|
|
|
|
tim
May 31, 2006, 7:29 AM
Post #51 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yeah, actually, he was. He was deprived of a legitimate opportunity to properly license the use of his works, and that sucks. He wasn't deprived of anything because he still has his photo (it just so happens that now other people do also). You can't really be "stolen" from if you aren't losing something you previously had.
Read what I wrote. Not what you wish I'd written. Opportunity cost is a legitimate economic and legal construct, and that is what's at play here.
In reply to: Also keep in mind that this is the WWW. One can put images into their pages without even copying them---just put the URL to them in place (Joe even did this to put the image on the first page of this thread).
Perfectly reasonable -- it's his creation. As you can plainly see, he's got much less motivation to share his creations if other people then use them to promote their businesses or make money without cutting him in on a share. Without his works their business would be less likely to succeed. It is not unreasonable for Joe to request that he be compensated for the value he adds. Choosing to grant free usage of an image is one thing; having your works used without your control is another. The latter discourages sharing of potentially valuable material and is detrimental in the long run to society.
In reply to: And for that matter, if one copies the image and caches it on their own server, what's the difference? It's an implementation detail. Everyone who views the page still has to copy it in order to get it to their machine anyway.
The blisteringly obvious difference is that Joe has implicitly granted permission by choosing to reproduce his own work with full forethought.
In reply to: It may be illegal, but it shouldn't be.
I'm not a philosopher. I'm interested in the way things *are*.
In reply to: But more importantly---violating copyright law is not criminal (except DMCA stuff). It's effectively only "illegal" if you get sued and lose the lawsuit.
The above is akin to saying that murder is only illegal if you get caught. Copyright infringement is illegal. You only suffer penalties if you get caught.
In reply to: Uhhh right. I guess that'd explain why thousands of software developers (including myself) have given away millions of lines of code for free
You chose to license your code under a given set of rights. (So have I, incidentally. I've worked on some enormous and now GPL codebases in the past 15 years, as have many if not most halfway decent developers) Joe did not choose to freely license this photo.
I don't know whether you're the idealistic GPL type, or the pragmatic BSD type of developer, or maybe a little of both. But I'm sure you realize that the only thing which gives the GPL any legal force is... copyright.
Would you prefer that your code be resold without attribution or credit, solely to profit another? Particularly when you're *not* scratching your own itch. In other words, is your time worth nothing to you?
In reply to: Like...including the BB software that this crappy commercial website of yours is based on.
And this has what, exactly, to do with Joe's situation?
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 31, 2006, 11:58 AM
Post #52 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Josh,
I like you website, simple and to the point.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
May 31, 2006, 4:28 PM
Post #53 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: It may be illegal, but it shouldn't be. I'm not a philosopher. I'm interested in the way things *are*.
Ah. Then what's there to discuss? We both know how things "are".
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Jun 1, 2006, 12:46 AM
Post #54 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
[quote="tim"]
In reply to: And for that matter, if one copies the image and caches it on their own server, what's the difference? It's an implementation detail. Everyone who views the page still has to copy it in order to get it to their machine anyway.
The blisteringly obvious difference is that Joe has implicitly granted permission by choosing to reproduce his own work with full forethought.
In reply to: And just as glaring: That reproduction on a web site may presumably be for promotion of a good or service, and is a use for profit--a use that only Joe is entitled to by law. Caching a copy of the image on a pc harddrive is not a violation of that right to the fruits of his labor.
|
|
|
|
|
dutyje
Jun 1, 2006, 2:26 AM
Post #55 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 727
|
That's what you get for taking good photos. If you took crappy photos like me that aren't even worthy of posting, you wouldn't have this problem ;)
Just kidding. Settle down. What we're really seeing here is a major culture shift with the growing popularity of the internet. People rip stuff off all the time and claim it as their own. Term papers, photos, music, videos, even blogs -- everything is fair game. Unfortunately, even with all the efforts toward digital copyright protection, matters will only continue to get worse. It's a real shame, and I only wish there were an adequate solution. I love the photos on this site, and would hate for people to feel like they're unable to share their work or their memories for fear of losing their photographic identity.
|
|
|
|
|
joe
Jun 1, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #56 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
this has turned into an interesting little discussion here and i feel sort of obligated to reply. i was kinda pissed off about it for about three to five minutes, then i just started thinking about how strange it was that they used that particular photo. i just blew it off because i don't really feel like sueing a russian climbing website that used an old photo of mine, which they did give me credit for. if it had been used for a more "commercial" purpose i would feel differently. maybe i'm taking "unprofessional" stance by implying that it's okay to do this?
edit: i appologize for the accusatory and downright ornery nature of my first post.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jun 1, 2006, 10:32 PM
Post #57 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
A little off topic but not really.
What if a photo of me was taken and used in an advertisement without my knowledge. One of my friends pointed it out to me.
When the photo was taken, I was under the impression that I was to be part of an article on a specific region and climbing there.
I didn't have my feelings hurt and it's a funny photo, but was I wronged? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jun 2, 2006, 12:01 AM
Post #58 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It may be illegal, but it shouldn't be. I'm not a philosopher. I'm interested in the way things *are*. Ah. Then what's there to discuss? We both know how things "are".
Touché.
By the way, thank you for the rather thought-provoking discussion. My position is simply that authors and creators ought to have some say in the way their creations are used. If we lived in a polite society there probably would not be any need for laws to enforce this, however many people do not give a crap about the wishes (or indeed rights) of others. I'm not eager for a return to the state-sponsored monopoly of the Stationers, but neither do I feel that abdication of any attempt to protect and promote the rights of authors will benefit society. As Helette mentioned, IP law is a balancing act (or at least, that's what it's supposed to be).
I suppose I should just consider it fortunate that I do not depend on licensing revenue for my livelihood, wish Joe well, and leave it at that. Realistically, I don't have a dog in this fight; I just don't like to see other people get screwed, and walk away feeling like they have no recourse.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jun 2, 2006, 12:18 AM
Post #59 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this has turned into an interesting little discussion here and i feel sort of obligated to reply. i was kinda pissed off about it for about three to five minutes, then i just started thinking about how strange it was that they used that particular photo. i just blew it off because i don't really feel like sueing a russian climbing website that used an old photo of mine, which they did give me credit for. if it had been used for a more "commercial" purpose i would feel differently. maybe i'm taking "unprofessional" stance by implying that it's okay to do this?
That is why so many people actually steal photos. They know the photographer won’t do anything about it.
The chance of getting caught are slim, and the one who get caught almost never have to pay the price.
In reply to: What if a photo of me was taken and used in an advertisement without my knowledge. One of my friends pointed it out to me. When the photo was taken, I was under the impression that I was to be part of an article on a specific region and climbing there.
The rules are fairly simple, Editorial use no release required. Advertising use, release required IF the person or private property is recognizable. The judge decides if the person is or isn’t recognizable.
My Release:
Model Release
For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant to Emmanuel Lacoste, and his legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of me, or in which I may be included, for editorial trade, advertising and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; and to alter the same without restriction. I hereby release photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.
Name: __________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________
Phone: (_____) _________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________
Restrictions:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 2, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #60 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Well folks, still no answer from the Russian site. Is anybody here capable of translating my email into Russian? Other than that I'm at a loss about how to procede on this particular matter.
Joe, I appreciate your apology -- thank you. We're still looking into how this might have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
jabtocrag
Jun 2, 2006, 8:49 PM
Post #61 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476
|
In reply to: Well folks, still no answer from the Russian site. Is anybody here capable of translating my email into Russian? Other than that I'm at a loss about how to procede on this particular matter. Joe, I appreciate your apology -- thank you. We're still looking into how this might have happened.
Why ask a person to do something that a computer can sorta do? :wink:
http://www.online-translator.com/text.asp?lang=en
|
|
|
|
|
joe
Jun 4, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #62 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
In reply to: Well folks, still no answer from the Russian site. Is anybody here capable of translating my email into Russian? Other than that I'm at a loss about how to proceed on this particular matter.
i wouldn't worry about it, j_ung. i don't want to pursue the matter any further. i'm building a house and i don't have time to litigate over a tiny little b&w .jpg that got lifted some three or four years ago. but i appreciate your willingness to look into the matter. thank you.
the thing that irked me is that it was deleted from My Photos around the same time that the photo was lifted from the site. rrrAdam's refusal to upload it again makes the whole thing very suspicious. once again, this was so long ago that i'm just letting it go. i am certain that this piracy happened way back when the Terms and Conditions were a lot looser.
wish they had a site like this for finding stolen photos.
|
|
|
|
|
donie
Jun 4, 2006, 7:53 PM
Post #63 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 678
|
kodos always said so :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Jun 4, 2006, 8:43 PM
Post #64 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: I don't know yet.
Jay,
In spite of any shortcomings associated with this site, your initiative in taking this incident seriouly, and the manner in which you are doing so, is highly commendable. I have just gained a new level of respect for you.
KC
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 10, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #65 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Sorry folks... I don't get online much anymore, but was contacted about this thread.
In the past, whenever I was contacted about the use of any pics on the site, I ALWAYS told the person to "...contact the user who submitted the photo, as they own it... whatever deal they want to set up is up to them."
I have had 2 of my photos published in mags, one 'fiend' used for a Canadian Crag Clean up at the Niagra Glenn I think, and it ran in a Canafdian rag. The other was one that 'meadors' took of me climbing in Malibu, and was used in a LA Sports mag about rockclimbing. I think he was paid for it.
I have seen others used without my permission, found by Googling my name as well, including the more than one on the Russian site (that's about 4-5 years old, BTW), and many gave me a photo credit, some did not. Instead of getting all bent out of shape, I am instead flattered that someone valued them enough to highlight them. Then again, my pics are not my lively-hood... I'm not that good a photog, and have no illusions otherwise.
Point, is... I didn't allow or give anyone permission to use someone else's pics, and the pics of me that were used, I could care less. I'm not a professional photographer... I don't make money from pics, nor do I hope to ever make any money from my pics. If someone can find a use for them, good for them... I appreciate the curtosy(sp?) of asking permission, and giving me credit. Beyond that, It's not worth the drama (an Internet staple :roll: ) of making a stink about it, or splitting hairs over it relentlessly, but then again, I am not a pro, and I do not try to make even a dime off them.
If however, you are a pro, think you may become a pro, or are a wannabe pro, then feel free to give a shit... I'm not a pro, so I don't give a shit if my pics are used. :wink:
As far as, Joe saying that I, "refused to upload the pic again...", or something to that effect:
If I deleted a picture for being a duplicate, or for any other reason, I would not have the picture to uplaod again, as it was "deleted". Deleted means gone, erased, etc... How could I re-upload something I did not have access to anymore?
Sorry to post a less than dramatic response to this thread...
Continue on adding to the 5 pages. :deadhorse:
Jay... Sorry I couldn't hook up with you at your new pad at The New when I was in tyhe Carolinas, but I was just working too much.
Cheers all !!! Have a cool Summer. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
marulianus
Jun 21, 2006, 8:51 AM
Post #66 of 66
(9744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 49
|
In reply to: that is indeed my name. the point is no one asked my permission.
To tell you 1 thing. You must start living with that. At this moment more then 100 of my pictures are on many sites on internet (soccer, basketball, climbing, whatever) and I can't do nothing to prevent it only to be nervous. I don't live in USA where action like that is punished but in Croatia where referee laught at you if you sue something for intelectual ownership. that's why I start to put annoying mark on every picture so in last time stealing of my pictures are very low but from time to time I found someone took my picture, crop that mark and publish as his picture. So point is you can't do almost nothing about that :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
