DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> has Librodo been ripped?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 86, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/02/2007 02:01:32 AM · #26
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe, backed up pulling samples off of other songs for rap and hip hop. Wouldn't this be the photographic or graphic design equivalent?

Just asking...

This used to be free, think of the Beastie Boys early albums full of Creedence Clearwater and Led Zeppelin licks and samples. Now you must pay to sample anything previously copyrighted. The Beastie Boys record "License To Ill" most likely would not be recorded today as the price for all those samples would be through the roof.
 03/02/2007 02:07:09 AM · #27
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to play devil's advocate here (and believe me, I'm all about copyright and the image is pretty nasty), but wouldn't this fall under the editorial use of copyrighted material?

Selling it is potentially different, however, the Supreme Court, I believe, backed up pulling samples off of other songs for rap and hip hop. Wouldn't this be the photographic or graphic design equivalent?

Just asking...


People still have to get permission and pay for editorial use.
 03/02/2007 02:20:24 AM · #28
... just in case you needed thorough convincing, here is a 70% luminosity blend of the AllFantasyArt.com image over Kiwiness' original.



Notice the head wrap is virtually untouched. Also notice the AllFantasyArt.com Copyright (C) ROFL!

P.S. All I did to the AllFantasyArt.com image was resize it to the same width as the original constraining proportions (showing that he did not even crop a PIXEL off of Kiwiness' image).

Message edited by author 2007-03-02 02:26:24.
 03/02/2007 02:29:24 AM · #29
In my occupation I've had clients bring me copyrighted stuff and ask me to do something similar. The client's lawyers I've spoken with have said that if my work is 10-15% different than the copyright, that it becomes my work and they can defend it.

I tend to push past that - I don't want questions like this to arise. But, from the client lawyers I've been through this with, there's not a lot you can do in this instance. Of course, a judge would have to decide what 10% - 15% change is.

Has anyone else worked in copyrighted areas and found this "rule of thumb"?

Message edited by author 2007-03-02 02:29:56.
 03/02/2007 02:44:51 AM · #30
Here is the same treatment of the librodo ripoff.



Notice that he has not bothered to crop here either.


03/02/2007 02:55:49 AM · #31
This is just horrid. My God! I hope someone can force this person to take those images down. I imagine that when the originals were taken, the subject gave permission to the photograher. If I were the subject and had my face distorted like this I'd never let a camera within 5 miles of me. This is so sickening it almost makes me want to cry.

Just as an idea but if someone were to contact the company that hosts this crap and tell them one of their users was using copyrighted material without permission...
03/02/2007 03:00:45 AM · #32
Just to spare some others, I had a look around and didn't see anything immediately that looked like a DPC pic, but there were two that might be.

Tortured woman and another.

spare yourselves if you don't want to be grossed out though
 03/02/2007 03:34:25 AM · #33
Originally posted by digitalknight:
The client's lawyers I've spoken with have said that if my work is 10-15% different than the copyright, that it becomes my work and they can defend it.


This is sad but true. If someone takes my photo, or any photo from the internet and changes it enough then it is then their photo. Our lawyers told us the same thing. There is nothing I can do about it.

I already saw this photo a year or two ago, I think there is also a thread here on DPC about it.

Message edited by author 2007-03-02 03:35:11.
 03/02/2007 03:51:36 AM · #34
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
The client's lawyers I've spoken with have said that if my work is 10-15% different than the copyright, that it becomes my work and they can defend it.


This is sad but true. If someone takes my photo, or any photo from the internet and changes it enough then it is then their photo. Our lawyers told us the same thing. There is nothing I can do about it.

I already saw this photo a year or two ago, I think there is also a thread here on DPC about it.


Oh - I may have been a bit rash in my rage....I sent this on to there feedback:

I have noticed that several of your images have been STOLEN from dpchallenge.com, re-edited and pedaled as your own with copyright to yourself. This is unacceptable, and I have alerted the authories under:

Violators will at the very least have their Service Provider/ISP cancel their service as outlined in this legislation: //www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

Claim that you use.

I hope this costs you a lot of money in compensation.

opps
 03/02/2007 05:25:02 AM · #35
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
The client's lawyers I've spoken with have said that if my work is 10-15% different than the copyright, that it becomes my work and they can defend it.


This is sad but true. If someone takes my photo, or any photo from the internet and changes it enough then it is then their photo. Our lawyers told us the same thing. There is nothing I can do about it.

I already saw this photo a year or two ago, I think there is also a thread here on DPC about it.


It's not quite that cut and dried technically - but there are sufficiently few practical methods of redress that it is probably not worth sweating over. The value of 640px images is pretty low, so I would be surprised if there was much commercial interest in the revamped images.

If you are going to upload images to the internet, then it is to be expected that people will sometimes borrow/pinch them or parts of them. At 640px, you are not losing much - it should only be treated as a significant issue if you suffer commercially as a consequence.

In practical terms, if someone is so precious about their images that they cannot cope with other people occasionally taking and using their low res images then they should not be uploading to DPC (and possibly not the internet at all). Personally, even if the results were not to my taste, I would take it as something of a compliment if someone chose my image as the basis of expressing their own creativity.
 03/02/2007 06:57:51 AM · #36
I can understand claiming new rights to something if you alter it - ie make it yours - but shouldn't you have had permission to take it in the first place? I can't believe that if a photograph is NOT to be used without permission, that this "use" is indeed in violation of that. Then again, I believe in common sense and I think the law probably differs significantly from what I think.
 03/02/2007 08:06:37 AM · #37
Originally posted by Melethia:
I can understand claiming new rights to something if you alter it - ie make it yours - but shouldn't you have had permission to take it in the first place? I can't believe that if a photograph is NOT to be used without permission, that this "use" is indeed in violation of that. Then again, I believe in common sense and I think the law probably differs significantly from what I think.


No - you are right. The artist took the image unlawfully in breach of copyright. The practical remedies are very limited, however.
 03/02/2007 08:31:39 AM · #38
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
The client's lawyers I've spoken with have said that if my work is 10-15% different than the copyright, that it becomes my work and they can defend it.


This is sad but true. If someone takes my photo, or any photo from the internet and changes it enough then it is then their photo. Our lawyers told us the same thing. There is nothing I can do about it.

I already saw this photo a year or two ago, I think there is also a thread here on DPC about it.


I just want to chime in here on two points. First the photographer has to get a model release in order to utilize the photograph for their portfolio purposes. As that the model gave permission to the photographer to use the photo they DID NOT grant permission to any third party who lifts the image and alters it. If the said model is recognizable in the altered photo then could you not argue a violation on that count?

On another tack there was a news article at dA about license and use of wildlife photographers Mike and Lisa Husar's work. From the said article:

"I̢۪ve spoken with Mike Husar and in order to help him enforce his right to require licensing for the use of Team Husar photography we will be removing all instances of photo manipulations involving their photography, which is actually our standard response to this sort of unauthorized use. However in addition we will also be removing airbrushings, paintings, sketches, and all other reproductions which are clearly based on their photography."

Link to article Team Husar Wildlife Photography

Now admittingly they are big names with a hefty legal team on their side so that may have made all the difference in regards to work of theirs be reproduced or altered.
 03/02/2007 11:26:03 AM · #39
I have exchagned two emails with the owner of the offending site. Below is the email train. Up shot is, he going to take them down in with in 24 Hours.

Long email train below-------------------------------------------------

Thank you Iain, for pointing these out. I decided to
remove the entire photo manipulation section and I
alerted the artist to remove all those pages including
the ones you pointed out.

I will follow up with this when this is done - within
24 hours.

Sincerely,

Gabor

--- Iain John Morrison

Gabor,

Thanks for your speedy reply:

I'm not the original photography of these imgaes,
but belong to community
members who are angry and upset that their images
have been used in this
way.

//www.allfantasyart.com/darkartbizarreface.shtml
was taken from:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111547

//www.allfantasyart.com/darkartfacepain.shtml
was taken from:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=64527

I would appreicate it if these could be removed.

Kind regards,

Iain Morrison

On 02/03/07, Gabor Timis wrote:

Hello,

I am the owner of the domain and website
allfantasyart.com
The artist, Alexandro (from Brazil), created the
3D
images and the photo manipulation.
I suppose you are referring to images within the
photo
manipulation category.

Please send a complete list of the images (with
webpage location) that are yours and we will
promptly
remove them.

I apologize for this. I realize you must feel
outraged
about it.

If you would like to have links to dpchallenge.com
I
will be more than happy to provide links there.

Sincerely,

Gabor Timis

--- iainjohnmorrison@gmail.com wrote:

Form Submission
The following information was submitted on
03-02-2007:

First Name: Iain
Last Name: Morrison
Country: UK
Email Address: iainjohnmorrison@gmail.com
Comments: I have noticed that several of your
images
have been STOLEN from dpchallenge.com, re-edited
and
pedaled as your own with copyright to yourself.
This
is unacceptable, and I have alerted the
authories
under:
Violators will at the very least have their
Service
Provider/ISP cancel their service as outlined in
this legislation:

//www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

Claim that you use.

I hope this costs you a lot of money in
compensation.


Message edited by author 2007-03-02 11:26:53.
 03/02/2007 11:47:21 AM · #40
EDIT - Louis i just noticed that.

Message edited by author 2007-03-02 11:48:30.
 03/02/2007 11:48:15 AM · #41
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Jdannels a little off there bud its actually this shot it had already been identified in the first post from the OP didnt you know?

No. Both pictures were stolen.
 03/02/2007 12:01:34 PM · #42
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
I have exchagned two emails with the owner of the offending site. Below is the email train. Up shot is, he going to take them down in with in 24 Hours.


Excellent work!
 03/02/2007 12:02:09 PM · #43
While I would be quite happy if you guys get this stuff removed, I'll stick by my contention that there is little legal action you could actually take.

Whoever said above that you need permission and to pay for editorial use is pretty well 100% wrong. That's the whole point of editorial use.

I would be pretty outraged if my photos were used in this manner, but I also wonder if we are being a little overzealous in what this thread considers our legal protections.
 03/02/2007 12:07:58 PM · #44
Maybe the models could take action? They obviously don't have a model release :)
 03/02/2007 12:10:38 PM · #45
Artyste pointed out that my image had been used on that site. Someone has fucked with it to make huge eyes and vampire teeth. I contacted the site and politely asked them to remove the item because it was copyrighted to me and that I did not enjoy the representation of my son in such a manner. Gabor politely responsded the image had been remove, which it has.
 03/02/2007 05:28:55 PM · #46
I thought I recognised that one, but I couldn't remember whose it was.
 03/03/2007 12:04:17 PM · #47
I notice that the three photos mentioned are now gone from the site :)
 03/03/2007 12:50:50 PM · #48
U.S. copyright law gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work, here the original photos. I do not see any editorial use - I do see derivation (here the derivative artwork started with the actual original, not just something that looked like it).

Most people give "fair use" way too much reach. With that said, the damages likely are nill to not much unless the works were registered in time for statutory damages (even then, as a practical matter, a judge is not going to award much $$ unless the infringer acted in bad faith and/or made $$ off the infringement). But you should be able to stop publication of an infringement and that usually is enough.
 03/04/2007 05:55:59 AM · #49
Well I'm glad as a community, we managed to get good sense to prevail.

We should be happy with ourselves!
 03/04/2007 06:16:30 AM · #50
Yeah ... great work.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 12:28:04 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/01/2025 12:28:04 PM EDT.