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

In article ,
sobriquet says...
Those photographers and graphic artists shouldn't be on the internet to
begin with and then this whole problem wouldn't occur.

The Internet is a sales channel where people can display their items for
sale. Also on streets show owners display their items for sale. But that
doesn't mean that people are allowed to take these items without paying.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 1/26/2013 2:22 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
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

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.

Doug

| Those photographers and graphic artists shouldn't be on the internet to
| begin with and then this whole problem wouldn't occur.

Did you read the article? It's actually a very interesting
look at the whole issue. Ine example was a photographer
who had used wedding pictures (bought and paid for by
one of his customers) in ads for his business that showed
up on buses. It had nothing to do with the Internet, and
the thief was the artist.
They were all examples of businesses using other peoples'
work, without permission, to make a profit.

Don't you find the article at least thought provoking?
Making money from other peoples' work is a slippery moral
issue. Nearly everyone with a high income makes it off the
backs of others. Is that right? I suppose that once we ask
that question we end up going into a debate about monarchy
vs socialism vs corporatism. Each faction has tenable logic
to support their chosen system.

I thought the case of the car photo was especially
interesting. The photographer had his work stolen and put
onto T-shirts sold in KMart. Yet one could also make a
case that he stole the image -- and some degree of privacy --
from the car owner, especially since he left the license plate
number visible in the photo he put online.

Who owns what? And why? And if we all just share then how
do we deal with the inevitable hoarders? I don't think one can
claim, with any intellectual honesty, that the answers to these
questions are clearcut.

On 1/26/2013 6:09 PM, sobriquet wrote:

snip


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.


Bull****.
the Internet is a modern communication medium. Artists should get paid
for their work. From a moral standpoint, and regardless of copyright
laws, using another's work without their permission is nothing more than
stealing.


--
PeterN

On 1/27/2013 9:28 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Those photographers and graphic artists shouldn't be on the internet to
| begin with and then this whole problem wouldn't occur.

Did you read the article? It's actually a very interesting
look at the whole issue. Ine example was a photographer
who had used wedding pictures (bought and paid for by
one of his customers) in ads for his business that showed
up on buses. It had nothing to do with the Internet, and
the thief was the artist.
They were all examples of businesses using other peoples'
work, without permission, to make a profit.

Don't you find the article at least thought provoking?
Making money from other peoples' work is a slippery moral
issue. Nearly everyone with a high income makes it off the
backs of others. Is that right? I suppose that once we ask
that question we end up going into a debate about monarchy
vs socialism vs corporatism. Each faction has tenable logic
to support their chosen system.


Not so sure we have all the facts on that one. What did the contract
provide? A typical event agreement provides that all rights in the
images are retained by the photographer. IOW The purchaser only gets the
rights to view the images he purchases. The photographer retains the
right to use the images for advertising purposes.


I thought the case of the car photo was especially
interesting. The photographer had his work stolen and put
onto T-shirts sold in KMart. Yet one could also make a
case that he stole the image -- and some degree of privacy --
from the car owner, especially since he left the license plate
number visible in the photo he put online.

Who owns what? And why? And if we all just share then how
do we deal with the inevitable hoarders? I don't think one can
claim, with any intellectual honesty, that the answers to these
questions are clearcut.




--
PeterN

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 3:28:22 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
| Those photographers and graphic artists shouldn't be on the internet to

| begin with and then this whole problem wouldn't occur.



Did you read the article? It's actually a very interesting

look at the whole issue. Ine example was a photographer

who had used wedding pictures (bought and paid for by

one of his customers) in ads for his business that showed

up on buses. It had nothing to do with the Internet, and

the thief was the artist.

They were all examples of businesses using other peoples'

work, without permission, to make a profit.



Don't you find the article at least thought provoking?

Making money from other peoples' work is a slippery moral

issue. Nearly everyone with a high income makes it off the

backs of others. Is that right? I suppose that once we ask

that question we end up going into a debate about monarchy

vs socialism vs corporatism. Each faction has tenable logic

to support their chosen system.



I thought the case of the car photo was especially

interesting. The photographer had his work stolen and put

onto T-shirts sold in KMart. Yet one could also make a

case that he stole the image -- and some degree of privacy --

from the car owner, especially since he left the license plate

number visible in the photo he put online.



Who owns what? And why? And if we all just share then how

do we deal with the inevitable hoarders? I don't think one can

claim, with any intellectual honesty, that the answers to these

questions are clearcut.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is that intellectual
property is bunk.
So the claim that people own these images is nonsense. Images can't be
owned, just like bitstrings can't be owned.
These artists put their images on the internet and by doing so, that
effectively means they are submitting their work to the public domain.
If they subsequently claim that other people steal that image when
others use that image for whatever purpose they see fit, they are
being disingenuous.

Ownership is simply a claim that doesn't apply to information and
suggesting that is does is far more harmful to creative freedom than
the issue of people getting paid for their creative skills.

People getting paid for their creative skills is an issue that
should never detract from the fact that information belongs to the
public domain by definition and that is something that should be
solved by taxation on information.

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 4:28:32 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:

[..]
Bull****.

the Internet is a modern communication medium. Artists should get paid

for their work. From a moral standpoint, and regardless of copyright

laws, using another's work without their permission is nothing more than

stealing.


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.





--

PeterN

| One example was a photographer
| who had used wedding pictures (bought and paid for by
| one of his customers) in ads for his business that showed
| up on buses. It had nothing to do with the Internet, and
| the thief was the artist.
|
| Not so sure we have all the facts on that one. What did the contract
| provide? A typical event agreement provides that all rights in the
| images are retained by the photographer. IOW The purchaser only gets the
| rights to view the images he purchases. The photographer retains the
| right to use the images for advertising purposes.
|

That may be. That's also be an interesting aspect
of the discussion. I certainly wouldn't hire a photographer
who claims to own the negatives/images that I pay
for and further claims rights to reuse them in any way
they see fit. And I doubt many people would consider this
photographer's actions acceptable, regardless of the
contract. The photos were personal.

What if a contractor spread around pictures of your
bedroom without asking; or a hair replacement company
used your before/after pictures without asking; or a
photographer took semi-nude pregnancy photos of your
wife or daughter (a currently popular trend) and published
those in a magazine ad? There's clearly more to the issue
there than just who owns copyright. In the first two cases
you wouldn't have any ownership claim at all. The photos
would clearly belong to the photographer. But that wouldn't
make their actions right.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:56:27 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:
: | One example was a photographer
: | who had used wedding pictures (bought and paid for by
: | one of his customers) in ads for his business that showed
: | up on buses. It had nothing to do with the Internet, and
: | the thief was the artist.
: |
: | Not so sure we have all the facts on that one. What did the contract
: | provide? A typical event agreement provides that all rights in the
: | images are retained by the photographer. IOW The purchaser only gets the
: | rights to view the images he purchases. The photographer retains the
: | right to use the images for advertising purposes.
: |
:
: That may be. That's also be an interesting aspect
: of the discussion. I certainly wouldn't hire a photographer
: who claims to own the negatives/images that I pay
: for and further claims rights to reuse them in any way
: they see fit. And I doubt many people would consider this
: photographer's actions acceptable, regardless of the
: contract. The photos were personal.
:
: What if a contractor spread around pictures of your
: bedroom without asking; or a hair replacement company
: used your before/after pictures without asking; or a
: photographer took semi-nude pregnancy photos of your
: wife or daughter (a currently popular trend) and published
: those in a magazine ad? There's clearly more to the issue
: there than just who owns copyright. In the first two cases
: you wouldn't have any ownership claim at all. The photos
: would clearly belong to the photographer. But that wouldn't
: make their actions right.

I'm not sure you get Peter's point, which is that the photographer's rights
and the client's rights are whatever the contract says they are. The whole
point of contract law is to prevent, in advance, any misunderstanding of those
rights. As long as the parties' actions don't violate the contract's terms and
those terms don't violate any laws protecting the interests of third parties
or of society in general, whether you think those actions are "right" or not
is immaterial. The operative rule is that if you can't accept the contract's
terms, don't sign it. And if you're not a party to the contract, it's probably
none of your business.

Bob

sobriquet wrote:

The problem is not copyright infringement. But copyright.
Copyright is retarded and people who complain about copyright
infringement are totally clueless and shouldn't be allowed to use
the internet or computers in the first place.

So you'd be fine if big corporations copied and exploited free
software, but ignored the 'but you need to make the source
code available' part (e.g. GPL, CC-sa, ...) and thus made it
closed source?

You know what that means: less "internet or computers" ...
and you want that?

-Wolfgang