|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2007 06:22:58 PM · #76 |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 09:53:48 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Simms:
YAAAAYYY, Great, your have just limited your exposure as a photographer!
like I said, make it work for you, send her an email asking to link to your DPC challenge profile. Or even your microstock gallery if you have one. Or a link to the DPC-Prints! version of it.
So many opportunites wasted. |
She had a picture of my CHILD up there. It would have been different if it were a landscape or something of that sort. Number 1, I would NEVER sell a portrait of my daughter because there is no need. Number 2, I get enough exposure, I don't need her to do it for me and claim that it was her work that made it look the way it did (which is what she was doing) after I spent 3 hours in Photoshop tweaking it.
I don't do microstock or macrostock so, that doesn't help me either.
You can be all happy... sorry if I don't share your joy for someone taking an image without permission. All she would have had to do is ask. |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 10:00:53 PM · #78 |
OK. I agree Kids are off-limits. But seriously, instead of a kneejerk reaction to other `non child` shots being used, try to think of ways of making it work.
Maybe you should think about joining a stock agency, I am sure you will do well. Shutterstock is a good one to get you started. I make around $100 a month off that site alone with a very small portfolion.
Shutterstock |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 12:22:52 AM · #79 |
| sorry, mark, but i can't swallow the lemonade you're making out of these lemons. maybe time will prove me wrong, that getting lots of people to see my stuff because it's been stolen and plastered all over the place is a good marketing ploy, but for the here and now, i don't believe it. maybe you can find a few honorable thieves to link back to your dpc portfolio and give you credit for images they're posting, but i think the odds are not in your favor... |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 06:30:22 AM · #80 |
I had seen this thread, and stayed out of it for two main reasons:
1) It is too US centric (I am a US citizen living in the UK, if that helps understand my perspective). Those rules don't help and simply don't apply in other parts of the world, and if you register in the US and the infringer is in the UK, UK law applies. If you're going to register, you'd better hope your infringer is also in the US or else it's a whole different ball game;
and
2) It so directly engages property rhetoric as applied to images, a rhetoric that I find (personally and professionally) hard to swallow, that I simply wasn't interested in contributing to it. Are our images our "private property"? If we say they are, then we can defend them with our shotguns and not worry about the outcomes and effects. If they are not, if they are something else, then maybe we need to be a bit more circumspect. This thread was not circumspect, it was directed at finding shotguns to protect private property. I didn't feel up to wading into that discourse and am happy for it to run its course (by the way, the situation described by the OP in that thread is beyond anything I would consider acceptable, and as an extreme case, it makes a bad basis for a more general discussion, IMHO).
Final note on this last point: if our images are our property, then why doesn't the image we take of a building belong to the architect of that building? or to the builders? The image of a tree to the person who planted it or on whose property it stands? It's their tree, why isn't every part of that tree (including an image made that includes it) theirs?
Originally posted by TCGuru:
You can be all happy... sorry if I don't share your joy for someone taking an image without permission. All she would have had to do is ask. |
Originally posted by Skip:
sorry, mark, but i can't swallow the lemonade you're making out of these lemons. maybe time will prove me wrong, that getting lots of people to see my stuff because it's been stolen and plastered all over the place is a good marketing ploy, but for the here and now, i don't believe it. maybe you can find a few honorable thieves to link back to your dpc portfolio and give you credit for images they're posting, but i think the odds are not in your favor... |
I don't think these comments were necessarily directed at me, but as I've entered this discussion on this side of the table, I should probably clarify my contribution. I should have more explicitly recognized that Creative Commons use is more likely to be appealing to those of us who are in this for the fun or "pure expressiveness" of it alone, and not to make a living. If you make a living (or any "real" money) from your photography, Creative Commons might be useful to you in the beginning (to gain exposure), but if you're any good, releasing your entire portfolio through a Creative Commons license pretty much defeats the purpose of anyone paying for your images. Not what is intended.
So, I try to encourage people (like me) who have a job that does not involve photography to release their images via Creative Commons to allow others to "re-mix" them and be creative themselves. I lose very little (perhaps nothing) from this, as I don't sell my images. I would be thrilled if someone took one of my images and did something cool and creative with it, and I'm willing to put up with the claims of "I made this cooler" when they really haven't simply to have this potential. I think creativity is great, and if someone can take my output and make it an input, well then, that's a (generally) good thing for me.
Don't get me wrong; I would love it if some of the excellent pro photographers here would pick an image or two and "set them free" for creative reuse, but that is a deeply personal and professional choice. I won't judge those who don't want "free" exposure in this way; losing "control" over your work is something that takes a strong heart and a core dedication to the creativity of others.
None of this truly justifies someone using an image without permission, claiming it as their own, not giving proper attribution, or claiming to have made changes to it when they haven't. None of that would be allowed under the Creative Commons licenses, and I don't see how it would be appropriate under any ethical or legal regime.
Finally, some images should not be used elsewhere, and that again is a personal choice of the photographer. My hope in raising the Creative Commons option is simply that people will place their work in a wider perspective of creativity, and allow others to "play" with it and -- in so doing -- create new creative works.
Have I hijacked this thread? If I have, and if we're not done -- I think we're done, but then that would give me the last word, wouldn't it :) -- then let's take it to a new topic, as that wasn't my intent (which was to clarify some overly broad statements as to the value of registration and to outline the potential for Creative Commons licensing of images).
Rob
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 08:52:30 AM · #81 |
Not a thread hi-jack at all, just natural evolution of a topic.
Going back to what  Skip said, this isnt a case of me trying to make something bitter taste sweeter, although the point he made is very valid.. To some.
Now I take great pleasure from seeing people enjoy my images, and that person was not trying to pass off the shots as hers, although I will say she didnt really make much of an effort to persuade the viewers they were not hers, all it has taken is a polite email to her, pointing out its my image, and whilst I have no problems with her using it for non-commerical purposes, along with any of my other images, I have asked her to link back & credit me. If she does it, great, if not, then I will sit back and decide whether to pursue it further, or just leave it there and enjoy seeing other enjoy it.
BUT, there is always the chance that something useful may come out of it, whether it be someone after a print or whatever. I am sure all of you who have read one of rants in the past know I am always up for a fight and more often than not will call a spade a spade (although MAK would probably call it a `big tool`). But in this case it aint hurting me too bad, so happy to let it lie and see if I can turn it around to be beneficial in one way or another.
I just wanted to throw another argument into the mix, because generally these posts tend to lead to "BURN THE WITCH!" comments. Hopefully others who are reading this may find my approach more benefical to them, and thus allow others to use their images, albeit in a controled way.
Message edited by author 2007-04-15 09:10:42. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 04:01:54 AM  |
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: 09/13/2025 04:01:54 AM EDT.
|
