| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2009 12:51:08 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by lentil:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Jason, glad to hear it's going forward and you will get some resolution.
My question: what size photo did they originally take to "sell" to the childcare photo? Did they use your DPC shot and upsize to billboard size?!?!? |
its not a massive billboard, but around the 5-6 feet mark long perhaps...give or take. I am hopeless with measurements but its not huge |
Apparently the one in Cairns is more like 10 feet by 14 feet. I'm waiting for a pic from some friends of mine who came across it. Amazing what you can do with 640 pixels. |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 01:13:08 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Amazing what you can do with 640 pixels. |
Two words fer ya.....
Genuine Fractals
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:53:31 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Is this about to turn into income that you would not have made if your image had NOT been stolen? |
And your point is....? Expand on this willya?
R. |
Yeah...I just find this one leaning well into irony. There are so many on here bitching and crying that there images aren't properly protected and that they are losing income over the fact. Had the doc's image been slathered with a nasty, unappealing watermark, would it have been swiped? Maybe, maybe not. The image would've needed a hideous, image destroying watermark to be effective in the manner that the company chose to use it. Let's assume that mark was there and the image was completely protected to the point that it could not have been used. If that were the case, watermarking the image would have caused Jason an tangible loss of income as opposed to the imaginary millions that we are all losing with out shots posted on facebook, flickr, and all the other sites. Sure, there are still tons of variables that we cannot even begin to assume. Maybe the image was never noticed in use. Maybe it was just printed and hung in an office somewhere. Even still, there was still ZERO potential or actual income had the image been stamped with a nasty watermark. If money changes hands here, it is solely because the image was 'stolen' and used without permission. That's ironic with all the BS watermarking arguments being tossed to and fro here.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:56:02 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Is this about to turn into income that you would not have made if your image had NOT been stolen? |
And your point is....? Expand on this willya?
R. |
Yeah...I just find this one leaning well into irony. There are so many on here bitching and crying that there images aren't properly protected and that they are losing income over the fact. Had the doc's image been slathered with a nasty, unappealing watermark, would it have been swiped? Maybe, maybe not. The image would've needed a hideous, image destroying watermark to be effective in the manner that the company chose to use it. Let's assume that mark was there and the image was completely protected to the point that it could not have been used. If that were the case, watermarking the image would have caused Jason an tangible loss of income as opposed to the imaginary millions that we are all losing with out shots posted on facebook, flickr, and all the other sites. Sure, there are still tons of variables that we cannot even begin to assume. Maybe the image was never noticed in use. Maybe it was just printed and hung in an office somewhere. Even still, there was still ZERO potential or actual income had the image been stamped with a nasty watermark. If money changes hands here, it is solely because the image was 'stolen' and used without permission. That's ironic with all the BS watermarking arguments being tossed to and fro here. |
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:02:03 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by karmat:
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
Excellent point. Had the company approached me beforehand, I'm guessing my wife would not have consented. She is fairly unhappy about it now and is only willing to work with the company because she believes the bridge has been irrevocably crossed. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:09:45 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Is this about to turn into income that you would not have made if your image had NOT been stolen? |
And your point is....? Expand on this willya?
R. |
Yeah...I just find this one leaning well into irony. There are so many on here bitching and crying that there images aren't properly protected and that they are losing income over the fact. Had the doc's image been slathered with a nasty, unappealing watermark, would it have been swiped? Maybe, maybe not. The image would've needed a hideous, image destroying watermark to be effective in the manner that the company chose to use it. Let's assume that mark was there and the image was completely protected to the point that it could not have been used. If that were the case, watermarking the image would have caused Jason an tangible loss of income as opposed to the imaginary millions that we are all losing with out shots posted on facebook, flickr, and all the other sites. Sure, there are still tons of variables that we cannot even begin to assume. Maybe the image was never noticed in use. Maybe it was just printed and hung in an office somewhere. Even still, there was still ZERO potential or actual income had the image been stamped with a nasty watermark. If money changes hands here, it is solely because the image was 'stolen' and used without permission. That's ironic with all the BS watermarking arguments being tossed to and fro here. |
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
Then why make the informed, intentional decision to post it up on the internet and take that chance anyway? Where is the difference between hanging it on my wall and displaying it on my computer screen. No image is safe on the internet, with or without a crappy watermark. This argument holds no water in my opinion.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 10:10:15. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:23:26 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Is this about to turn into income that you would not have made if your image had NOT been stolen? |
And your point is....? Expand on this willya?
R. |
Yeah...I just find this one leaning well into irony. There are so many on here bitching and crying that there images aren't properly protected and that they are losing income over the fact. Had the doc's image been slathered with a nasty, unappealing watermark, would it have been swiped? Maybe, maybe not. The image would've needed a hideous, image destroying watermark to be effective in the manner that the company chose to use it. Let's assume that mark was there and the image was completely protected to the point that it could not have been used. If that were the case, watermarking the image would have caused Jason an tangible loss of income as opposed to the imaginary millions that we are all losing with out shots posted on facebook, flickr, and all the other sites. Sure, there are still tons of variables that we cannot even begin to assume. Maybe the image was never noticed in use. Maybe it was just printed and hung in an office somewhere. Even still, there was still ZERO potential or actual income had the image been stamped with a nasty watermark. If money changes hands here, it is solely because the image was 'stolen' and used without permission. That's ironic with all the BS watermarking arguments being tossed to and fro here. |
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
Then why make the informed, intentional decision to post it up on the internet and take that chance anyway? Where is the difference between hanging it on my wall and displaying it on my computer screen. No image is safe on the internet, with or without a crappy watermark. This argument holds no water in my opinion. |
your argument or mine? |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:42:03 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by karmat:
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
Excellent point. Had the company approached me beforehand, I'm guessing my wife would not have consented. |
Why? - What's the difference between people seeing your child on a billboard and people seeing your child walking down the street? |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 02:20:05 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Is this about to turn into income that you would not have made if your image had NOT been stolen? |
And your point is....? Expand on this willya?
R. |
Yeah...I just find this one leaning well into irony. There are so many on here bitching and crying that there images aren't properly protected and that they are losing income over the fact. Had the doc's image been slathered with a nasty, unappealing watermark, would it have been swiped? Maybe, maybe not. The image would've needed a hideous, image destroying watermark to be effective in the manner that the company chose to use it. Let's assume that mark was there and the image was completely protected to the point that it could not have been used. If that were the case, watermarking the image would have caused Jason an tangible loss of income as opposed to the imaginary millions that we are all losing with out shots posted on facebook, flickr, and all the other sites. Sure, there are still tons of variables that we cannot even begin to assume. Maybe the image was never noticed in use. Maybe it was just printed and hung in an office somewhere. Even still, there was still ZERO potential or actual income had the image been stamped with a nasty watermark. If money changes hands here, it is solely because the image was 'stolen' and used without permission. That's ironic with all the BS watermarking arguments being tossed to and fro here. |
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
Then why make the informed, intentional decision to post it up on the internet and take that chance anyway? Where is the difference between hanging it on my wall and displaying it on my computer screen. No image is safe on the internet, with or without a crappy watermark. This argument holds no water in my opinion. |
your argument or mine? |
Seriously? |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 02:29:05 PM · #160 |
| Seriously. I suspect you mean mine, but grammatically, the way it is written, "This" refers back to what is immediately preceeding it, which in this case is your argument, so I wanted to make sure before I proceeded. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 04:38:51 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Seriously. I suspect you mean mine, but grammatically, the way it is written, "This" refers back to what is immediately preceeding it, which in this case is your argument, so I wanted to make sure before I proceeded. |
Good, grammatical point. I like my argument but not yours. I have try to do better grammar in the next. ;) |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 05:02:25 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Is this about to turn into income that you would not have made if your image had NOT been stolen? |
And your point is....? Expand on this willya?
R. |
Yeah...I just find this one leaning well into irony. There are so many on here bitching and crying that there images aren't properly protected and that they are losing income over the fact. Had the doc's image been slathered with a nasty, unappealing watermark, would it have been swiped? Maybe, maybe not. The image would've needed a hideous, image destroying watermark to be effective in the manner that the company chose to use it. Let's assume that mark was there and the image was completely protected to the point that it could not have been used. If that were the case, watermarking the image would have caused Jason an tangible loss of income as opposed to the imaginary millions that we are all losing with out shots posted on facebook, flickr, and all the other sites. Sure, there are still tons of variables that we cannot even begin to assume. Maybe the image was never noticed in use. Maybe it was just printed and hung in an office somewhere. Even still, there was still ZERO potential or actual income had the image been stamped with a nasty watermark. If money changes hands here, it is solely because the image was 'stolen' and used without permission. That's ironic with all the BS watermarking arguments being tossed to and fro here. |
however, perhaps a photog doesn't want his daughter's picture hung all over another country/continent and thus, never offered it for sell. . . not saying this is jason's opinion, but not every picture is for sell. |
Then why make the informed, intentional decision to post it up on the internet and take that chance anyway? Where is the difference between hanging it on my wall and displaying it on my computer screen. No image is safe on the internet, with or without a crappy watermark. This argument holds no water in my opinion. |
So? Just because there's access to something doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all. If you invite me into your house, it doesn't make it OK if I steal your TV because it's switched off and you aren't using it.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 19:25:51. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 05:07:11 PM · #163 |
There are really two separate issues here. One is the use of Jason's image without licensing. That part is pretty cut and dry.
The other part is the commercial use of his daughter's likeness without a release, which is generally considered part of the "right to privacy", governed by the states, here in the U.S. It varies from state to state, but generally, a person has the right to control the commercial use of his/her likeness. This is the reason that model releases are required in some cases, but not others. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 08:37:12 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are really two separate issues here. One is the use of Jason's image without licensing. That part is pretty cut and dry.
The other part is the commercial use of his daughter's likeness without a release, which is generally considered part of the "right to privacy", governed by the states, here in the U.S. It varies from state to state, but generally, a person has the right to control the commercial use of his/her likeness. This is the reason that model releases are required in some cases, but not others. |
I'm pretty sure that it's an across the board thing that you don't use a minor's likeness without parental consent.
If not, it darn well should be.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 20:37:37.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:06:24 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are really two separate issues here. One is the use of Jason's image without licensing. That part is pretty cut and dry.
The other part is the commercial use of his daughter's likeness without a release, which is generally considered part of the "right to privacy", governed by the states, here in the U.S. It varies from state to state, but generally, a person has the right to control the commercial use of his/her likeness. This is the reason that model releases are required in some cases, but not others. |
I'm pretty sure that it's an across the board thing that you don't use a minor's likeness without parental consent.
If not, it darn well should be. |
The only reason the parents have anything to do with it is the fact that, by definition, a minor cannot give consent or enter into a legal contract. The laws about the commercial use of a likeness don't really differ based on the age of the subject. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 10:48:58 AM · #166 |
Just a quick note I don't think that the "Photographer" can be a witness on a model release. Wouldn't that be something like a doctor writing himself a prescription?
Jason just have your wife sign the it. (that is if you are at that point)
Which by the way the last update I saw was form Jason on the 5th, what is the status as of today? |
|
|
|
11/23/2009 02:45:56 PM · #167 |
Still working on things, but I'm confident they will go through. Got a picture from our friends in Cairns.
 |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 08:37:25 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judi:
What sites did you have this image on? |
None other than this, although it's been posted on a number of russian blogs. It's been stumbledupon a number of times as well. |
Hmmmm...but your site, linked from your DPC page has the same photo under J--> Photos--> Photography Portfolio and even has a download button. Maybe it was stolen from there and not DPC afterall.
Message edited by author 2009-12-01 08:38:21. |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 08:50:58 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by nursetina:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judi:
What sites did you have this image on? |
None other than this, although it's been posted on a number of russian blogs. It's been stumbledupon a number of times as well. |
Hmmmm...but your site, linked from your DPC page has the same photo under J--> Photos--> Photography Portfolio and even has a download button. Maybe it was stolen from there and not DPC afterall. |
???! It's true. That photo does reside there with a download button. What's up with that? Was posted in April 2006. The size is smaller, and there was a modification on 12/1/2009.
BTW - Hi Chris. After 3 1/2 years you've resurfaced with your 3rd post. Cool! :-) |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 08:55:38 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
BTW - Hi Chris. After 3 1/2 years you've resurfaced with your 3rd post. Cool! :-) |
Isn't that weird how some people do this? I would put this on the suspicious side of the line. |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 09:01:04 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
BTW - Hi Chris. After 3 1/2 years you've resurfaced with your 3rd post. Cool! :-) |
Isn't that weird how some people do this? I would put this on the suspicious side of the line. |
It's really Jason...he's the secret Jekyll and Hyde of DPC. Didn't you know? :-P |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 10:27:18 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by nursetina:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judi:
What sites did you have this image on? |
None other than this, although it's been posted on a number of russian blogs. It's been stumbledupon a number of times as well. |
Hmmmm...but your site, linked from your DPC page has the same photo under J--> Photos--> Photography Portfolio and even has a download button. Maybe it was stolen from there and not DPC afterall. |
Hmm, that's weird. Are you talking about my blog? That's been inactive for years and perhaps they added a download button after? I doubt it came from there though. IIRC back in 2006 if you uploaded a picture there MSFT would compress it to something silly like 30 KB. But, hey, if they got it from that site they would know exactly who to contact about licensing it wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 10:58:32 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Hmm, that's weird. Are you talking about my blog? That's been inactive for years ... |
Yep, August 21st, 2006. Need to get blogging there Jason! :-) Ummm, curious, why do you still display that link on your DPC profile page being that it's so outdated? That's a serious, no sarcasm question. Honest! :-) |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 11:44:20 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Hmm, that's weird. Are you talking about my blog? That's been inactive for years ... |
Yep, August 21st, 2006. Need to get blogging there Jason! :-) Ummm, curious, why do you still display that link on your DPC profile page being that it's so outdated? That's a serious, no sarcasm question. Honest! :-) |
Ya, that's a good question and I'm going to remove it. Thanks for putting two and two together for me. :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 11:59:51 PM · #175 |
Just to update people. We finally have resolution today almost three months later. I knew it would take a while and it is important in situations like this to be patient, but an agreement was reached by both sides and I have licensed the photo of Laine to the childcare company to be used for their advertising.
Now the next step (which may take even longer), is to talk to the company that offered them the photo in the first place. We shall see how that goes... |
|
