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.
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? 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!
I'd call it no different from someone 'pinning' one of your images on Pinterest. Pinterest links back to your website. By pinning an individual image, it gives other people an immediate idea of why the 'pinner' has chosen to draw attention to your work. A text only link leaves people without a clue as to the type of photography they'll find if they click through. People who like beautiful landscapes or fabulous portraits might be offended by photos of car crash victims, but to some people that macabre stuff is also art. So in my view it's better to give people a little taste of what you're recommending so they can tell if they're likely to enjoy looking at it.
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.
It's the exactly equivalent of going on holiday and leaving windows open. Not quite the same as leaving your car on the drive with the key in the ignition, or leaving all your computers, cameras, TVs etc on the drive as a free for all. But it really is the equivalent of leaving all the windows open and having no burglar alarm.
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.
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. And that includes film shots I took in the '70s. And film shots I still take and develop in my darkroom now. Please don't go shouting about photos you took in the '70s as if it sets you apart from the rest of us.
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "lmatlow" <lmatlow@...> wrote:
>
> We've sent out over 2500 DMCA notices to Pinterest and Tumblr since last July and not one single 'Pin' has translated into a sale for me or any photographer I personally know,and I know hundreds
>
> However,I register my copyrights and we go after all infringers.
>
> It's stealing.Period. Only the copyright holder can dictate where and when their images appear. Let your images fly all over the web,soon they will be orphans,worth nothing because you can never sell them as 'rights managed' and tell a client they have not run anywhere. Part of my job as a business of photography is to keep as accurate records as possible on sales history of my images.With over 300,000 in my two libraries I own it's a lot of work but after 30+ years,I still get to do what I love every day without having to work at a regular job.
>
> I have some images shot in the 70s and 80s I've made more than $75,000 with and are still selling.No one is going to profit from my hard work.Period.
>
> Legally you can't even go into Kinko;s and make a scan from a magazine or a book!
>
> One of our lawyers has recently collected $25,000 for us on an infringement...
> Linda
>
> --- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Avril Jones" <aj@> wrote:
> >
> > Dale, you can't blame Pinterest for the fact that it can be used by unscrupulous thieves. Pinterest tries to do the right thing by pinning a full link back to the original image. That was all I was saying about Pinterest.
> >
> > As for right clicking, you can do that with any image, anywhere on the web, so long as it's displayed as a standalone image. I hope nobody thinks that disabling right-click protects their images for more than three seconds. That being how long it takes to disable JavaScript, which in turn enables right clicking.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment