|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2005 07:41:54 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
In this case? Yes. It wasn't being used for any other purpose then to give an example of what none of us would want done to our work. When someone tells me he has no respect for my work, he is in essence telling me he has no respect for me, and with that any obligation I might have felt to defend his rights have quickly dissipated. |
If you want to simply demonstrate something then why not do it with your own work? Would you be happy for me to do it with your work? (not a threat by the way - I do have more respect than that).
When somebody argues so strongly against something and then turns around and does it themselves it doesn't strengthen their argument that's for sure. |
Well don't expect me to defend theSaj's works or rights in this case, as he has publicly stated he has no respect for anyone elses.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 08:34:46 AM · #77 |
I think that providing an example is not "ironic" if done intentionally.
I think that the example is a very good one and Prof Fate makes the point very well.
I think that Saj's problem is that people profit from intellectual property, and he thinks that they make too much profit. He makes 2 contradictory points: 1) Too much goes to music labels, the middleman. 2) But for a photographer being paid direct, he receives too much because his job is easy and he shouldn't be entitled to charge so much AND retain his rights to his product.
I do not agree with either point: if releasing good music could be done cheaper, competition would drive down the price. It is no coincidence that online music downloads cost only fractionally less than a CD (because yes, the cost of a CD is less than $1 - this is not where the expense in producing and publishing music lies). The photographer has his rights - the bride and groom could negotiate for the right to own the photographs if they wanted to - but they would have to pay more. They have gone for the cheaper option, and the photographer is entitled to charge as much as he can - that is, as much as the market will bear. If he charges too much, you can be sure that he will not get much business.
I am suprised that a member of this forum would consider the photographer's job easy, or not worth paying for. He is skilled (as are many of the people here) and people without those skills (ie non-members of this forum(!)) must pay to access them.
If you are asserting that the market is in some way anti-competitive (ie there is collusion in setting the prices), then that is a different argument. That kind of behaviour is subject to a lot of analysis in the US and the EU by various government departments - not something that I would like to criticise without some very detailed background information. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 09:15:44 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that providing an example is not "ironic" if done intentionally.
I think that the example is a very good one and Prof Fate makes the point very well. |
I'm surprised that Saj hasn't complained to the SC. I think it was disrespectful and very childish. Provoked or not. Legal or not.
If you really respect copyright then provide examples using work for which you hold the copyright. Simple.
I'm not trying to support Saj's points. I can't blame anybody for being annoyed at him. But I don't for one second believe that what was done was just to provide an example, more to make an example of.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 09:55:15 AM · #79 |
Fair point. It would irritate me ...though I suppose it is not the original work that is damaged, and no-one is actually representing it as Saj's work (merely an example of what could be done absent copyright, and what could be distressing if it were done for real).
I find the manipulated images difficult to condemn (the example is still very good, if confrontational), and difficult to praise (it is a confrontational act in a discursive topic thread). Not sure where that leaves me.
I do think that copyright is the best thing we currently have - I would love to see a well explained alternative system that could actually work! |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 10:12:02 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Fair point. It would irritate me ...though I suppose it is not the original work that is damaged, and no-one is actually representing it as Saj's work (merely an example of what could be done absent copyright, and what could be distressing if it were done for real).
I find the manipulated images difficult to condemn (the example is still very good, if confrontational), and difficult to praise (it is a confrontational act in a discursive topic thread). Not sure where that leaves me. |
I'm just confused. Last week I was being told that simply using a web image as your desktop was a terrible offence, and this week it's okay to vandalise somebody elses work and post it back to the web.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I do think that copyright is the best thing we currently have - I would love to see a well explained alternative system that could actually work! |
True. I like the Creative Commons way (can you tell?!) but I'll freely admit it's not for everyone.
I do think that copyright needs to change though. The internet is changing things too much to simply rely on old laws. Unfortunately the people getting change seem to be the ones who can pay for it and stand to gain most from the changes.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 10:21:09 AM · #81 |
Many folks have no respect for others rights and only get upset when their rights are violated - hence the point is best made with Saj's own photos. This was done to educate him, so is that a 'fair use'?
Next question is - how much has to be changed for it to be a 'new work'? Technically speaking, i could transform and hue shift a pic and EVERY pixel will be different - so then it is a different work, or is it?
There is theft for profit and 'borrowed use' - for instance, when a person posts a pic from another website - mostly it is not theft for profit or gain but for a demonstration of some kind - this is not a common occurence here but is on many forums. And is posting a link different than the image itself...
as in - the page, the photo itself or paste the photo...
//cjperry3.home.comcast.net/html/photos.html
//cjperry3.home.comcast.net/assets/images/jerry_talking__W_IMG_0917.jpg
null
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 10:44:15 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Many folks have no respect for others rights and only get upset when their rights are violated - hence the point is best made with Saj's own photos. This was done to educate him, so is that a 'fair use'? |
You tell me.
Could I educate you in how downloading music is also wrong by providing a download of the latest Metallica album?
Edit: But as I said, it's more about lack of respect than the law. Just because somebody disagrees with you it doesn't make it right to p*** all over their work.
Message edited by author 2005-03-30 10:50:38.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 10:55:34 AM · #83 |
Bod,
I don't think anyone meant to offend.
The idea of downloading Metallica to prove a point isn't used in the same sense. If you made a song that you were trying to sell and then I downloaded it for free and changed it slightly to prove to you that the copyright is a good thing; that would be the equivalent. Or in the case of your example: if I were trying to show the lead singer of Metallica that copyright help protect the artist against such problems as minor changes that reflect badly on that artist -- then it would be in the same context.
The impact of the example is lost when I do the changing of my own image because there is no personal impact. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:03:47 AM · #84 |
| I thought about this a lot last night and this morning and I have come to the conclusion that THE ONLY REASON THAT I COULD COME UP WITH AS TO WHY SOMEONE DOES NOT LIKE THE COPYRIHGT LAWS IS THAT THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN CUT THE MUSTARD. That they don't believe in themselves or their talent. They they don't think that they can learn the craft and trade. It only takes one photo to make one famous and wealthy. The rest of us need all the protection we can get to make a living. I am sorry but this is a very touchy issue to me. For someone to mess with my livelyhood is fighting words....... |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:09:14 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by bod:
I'm just confused. Last week I was being told that simply using a web image as your desktop was a terrible offence, and this week it's okay to vandalise somebody elses work and post it back to the web.
True. I like the Creative Commons way (can you tell?!) but I'll freely admit it's not for everyone.
I do think that copyright needs to change though. The internet is changing things too much to simply rely on old laws. Unfortunately the people getting change seem to be the ones who can pay for it and stand to gain most from the changes. |
Creative Commons works very well - but it can only work if we have a strict law, which people are allowed to relax in relation to specific work of their own. If we set the copyright bar lower, Creative Commons or the like could become the norm, rather than a lower standard for people to voluntarily adopt. I don't think that we are in disagreement.
There is also the matter of law and practice: practice does not *have* to follow the law. In practice, people do use images for non-commercial gain all of the time (such as your screensaver example). Damages to the copyright holder are sufficiently low that he will not, in practice, enforce his rights. Technically, it will be difficult for him to do so (every download of a web page includes an act of copying that, if interpreted strictly, could be a breach of copyright). Where a copyright holder puts an image on the internet, there will often be applicable terms and conditions on the display of that information. Where there are no explicit terms, there will be implied terms.
The copyright holder gets to choose how to enforce his rights. If he is using the work to make money, he can take action against third parties circumventing his copyright protection methods. If it is not being used to generate money by the author, but a third party uses the property to generate money, the author can take action to recover the proceeds. If the work is not being commercially exploited by any party, the author has little commercial incentive to take action (he is not sufferring damages). However, he can do so if, say, a third party is interfering with his moral rights (ie the integrity of the picture and his right to be acknowledged as the creator), and can prevent the third party from continuing such interference (usually being awarded costs).
So in practice, a copyright holder can protect his commercial and moral interests in the work. In practice, the work will be available except to the extent that the copyright holder objects. The copyright holder can make the work available on terms that are weaker than the copyright law, but copyright prevents him from exhausting that right beyond a reasonable time for the benefit of society.
On your wallpaper example, I think that you have an implied right to download images for the purpose of viewing them, if they are put on the internet. People who create images and put them up at resolutions that allow them to be used as wallpaper are probably aware that they may be used thus, and you have an implied licence to do so. All this is unless there is an explicit statement that you may not do so, or if you are by technical means prevented from carrying out that action. In that case, you will be in technical breach, but you may not be causing any damages - if so, the creator will be limited to asking you to stop, which I think you would proabbly do if asked. If you won't stop, he would have further rights to stop you.
Ultimately, I do not dispute that there are a huge variety of "grey areas" - variations upon a theme that can be tweaked to investigate possibilities endlessly. From a legal perspective, many of these would be irrelevant, as the courts see through attempts to disguise an action, and what will matter in most cases will be what damage has been caused (follow the money). If you cause damage, you are potentially liable. The person who provides a free download/rehosting service for a professional photographer's pictures risks being sued for the damage he has caused, no matter how the link is created. The person who abuses another's bandwidth, but denies them ad revenue by linking direct to an image also faces a risk. The person who copies and pastes a news story picture into a thread carries less risk - but would probably have to remove the picture if asked.
As for fair use - starts to get technical, but legally a practical interpretation is used. The idea of a "loophole" in the law, where technically every pixel is changed in an image to make it a new image, is bogus - the courts can see what has been done and see that it involves copying. Again - there are shades of grey (how much can you copy), which is assessed by reference to words such as "reasonable" on a case by case basis.
Ironically, by manipulating an image, you create a new image in which you have a copyright interest... but let's not go into that!
I would argue that the internet is working - and that people are getting paid, but there are wrinkles in the technology (dreaded DRM) that prevent it operating fully effectively (currently to the detriment of the big companies). The system is working - can be improved, but the creation of intellectual wealth has not stopped, and the profits continue to flow in, and people can access so much more than ever before. Not that the system should be tweaked, and the technology made more seamless and effective, but this seems like quite a resounding success for the flexibility of the current system. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:12:44 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I thought about this a lot last night and this morning and I have come to the conclusion that THE ONLY REASON THAT I COULD COME UP WITH AS TO WHY SOMEONE DOES NOT LIKE THE COPYRIHGT LAWS IS THAT THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN CUT THE MUSTARD. That they don't believe in themselves or their talent. They they don't think that they can learn the craft and trade. It only takes one photo to make one famous and wealthy. The rest of us need all the protection we can get to make a living. I am sorry but this is a very touchy issue to me. For someone to mess with my livelyhood is fighting words....... |
Excellent, couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:17:36 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by jeweliek:
Bod,
I don't think anyone meant to offend. |
I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by jeweliek:
The idea of downloading Metallica to prove a point isn't used in the same sense. If you made a song that you were trying to sell and then I downloaded it for free and changed it slightly to prove to you that the copyright is a good thing; that would be the equivalent. Or in the case of your example: if I were trying to show the lead singer of Metallica that copyright help protect the artist against such problems as minor changes that reflect badly on that artist -- then it would be in the same context. |
Okay, poor example. Though I would bet that if you do anything with Metallica's work they would come after you, and win. Educational or not.
Originally posted by jeweliek:
The impact of the example is lost when I do the changing of my own image because there is no personal impact. |
True. But proving something is wrong by doing it?... put me back in the confused camp!
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:19:13 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by bod:
Edit: But as I said, it's more about lack of respect than the law. Just because somebody disagrees with you it doesn't make it right to p*** all over their work. |
I think that Saj could request that the work be removed and it would have to be removed - it seems likely that it does infringe some of his moral rights to integrity of the image (or whatever the US equivalent is). Cannot see much public interest/fair use type reason to protect the altered images.
But Saj would have to rely on his copyright interests. That *would* be ironic. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:33:19 AM · #89 |
Bod,
That is just the point without copyright laws what right would Metallica have to come after me.
I personal hope that I never infringe on someone elses copyright, and I hope that I don't have anything like that done to me. I do not agree that it was right to change the image, but I understand the thought process behind it.
Do we have a way of editing our posts so that it could be changed?
Also, I understand that everyone has mixed feeling on what should or should not be law. I get that, but these are laws. What are some of you doing to help with the prevention of copyright infringement on the internet (and off for that matter).
Thank you all for your help!
This is enlightening and has given Brian many ideas to research.
Jewelie |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 11:44:05 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
But Saj would have to rely on his copyright interests. That *would* be ironic. |
:D
I'll leave that particular discussion now and get back to the real topic, including reading your nice big post properly.
Originally posted by jeweliek:
What are some of you doing to help with the prevention of copyright infringement on the internet (and off for that matter). |
Heh, you don't half like to stoke the fire don't you? ; )
I've just got home from work so I'll return with a nice hot coffee shortly ...
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:12:25 PM · #91 |
I'm sorry that you feel I am stoking a fire. I am not meaning to hurt or encourage bickering in any way.
I am trying to get some real world information from people that deal with these issues. Brian works very hard in college to make mine and our families lives easier. He asked me for some help in gathering information from some of the photographers that I know. I have posted here and on another site I am a member of for him. I have also called a couple of friends studios to set up times for him to interview them.
I don't want to be considered a trouble maker. I'm sorry if that is the impression that I am giving.
Jewelie |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:18:27 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by jeweliek:
I'm sorry that you feel I am stoking a fire. I am not meaning to hurt or encourage bickering in any way.
I don't want to be considered a trouble maker. I'm sorry if that is the impression that I am giving. |
I know, I was just joking : ) Sometimes I really need to make those smileys clearer!
You're not causing trouble, and I for one am enjoying the discussion.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would argue that the internet is working - and that people are getting paid, but there are wrinkles in the technology (dreaded DRM) that prevent it operating fully effectively (currently to the detriment of the big companies). The system is working - can be improved, but the creation of intellectual wealth has not stopped, and the profits continue to flow in, and people can access so much more than ever before. Not that the system should be tweaked, and the technology made more seamless and effective, but this seems like quite a resounding success for the flexibility of the current system. |
Don't get me started on DRM and copy protection! I sit here unable to legally play DVDs on my computer, and for a long time I couldn't play legally bought CDs because my computer was my only CD player. All I see copy protection doing is annoying legitimate customers and keeping prices high.
This brings me neatly onto the issue of protecting your copyrights online. The most common methods I see are watermarking and right click blockers.
Right click blockers are simply an annoyance. I have visited sites where even middle clicking to open a new tab in Firefox was blocked. It takes a couple of seconds to disable javascript and all the fancy "protection" is gone, so the only people you're really annoying are legitimate visitors. I'll try to dig out a link which really explains why right click blockers are bad.
EDIT: I can't find the one I wanted, but this one is similar ...
//everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=769327
EDITEDIT: 2 seconds later it turns up!...
//www.sitepoint.com/article/dont-disable-right-click
Watermarking can be done well, or it can completely ruin an image. Problem is that you have to pay for the software that does it well. Done well I don't mind it at all. Done poorly it will put me off your work for sure.
The DPC way is not to allow watermarks at all in the challenges, and I can't remember seeing any in peoples portfolios either, which surprises me to be honest. Is it because piracy of 640 pixel images isn't seen as a problem, or that it doesn't bother people (hard to believe after the wallpaper thread).
I seem to remember Mavrik having some first hand experience of his images being 'stolen' from the internet by a customer! His views would no doubt be useful.
Message edited by author 2005-03-30 12:41:05.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:24:34 PM · #93 |
yep - but DRM is a technical problem, not a legal one. I agree it needs to be fixed, and that there are some major technical obstacles at the moment. But I don't think that the law should change to match the technical competency of Microsoft or Apple - rather that they need to find a workable commercial solution. Having said that, people still buy DRM music from iTunes, so it must be working in part.
As regards watermarking or keeping pictures in small size, you would not complain if an artist only provided small copies of his pictures in a catalogue, that could not be cut out and displayed; or if he kept his pictures in a shop and would not let you take away a good quality copy for free (or at the cost of the paper); or if those pictures were in a catalogue that was chained to the desk. The alternative - suggesting that authors ought to put high quality commercial images on view without watermarking them and trust users to pay is tantamount to suggesting that shop keepers ought to leave their shops and rely on an honesty box! Not very practical. EDIT: Quality of the watermark will depend on the value of the image I suspect. Real world example are banknotes - valuable, and quality watermarked!
Disabling right-click is one way in which a web-author is taking practical steps to prevent you using his intellectual property and that ought to be respected. Alternative views usually suggest that this limits the freedom or growth of the web (possibly to the detriment of the author) - but I don't think that you should be forced to let people right click your work unless you want to (as copyright holder you should have the right to decide what gets done with your work). Otherwise you would remove your work from the web and it will diminish! The fact that it is "irritating" and "can be got around" are not reasons why it should not be used EDIT: (though I agree it is irritating in Firefox not to be able to open a new link - maybe something for Firefox to offer: right click disabled javascript has the effect of greying out "save as" and "save link as" and "print", but allows you to open new tab).
These are examples of an author making explicit his intent that you are not allowed to make additional copies.
Message edited by author 2005-03-30 13:29:10. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:33:03 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by bod:
This brings me neatly onto the issue of protecting your copyrights online. The most common methods I see are watermarking and right click blockers.
Right click blockers are simply an annoyance. |
I have installed right click blockers on my web site. No one has complained about them being an annoyance. They are easy to get around if someone put a small amount of effort into it, but they are like locking the front door of your house. A good thief will get in if he wants, but the incidental thief will go elsewhere. Besides if someone is caught taking something from the web site it becomes harder for them to claim they didn’t know they were stealing.
I also put the following warning up on my index page to further protect my interests:
The images and text contained in this website were created by and are the copyrighted property of M. A. Battilana Photography. By entering this site you confirm that you will agree to abide by US and international copyright laws. Links are welcome, but downloading from this site without express written permission is illegal
Try pressing the Decline button and see where it takes you.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:37:07 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by bod:
I seem to remember Mavrik having some first hand experience of his images being 'stolen' from the internet by a customer! His views would no doubt be useful. |
That is unfortunate - though query what someone would really do with a low-res image (assuming it is via DPC). Maybe a collage.
If stolen more deviously, and there was a loss - almost certainly a claim. However, I also agree with various others that in practice, it is too complicated and expensive to often do much about it. That is an access to justice issue, not copyright, however. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:41:52 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They are easy to get around if someone put a small amount of effort into it, but they are like locking the front door of your house. A good thief will get in if he wants, but the incidental thief will go elsewhere. |
Nice analogy. Nice pics too.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:58:58 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Having said that, people still buy DRM music from iTunes, so it must be working in part. |
I would be interested to find out how many of these people even know what DRM stands for and what it can do. ; )
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Disabling right-click is one way in which a web-author is taking practical steps to prevent you using his intellectual property and that ought to be respected. |
If taking a copy of an image was the only thing that right (and middle) click could do then I would agree. Blocking my ability to open a new tab is not funny.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Disabling right-click is one way in which a web-author is taking practical steps to prevent you using his intellectual property and that ought to be respected. |
But dragging an image into Photoshop still works, so can I assume that they're less bothered by that?
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
These are examples of an author making explicit his intent that you are not allowed to make additional copies. |
But if you visit a page with javascript turned off you will never see the author making explicit his intent. Another flaw!
Like CD protection, I only see it annoying legitimate "customers". Pirates will simply work around it without a second thought.
Half Life 2 requires an internet connection to play the offline, single player game. Recently one of the Steam servers went down and many people simply couldn't play the game that they had paid for. Those with pirate copies were unaffected!
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The alternative - suggesting that authors ought to put high quality commercial images on view without watermarking them and trust users to pay is tantamount to suggesting that shop keepers ought to leave their shops and rely on an honesty box! Not very practical. |
Yeah, that would be like putting an entire operating system including office suite and enterprise level server applications on an FTP server and allowing people to freely download it : )
Another of my poor examples I know (although many open source apps require, and receive a licence fee for commercial use), but the internet has changed the way software is produced and distributed, so is it not naive to believe that it won't change the way we treat art and copyright?
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 02:02:49 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have installed right click blockers on my web site. No one has complained about them being an annoyance. |
Not working. I can right click any image on your site, and I do have javascript enabled. Using Firefox 1.0.2 on Linux btw.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They are easy to get around if someone put a small amount of effort into it, but they are like locking the front door of your house. A good thief will get in if he wants, but the incidental thief will go elsewhere. Besides if someone is caught taking something from the web site it becomes harder for them to claim they didn’t know they were stealing. |
Only if they had javascript turned on (and the blockers worked!), otherwise they see an open door. (Edit: still no excuse I know)
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I also put the following warning up on my index page to further protect my interests:
The images and text contained in this website were created by and are the copyrighted property of M. A. Battilana Photography. By entering this site you confirm that you will agree to abide by US and international copyright laws. Links are welcome, but downloading from this site without express written permission is illegal |
That's probably a good idea. There's too much 'assuming that people should know the ins and outs of copyright laws' and too little 'telling them what they can and can't do' on the internet.
Message edited by author 2005-03-30 14:04:41.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 04:29:49 PM · #99 |
Long post....but if you mentioned "saj" "copyright" and "ironic" you should darn well read the whole thing and give me a rebuttle on every point I make. Or keep silent...
--------------------
Clarification: I believe IP for non-profit use should be open. Heck, even George Lucas allows such for his creative ideas.
I do take pictures at weddings, and more and more I am finding that friends are NOT having wedding photographers at their weddings. Why?
1) Exhorberant costs
2) Additional fees, restrictions, etc.
3) Complex contracts (you shouldn't have to spend $ on lawyer just to understand a contact)
4) Many find that their friend's with good digital cameras have gotten equal or even better photos.
It's a trend I think we'll see more and more...
--------------
Copyright is implemented for practical reasons (to encourage the creation of intellectual wealth) -
[[[That was the intent, it was also short-term. 14 yrs. Now, most copyright action is used to prevent ideas and innovation. The length of term has increased to infinite. And more broad (at least in the case of patents.) All contributing to a demise of innovation. ]]]
If your job is to sell hamburgers, do you think people should just walk in and eat one, and leave without paying?
[[[No, but I don't believe every frickin hamburger joint should have to pay a fee to McDonald's for the hamburger's they are making.
300 yrs ago, a musician was paid for his performance. Anyone who could learn the song could perform it though it was customary when possible to attribute authorship. And I still believe he or she should be, and that's handled by BMI/ASCAP/Etc. But why pay for just a recording. Especially when I can make the recording myself? That's like having to pay the "Oil Changing Association of America" everytime you get your oil change, even if you do it yourself.
Worse, the trend is now becoming... "Well, you paid for the hamburger...but you still can't eat it!" (I own 1,000+ CDs. I am technically by law not allowed to convert those CD's to MP3 or a digital format for use dj'ing. So where I could take all those CD's and put them on a single drive. I must carry 4 suitcases full. Why? I bought the CD's....now I can't eat them? (I mean use them.)
]]]
"What chance would the individual have of making a living from his or her creativity if any corporation could take the fruits of that creative process and market them freely and without compensation?"
[[[Simple, they have a limited period (example a decade) to profit.]]]
"They are both yours - but without copyright laws i can make money from the first and tell everyone you are soooo good, look at this second shot - saj took it. Now who will hire you to shoot their wedding if this is your work??"
[[[In truth, fine with me... (excepting the model might be able to say the text was slanderous) as long as you don't profit by it in the first 14 yrs, then after that sure...it's public domain. And it's not going to stop me from taking photographs. And by the way all my photographs are free to use in non-profit uses, you just have to note authorship (otherwise it's plagiarism). ;0) I live by what i preach.
]]]
1) Too much goes to music labels, the middleman.
[[[When the middle-man generally collects 90%-100%...yes, that's too much.]]]
2) But for a photographer being paid direct, he receives too much because his job is easy and he shouldn't be entitled to charge so much AND retain his rights to his product.
[[[Actually, I believe that the photographer is acting as a work-for-hire and thus those photos should belong to the hirer. Otherwise, they took their photos for themself and deserve no pay. Either a) charge for the photos as your own property or b) charge a fee for work-for-hire. Not both...]]]
"I am suprised that a member of this forum would consider the photographer's job easy, or not worth paying for."
[[[Did not say that, but ifand why not... I've often gotten nicer photos myself. But that's really, tell me another non-executive/celebrity job where you can make $4,000 in a single day without having to have a super-sexy body? There are a few, I'll admit. But few doctors even get that cash to time ratio...]
"It is no coincidence that online music downloads cost only fractionally less than a CD (because yes, the cost of a CD is less than $1 - this is not where the expense in producing and publishing music lies)."
[[[You're right...and the reason lies in that RIAA got legislation passed to collect all royalties for ALL artists (RIAA or otherwise). There is absolutely NO reason a cheesy ring tone of your favorite song should be $2.
You tell me the cost... and don't say recording, producing, etc. as except for a handful of big artists those costs are billed to the artist. Second, a large percentage now does their recording themselves.
There is absolutely no reason for a $20 CD. And if you mention marketing. And you tell me I am paying $10-$15 for marketing. Than guess what.... give me Napster and file-sharing because it did all the marketing. And if you charged $1-$2 per album you'd have way more sales than you do now. Napster was a much better advertiser. It allowed you to pick a genre and see what "artists/songs" in that genre were most liked by fans of the genre. Good music floated to the top...
I see no justified argument here...sorry.
]]]
"Many folks have no respect for others rights and only get upset when their rights are violated - hence the point is best made with Saj's own photos. This was done to educate him, so is that a 'fair use'?"
[[[With regards to the use of my photos, here are the issues with the deed:
1. Plagiarism - failed to attribute authorship or derivative work
2. Slander/Libel - Post could be considered slander.
3. Likewise, image one insinuates a statement on the part of the model, model could take objection.
Now, if he had used the photo as a backdrop for a poem or what not he'd be totally fine based on my licensing. Now if he sold that poem with my backdrop, and did so within the first decade (short term copyright's I do accept) than he'd be obligated to pay.
]]]
See you assume I am hyprocritical.... I'm not. I have probably thought more and written more on this than most people. I know where I stand, why I stand. And it's NOT hypocritical in the least.
"If you made a song that you were trying to sell and then I downloaded it for free and changed it slightly to prove to you that the copyright is a good thing; that would be the equivalent."
[[[How copyright's killed creativity. Examples...
DJ's do it all the time....most people enjoy their remixes, etc.
In the early 90's there was a style of music called industrial. It was very common for this style to incorporate short 2-5 second clips from movies and what not in a musical orchestrated piece. Fans of this style loved it. It was destroyed by copyright law. No method exists for such artists to easily and properly license said material. The style, in that form, died...no...rather it was killed.
]]]
"THE ONLY REASON THAT I COULD COME UP WITH AS TO WHY SOMEONE DOES NOT LIKE THE COPYRIHGT LAWS IS THAT THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN CUT THE MUSTARD."
[[[Foolish, egotistical...
I'll be straight up. I can't paint like van Gogh. In fact, I don't know anyone who can do all things. The fact that life is often integrated. One might want a tattoo but not be able to draw the art for what they want.
]]]
For someone to mess with my livelyhood is fighting words.......
[[[Well guess what, recent changes to copyright not only messed with my livelihood but de-valued over 1,000 CD's that I own. So realize livelihood gets de-valued either way...there needs to be balance, or don't expect others to respect it. A CD priced at $20 that cost a $1 to produce affects the livelihoods of many people.
]]]
The copyright holder gets to choose how to enforce his rights.
[[[However, remember that said copyright holder is granted his right by "The People"...and this is what's getting forgotten.
Realize, under current copyright/patent law and the trends that follow of making them indefinite. We'd not have Shakespeare, The Bible, the Wheel, etc.
]]]
Another argument, you say that your works should be protected. An author says the words he rights should be protected. How come anyone can quote what I say? If I say "Oh, I wish it were a wednesday and then I could have apples." So if the newspaper quoted me...shouldn't I be able license that quote. I mean why not? Why should words be protected if printed but not spoken? Why differentiate? I mean celebrities would love such an interpretation. If they said something stupid the newspaper couldn't print it without licensing it. And all they'd have to do is refuse to license it.
"Don't get me started on DRM and copy protection! I sit here unable to legally play DVDs on my computer, and for a long time I couldn't play legally bought CDs because my computer was my only CD player. All I see copy protection doing is annoying legitimate customers and keeping prices high."
[[[I concur...I have a $500 digital cam-corder that's worthless cause it was advertised as an MPEG4 recorder but it encapsulates it in an ASF DRM file. Thus preventing me from sharing the video files with my friends and families. We're not talking pirating but my own home movies. I've got no recourse. This is one of dozens of issues I've run into with DRM and Copyright. You talk about livelihood but it's cost me and thousands. And the general public billions.]]]
There also is a trend where things that are public domain seem to be able to be claimed "private copyright" the CDDB (CD info) database built by millions of users under the pretense it would remain an open and publicly free database.
Or Rambus memory who participated in "designs" to devise a common memory standard and secretly put patents on the aspects of the designs. Pulled out and sued everyone. Cost of millions in fraudulent behavior. If this was uncommon it'd be one thing but it's often more common than not. Ebay, being sued because some guy own a copyright to online auctions. Not a design, patent, etc...but all online auctions. That should not be patentable. An auction has existed. Online is a medium. It's really akin to me saying I own patents to all Californian cars. Huh... Just cause the cars are moved to California doesn't constitute a new idea in any patentable way. SONY just got sued for their vibrating joystick because a company had a 1991 patent on "off balanced weight attached to motor that causes vibration" (guess what, I invented that as kid. 20+ years ago. Should NOT be patentable.
No, don't tell me to abide and it's not your fault these systems are broken. Fix the system...then I'll abide. Don't legislate me to use a broken system sorry. Ideas and thoughts belong to mankind. We are only granted benefit from them from mankind. There is not benefit to anyone but yourself from any idea or work you concieve unless given to you by the people.
- The Saj
Address those issues, than you can mock me... |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 05:37:38 PM · #100 |
Everyone,
I thank you for all opinions both for and against copyright. Everyone has helped my husband. He would like to use a couple of quotes from this thread, as actual testimony from photographers. I am just letting you know this; if you would rather not that is fine, please let me know.
Thank you
Jewelie |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 04:06:11 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 04:06:11 PM EDT.
|
