Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: theguywitha645d on April 03, 2012, 07:30:24 pm
-
Alan, call the university in question and ask for their legal representative. The use here is well out of the fair use because it was used in an advertisement of a university sponsored event. The poster is actually promoting the event. The student does have the right to copy and use your work for a classroom project--you cannot stop that. But the work cannot be shown at a public event outside the course. By calling and asking for the universities legal representatives you will catch their attention--tell them you want to speak to their lawyer over a copyright infringement.
The professor should know better (and she contacted you for usage fees and so she does know) and so should the university. BTW, I teach poster design at a college.
-
A helpfull read on the concept of "fair use" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
The student *does not* have a right to alter the image, removing the copyright information for *any* purpose
-
A helpfull read on the concept of "fair use" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
The student *does not* have a right to alter the image, removing the copyright information for *any* purpose
Actually, in a classroom context, they do.
-
What scholarly purpose would removing the copyright serve? Curious.....
-
What scholarly purpose would removing the copyright serve? Curious.....
As a student, you can manipulate any work anyway you choose. This would certainly be helping the student learn to retouch an image and therefore be improving their skill.
-
As a student, you can manipulate any work anyway you choose. This would certainly be helping the student learn to retouch an image and therefore be improving their skill.
For the strict purposes of "educational" fair use, yes it would allow taking somebody else's image and screwing around with it and using it for a class, but the line is drawn very easily at "using" that image for any purpose outside of the scope of a class. Using it as a promo for a promo poster for a conference is in no way an "educational use". The scool screwed the pooch.
It's infringement, clear and simple and if the infringing party took the time to remove the watermark, it's willful infringement. The only real question is whether or not Alain has a Copyright Registration...if he did, a simple letter to the school proving willful infringement would shut this down immediately and result in a settlement.
The registration of a copyright in the US has major implications. If a post registration infringement occurs, it's pretty easy to force the infringer to settle otherwise face punitive damages (50K per infringement plus attorneys fees). The problem with non-registered copyright is that in order to sue in Federal Court for infringement, you have to first register the copyright. Infringement AFTER a registration presumes you are the copyright holder, infringement BEFORE registration requires the copyright holder to PROVE ownership. That is a HUGE friggin' difference...in the case of an infringement of a registered copyright, you'll have IP attorneys lining up outside your door to work on contingency, infringement after registration, you'll need to front the money just to file in Federal Court...
There is no question that academia is totally friggin' clueless regarding intellectual property...look, they can barely teach their classes let alone understand any sort of legal nuances of copyrights...
I've yet to actually have a copyright infringement case get to court, but I have settled out of court many times. Why? I try to register all my copyright with the Library of Congress. When the apposing council finds out that the infringement is of a registered copyright, the attorneys tell their clients to settle or else face punitive damages plus attorneys fees (which can be far more than actual damages).
The main problem with copyright in the US is that yes, authors are accorded copyright protection at the point of creation...but, if you don't register your copyright BEFORE infringement, you have to prove you ARE the copyright holder (which it much tougher in court with rules of evidence) AND you have to prove actual damages (which is a much harder proposition than you might imagine).
The school screwed up big time. If Alain had registered his copyright BEFORE infringement, he could own the friggin' school at this point. If it's not a registered copyright, well, the best he can hope for is to slap the hands of the student/teacher and teach the friggin' school a lesson or two. The odds of getting lots of money isn't great. On the other hand, I've successfully gotten money from a wide array of infringers of my images–largely because many/most of my images are registered...my Globe Hands image (as seen on my home page (http://schewephoto.com/)) has been licensed legally for nearly $1/4 million and almost $50K just in infringements...I take this shyte pretty seriously :~). Business is business...
-
They are stealing our work
Yes, it happens all the time and will happen to anyone. When you least expect it.
As Alain states, it's just too easy to lift the images from Internet and it's very difficult to track.
The good thing is, that stolen landscape or artistic images are seldom used by porno sites or dating agencies.
Even the stock photos with embedded agency copyright notice in small web size are pulled from the websites and used in unauthorized ways. Or single images without the watermark notice are bought inexpensively with a subscription plan and remarketed as original images with another unsuspecting agency. If a graphics designer on the other side of world gets somehow your image, and uses it locally for his clients, you would never find out about it. In another instance, large publisher buys inexpensively some images for a small initial print run, the book becomes a hit, is re-printed in a half a million print run, but they "forget" to repurchase new image license.
Once, I photographed a sport event, and sent a few images for personal use to the captain of the team, and he promptly put it on their club website with his own copyright notice. Sometimes you grant a one-time use image license to a client, and later they reuse it for another promotional project. Happens all the time.
Tineye.com will find some of the copies on the web, but not if the image itself has been incorporated in another collage or PDF file. By the way, as long as your name appears on the photograph (not an outright image theft, but sometimes an unathorized usage), you can also search for its use also on Amazon and Google.
Thanks, Alain for listing all precautions an author can take, but as you say, it is time consuming, and perhaps not worth for all images.
Sometimes, if a photographer and his images are well known, a colleague will spot an infraction or theft and report it back to the image creator.
-
I find the way photographers complain about copyright infringement wonderfully humorous!
When landscape photographers are arguing for the protection of the environment, the default position is (of course) that what is best for society as a whole should always take priority over the greed and profit of one corporation or individual.
Similarly, fine art photographers know that great works are not made by those who are completely naive to the masters that came before.
Yet, when it comes to protecting ones own profits, it is argued that a photo is an entirely original creation and that they should be granted unlimited degree of protection for unlimited amount of time regardless of any benefit to society.
HYPOCRITES!
And I am sorry, Sir, academia is NOT totally friggin' clueless regarding intellectual property. We just happen to understand that information, learning, nor creation - none of them - occurs in a vacuum.
-Sean
-
HYPOCRITES!
And I am sorry, Sir, academia is NOT totally friggin' clueless regarding intellectual property. We just happen to understand that information, learning, nor creation - none of them - occurs in a vacuum.
-Sean
You have it backwards. The artist's purpose is whatever they choose. There is no implied "debt" to anyone, other than what the artist chooses. It's called freedom of expression - any infringement, such as Alain has described, is a waste of his time - better served following his craft....
-
And I am sorry, Sir, academia is NOT totally friggin' clueless regarding intellectual property.
Yes, you are (unfortunately...) and it's a widespread intentional and institutional ignorance...(meaning, on "purpose")
Academia presumes little or no prior ownership because, well in academia there is nothing original, everything is built upon others. That flies directly in the face of the creation of new intellectual property. Do you really understand "copyright" and the original origins? Do you understand that copyright laws in the US precede the Bill of Rights? Do you understand the origins of copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright)? Do you understand the Statue of Ann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne)?
Sorry, academia is indeed intentually ignorant, on purpose (because its useful)... "academia" tries to raise above "ownership" of IP and makes claims of prior works and building upon others and reducing "creation" to something other than clear ownership of new ideas...
Bullshit...if somebody creates something on their own, they OWN it...and nobody has a legit claim to be able to incorporate prior work into new work without ceding ownership to the prior work (thus giving you copyright ownership).
Sorry...academia, in this day and age is, well, a very retro art and relies too much on non-ownership and way too much on assuming that others can take what others have worked hard producing and moving it forward without consequences...
There are consequences...and academia needs to learn some hard lessons. Go ahead...steal one of my images for "educational uses" and see what happens to you. It won't be pretty...and if you steal one of my registered copyrighted images, it'll cost you. (the upside it I've already got a track record of previous infringements which I can use as proof of damages)...
Actually, that's an asset...
-
Calm down, calm down. I meant "hypocrite" in in the humorous-juxtaposition sense, not in the new-testament damned-to-hell sense. And certainly if one of the two preceding conditions doesn't hold for you, then certainly the accusation doesn't hold either.
Mr. Schewe,
Your statement that "academia is totally friggin' clueless regarding intellectual property" is an vast generalization applied to a large and diverse (by anyone's standards) group. I'm calling you on that generalization.
And... WOW, "in academia there is nothing original"? Used any technology lately!?! The American academy had no influence on the creation of any of that stuff. ;)
Truly, I don't want this to turn into another internet flame war.
In no way am I trying to suggest that anyone, including students, should break the laws that have been part of this country for a very long time.
I'm simply pointing out that those laws are in conflict with the reality of how creativity happens. All creation, including yours, occurs by copying a large number of other peoples' ideas and making only small adjustments. Just because the copying part is subtle and usually subconscious, doesn't mean it is absent. Example: are not almost all of the photos you copyright rectangular in framing? Sorry if I don't believe that you came up with that idea. There are MANY little things like this related to exposure, lighting, composition, etc. All of these were learned from others, and each little advancement was an important creative idea for the person who came up with it. You are the beneficiary of these advancements and as a result you produce work that is almost entirely made up of what society taught you to produce - with a small touch of true originality.
The sheer number of photographs being created simply doesn't allow anymore for any one individual to lay claim on societies ideas. Just look at the vast body of work on flicker. And you think that you can do anything that someone else can't claim as a copyright infringement? If you sincerely attempted to avoid all copyright infringement, there would be nothing left for you to point your camera at. In the end, copyrights don't protect the photographer. They protect those who are willing to take it to court!
Don't shoot the messenger,
Sean
-
... Don't shoot the messenger...
Fair enough... But may I call the message for what it is... A load of crap?
-
Mr. Schewe,
Your statement that "academia is totally friggin' clueless regarding intellectual property" is an vast generalization applied to a large and diverse (by anyone's standards) group. I'm calling you on that generalization.
It may be a generalization, but it doesn't make it less true...I've dealt with WAY too many college level teachers who have zero understanding of copyright law and studiously try to ignore the consequences...and I've successfully gotten settlements from that group when they stray from the straight and narrow...
Look, "Photo Education" in America is an inbred cesspool...college level teachers (in general) have no clue about intellectual property and copyrights...Go ahead and prove me wrong! (I've had this conversation with college level instructors who DO care and it pisses them off too).
To teach in a college level photo curriculum requires an MBA/MS at best, right (there may be a few PHDs that lecture)? What are the odds that such an instructor has studied either business law (actually ANY sort of business classes) and understands the implications of what they or their students do? Somewhere between zero and nothing.
Been there, done that, have the Tee shirts...it's very VERY rare where a college level instructor can articulate the principals of intellectual property and the origins of copyright law to their students. Do you honestly dispute that?
In the internet age, things have gotten worse, not better...if "creativity" requires taking somebody's image and repurposing it unmodified except for the removal of a watermark, then that creativity is an abomination...it's intellectual theft, pure and simple. I think there are STILL rules regarding "plagiarism" in higher education, right? Are words any more susceptible to plagiarism than images? They shouldn't be...
What Alain wrote about was plagiarism without a doubt...the sad thing is some don't even realize that. That student should be suspended and the instructor that allowed it fired. And the school should pay the financial price for the actions of the student and teacher. That way the institution might learn something–and be able to pass it along to it's paying students.
-
Fair enough... But may I call the message for what it is... A load of crap?
Okay, funny. :D Makes it hard to answer, "No". But I guess it was rhetorical anyway.
-
...if "creativity" requires taking somebody's image and repurposing it unmodified except for the removal of a watermark, then that creativity is an abomination...it's intellectual theft, pure and simple.
Yes, certainly. Direct reproduction is over the line. And cloning out the copyright statement is just admission of guilt. This is what Alan Briot was talking about, and I take that as given.
There is an essential need for copyright laws. They have, unfortunately, moved too far in scope (à la: if one concept from my photograph appears in yours, then you are infringing) and duration (damn you Micky Mouse!) from their origin and purpose. My arguments are intended to push the pendulum back to the center, not to have it swing the other way.
-
The sheer number of photographs being created simply doesn't allow anymore for any one individual to lay claim on societies ideas. Just look at the vast body of work on flicker.
Well, those pictures are not in the same league. Hardly worth taking the perpetrator to the court.
-
Alain, i could not help smiling when i saw how boldly you have been ripped off here. I understand your reaction - however it seems this kind of unauthorized use is easier to deal with than a lot of other cases.
Some of my (non-photographic) images turn up quite prominently in Google image search and as a result are used without authorization frequently. On the other hand i get quite a lot of inquiries for image production and licensing the same way - these are two sides of the same medal. What troubles me most is that in case unauthorized use happens internationally people sometimes feel quite safe doing so. And i am not talking about some poor 3rd world country people who cannot afford my prices or some private website use - some time ago a US company for example approached me about an image for use in some kind of booklet and after we did not come to an agreement simply used another image anyway.
I wonder if anyone here has an idea how international copyright violations can be efficiently handled in case talking does not work without hiring a local lawyer.
-
International copyright violation is a whole different ballgame.
Some country's legal systems will respect the laws of others.
In terms of criminality extradition agreements are in place.
Civil litigation is much more difficult and expensive.
I don't think that there is an internationally enforcable code of conduct or legal framework across all countries dealing with copyright infringement.
Even multinational companies with billions of dollars in their legal warchests may fail to enforce their own trademarks and copyrights so what chance individual photographers.
Nonetheless, this whole issue is a growing one and deserves attention.
Are there any in the LuLa community with specific legal knowledge in this area that can shed light on how to enforce copyright across international boundaries.
Michael: would it not be an idea to approach a copyright expert for an article dealing with the issue of international copyright infringement.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Blacksmith, I have a lot of sympathy with your point of view about creativity and the proverbial "dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants" problem. Unfortunately, here at LuLa, photographers tend to have a sense of entitlement that blinds them to seeing a more nuanced or alternative point of view...of course, they have their economic livelihood in the game. Young people today will not be able to follow the career path that Schewe or Michael have made for themselves. Like it or not, digital technology resulting in the commoditization of art along with globalization (sharing with cultures that don't share our values about ownership of creative work) are factors that have forever changed the rules of fair (or unfair) use of creative work--the law and the practitioners just haven't caught up yet.
-
Somewhat related is this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/rick_falkvinge_i_am_a_pirate.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/rick_falkvinge_i_am_a_pirate.html)
-
Boy, we have some strange ideas about copyright. Plagiarism is not a copyright violation. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, neither can data--I can make a photography using hands for a world, what I can't do is setup my shot to exactly copy what Schewe has done (proving I had no knowledge of a previous work is another matter, but artist have been sued over derivative works--the Obama Hope poster is a resent example. A work is original in that it is not a copy, not that it happens to have the same subject and style of another--If I photograph Yosemite from Tunnel Lookout I am creating an original work. A derivative work, a work based on a previous work, must first secure the copyright of the original, but the creator of a derivative also has copyright over that expression (but never the original).
Copyright protects the expression of an individual from exploitation from society. Uniqueness is not a criteria for a work. Nor does society have the right to exploit members because they were inspired by other members or works within that society nor from another society. Society does not make works of art and therefore has no moral rights over them.
I work in a college. Most of the folks I work with have a greater understanding of copyright than most people.
-
I have my photos stolen regularly, and it is only of crappy lenses in B&S forums. It really pisses me off.
-
I'm unclear on the use of © AlainBriot.com copyright notice that he uses on his images.
Alain Briot holds the copyright for his images, when does a web site (© AlainBriot.com) obtain ownership of the copyright. Does he not have to transfer the copyright to his dot.com for that notice to be correct?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that © AlainBriot.com is not the same person as Alain Briot when it comes to the legal system.
-
I'm unclear on the use of © AlainBriot.com copyright notice that he uses on his images.
Alain Briot holds the copyright for his images, when does a web site (© AlainBriot.com) obtain ownership of the copyright. Does he not have to transfer the copyright to his dot.com for that notice to be correct?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that © AlainBriot.com is not the same person as Alain Briot when it comes to the legal system.
The notice is irrelevant in this case. The person using it clearly did not have copyright--while they can use it in class, they can't use it for promoting an organizational event. (Copyright is automatically assigned to the creator and so you have to assume copyright ownership to someone.)
But you are right that the notice would not be correct in identifying the owner unless ownership had been transferred to the web site. The notice is also missing a date. You could also assume that it is just stating the image is copyrighted and the site is the contact location for usage.
-
In a day and age where the MPAA/RIAA are issuing copyright infringement notices to every man and his dog for using tools like BitTorrent and are pushing heavily for the US Government to treat copyright infringement as a felony with the government also stepping in to police it, anyone who claims to be ignorant of copyright issues is either being deceiptful or living in a tent.
It's a somewhat sad reflection of the world today that limiting ourselves to uploading nothing more than 600 wide or tall is the best we can do to protect ourselves from copyright infringement. It's what I've always done for the very reason that Alain has found out: if you don't, people will use it. I've never had that problem but then again, I don't invite it either. In a conversation with one of my friends on this, the suggestion to put watermarks in the image was scoffed at as people will just as readily remove those as they did Alain's copyright in the image.
But if you consider what's happening in the greater world with photographs and copyright - every photograph uploaded to websites such as picasa/facebook gives the website perpetual rights to use that image however they wish.
So whilst the populace at large on the Internet is being desensitised to copyright ownership as it applies to images, there are well paid lawyers and folks doing lobbying trying very hard to get copyright penalties increased, etc, to try and shore up the walls of a failing business model.
With respect to "(C) AlainBriot.com", if "AlainBriot.com" is a legal entity then it can be a copyright owner. If "AlainBriot.com" is a registered Internet domain name and nothing else that that copyright notice is somewhat meaningless.
Right now, "AlainBriot.com" is not a registered business name in Arizona, so if I were a malicious person, I could login to the relevant website, register the name, pay a fee and then all of the images that are marked with "(C) AlainBriot.com" would belong to me for any trade done in Arizona. It would be a very interesting (and expensive!) matter for lawyers to discuss if he has registered them with the Library of Congress under a different name.
I suspect that Alain still has some learning to do with how to properly use copyright marks.
A domain name by itself is not a legal entity and cannot be used in a copyright message.
If the image in question that got Alain upset was so marked then how has the student done anything wrong? They've removed a copyright notice that was invalid. So it is arguable about whether or not a crime was committed.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention#Article_III (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention#Article_III):
1. Any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture or publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol © accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright.
I'll repeat again, at present, "AlainBriot.com" does not appear to be a proprietor in Arizona and nor is any mention on alainbriot.com made to there being any company name registered in another state (such as Delaware.) Therefore you could argue that "© AlainBriot.com" does not refer to the name of a proprietor and is thus not a valid copyright stamp, rendering the copyright invalid/unenforceable.
I'll add that I'm not a lawyer but having worked in the software industry, I have been trained to be careful about how I use a statement of copyright.
Finally, I'll ask one question: was an intellectual property lawyer consulted in the drafting or editing process of the article?
Because parts of this article amount to the offering of legal advice by someone that is clearly not a lawyer and clearly has insufficient schooling in copyright matters. One might wonder if Alain and/or Michael could be sued (for providing what is questionable legal advice regarding copyright matters without making any statement about their capability to do so) if you followed Alain's advice and found yourself thinking you had a valid copyright stamp but in fact did not.
This is a serious matter (not waffling on about image resolution or composition) and attention to detail is mandatory.
-
I'm curious. Maybe I missed it somewhere....but what happened. As far as I can tell, the teacher hung up on him and nothing else has been done.
-
I've had my custom website ripped off twice, that I know off.
In the first instance it was also for a conference. I found out as an attendee to the conference also regularly visited my website. I contacted the conference agency and they denied that this was the case and that there were any similarities between the sites, even though they were nearly identical. It went back and forth for a while, then I got my web designer involved and he started pulling out chunks of code (some of which still included my name) and hex colour values which were identical. The site changed pretty quickly after that.
The second instance was for a Swiss pharma company. It was a real pain as they had used my google analytics code so it totally screwed up my own analytics. We tried contacting them by email and phone and never got any reply. Very strange. I the end I got a little scared that they never answered the phone, thought maybe gangsters or something, so left it well alone. Probably still there!
To be fair to students, I get a lot of polite emails from students asking if they may use my photographs for projects. I'm sure there are many more that don't ask, but some at least have the decency to ask and i will always say yes.
In this day and age, where universities and colleges are often run as businesses first and institutions of learning second, then copyright/IP law should be part of teacher/lecturer training. Ignorance is no excuse.
I find the way photographers complain about copyright infringement wonderfully humorous!
As a small business owner I don't find it that humorous at all, although I understand some of your views even if I don't agree with many of them. If you want to understand what it is like to run a small creative business, where you have to do everything with only 24 hours in the day and still do other stuff like spending time with friends and family, then have a look at this blog post that describes the reality for many small businesses, photography and otherwise:
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/discussion/top-10-ways-to-become-a-professional-photographer/ (http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/discussion/top-10-ways-to-become-a-professional-photographer/)
I agree with his conclusion about it being great fun, but after all that work why would someone thinks it is OK to use your work without payment. Perhaps you could explain what is humorous.
-
If the image in question that got Alain upset was so marked then how has the student done anything wrong? They've removed a copyright notice that was invalid. So it is arguable about whether or not a crime was committed.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention#Article_III (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention#Article_III):
This is a serious matter (waffling on about image resolution or composition) and attention to detail is mandatory.
I think there are some great points in there, really useful reading. As I have just written in another post, ignorance is no excuse and this applies as much to creators as well as 'thieves'.
What upsets me about it is that you are quite correct, that is, even if you hold the moral high ground (are the creator of the work), if you do something wrong legally or fail to do something then you lose out. Something about following the letter of the law rather than the intent. OK, OK, I know it is such a naive view, but this situation still upsets me.
-
Not being a graphic designer myself I wouldn't set myself up as an expert on poster art. However I do seem to remember once being taught not to use too many fonts when designing any publication. On this count alone I cannot see how the student who did this poster ever won first prize! Great picture though.
Jim
-
Facebook has made it really easy for people to lift images. I have had people taking images off my blog and posting it to their walls, passing them off as their own. Not links to the blog posts mind you (which is perfectly fine) but the images themselves. And since Google does not index Facebook entries, the only way I found out was when friends recognized them and alerted me. Facebook did delete them after I complained, but it is a hopeless situation. In most cases you won't even know of the violation.
-
But if you consider what's happening in the greater world with photographs and copyright - every photograph uploaded to websites such as picasa/facebook gives the website perpetual rights to use that image however they wish.
Perpetual is the wrong word here for facebook. Their intellectual property terms are [https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms (https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms)]:
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
For picasa (owned by Google) [http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ (http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/)]:
When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.
-
They Are Stealing Our Work! -- "Using flash or a transparent layer over the image works only in regards to preventing theft done by dragging your image to their desktop. However, it does not prevent the viewer from doing a screenshot (Command 3 or 4 on a Mac) and making a copy of your images that way. The quality is just as good downloading the image."
The image already has been copied and downloaded - that's how someone views your images on their computer across the internet!
The local copies of the downloaded images are cached in well-known locations (http://lifehacker.com/385883/resurrect-images-from-my-web-browser-cache).
-
The only way to prevent digital "theft" is to not put it on the web. There are no fail-safe ways to prevent people from duplicating your digital files from the web, save perhaps substantially defacing them with watermarks and such which defeats the purpose. You can't win your war on infringement by trying to fight that battle.
-
What I would have done if I were Alain is, I would have let it go (which he suggests is one possibility.)
The fact is, it's one school with a minor conference that nobody's paying attention to. And Jeff is wrong about one thing - if Alain took it to court, he wouldn't wind up owning the school. There'd be a jury and a lot of excuses and hung heads, and the jury would award Alain $250 but they would NOT award him attorney's fees, because they'd have more sympathy for the school ("It was just done by a kid") than for some fruity artist from the Southwest, and so, in my opinion, Alain would have wound up losing his shirt over a minor manner. That's what happens when you put images on the Internet; it's just part of the business. Note that I'm not saying that it SHOULD be part of the business, it just is. Now, if the image is ripped off by United Airlines, and used in a major advertising campaign, that's an entirely different matter.
I'm an author, I currently publish two novels a year, more than 30 total now, and every one of them has been on the New York Times bestseller list. A bunch of them, including my last one, have gone to #1. Within days of publication, you can download a complete text of the newest book from (apparently) a website in Russia. I suspect this enterprise is costing me thousands of sales, though I couldn't prove it. I can do *nothing* about it. I don't even know if the government could, if they were inclined to try. But, it's just something you live with. Instead of getting (too) pissed off, I just write another one.
Oh, by the way -- if you go to Google images and put my pseudonym in, you'll find hundreds of images, taken off book covers, and from snapshots made at signings, and such. I don't think any of them are authorized. If a book review website decides to review one of my books, they simply scan a cover and load it up. I don't care, but if somebody did, what could you possibly do about it that wouldn't be a total waste of your time? The guy who does it is living in his mom's basement, hoping to save enough money for a new bicycle tire. You're going to sue him?
JC
-
Posted by dreed
"If the image in question that got Alain upset was so marked then how has the student done anything wrong? They've removed a copyright notice that was invalid. So it is arguable about whether or not a crime was committed."
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has seperate fines and Penalty for removal of any copyright notice and then copyright violation.
I guess that was my question and point. So if this "(C) AlainBriot.com" is not the owner of the copyright then any removal or change would not be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If Alain Briot still holds the copyright then it would be important for the copyright notice to be correct.
-
... perhaps substantially defacing them with watermarks and such which defeats the purpose.
SignMyImage (http://www.adptools.com/en/signmyimage-description.html) (also Vericuff) - "Protect your images from copying by invisible watermarking."
-
....With respect to "(C) AlainBriot.com", if "AlainBriot.com" is a legal entity then it can be a copyright owner. If "AlainBriot.com" is a registered Internet domain name and nothing else that that copyright notice is somewhat meaningless....
....If the image in question that got Alain upset was so marked then how has the student done anything wrong? They've removed a copyright notice that was invalid. So it is arguable about whether or not a crime was committed....
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention#Article_III (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention#Article_III):
1. Any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture or publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol © accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright.
I'll repeat again, at present, "AlainBriot.com" does not appear to be a proprietor in Arizona and nor is any mention on alainbriot.com made to there being any company name registered in another state (such as Delaware.) Therefore you could argue that "© AlainBriot.com" does not refer to the name of a proprietor and is thus not a valid copyright stamp, rendering the copyright invalid/unenforceable....
This is referring to international copyright. Alain is writing about domestic violation isn't he?
US copyright law is here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Partially quoting from Chapt 4 Sec401: Notice of copyright; visually perceptible copies
"Whenever a work protected by this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by the authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies...
(b) FORM OF NOTICE---If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
1 The symbol © or the word "copyright" or "copr." and
2 The year of first publication of the work....
3 The name of the owner of the copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner"
The "may" and "If"---which I have placed in bold---means, of course, that the copyright notice is not a requirement for a valid copyright. I don't see anything that would indicate that if one does place a copyright notice that does not follow the above, that the improperly made copyright notice would invalidate the copyright. A correctly written copyright notice, does however, eliminate any defense of innocent infringement. (Sect 401(d) Evidentiary weight of notice)
-
I'll ask one question: was an intellectual property lawyer consulted in the drafting or editing process of the article?
The Picture Archive Council of America provides Copyright Education materials authored by their legal counsel (http://pacaoffice.org/library.shtml).
-
"You plagiarized my work and used it for commercial purposes" -- God(s)
Will all due respect to the author, whose pictures and writing I admire:
I agree with Mr. Camp that it's not worth the bother. Feel happy an image inspires people and brightens up what would otherwise be a dreary poster for a small event. The university didn't handle it well, but the part that really sucks is that she didn't apologize or give the author the opportunity to offer the image as a free gift. That's the sore spot, and the reason the article even came to be.
I've been a print and Web designer for 15 years. I don't steal hero shots. On the other hand, when I need a garden variety image for incorporation into a design like a concrete texture, a cloud sky, some grass, a fork, etc., I go to google images, not Corbis. For everything else, there's me, there's iStock, there's my freelancers. I have good friends who earn a living making photos every bit as good as this one, and some have a hard time paying the bills these days, so I have a lot of sympathy for the changing reality of photography-for-a-living.
Copyright is a brief, irrelevant phenomenon in the grand sceme of things. On one end, there's the fact that you have billions of years of Earth being around and doing its thing so you can feel proud about a landscape photo you snapped. On the other end of the commons equation, there's the Internet -- the largest project ever undertaken by humans -- which you have at your disposal, also with relatively little personal investment. Framed this way, the desire to capitalize on the situation maximally is very... capitalist. Kind of like someone who thinks it's his right to strip-mine a mountain because a piece of paper somewhere says the mountain belongs to him. And then, chasing down someone who "stole" a rock for his rock collection.
This year I'm publishing a book for event organizers. To lure them to my for-profit book Web site, I'm giving away free stock photography I commissioned (for use in flyers/Web/posters), and I'm giving away a bunch of event flyer/poster templates I spent hours designing. Get creative, roll with the punches, and enjoy all the amazing opportunities available to us.
$0.02
-
... Copyright is a brief, irrelevant phenomenon in the grand sceme of things. On one end, there's the fact that you have billions of years of Earth being around...
Right, but I am not (that long around)... thus copyright is NOT irrelevant in MY scheme of things.
... the Internet -- the largest project ever undertaken by humans -- which you have at your disposal, also with relatively little personal investment...
That sounds like the Internet is some sort of immaculate conception? In fact, it is a result of millions of "personal investments", some less, some more, some on the supply side, some on the demand. In that respect, Alain, as well as you and I, have our "personal investments" there. By creating his website, Alain both personally contributed to the demand for the Internet, as well as contributed to the supply of content on it, without which there would be no increased demand by other users.
... Framed this way, the desire to capitalize on the situation maximally is very... capitalist. Kind of like someone who thinks it's his right to strip-mine a mountain because a piece of paper somewhere says the mountain belongs to him...
Hell, yeah!
... And then, chasing down someone who "stole" a rock for his rock collection...
Hell, yeah!
-
and I'm giving away a bunch of event flyer/poster templates I spent hours designing. Get creative, roll with the punches, and enjoy all the amazing opportunities available to us.
all the amazing opportunities to give work away........the future is soooo bright.
-
This is referring to international copyright. Alain is writing about domestic violation isn't he?
Interesting point.
It is true, he may not care if someone from Canada, England or France were to do exactly the same thing as he complains about in his article.
US copyright law is here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Partially quoting from Chapt 4 Sec401: Notice of copyright; visually perceptible copies
The "may" and "If"---which I have placed in bold---means, of course, that the copyright notice is not a requirement for a valid copyright. I don't see anything that would indicate that if one does place a copyright notice that does not follow the above, that the improperly made copyright notice would invalidate the copyright. A correctly written copyright notice, does however, eliminate any defense of innocent infringement. (Sect 401(d) Evidentiary weight of notice)
It would come down to whether or not a domain name can be considered to covered by this rule - "3 The name of the owner of the copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner". Does a domain name represent a designation of the owner? At least in my mind they are generally separable as domain names themselves are considered to be property.
If anyone plans on putting a copyright stamp in their work and it contains anything other than a name of a legal entity that has been assigned the copyright ownership of the work then consult with a lawyer and get advice first. Do not take the advice of a photographer or random internet forum posts.
-
I'm an author, I currently publish two novels a year, more than 30 total now, and every one of them has been on the New York Times bestseller list. A bunch of them, including my last one, have gone to #1. Within days of publication, you can download a complete text of the newest book from (apparently) a website in Russia. I suspect this enterprise is costing me thousands of sales, though I couldn't prove it. I can do *nothing* about it. I don't even know if the government could, if they were inclined to try. But, it's just something you live with. Instead of getting (too) pissed off, I just write another one.
Oh, by the way -- if you go to Google images and put my pseudonym in, you'll find hundreds of images, taken off book covers,
John, I don't think you said what your pseudonym is? I went to Amazon and there aren't a bunch of books by John Camp.
Also, I'm a big reader, so send the link to that russian website so I can check out your work, eh?
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Bob,
Try John Sanford.
Rich
-
John, I don't think you said what your pseudonym is? I went to Amazon and there aren't a bunch of books by John Camp.
Also, I'm a big reader, so send the link to that russian website so I can check out your work, eh?
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
John Sandford. You'll notice they've got a whole bookshelf for me.
http://www.e-reading.org.ua/bookreader.php/104334/Sandford_-_Heat_Lightning.html
-
The fact is, it's one school with a minor conference that nobody's paying attention to. And Jeff is wrong about one thing - if Alain took it to court, he wouldn't wind up owning the school. There'd be a jury and a lot of excuses and hung heads, and the jury would award Alain $250 but they would NOT award him attorney's fees, because they'd have more sympathy for the school ("It was just done by a kid") than for some fruity artist from the Southwest, and so, in my opinion, Alain would have wound up losing his shirt over a minor manner.
True if Alain's copyright was unregistered at the time of the infringement, not true if the school infringed on a registered copyright. There is, in the US a HUGE difference. The author is granted copyright at the moment of creation.
However, the full protection of the Copyright laws and the ability to sue in Federal Court is predicated on the copyright being registered. If the infringement is prior to registration, the first thing the author has to do is register the copyright with the Library of Congress. These days, depending on how you submit, it can takes weeks/months for a work to even be be registered and get a copyright registration number. You can't get in court without that registration number.That's the first of many hurdles the author must make it over.
The second hurdle is that a pre-registered copyright infringement makes it the sole responsibility of the author to prove copyright ownership. If the infringement occurs AFTER registration, the court accepts, at face value, the author's ownership of the copyright and the author does NOT have to prove in the court he is the owner. That is a considerable burden because rules of evidence puts the onus upon the author to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he owned the copyright BEFORE the infringement. That's why registration prior to infringement is critical.
The next hurdle the author must establish is actual damages...not what you might have charged for the use or some pie in the sky number but actual damages to the author because of the infringement. I agree, the odds of getting a settlement amounting to more than a hill of beans in this case is zero. But here again, infringement of a registered copyright becomes something even more critical. If the infringement is against a registered copyright, the plaintive (the author) can also sue for reasonable attorney's plus damages (same burden of proof regarding damages as an unregistered infringement) and statutory damages which is decided by the court. This is one of the main reasons that suing is so difficult. If you are trying to sue over an unregistered infringement, the plaintive is solely responsible for all court costs and attorney's fees–with no chance of recovery in a successful suit. No reasonable attorney would take that case on a contingency basis. Many would (if the case was good enough) in the case of a suit against an infringer whose infringement came AFTER the registration.
Would the court rule in favor of the author with a large sum for statutory damages (up to $50K per infringement) in Alain's case? Ok, I'll admit it's not likely...unless Alain can prove willful infringement. The court takes a very dim view of infringers knowingly infringing on the work of an author...the student removing the copyright notice (which BTW is not a US Copyright requirement, it's more of an international requirement according to the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works) and is almost obsolete) is an example of willful infringement. Is it worth $50K? Unlikely...
The US Copyright laws are actually pretty unique in that they grant the right of exploitation of an intellectual property exclusively to the creator. It's actually the first "Right" mentioned in the US Constitution. The "Bill of Rights" was actually 10 separate amendments to the original Constitution and came much later. I'm pretty sure it was James Madison along with the other writers of the Constitution that wrote the original phrase: "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This was as important for "writings" as it was "inventions" (which now falls under a different sort of IP law for patents). Hence the Library of Congress' Copyright Office being in charge of all this.
No, I am not an attorney...but I have studied Copyright law extensively during my time spent on behalf of photographic trade organizations. Another friend who is also well versed in Copyright law is Seth Resnick. I find it incredible that many photographers either are ignorant of the laws or chose to ignore them. I for one would never violate the copyrights of other authors...I don't infringe on other photographers, I don't use unlicensed software, I don't copy music nor even something as mild as fonts (which are copyrighted).
We recently taped the LR4 video tutorial and I wanted music (Scottish bagpipe music, you'll hear it when that section is posted). I went through bloody HELL trying to find access to bagpipe music that sounded right and was the correct length. Sure, there was a LOT to choose from that would have amounted to a direct infringement, but Mike, Chris and I are are sticklers for this sort of thing. We legally licensed the bagpipe music to include in the section we did where we used it. It didn't cost "a lot" but we secured the right and have a license.
Alain is a really nice guy, a talented photographer but he, like a lot of photographers doesn't really "Grok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok)" the full impact (and limitations) of US Copyright laws...and when you start talking Canada, the UK and Europe, all bets are off...it's kinda like the Wild West out there. And don't get me started on China, Japan, Korea or Russia...all of these places have institutionalized infringement. When Adobe did the first regionalized release of Photoshop for China, it was immediately pirated and Adobe didn't even recover the cost of the translation into Chinese in their sales. I think that has changed somewhat because of the much higher activation security Adobe has had to adopt...
John, if you are a published author you should know this stuff, unless your agent handles all this stuff for you and the publisher–and I absolutely guarantee your publisher has legal staff just wating for the chance to pounce on any infringement of your work, my publisher does :~)
Copyright Law in the US is really designed to help the "little people" if only those people could understand it. It's usually the publishers who know this stuff inside and out and use it against us "little people", unfortunately...
(Edited to add clarity and the last line)
-
Isn't it a bit ironic that a guy who breaks traffic laws and gets away with it on a technicality is described as a person of principle while someone who breaks copyright law is described in much less favorable terms? Are some laws more acceptable than others? It could be argued that the laws aren't perfect, but are there some guidelines about the ones that can be broken "ethically" ? What if someone is, in principle, opposed to copyright laws?
That's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment, but still. Paying speeding tickets to the state goes (roughly) in the budget that allows to pay judges and officials on which photographers would rely in a (c) dispute. Yet I'd venture to say that most photographers will find speeding and trying not to pay speeding tickets an acceptable attitude but would jail (c) offenders if they could. ;-)
Note: don't get me wrong, I've suffered from the piracy of my own IP/work for most of my professional life and would, like most, gladly dispute speeding tickets. But some perspective doesn't hurt.
-
Isn't it a bit ironic that a guy who breaks traffic laws and gets away with it on a technicality is described as a person of principle while someone who breaks copyright law is described in much less favorable terms? Are some laws more acceptable than others? It could be argued that the laws aren't perfect, but are there some guidelines about the ones that can be broken "ethically" ? What if someone is, in principle, opposed to copyright laws?
There is an increasing body of people calling for copyright reform because of the continued extension of copyright ownership past the death of the creator. That is, the original purpose of copyright is being lost as a few well connected men seek to exploit the efforts of people long since capable of receiving benefit in spite of the community.
One can but wonder what impact the aggressive actions of the MPAA/RIAA is having on the attitude of those that fall before them in copyright.
All of which is to say that in certain circles, the current incantation of copyright is increasingly on the nose .
-
Jeff - why would the burden of proof be "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil matter? The burden, surely, is "on the balance of probabilities" being a tort or civil matter. This is a significantly easier standard to reach.
-
Jeff - why would the burden of proof be "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil matter?
In a Federal Copyright case, the author of a copyright which was unregistered at the time of infringement has to prove to the court that the plaintive is indeed the rightful owner of the copyright. Simply getting a post infringement copyright registration is insufficient. To be honest, I'm not sure whether or not the proof of ownership has to be beyond a reasonable doubt or meet the preponderance of the evidence or be clear and convincing evidence. Again, I'm not an attorney and the rules of evidence do vary. The main point I was trying to get at is the differences between a suit where the copyrighted work was registered BEFORE the infringement and AFTER. In the situation where the infringement happened AFTER, the court will accept the copyright registration as constituting prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright. In the case where infringement happens after the registration, the burden is on the copyright holder to prove to the court they are indeed the rightful owner of the copyright.
-
That sounds like the Internet is some sort of immaculate conception? In fact, it is a result of millions of "personal investments", some less, some more, some on the supply side, some on the demand. In that respect, Alain, as well as you and I, have our "personal investments" there. By creating his website, Alain both personally contributed to the demand for the Internet, as well as contributed to the supply of content on it, without which there would be no increased demand by other users.
I suppose my point more clearly stated is this: To take a landscape photograph and post it online is to make use of two vast commons, one natural and one man-made. It seems increasingly absurd to draw hard lines where one says, "This is mine, this is the part where we commerce." A new way of doing things is emerging, and there's an opportunity to redefine our relationship to the commons in a way that our primitive industrial slavemasters can't imagine. This article begins the author's grappling with the issue, and it's an issue I personally find fascinating, as someone who makes a living doing creative work and is interested in 'right livelihood.'
Incidentally, as someone who's been building Web sites for a living for over a decade, I can tell you with authority that the people who have built the Web work in a very different way. Everyone who builds the Web 'steals' anything and everything. There are a few who try to eke out a living selling plugins, but all the core technologies are shared for the purpose of improving everyone's quality of life. So there's a strange irony when people want to use the Web for its benefits AND enforce copyright to the nth degree. (Some even cite U.S. Constitutional rights, as though those are relevant in a global context!)
Hell, yeah!
Hell, yeah!
It's strange that the hyperindividual who on one hand asserts a laissez-faire contempt for the planet and the common good, also asserts that the state should protect his perceived right to earn a living taking photographs. Respectfully, I'd have a hard time living with both those ideas at once.
(After a review of your Facebook wall, I can say we do share some values, but this hyperindividualistic notion of personal property is precisely why I left Chicagoland. You may be heartened to know, my first job was Photoshopping work visas for Polish immigrants, so I understand some people are coming from a very different place on capitalism. No doubt it takes a couple generations for the lustre to fade. Hopefully before every living thing is extinguished from the Earth. If someone gives you a new planet to live on, remember to bring some animals as they are a refreshing photographic diversion from all the rocky moonscapes.)
-
John Sandford. You'll notice they've got a whole bookshelf for me.
http://www.e-reading.org.ua/bookreader.php/104334/Sandford_-_Heat_Lightning.html
Thanks John. Reading ripped off work would not be my style.
I'd like to offer my congratulations on your writing career. I'm sure it has its own issues, but it sure seems like a dream way to make a living. I live near a couple of NY times best selling authors, great people.
Bob.
-
... all the core technologies are shared for the purpose of improving everyone's quality of life...
Ahhh.... Communism, here we come!!!
-
Ahhh.... Communism, here we come!!!
Communism's pretty dumb too... there are more than two ways. As Alain pointed out, there are at least K solutions to a problem :)
-
Ahhh.... Communism, here we come!!!
Hardly. Simply giving away razors and selling razor blades.
Of course, it helps if you never actually planned to make money selling razors, just razor blades.
"If you're not paying for something, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."
-
... my first job was Photoshopping work visas for Polish immigrants...
Are you saying you were committing a crime by forging immigration documents?
EDIT: Based on your later replies, the above perfectly explains your blatant disregard for the rule of law (copyright law, specifically)
-
Are you saying you were committing a crime by forging immigration documents?
It would be more accurate to say I was told by my employer to move some pixels around on a screen and save the files. At the age of 17 I didn't look too closely at what the documents were, and wasn't interested to know how they'd be used. In retrospect I'm happy to have helped people make better lives for themselves, but now we're back to the topic of discarding outmoded boundaries.
-
... wasn't interested ...
Ignorantia juris non excusat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat)
-
In retrospect I'm happy to have helped people make better lives for themselves...
You are sure about that? You are sure you did not help someone exploit them?
-
What's with senior members hijacking an interesting topic? I just wanted to add an on-topic perspective, not get a bunch of flak from armchair vigilantes. Enjoy taking your landscape photos with your expensive cameras. I hope you each make one million dollars selling each photo. Peace.
-
from the Alvernia University website, I got the email contact to the Office of the President. I sent an email to their President voicing my feelings on what they were doing. Their official response was..... interesting.
Here's their correspondence back (Karen is listed as the official contact to the Office of the President)
Karen Schroder <[email protected]>
1:02 PM (28 minutes ago)
to me
This is a scam for money. Thank you for your email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:53 PM, "jim collum" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As a professional photographer, who has work exhibited in various venues (both physical and online galleries), and who values the concept of Intellectual Property, I find the conduct of your school reprehensible. This site is a predominiant source of information among the photographic community, ( both professional and amateur), and word of the actions of your Institute are rapidly spreading among that community. This link is being spread among all of the major forums.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/they_are_stealing_our_work.shtml
Frankly, as a school of higher learning, and one who is responsible for preparing the ethical standards for your graduating students.. you should be ashamed of yourselves
Jim Collum
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
What's with senior members hijacking an interesting topic? I just wanted to add an on-topic perspective, not get a bunch of flak from armchair vigilantes. Enjoy taking your landscape photos with your expensive cameras. I hope you each make one million dollars selling each photo. Peace.
It is called a conversation. Folks start by talking abut a subject, other join and add other information, and the whole process grows organically. Just like a conversation in person. You added a piece of information and we responded to it.
Actually, I am unsure how I am a vigilante. I was just commenting on your helping what seems to be an illegal operation that you seemed proud to join. You seem to be under the impression that it was helping people, but you really did not care to find out anything about it. My question was sincere, how did you know you were not helping someone exploit these people?
Why you feel you need to make a condescending remark, I have no idea.
-
from the Alvernia University website, I got the email contact to the Office of the President. I sent an email to their President voicing my feelings on what they were doing. Their official response was..... interesting.
Here's their correspondence back (Karen is listed as the official contact to the Office of the President)
Karen Schroder <[email protected]>
1:02 PM (28 minutes ago)
to me
This is a scam for money. Thank you for your email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:53 PM, "jim collum" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As a professional photographer, who has work exhibited in various venues (both physical and online galleries), and who values the concept of Intellectual Property, I find the conduct of your school reprehensible. This site is a predominiant source of information among the photographic community, ( both professional and amateur), and word of the actions of your Institute are rapidly spreading among that community. This link is being spread among all of the major forums.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/they_are_stealing_our_work.shtml
Frankly, as a school of higher learning, and one who is responsible for preparing the ethical standards for your graduating students.. you should be ashamed of yourselves
Jim Collum
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Jim, top marks for your ethics, but this is really between the photographer and the university. I thinking if someone e-mailed me something like this out of the blue, I might think it a scam too--the internet is a scary place.
-
Jim, top marks for your ethics, but this is really between the photographer and the university. I thinking if someone e-mailed me something like this out of the blue, I might think it a scam too--the internet is a scary place.
I agree that the legal action is between Alain and the school, and if this were an issue between Alain and some website that used his image without permission I'd agree with you. However I believe their stance impacts a broader audience (myself included). They are educating the next generation of consumers of what we produce. For the most part, what the students learn here, will be considered gospel for most of their lives.
-
... I believe their stance impacts a broader audience (myself included). They are educating the next generation...
I agree Jim and I applaud your action.
I also lament the absence of a body similar to what music and video industry has got that would go after infringing. While I am not condoning the extremes those bodies are willing to go to set an example (e.g., pursuing $100K in fines for a single mother, whose daughter downloaded a dozen of songs illegally), I wish there would be a collective body representing photographers' interests in a reasonable manner, if only by providing a public pressure.
In absence of the above, I think your idea is splendid: group pressure, via direct email, social sites, local media, etc. As a matter of fact, how about alerting a local newspaper or TV how their university is educating students to steel intellectual property?
That would not be fighting Alain Briot's fight, that would be fighting for the interests of all of us. If social media could help overturn despot regimes, why not help the rule of law in our own backyard?
As a college instructor (occasionally), i am aware that my school takes plagiarism (another form of IP theft) quite seriously, and I hope most schools do. It is a shame that the university in question is taking such defensive and evasive steps even after learning about the copyright infringement. Most universities are for-profit institutions, with millions in budgets, and even millions in annual salaries for their presidents, so lets just drop that "poor student" mantra as defense.
-
... I think your idea is splendid: group pressure, via direct email, social sites, local media, etc.
Remember, this all happened over a year ago.
-
To get an idea of why copyright is so on the nose for people, read this thread:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/04/05/2315234/mpaa-chief-dodd-hints-at-talks-to-revive-sopa
Earlier in this thread, someone chipped in about how photographers needed something like MPAA/RIAA. These organisations are among the most detested by the Internet at large. They sponsored the SOPA act which essentially amounted to censorship of the Internet. I'd think very carefully before saying anything like photographers needing something equivalent unless you want to also be seen as part of that problem.
-
What I find most amusing is the justification of "fair use" on the part of the university and many of the academics on this board. This is the same academia that will fail a student for copying one sentence from another written source. But, apparently, copying an entire photograph without attribution is different.
Hypocrites.
-
What I find most amusing is the justification of "fair use" on the part of the university and many of the academics on this board. This is the same academia that will fail a student for copying one sentence from another written source. But, apparently, copying an entire photograph without attribution is different.
Hypocrites.
Wow. Name calling! Well, that actually proves you know what you are talking about. It is a pity you cannot read.
-
What I find most amusing is the justification of "fair use" on the part of the university and many of the academics on this board. This is the same academia that will fail a student for copying one sentence from another written source. But, apparently, copying an entire photograph without attribution is different.
To be fair, the article that Alain wrote did not go into any detail about if there were any repercussions for the student and in any case, such things should be a private matter between the school and student.
Another instance of this problem that Alain ran into happened a few years ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-photo-czech-advertisement
- the mother's conclusion is the same as Alain's: don't upload high resolution photos to the Internet.
And it would be naive to assume that these are isolated incidents.
-
Three comments. First, great article, very frustrating topic.
Second, I would love to see real world commentary on how the PPA benefits can help with these cases.
Third, I would really love to see image tracking built in to Lightroom.
-
I agree that the legal action is between Alain and the school, and if this were an issue between Alain and some website that used his image without permission I'd agree with you. However I believe their stance impacts a broader audience (myself included). They are educating the next generation of consumers of what we produce. For the most part, what the students learn here, will be considered gospel for most of their lives.
As the US Government pushes ever more for control over content on the Internet, be it for themselves or by proxy for corporations, more people are reacting by deciding that copyright is no longer relevant and needs to be abolished. So what students are learning from the MPAA/RIAA and their cohorts is that copyright is something that is backed by evil/greedy organisations and corrupt government. That is the gospel that they are reading from every day of their lives.
The latest salvo in this battle is this:
http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/
-
So what students are learning from the MPAA/RIAA and their cohorts is that copyright is something that is backed by evil/greedy organisations and corrupt government. That is the gospel that they are reading from every day of their lives.
At risk of stating the obvious, people who want to use what others have created have a short-term interest in doing so without cost, while those others have an interest in benefiting from their own creativity.
I want, I take -- is not without greed.
-
As the US Government pushes ever more for control over content on the Internet, be it for themselves or by proxy for corporations, more people are reacting by deciding that copyright is no longer relevant and needs to be abolished. So what students are learning from the MPAA/RIAA and their cohorts is that copyright is something that is backed by evil/greedy organisations and corrupt government. That is the gospel that they are reading from every day of their lives.
The latest salvo in this battle is this:
http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/
Wouldn't it be awful if some sort of reasonable compromise cannot be reached. There seems to be this belief by some that commercial success (at least in part) of companies engaged in intellectual property related business models might require suspension of some citizen rights that took centuries to acquire. I would have a hard time with that one and if that were the stark choice to be made, I would have to come down on the side of the "tough luck for those businesses". I guess they just won't make as much money, then. I don't see where commercial rights should trump rights of citizens, the former are a privilege and the latter should not be.
But like I said, there had better be a better solution to all this than the permanent surveillance of everyone, that's too high a price, imo. There is no way that power would remain benign, not on this planet. Societies make decisions all the time about what commercial activities are acceptable based on the moral values of the society. We no longer allow the buying and selling of human beings, which probably upset lots of profitable slave-trading businesses at the time of abolition, but we said tough luck for them. And no, I am NOT making a moral equivalence, merely pointing out that commercial activities always have to fit inside the surrounding culture. Our society is NOT here primarily to help people make money. People running businesses that make money is simply one of the ways that societal interactions take place.
I think that in the privacy vs copyrights vs property rights debate, we simply have not reached an acceptable consensus yet. Extremist positions of any kind are not helpful in these kinds of discussions. The ideas take time to filter through, and we should take the time. But I am not optimistic that the political leaders of the day have the kind of maturity required to make long-term decisions that are in everyone's interests.
-
I think that in the privacy vs copyrights vs property rights debate, we simply have not reached an acceptable consensus yet. ... The ideas take time to filter through, and we should take the time.
500 years and counting...
"But the new technology produced a much more pervasive danger: that an artist’s printed output would be so quickly and thoroughly copied and pirated that his work would be diluted and his good name undermined. Clinging on to authorship, in an age of open access, was as hard then as now."
Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of the artist as an entrepreneur (http://www.economist.com/node/21541710)
-
500 years and counting...
"But the new technology produced a much more pervasive danger: that an artist’s printed output would be so quickly and thoroughly copied and pirated that his work would be diluted and his good name undermined. Clinging on to authorship, in an age of open access, was as hard then as now."
Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of the artist as an entrepreneur (http://www.economist.com/node/21541710)
I was specifically thinking of the internet privacy encroachments when I wrote that entry. I should not be surprised that we're not the first generation to face these questions.
-
An interesting piece on the implications of copyright and privacy here;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/09/breaking_the_internet_no_property_no_privacy/
-
An interesting piece on the implications of copyright and privacy here;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/09/breaking_the_internet_no_property_no_privacy/
Thank you.
-
from the Alvernia University website, I got the email contact to the Office of the President. I sent an email to their President voicing my feelings on what they were doing. Their official response was..... interesting.
Here's their correspondence back (Karen is listed as the official contact to the Office of the President)
Karen Schroder <[email protected]>
1:02 PM (28 minutes ago)
to me
This is a scam for money. Thank you for your email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:53 PM, "jim collum" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As a professional photographer, who has work exhibited in various venues (both physical and online galleries), and who values the concept of Intellectual Property, I find the conduct of your school reprehensible. This site is a predominiant source of information among the photographic community, ( both professional and amateur), and word of the actions of your Institute are rapidly spreading among that community. This link is being spread among all of the major forums.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/they_are_stealing_our_work.shtml
Frankly, as a school of higher learning, and one who is responsible for preparing the ethical standards for your graduating students.. you should be ashamed of yourselves
Jim Collum
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Hmmm. I wonder what the local newspapers around the University would think of the schools theft....and the response of their President. It appears the President of the schools thinks she can obtain any image on the internet and use it for free without any payment.....as any request for payment is a scam. I think the newspapers would find this very interesting indeed.
-
... I wish there would be a collective body representing photographers' interests in a reasonable manner, if only by providing a public pressure...
There is... in France, apparently. Now, not everyone would agree with the delicate Gallic humor used, especially not on the Puritan side of the ocean ;), but hey, they will grab your attention:
Controversial French Ad Campaign for Photographers’ Rights (http://goo.gl/dgmA3)
-
Well I think that ad got the point across... so to speak.....
Alan
-
January 2011 maybe.
Jim's email to the president was April 5, 2012. Are you suggesting that the president's response is justified?
-
Jim's email to the president was April 5, 2012. Are you suggesting that the president's response is justified?
I'm saying half-a-dozen unsolicited scam emails evade my spam filter every week - and I try to identify and delete them without opening them.
Do you even know if the person who replied has any knowledge of the original incident?
Alain Briot's essay informs us about the actions we can take to protect our images - it doesn't call on us to start a witch hunt.
-
Plagiarism is not a copyright violation. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, neither can data--I can make a photography using hands for a world, what I can't do is setup my shot to exactly copy what Schewe has done (proving I had no knowledge of a previous work is another matter, but artist have been sued over derivative works--the Obama Hope poster is a resent example. A work is original in that it is not a copy, not that it happens to have the same subject and style of another--If I photograph Yosemite from Tunnel Lookout I am creating an original work. A derivative work, a work based on a previous work, must first secure the copyright of the original, but the creator of a derivative also has copyright over that expression (but never the original).
Coming late to this thread, what interests me most is the notion that ideas cannot be copyrighted and I am having trouble following what you are saying here. When you write that a "derivative work must first secure the copyright of the original" you seem to be contradicting your earlier statement that "ideas cannot be copyrighted". I am wondering whether any of Schewe's infringements were for completely different images of hands holding a globe and whether he would have any claim (whether moral or legal) against, say, an image of feet standing on a globe with the globe reproduced on the feet. A recent copyright case I heard about on the radio suggested that in some circumstances the concept for an image can be copyrighted, not just the image. I haven't been able to find it again so can't provide any more details - I think it was an Australian case but am not even sure of that.
-
... what interests me most is the notion that ideas cannot be copyrighted ...
"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."
The U.S. Copyright Office FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect)
-
... Alain Briot's essay informs us about the actions we can take to protect our images - it doesn't call on us to start a witch hunt.
You consider public pressure to observe the law a witch hunt?
-
You consider public pressure to observe the law a witch hunt?
Which law do you say was broken by the reply to Jim Collum's April 5th 2012 unsolicited email?
-
You consider public pressure to observe the law a witch hunt?
Nobody is defending the actions of the University in the original episode. But Alain took decisive and effective action at the time - and nobody here has the slightest idea about whether or not the University counselled the teacher or the student to try to prevent a repeat offence. It seems to me quite possible that it did. University administrations rarely have much compunction about coming down like a ton of bricks on teachers or students who embarrass them. In these circumstances, I don't believe that indignantly emailing the University about the episode months later is of much use to anyone, and the University's quoted response to that email certainly can't be construed as defending its original actions.
-
Nobody is defending the actions of the University in the original episode. But Alain took decisive and effective action at the time - and nobody here has the slightest idea about whether or not the University counselled the teacher or the student to try to prevent a repeat offence. It seems to me quite possible that it did. University administrations rarely have much compunction about coming down like a ton of bricks on teachers or students who embarrass them. In these circumstances, I don't believe that indignantly emailing the University about the episode months later is of much use to anyone, and the University's quoted response to that email certainly can't be construed as defending its original actions.
+1
-
I thought I would add a bit of light Friday humour to this copyright discussion. One solution, and it's a bit old, but it has legs:
Disney Blames Apple For Music Piracy
Vishniac writes "It looks like Disney CEO Michael Eisner is accusing Apple in part for fostering music piracy, particularly with its 'Rip, Mix, Burn' campaign. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Eisner said that the ad suggests to people that 'they can create theft if they buy this computer.' Apple? iMac? Impossible."
One response -
Because oxygen facilitates computer piracy by allowing pirates to breathe, the DMCA will be outlawing this harmful gas as a copyright protection device.
"We're pretty sure there won't be any more piracy once we've removed all oxygen, destroyed the earth's atmosphere and made it completely unliveable for humans," a DMCA spokesman said. "The day we can go forward on this project will be a great day for corporate America."
Until all oxygen can be removed from the planet, all people caught breathing will be given Cease and Desist orders, and possibly incarcerated before they have a chance to run home and burn CDs.
During a discussion about this innovative new form of justice, George Bush stated that he is considering a similar plan to handle terrorists. "We will not be held hostile by terrorists, nor people who harbour terrorists, nor innocent civilians of countries that harbour terrorists, nor those chemical elements that terrorists need to survive."
"If you're breathing, you're either a terrorist, or you're aiding a terrorist by breating. Breathing is un-American." When reminded that the original question was about software piracy, Bush said that pirates shouldn't breathe either because it makes them a bigger threat on the high seas.
When asked if he himself had ever breathed, George Bush said that as all breathers were anti-American, and that he was most assuredly not anti-American, of course he has never breathed.
"Not like that hippy Clinton," one of Bush's entourage reportedly mentioned. "We all know that he inhaled."
Apparently, an informal polling of people with any intelligence on the subject said that removing oxygen to combat terrorism was not a good idea. When asked to comment on that poll, Bush laughed and said, "When has intelligence ever stopped Americans from doing what we need to do?"
From the Slashdot Archives http://apple.slashdot.org/story/02/03/04/1445216/disney-blames-apple-for-music-piracy (http://apple.slashdot.org/story/02/03/04/1445216/disney-blames-apple-for-music-piracy)