| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2004 03:35:42 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Unbelievable! However, about the argument concerning greater security...
What harm has this woman(?) really done? Of course it is completely wrong, but as far as I can see, the only person who is really losing here is her. When I put my pictures here, and people tell me they like them, I have a reason to feel good about myself. That appears to be the reason why she has done this, but I can't imagine it feels good for long. No-one is making any money from pictures that have been ripped off from here (as far as I'm aware), and I would be flattered if somebody with self-worth issues thought I was worth emulating.
She's even provided us with much entertainment... how funny are those journal entries?!
This person obviously has problems and needs some help.
Bob |
The images she steals from stock sites like Corbis.com belong to honest photographers who are just trying to earn a living. Why should someone PAY an honest fee for the rights to use an image from them if they can get it for far, far less from this scumbag? That is directly affecting someone's paycheck. It's stealing and it's wrong. If I worked at Corbis, or anywhere else and saw this happening with images I was responsible for, I'd be on the phone with my lawyer in a flash. I'd be surprised if the folks at Corbis aren't concerned.
Imagine that you are a client, and you PAY for the right to legally use a stock image for advertising or whatever, then you see a version of it popping up on the web in some schmuck's portfolio with some BS story about how they created it, possibly offereing it for sale.
If photography is just a hobby, and you're not trying to feed your kids doing it, maybe this could be seen as a form of flattery. I just see it as theft. Maybe that's because I've had to make a living at photography before and I know how hard it can be to create quality images and sell them, and I know how I'd feel if those were my images.
EDIT: Sorry, I don't mean to jump down your throat, but this is something that I get worked up about. You're right, this person is pitiful and needs help, therapy or something, but above all, she needs to stop stealing.
Message edited by author 2004-03-30 15:38:51.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:46:34 PM · #102 |
I'm a musician, and perhaps can relate to this in a different way...
If my music popped up on p-p such as Kazaa, I would also feel flattered. Obviously I would want to keep this kind of thing under control, but at the end of the day my music would be getting a wider exposure, more people would become aware of it, and therefore my chances of making money from it would go up.
Let's be realistic here... just how much money do you think professional photographers are really losing from this kind of thing? The people who are doing the ripping off are the real losers here, they can't earn much of a living my doing this, the real photographers find it hard enough! There are easier ways to earn a living than ripping photographs off, I'm sure this is done for totally different reasons. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:50:27 PM · #103 |
OK Bob, to use your analogy, how would you feel if I downloaded your music off Kazaa, renamed it and claimed to have recorded it myself? How would it increase your exposure and ability to earn from it?
Grabbing a pic is one thing but claiming it to be your own is a different matter.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:51:12 PM · #104 |
BTW, I'm sure that people who pay Corbis for photos do it this way for many reasons. The photos will be available in high quality. What use is a 640*480 to most companies? That's not what the photographer is being paid for. Also, they're paying for the convenience of having all their pictures in one place, so they don't have to scout around the web for pictures that have been knocked off. The amount of time it would take someone to search on the internet instead of going straight to Corbis would probably cost more than they would pay for the picture.
Just saying, let's not form an angry mob! |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:52:57 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I'm a musician, and perhaps can relate to this in a different way...
If my music popped up on p-p such as Kazaa, I would also feel flattered. Obviously I would want to keep this kind of thing under control, but at the end of the day my music would be getting a wider exposure, more people would become aware of it, and therefore my chances of making money from it would go up.
Let's be realistic here... just how much money do you think professional photographers are really losing from this kind of thing? The people who are doing the ripping off are the real losers here, they can't earn much of a living my doing this, the real photographers find it hard enough! There are easier ways to earn a living than ripping photographs off, I'm sure this is done for totally different reasons. |
Yes but... this is not grabbing pictures off the web for enjoyment and sharing, this is CLAIMING others work as your own. Big difference IMO
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:53:45 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
OK Bob, to use your analogy, how would you feel if I downloaded your music off Kazaa, renamed it and claimed to have recorded it myself? How would it increase your exposure and ability to earn from it?
Grabbing a pic is one thing but claiming it to be your own is a different matter. |
If it was terrible quality on a community website not making any money, I wouldn't feel threatened by it. If the song picked up, the people who had heard it might be more willing to pay for it, since familiarity is pretty important with many music purchases. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:57:25 PM · #107 |
| I should add that I would not be pleased, and would be angry if someone did this to me, but I'm trying to put it into perspective. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 03:59:36 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I should add that I would not be pleased, and would be angry if someone did this to me, but I'm trying to put it into perspective. |
So they did it to some friends of mine and I'm not very impressed.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 04:00:13 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Let's be realistic here... just how much money do you think professional photographers are really losing from this kind of thing? The people who are doing the ripping off are the real losers here, they can't earn much of a living my doing this, the real photographers find it hard enough! There are easier ways to earn a living than ripping photographs off, I'm sure this is done for totally different reasons. |
How much money does a store lose when a kid rips off a candy bar? Not much. What if a hundred kids do it? Or a thousand?
I know pros who make their living from stock, they work very hard at it.
I agree, these people likely aren't stealing images to make a living, just like many shoplifters can easily afford to just buy what they steal. Just ask Winona. Whatever the motivation, or however small the loss, it's still stealing.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 04:01:59 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
it's still stealing. |
copyright infringement.
Not stealing...
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 04:02:59 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
it's still stealing. |
copyright infringement.
Not stealing... |
still wrong
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 04:09:55 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
it's still stealing. |
copyright infringement.
Not stealing... |
still wrong |
Yup, but not stealing.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 05:34:33 PM · #113 |
how is it not stealing? what does it matter what you call it? if you take what's not yours, it's theft.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
it's still stealing. |
copyright infringement.
Not stealing... |
still wrong |
Yup, but not stealing. |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 05:38:37 PM · #114 |
well, its not "theft" in the legal sense because usage of these images is allowed for some purposes without express permission if done correctly and in compliance with copyright laws. However, the usage she had was not in compliance with copyright laws (ie. she was "passing it off" as her own work) and thus, she was infringing these regulations. Despite our strong feelings about it, her activities were not in contravention of any criminal statute I'm aware of (but I haven't combed through the DMCA to be sure! ;))
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 05:51:32 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
Should drop a link on her page to this thread, then she can see the screen shots and links to the stuff she stole along with everyone else...ironically her avatar is a mask...Id be wearing one too if I was a ripper...lol |
Judging from her last entry, she's already seen this thread. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 05:56:09 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
how is it not stealing? what does it matter what you call it? if you take what's not yours, it's theft.
|
Okay. lets call it murder then.
After all, what does it matter what you call it ?
The reason why I care in this particular case though, is the RIAA and various industry bodies would love if artists would regard copyright infringment as theft.
Obviously if you convert a song to mp3 from a CD that you own - that's theft too -right ? No - it is also copyright infringment but the recording industry would also like you think that that is theft, just like this.
Message edited by author 2004-03-30 18:00:02.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 06:05:08 PM · #117 |
I got one and like a dummy opened and realized what a stupid move that was. I got a virus. The padonock virus. Don't open it!
I can't believe people sit around and make virus' to ruin other peoples fun. grrrr...
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would like to bring something else into this that may, or may not be related. I received a strange email into my account yesterday that I use for dpc pm's, and while the account is also listed on Ebay I don't often get email sent to this account.
Anyway, I'm wondering if other memebers of dpc have gotten this email which was one megabyte in length and had as the subject matter: "rental pictures." It was from JDRP10524@aol.com. I saved the email, but don't open anything from senders that I don't know. I will do so when I can get to the local library and use their public computers.
Don't know if it relates or not but I just thought it a strange email that I've never received anything like that before. Anyone else here get it? |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 06:33:13 PM · #118 |
| Some of you act like someone broke into your house, stole a file and sold it to National Geographic. There are people alot more evil than that person. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 08:05:49 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Obviously if you convert a song to mp3 from a CD that you own - that's theft too -right ? No - it is also copyright infringment but the recording industry would also like you think that that is theft, just like this. |
That's not even copyright infringement. You are ALLOWED to make a copy of a song you buy (for the purpose of time- or media-shifting); it is only copyright infringement if you SELL/DISTRIBUTE those copies to others, thereby depriving the artist/publisher of the opportunity to make those sales.
These photos are at this point landing in the area between fair use and infringement; to actually bring a case for infringement you'd have to
1) register the work yourself
2) Prove that the unauthorized use somehow deprived you of income or diluted the future commercial value of the photo. You can't just put people in jail for using your photo ... the person could possibly be prosecuted on other grounds (like fraud), but not for just the use of the pictures.
Even if you are accused of grand theft (say embezzling $5 million from a bank) they need a warrant to search your home for the evidence. The RIAA and their cohorts in Congress are absolutely gutting the Fourth Amendment completely out of proportion with the harm they risk.
Message edited by author 2004-03-30 20:07:16. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 08:11:19 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I got one and like a dummy opened and realized what a stupid move that was. I got a virus. The padonock virus. Don't open it!
I can't believe people sit around and make virus' to ruin other peoples fun. grrrr...
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would like to bring something else into this that may, or may not be related. I received a strange email into my account yesterday that I use for dpc pm's, and while the account is also listed on Ebay I don't often get email sent to this account.
Anyway, I'm wondering if other memebers of dpc have gotten this email which was one megabyte in length and had as the subject matter: "rental pictures." It was from JDRP10524@aol.com. I saved the email, but don't open anything from senders that I don't know. I will do so when I can get to the local library and use their public computers.
Don't know if it relates or not but I just thought it a strange email that I've never received anything like that before. Anyone else here get it? |
|
I got that message to my dpc (also e-bay) account. Sorry to hear you opened it -- I, luckily, deleted it. I get soo much junk to that ID that I delete 99% and report it as spam (on aol they have a button that I believe is just a feel-good-do-nothing button to report spam as I continue to get it from folks) |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:16:05 PM · #121 |
Ok, Gordon. I had to laugh my head off when I saw one of her new photos and she had written that it was taken without a flash. Then in your comments about the photo you had written "Awesome. Takes a real talent to get red eye without a flash. Well done!" That was great.
One thing that I don't understand about that site is in their forums they have a section in there to report ripped-off photographs, but it says that you can only write in the forums if someone ripped your photos off of Deviant and posted them on another site. They don't want to hear if someone rips something off another site and posts it on Deviant. They'll delete YOUR account for saying anything.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:28:31 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
it's still stealing. |
copyright infringement.
Not stealing... |
still wrong |
Yup, but not stealing. |
Actually you did call it stealing on her web site........but who really cares....why is she allowed to still submit images, why has she not been banned...to me thats the real question.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:39:13 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Obviously if you convert a song to mp3 from a CD that you own - that's theft too -right ? No - it is also copyright infringment but the recording industry would also like you think that that is theft, just like this. |
That's not even copyright infringement. You are ALLOWED to make a copy of a song you buy (for the purpose of time- or media-shifting); it is only copyright infringement if you SELL/DISTRIBUTE those copies to others, thereby depriving the artist/publisher of the opportunity to make those sales.
These photos are at this point landing in the area between fair use and infringement; to actually bring a case for infringement you'd have to
1) register the work yourself
2) Prove that the unauthorized use somehow deprived you of income or diluted the future commercial value of the photo. You can't just put people in jail for using your photo ... the person could possibly be prosecuted on other grounds (like fraud), but not for just the use of the pictures.
Even if you are accused of grand theft (say embezzling $5 million from a bank) they need a warrant to search your home for the evidence. The RIAA and their cohorts in Congress are absolutely gutting the Fourth Amendment completely out of proportion with the harm they risk. |
Actually that's only partially true.
It is only a criminal case if it is for profit. You don't have to have registered or prove damaged to bring a civil suit. You can't claim damages, but it is still illegal use.
As to the fair use doctrine etc, that's exactly why I try very hard to avoid calling it stealing - and also largely why the industry associations are trying so hard to push that meme - after all, there can't be 'only stealing a little bit' |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:40:17 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Actually you did call it stealing on her web site........but who really cares....why is she allowed to still submit images, why has she not been banned...to me thats the real question. |
Yes I did, because I doubt she could understand big words like 'copyright infringement' She doesn't even seem to grasp that what she is doing is illegal and generally kinda sad. |
|
|
|
03/30/2004 09:40:59 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Jubei Kibagami:
One thing that I don't understand about that site is in their forums they have a section in there to report ripped-off photographs, but it says that you can only write in the forums if someone ripped your photos off of Deviant and posted them on another site. They don't want to hear if someone rips something off another site and posts it on Deviant. They'll delete YOUR account for saying anything. |
They actually say how you should report it in that forum. |
|
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: 08/02/2025 05:31:02 PM EDT.
