RE: Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

>>lmatlow: most of what you said is pretty much what I said. Except the bit about posting a link to someone's work being actual theft of that work. In my country, it isn't. Period. Exactly as I said before. Your country may differ, but please don't make statements about what IS and ISN'T as if the same thing applies all over the world. There is too much of an attitude amongst US users in Yahoo groups that America = The Whole World or The Rest of the World isn't entitled to a say in anything or to have their own, different legal system.

No country AFAIK has a problem with posting a link but that’s not what Linda said and that’s not what is happening

>>Still, I'd like to know how you'd feel if I, as a professional photographer, went and hunted down your website (which I can't do because when I click on your UID here it tells me the page (your profile) doesn't exist but if I could ...) and actually liked your work so much that I copied the URL of your website and posted it on here, or on Facebook or on my own website or somewhere, with a comment saying, "I found this other photographer's website and I really like his/her work so please go and have a look" - would you call that theft?

Telling someone to go and look is obviously not theft, using their content to populate your site is. Pinterest do not post a url they display your images making the content of their website your creative work. They either take your image and store it on their server without permission which is illegal or use your bandwidth to display your picture on their site which may or may not be illegal but is certainly unethical

>>If so, then I would suggest you just don't put your work on the web at all, because that is how the web works. It's ability to market your work for you without any input from you is something that many people regard as a massive benefit of the web!

Having someone filling the content of their site with your images is not marketing

>>As I said before, sadly, if you put your work on the web, it is going to be stolen by people who don't give a stuff about legality. Some people are so thick or lawless or both that they either can't or don't wish to understand why it matters to you that you retain 100% control over your images. If you put them on the web, in any way, shape or form, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RETAIN THAT CONTROL SO THERE IS REALLY NOT POINT IN GETTING YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE UP THERE BY GETTING ALL INDIGNANT ABOUT THEFT.

Why should you not get upset about theft. If I went into the supermarket and helped myself I would expect a legal response if caught. The fact that most shoplifters don’t get caught does not excuse, or make acceptable, their action


>>If you have unlimited time to chase after misuse and get lawyers on the case, good for you. I'd rather be taking more photos.

Not ‘misuse’ theft. I’d rather not pay for a police force but, as a society, we seem to feel the need to minimise the lawlessness.

Refering to your earlier response to an earlier email registering your images with the US copyright office is not a requirement to register your copyright there anymore that it is in the UK, it just enables you to sue for punitive damages and so make it worthwhile for a lawyer. The UK seems to be also looking at this  http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-copyright-dce.htm

>>The ones that are really important to me - the ones I sell as limited edition, signed prints - they don't go on the web for precisely the reasons you outlined about not being able to guarantee to the purchaser that they have not been distributed or used anywhere else.

Stock photography is about selling files not prints which is why keeping control, keeping records and preventing orphans is so important. And if someone buys you print, photographs it and sells the file on or puts it on the web do you turn a blind eye to that too?