|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jan 23, 2004, 3:47 PM
Post #51 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Intellectual property is just that: something that belongs to someone, for example a recipe or chemical formula or an idea. I don't think this is about intellectual property so much as copyright of an image. And like it or not, the photo manipulator took an image (Gollum) that didn't belong to him/her. A cool trick, but wrong. Is it fiar use? Someone said ealier "a slippery slope." Indeed. The copyright for Gollum belongs to the Tolkien estate and the LOTR producers. Sorry. That's the fact. So it ends up in a national magazine. Again, cool trick, but if the manipulator hadn't manipulated it in the first place and THEN posted it, we wouldn't be having this thread at all.
I work for an ad agency and art directors here are always taking photos of co-workers and then with photoshop adding horns or changing the subject's gender, for example. Big laughs, but they're smart enough not to post these "fun with photoshop" antics on the WORLD WIDE FRICKIN' WEB. Discretion would say drop this whole thing and be glad the lawyers haven't called you. YET.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jan 23, 2004, 3:53 PM
Post #52 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The entire idea that anyone should be able to "own" information sucks. A digital picture is just a sequence of bits---i.e. a number---should we really allow people to have exclusive rights to a number? Dude. If I go out, and make the investment in time, effort, cash, and blood, to learn how to be a good photographer, and take good pictures, it's not fair for someone else to just "take" my photo's and use them for gain. If they take a physical print or negative, sure, that's stealing. But no one has deprived you of anything if they simply made a copy of some digital information. In reply to: To a writer, inventor, or photographer, that "number" is the summation of countless hours of effort and toil. I'll be damned if it's okay for someone to just come and take it. For some writers, inventors, or photographers.... Others view the inventing as an end in itself. I suggest you familiarize yourself with free software---many people out there are willing to spend "countless hours of effort and toil", and simply give the end result away. In reply to: Perhaps you should rethink your reasoning just a bit because I"m sure that what you said is not really what you ment to say. ;) :angel:
I did not even imply endorsement that Cryder's Gollum-ized version of my photo could be used for publication. I endorsed the pic for use on RC.com. Period.
Frankly, the image makes me sick anymore. As clever as it is, as much as it shows off Cryder's enviable mastery at Photoshop, as much as it makes other people smile, I can't even look at my own original of Kole, a dear person to me who is the subject of one of my favorite photos, because I look at it and see Gollum. My own creativity and effort have been eclipsed even in my eyes. That kinda hurts.
nb. I harbor no ill will toward Cryder. We have maintained a cordial, friendly relationship, and he is a very skilled artist. I don't think he "screwed" me. I suspect he is just as weary of this situation as I am.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Jan 23, 2004, 4:19 PM
Post #53 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
yes i have to agree with climbsomething. your orginal picture is great and seeing the original replaced with the gollum just kind of ruins an awesome picture.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 23, 2004, 4:49 PM
Post #54 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
[quote="fracture]If they take a physical print or negative, sure, that's stealing. But no one has deprived you of anything if they simply made a copy of some digital information.
Hello? Been living in a cave for the past few years? It is as digital information that almost all music, film and photography is not only sold but is also created these days. The graphic design work that I do for a living exists in no other realm than that of digital media(simple 1 and 0s). I'd like to hear you explain to my various clients that you have as much right to the media they purchased because it's only digital information and is therefore free to the public at large.
The value of the MonaLisa is not based on the cost of the paint. It is based on the intellect that went in to manipulating that paint in a precise and creative manner.
Don't get me wrong, you are of coarse welcome to your opinion that digital work should not be protected by intellectual property laws. However, fortunately for those of us that work in this medium, the courts of this country do not agree with you. You might like China. They seem to have an attitude towards intellectual property rights that you would sympathize with.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jan 23, 2004, 4:52 PM
Post #55 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
maybe a page number?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 23, 2004, 4:54 PM
Post #56 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
climbsomething, I'll add that I never saw the original on RC.com nor had I read any forums regarding said shot before I saw it on your website. I instantly knew that it was the original on which the Gollum-thing was based. Since (I assume) your site is set up to make you money, and since (I know) that had I been in the market for a climbing shot, I would hereafter would never pick a recognizably used shot, I'd say that your ability to sell that shot in the future has been not just damaged, but obliterated.
I hereby hope that Climbing Magazine is soon known as Hilary's Climbing Magazine. Hell, it can't go anywhere but up, as far I'm concerned. Down with Climbing! Long live Hilary's Climbing!
When you own that shizzle, can I write for you?
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 23, 2004, 5:09 PM
Post #57 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Maybe this has already been asked but I don't see the question elsewhere.
How did the Gollum photo get approved by the photo admins? As long I've been on this site there has been strong language on the photo submission page regarding copyrights.
Do not submit photographs unless you hold the copyright to them.
The Gallery is meant to showcase photos by RockClimbing.com users.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jan 23, 2004, 5:27 PM
Post #58 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
dsafanda, I pm'ed roughster about that. RC.com could be liable for posting an image whose copyright is questionable.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jan 23, 2004, 5:31 PM
Post #59 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
I'd love to see a nice note from Hillary in the next issues' "Letter's to the Editor".
Don't forget to include your address so they know where to send the check.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jan 23, 2004, 5:33 PM
Post #60 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
You're cute, j_ung. You can write for me and fetch me grande vanilla frappuccinos (whipped cream, please) as long as you spell my name correctly :P
the_pirate, it's on pg. 34, and in the table of contents. The issue is theone that just came to subscribers and the cover shows Mark Synnott (sp?) climbing a wide crack. It's not the last one with Tommy Caldwell.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jan 23, 2004, 5:53 PM
Post #61 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Or the one before that with Tommy Caldwell, or the one before that with Tommy Caldwell, or the one before that with...
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Jan 23, 2004, 5:54 PM
Post #62 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
LOL, you crack me up Ed!
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jan 23, 2004, 6:02 PM
Post #63 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: Or the one before that with Tommy Caldwell, or the one before that with Tommy Caldwell, or the one before that with...
... Tommy Caldwells wife.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jan 23, 2004, 6:12 PM
Post #64 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: the_pirate, it's on pg. 34, and in the table of contents. The issue is theone that just came to subscribers and the cover shows Mark Synnott (sp?) climbing a wide crack. It's not the last one with Tommy Caldwell.
Ahh Haa. Tricked into buying their rag...... Don't worry, I shan't give them cash for the next one.
At least I found out that not only am I climbing with outdated ice tools, but my helmet has lousy ventilation, and my plastic boots are considered dinosaurs. If I dump 3 grand on new gear today, I can hang with the cool crowd this weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Jan 23, 2004, 6:23 PM
Post #65 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
In reply to: In reply to: the_pirate, it's on pg. 34, and in the table of contents. The issue is theone that just came to subscribers and the cover shows Mark Synnott (sp?) climbing a wide crack. It's not the last one with Tommy Caldwell. Ahh Haa. Tricked into buying their rag...... Don't worry, I shan't give them cash for the next one. At least I found out that not only am I climbing with outdated ice tools, but my helmet has lousy ventilation, and my plastic boots are considered dinosaurs. If I dump 3 grand on new gear today, I can hang with the cool crowd this weekend.
In a few years we should be able to have a nice class action suit against climbing magazines for making "the rest of us" type climbers have self-confidence problems - "my rack is so inferior".
"I mean, like, seriously, look at what climbing magazines say to climbers with their gear reviews and pictures of perfectly ripped boulderers. It's, like, no wonder so many of them have eating disorders and huge credit problems."
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 23, 2004, 6:23 PM
Post #66 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
My point about RC.com ignoring their own copyright wording was simply that it doesn't seem right to get too angry at Climbing magazine. Can you expect Climbing to take permissions, and appropriate artistic credits to seriously if RC.com(the source of the image) doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
stick233
Jan 23, 2004, 6:23 PM
Post #67 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 339
|
In reply to: In reply to: Surprised no one has mentioned the appearance of cryder's gollum pic in this months Climbing rag... did they get your permission cryder? anyway, congrats... a little photoshop work gets a little publicity... Cryder's pic? Cryder's permission? Christ. It was HILLARY's pic, then became Hillary's and Nicholas' pic. And no, Climbing magazine did not obtain my permission, or contact me at all regarding use of the image. Cryder, yes, but not me. I guess despite them giving me a joint photo credit, I didn't really matter. Furthermore, Climbing did not put the photo into any context. For all non-rc.com junkies know, that was the slick work of some in-house creative dude at Climbing or within the LOTR family. I did not alter a photo of Gollum. I took an original photo of Kole. Cryder then applied his Photoshop savvy to my photo. I have had no part whatsoever in potentially stepping on any copyright toes. I am more than a little pissed. One more knock against Climbing magazine, and you may already know how much I love them. But gee, I hope all of Climbing's readers worldwide really really dig that image.
hillary chill out... sorry i didn't give you top billing... everyone (now)knows who took the original shot, but YES it will forever be remembered as the Gollum pic. That's just the way it goes and I know Cryder didn't intend on it. As for not being able to look at the original anymore I think that's a bit melodramatic.
I really do hope that if you contact Climbing you get a check from them. Only sounds reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
paulv7
Jan 23, 2004, 6:30 PM
Post #68 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 98
|
Here is my take on the thing. I do computer 3d work so I have read up on this, but it has been awhile.
The image (look/characterization) of gollum is owned by the production company (New Line Cinema).
The original picture is owned by Hillary.
Cryder took the 2 and made a parody on both. In which he did not slander the character or Gollum or the original picture. So he now owns the copyright of that image.
Hillary lost any copyright/intellectual properties when Cryder took her image and inturn created a new one of taste. It does not slander the original.
To me this would fall under much the same as all of Weird Al Yankavic's (sp) music. But in the end it would come down to who throws the most money at it, in which New Line and Climbing have much more to throw, if they wished to.
|
|
|
|
|
sean34
Jan 23, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #69 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 116
|
Hillary,
If I wear in your shoes I would just contact a lawyer. We have well established laws against this and the penalities can be pretty severe for those who infringe on a copyright.
Thats surely the action the mag would take if someone took their hard earned content.
anyway, nice shot and keep em coming...just put watermarks on em next time (assuming they dont already).
peace,
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 23, 2004, 6:45 PM
Post #70 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
One grande vanilla frappuccino w/whipped cream, comin' right up. You wanna muffin or some such? :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 23, 2004, 6:47 PM
Post #71 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
In reply to: Cryder took the 2 and made a parody on both. In which he did not slander the character or Gollum or the original picture. So he now owns the copyright of that image.
That seems like a very lenient interoperation of copyright law but you may very well be correct. I bet the image of Gollum is not only copyrighted but protected by a registered trademark. I think it would come down to an issue of legal interoperation and the only way that would ever happen is if one of the involved parties cared enough to take it to court. The damages in this case would never even cover attorneys fees.
By the way...I probably wouldn't argue with anyone who suggested that we're taking this all much too seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
sean34
Jan 23, 2004, 6:59 PM
Post #72 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 116
|
In reply to: The damages in this case would never even cover attorneys fees.
Just fyi, the max penalty is 150,000 per copyright infringement.
|
|
|
|
|
stick233
Jan 23, 2004, 7:04 PM
Post #73 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 339
|
By the way...I probably wouldn't argue with anyone who suggested that we're taking this all much too seriously.
whew... you said it!!
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Jan 23, 2004, 7:17 PM
Post #74 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: The entire idea that anyone should be able to "own" information sucks. A digital picture is just a sequence of bits---i.e. a number---should we really allow people to have exclusive rights to a number?
You are nothing more than a bunch of atoms put together in a certain orientation. It wouldn't be morally wrong for me to cut a steak from your thigh, would it?
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Jan 24, 2004, 12:57 AM
Post #75 of 81
(7099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
In reply to: In reply to: The damages in this case would never even cover attorneys fees. Just fyi, the max penalty is 150,000 per copyright infringement.
Damages from copyright infringement rarely exceed three times the value of the normal use. Whatever the amount, Hillary has the best claim, even if she agreed to let Cryder manipulate the original. Cryder has a claim too of course. Its a little tricky, because Cryder did use another image without permission (I assume), so it would be hard for him to make any financial claim to it.
I have had MANY experiences with unauthorized use, both outright and marginal, with a variety of publications and advertisers. The editors at the major magazines have done a good job recently of taking a professional attitude about image use, but mistakes happen. Rather than making a big stink about it, I would suggest simply calling the editor and asking him about it. Be professional and you will be treated professionally. Hillary, feel free to email me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
