRE' when no fire is present.





There are good reasons to put certain limits on freedom of expression, for

instance in case where people abuse freedom of expression

to promote hate or violence. But copyright is not a good reason to limit

freedom of expression, ....



That's your opinion. The consensus of other people as expressed in law

is that works of art deserve certain defined protection against

copying. The problem is that you don't agree with this.


That's not my opinion. That's the way information technology works in
practice. The law is lagging behind the latest developments in information
technology and since most politicians have their head stuck up their ass,
there is no reason to expect the law to change any time soon.

This protection is a figment of your lively imagination. Attempts to
enforce copyright online are merely proof that there are no limits
to human stupidity.

In the vast majority of cases, people can share information freely and
there is no effective way to impose a kind of monopoly on the reproduction
and distribution of information, unless you want to ban computers
altogether.

I've been up- and downloading terrabytes of information to piratebay
and other torrent sites and there are millions of others who are
violating these spurious copyrights on a daily basis with virtually
no adverse consequences whatsoever.



... just like attempts to criminalize art based on

the argument that it lacks artistic merit (like the way the nazis

in former nazi germany banned 'degenerate art').



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art



You are dangerously close to bringing Godwin's Law down on yourself.


I don't care about Godwin's law. That's just a cheap way for fascists to
avoid a discussion that questions their fascist outlook on things.



http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law

--



Regards,



Eric Stevens