Michael McGowan wrote:
One argument — that tumblr is not a commercial usage — is only true for users, not for the site. The site's advertising provides a tidy income. Without all the pirated material, tumblr would be less popular ... and less profitable.

Which is exactly why I said I'd love to see them sued.  Their business model couldn't survive without theft of images, video, etc.

Jeff Fiore wrote:
This post is talking about Tumblr, not a pay or escort site. If someone posts one of my images on Tumblr because they admire the image, as long as they credit me I don't have a problem with it.

Now a pay/escort site would be different. They are using my images to make money even if it is indirectly and I don't want my images associated with those sites.

by the way...one of these "blogs" I did a DMCA on is just a site to share T&A shots. I did a search on the domain and the "price to purchase the domain" is approximately $10,000 based on the amount of traffic. http://magazine024.com/ .(check it out, your stolen images may be there too.) Tumblr is no different in my opinion. Someone may not be cashing in on just your images directly...they may be using images like these to improve the hit rate on their site so they can sell the site.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

by the way...one of these "blogs" I did a DMCA on is just a site to share T&A shots. I did a search on the domain and the "price to purchase the domain" is approximately $10,000 based on the amount of traffic. http://magazine024.com/ .(check it out, your stolen images may be there too. Tumblr is no different in my opinion. Someone may not be cashing in on just your images directly...they may be using images like these to improve the hit rate on their site so they can sell the site.

thanks very much!

Stephen Markman wrote:
Your response is Ridiculous!

It's a non-commercial site.  No one is profiting from your work.  They are blogging your images, to demonstrate that they appreciate your work and want others to see it.

I could easily make 1000 different legal arguments why you would lose an attempted infringement suit but engaging you in conversation on this subject would be a waste of time.

I notice that you like to use the MM fora as a means of attempting to get free legal advice (e.g. https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 534&page=1 ) but I'd strongly suggest that

a) You calm the hell down about people admiring your work; and
b) That you stop being so damned cheap and invest in a legal consultation so you can know what you're talking about and what, if any, legal remedies you might actually have.


For what it's worth, I just stumbled across this:
http://simplewishes.tumblr.com/post/951 … es-without

and though the blogger was deferential and respectful, I think you came across looking ridiculous. 

This is the internet. If you want to have full control over your image and where it's viewed (non-commercially) DO NOT POST YOUR WORK ONLINE.

Otherwise, put on your big girl panties and just say "Thank You" when people pay you compliments.

It's not ridiculous to want to limit where your images are shown.

Maybe that's not what you're saying is ridiculous.

MC Film wrote:
It's not ridiculous to want to limit where your images are shown.

Maybe that's not what you're saying is ridiculous.

No, what was ridiculous was his message to the host of that particular Tumblr account. 

Rebel Photo wrote:
@ Markman...So how do you know that it wasn't being used in a commercial manner...? huh? answer that...with your snide BS aside ...You don't! 
Fact it, IT WAS on one site! So cut the snide remarks.
Complaining to Congress about unauthorized use of IP is in everyone's best interest! Go ahead and crucify me for that. I also believe the DRM should be implemented and enforced. What I do is none of your business anyway. Sue me!

I follow that particular Tumblr blog and it is, most certainly, a non-commercial use.  Your message to the blogger was inartfully crafted and childish and made you look petty and obstinate. 

-Citing to "Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Code" is an incorrect citation.
-You wrote "Illegal" when you meant "Unlawful"
-You wrote "Prosecuted" when you meant "Sued"
-Saying that the usage was not permitted was, at best, your interpretation of actual relevant law and is likely an incorrect interpretation.


You are correct that what you do is none of my business.  However, you made it EVERYONE's business when you started this thread.

I had already seen the Tumblr post before I saw this thread.  Had you not started this thread (thereby MAKING IT "our" business) I would have simply read your Tumblr post, shaken my head and laughed at you behind your back.

By starting this thread, you have invited all of us to shake our heads and laugh directly at you.

And so we're clear, there is a WORLD of difference between what you call "Unauthorized Use" and what the rest of the world knows to be "fair use." 

I never saw the original Tumblr post (to which you replied) so I don't know what the source of the post was.  If it was linked to somewhere where YOU (or someone who was authorized to post it) posted the image, then there is case-law justifying her linking to it. 

If she right-clicked-copied-saved the image and then posted it (particularly without accreditation) then we would be talking about something very different but . . . that "something different" would almost definitely STILL be found to be a fair use.

Yes, I think the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a serious issue.  Yes, I think photographers need to aggressively protect their property rights.  However, this is a sure case of "crying wolf."  If you bitch & moan when someone makes proper use of an image, then all of us look like a bunch of whiny, cry-babies, hording our art like misers. 

Save the anger, ire and righteousness for a battle worth fighting.

(Also, as I mentioned, from a BUSINESS/Marketing/advertising perspective, yours was absolutely the wrong decision.)

davejulianphotography wrote:
you could argue that posting on tumblr would fall under fair use as a commentary or criticism type use.  most people put a statement like "cool photos that rock!".  that would be a comment about or a positive criticism of the photo.  just a thought...

You could just as easily argue that because in a photograph the amount that is needed is always virtually 100% of it and thus NOT fair use... especially for that ^^^ purpose.

The fair use defence, in general, does not comport with the use of a WHOLE, or SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE, work. In defending a fair use, less is always more.

Then again, any examination of what might be fair use also depends on a balance between multiple factors not just one. The decision, particularly in the courts, is the weight and balance of all the factors combined.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

You could just as easily argue that because in a photograph the amount that is needed is always virtually 100% of it and thus NOT fair use... especially for that ^^^ purpose.

The fair use defence, in general, does not comport with the use of a WHOLE, or SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE, work. In defending a fair use, less is always more.

Then again, any examination of what might be fair use also depends on a balance between multiple factors not just one. The decision, particularly in the courts, is the weight and balance of all the factors combined.

Studio36

I'm going to disagree.

If she linked to a server where HE posted/hosted the image and then commented on how much she likes the photo, it would almost certainly be found to be a Fair Use.

ddtphoto wrote:
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing my work on someones tumbler page unless they are somehow generating income from it. People display images they find on social networks all the time, also graphics, animated gifs, music, music videos etc...
I mean, if it's some sort of online magazine then that's a different matter. Or someone claiming they did your work. But all these people seeing your work and thinking it's cool seems like a bonus to me.

my stance as well.


I'd prefer they link back to me (though, most of the time, they have gotten the images from models pages and not mine), other than that, I don't care. 

I haven't seen anyone try to take credit for my work yet, that would be a different issue.

Stephen Markman wrote:
I'm going to disagree.

If she linked to a server where HE posted/hosted the image and then commented on how much she likes the photo, it would almost certainly be found to be a Fair Use.

Ahhh, but when I do these investigations I tend to ignore those images that are merely externally linked and examine, with interest, where they are linked from. If the source is unauthorised, and then killed, all the linked versions die as well. If the IP owner only objects to the in-link, that is the blogger's use, then it is easy enough to change the file name and the original link disappears.

YouTube, in particular, which serves as much of the embedded source material for bloggers, at least video content, helpfully also substitutes a screen indicating in all the downstream links that the original has been removed on a copyright claim. That screen is then displayed on the blogger's site instead of the original content.

Suits me just fine to manage it that way for my clients. Instead of chasing bloggers all over the place, if it is indeed an infringement, I chase the actual infringer from the start.

Studio36

Stephen Markman wrote:
If she linked to a server where HE posted/hosted the image and then commented on how much she likes the photo, it would almost certainly be found to be a Fair Use.

Interestingly, if one manages their own site it is quite easy using htaccess files to block any in-links at all, or block them selectively. You may or may not then substitute another image, as some do, such as - "linking to this content is not allowed.jpg"

I believe that can also be done just within the page coding itself as well. Using, e.g. Java one could add a directive such as "on hover display > 'linking to this content is not allowed.jpg' + href= blah blah balh" and so forth."

Lastly, don't forget I am operating, and there are a lot of others here as well, in a "fair dealing" country not a "fair use" country.

Studio36

Martin Bielecki wrote:
I love when people reblog my tumblr or add my work to pintrest, weheartit, share on their facebook, etc.. I don't understand the petty insistence that this is "theft". Why keep thinking in that old paradigm? Does it really help you to refuse to see the new paradigm and make the most out of it? I'm happy to share freely AND I'm laughing all the way to the bank. No one is depriving me of anything by telling everyone they know "check out this pic, I LOVE IT!"

http://calgaryphotographer.tumblr.com/
http://www.facebook.com/MartinBieleckiPhoto

You wouldn't be smiling so loud [< a Russian saying] if you operated a subscription website that puts the food on your dinner plate only to find your content all over the web being given away for free.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

You wouldn't be smiling so loud [< a Russian saying] if you operated a subscription website that puts the food on your dinner plate only to find your content all over the web being given away for free.

Studio36

every decent subscription website I know of gives TONS of content away for free. They want it out there, it's the main way they get subscribers in the first place. I don't put all my work online for the same reason. The stuff that's out here being shared is driving a market to me.

Stephen Markman wrote:

MC Film wrote:
It's not ridiculous to want to limit where your images are shown.

Maybe that's not what you're saying is ridiculous.

No, what was ridiculous was his message to the host of that particular Tumblr account. 



I follow that particular Tumblr blog and it is, most certainly, a non-commercial use.  Your message to the blogger was inartfully crafted and childish and made you look petty and obstinate. 

-Citing to "Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Code" is an incorrect citation.
-You wrote "Illegal" when you meant "Unlawful"
-You wrote "Prosecuted" when you meant "Sued"
-Saying that the usage was not permitted was, at best, your interpretation of actual relevant law and is likely an incorrect interpretation.


You are correct that what you do is none of my business.  However, you made it EVERYONE's business when you started this thread.

I had already seen the Tumblr post before I saw this thread.  Had you not started this thread (thereby MAKING IT "our" business) I would have simply read your Tumblr post, shaken my head and laughed at you behind your back.

By starting this thread, you have invited all of us to shake our heads and laugh directly at you.

And so we're clear, there is a WORLD of difference between what you call "Unauthorized Use" and what the rest of the world knows to be "fair use." 

I never saw the original Tumblr post (to which you replied) so I don't know what the source of the post was.  If it was linked to somewhere where YOU (or someone who was authorized to post it) posted the image, then there is case-law justifying her linking to it. 

If she right-clicked-copied-saved the image and then posted it (particularly without accreditation) then we would be talking about something very different but . . . that "something different" would almost definitely STILL be found to be a fair use.

Yes, I think the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a serious issue.  Yes, I think photographers need to aggressively protect their property rights.  However, this is a sure case of "crying wolf."  If you bitch & moan when someone makes proper use of an image, then all of us look like a bunch of whiny, cry-babies, hording our art like misers. 

Save the anger, ire and righteousness for a battle worth fighting.

(Also, as I mentioned, from a BUSINESS/Marketing/advertising perspective, yours was absolutely the wrong decision.)

+1000000000000000000 especially the bit about saving the anger for a battle worth fighting

Martin Bielecki wrote:
every decent subscription website I know of gives TONS of content away for free. They want it out there, it's the main way they get subscribers in the first place. I don't put all my work online for the same reason. The stuff that's out here being shared is driving a market to me.

Yes, but they do it selectively, and they just don't tolerate a free-for-all with their content that is behind the pay wall. Sure the video producers, for example, make trailers that they want spread far and wide pointing back to them; it's a completely different matter when it's an hour and a half of featured paid [on subscription] content; or an unauthorised re-edited version of it.

If YOU don't want to protect YOUR content have at it.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Yes, but they do it selectively, and they just don't tolerate a free-for-all with their content that is behind the pay wall. Sure the video producers, for example, make trailers that they want spread far and wide pointing back to them; it's a completely different matter when it's an hour and a half of featured paid [on subscription] content; or an unauthorised re-edited version of it.

If YOU don't want to protect YOUR content have at it.

Studio36

this discussion is about tumblr and the reblogging of images available (for the most part) outside the pay wall. No one is putting full length videos on tumblr. While there is infringing content there, it can be dealt with appropriately and does not constitute the majority.

Martin Bielecki wrote:
every decent subscription website I know of gives TONS of content away for free. They want it out there, it's the main way they get subscribers in the first place.

in the long run, that business plan is not really sustainable... and many sites are already suffering the consequences. there has become so much free content out there, either stolen or promotional, that there is not much of a reason to pay for anything anymore.

Stephen Markman wrote:
I follow that particular Tumblr blog and it is, most certainly, a non-commercial use.  Your message to the blogger was inartfully crafted and childish and made you look petty and obstinate. 

I had already seen the Tumblr post before I saw this thread.  Had you not started this thread (thereby MAKING IT "our" business) I would have simply read your Tumblr post, shaken my head and laughed at you behind your back.

By starting this thread, you have invited all of us to shake our heads and laugh directly at you.

i know you are an expert in the field, but the OP is not. and you are implying that we should all become legal experts, or hire a lawyer, to defend our rights in cases like this.

that seems like an onerous burden on us.

Martin Bielecki wrote:
I love when people reblog my tumblr or add my work to pintrest, weheartit, share on their facebook, etc.. I don't understand the petty insistence that this is "theft". Why keep thinking in that old paradigm? Does it really help you to refuse to see the new paradigm and make the most out of it? I'm happy to share freely AND I'm laughing all the way to the bank. No one is depriving me of anything by telling everyone they know "check out this pic, I LOVE IT!"

i'm thinking about starting a web site called a million-nudes. i'm going to take a million nude photos off the web, put them on one huge site, with an incredible search engine so people can quickly see whatever they want. and let people make whatever complimentary or rude comments they want on the photos. i'll get tons of traffic and eventually make a killing off of advertising.

thanks for letting me know it's ok to use your photos on my new site.

BeautybyGod wrote:

i know you are an expert in the field, but the OP is not. and you are implying that we should all become legal experts, or hire a lawyer, to defend our rights in cases like this.

that seems like an onerous burden on us.

no he is not implying anything of the sort.  I suggest you read the blog, since you clearly didn't get it from the post (although how you can necessarily get "hire a lawyer" from "Your message to the blogger was inartfully crafted and childish and made you look petty and obstinate"  and "laugh at you behind your back" is frankly beyond me.

BeautybyGod wrote:

i'm thinking about starting a web site called a million-nudes. i'm going to take a million nude photos off the web, put them on one huge site, with an incredible search engine so people can quickly see whatever they want. and let people make whatever complimentary or rude comments they want on the photos. i'll get tons of traffic and eventually make a killing off of advertising.

thanks for letting me know it's ok to use your photos on my new site.

your argument is pointless. you think you're trying show me that I would lose something in that endeavor, that you would be taking from me. the fact is I would put my work on your site myself. and really such a site already exists anyway. it's called MM and your photos are on it. How much was your last check from IB?

Martin Bielecki wrote:
your argument is pointless. you think you're trying show me that I would lose something in that endeavor, that you would be taking from me. the fact is I would put my work on your site myself. and really such a site already exists anyway. it's called MM and your photos are on it.

a better comparison would be how much does IB make from advertising off this site. cuz that will be going to me.

i don't really care if you lose something or not. i'm going to make money off your photos.

Martin Bielecki wrote:
How much was your last check from IB?

and the real question is how much would you make from either site?

i'm sure not going to feel obligated to leave your copyright on there or give you credit.

there ARE (subscription) sites that have submitted galleries of photographer's work already.

-Sebastian- wrote:
My avatar is all over tumblr. Some even converted it to black and white. I'm ok with it - it's flattering. Some link to my MM or Flickr, some don't. Would be nice to get credit, but in the end it doesn't really matter. I even don't care that someone uses my pic to make some money:
http://fashionfinder.asos.com/womens-ou … eige-75105

I would get angry if someone sold it as a poster, though.

but what's the difference really?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

no he is not implying anything of the sort.  I suggest you read the blog, since you clearly didn't get it from the post (although how you can necessarily get "hire a lawyer" from "Your message to the blogger was inartfully crafted and childish and made you look petty and obstinate"  and "laugh at you behind your back" is frankly beyond me.

i followed the link given and all that was there was an apology of some sort.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
although how you can necessarily get "hire a lawyer" from "Your message to the blogger was inartfully crafted and childish and made you look petty and obstinate"  and "laugh at you behind your back" is frankly beyond me.

how you think i made that deduction from what you quoted is beyond me. there was more to the post than that.

BeautybyGod wrote:
i know you are an expert in the field, but the OP is not. and you are implying that we should all become legal experts, or hire a lawyer, to defend our rights in cases like this.

that seems like an onerous burden on us.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should become an expert.  In an ideal world, everyone would know the bare minimum necessary to actually work in the field and know when it is necessary to retain counsel.

That said, what I'm really suggesting is that lawyers are necessary to prosecute most claims (though, admittedly, many non-lawyers are equipped/experienced/intelligent enough to send a simple DMCA Notice, if necessary.)  The trick is knowing WHEN it is necessary to send one.

Having your image linked to a "fan" site where they praise your work and are NOT using it commercially or profiting from you or your work is an instance in which it is not only not necessary to retain counsel; but it's also an instance in which it's not necessary to take any action, at all.

BeautybyGod wrote:

but what's the difference really?

I don't think she makes much money with that fashionfinder page and she is not making any money selling the picture itself. If it was used in a magazine ad by some fashion or beauty house I'd be all over that shit.

BeautybyGod wrote:
i'm thinking about starting a web site called a million-nudes. i'm going to take a million nude photos off the web, put them on one huge site, with an incredible search engine so people can quickly see whatever they want. and let people make whatever complimentary or rude comments they want on the photos. i'll get tons of traffic and eventually make a killing off of advertising.

thanks for letting me know it's ok to use your photos on my new site.

There's a BIG difference between what you're sardonically proposing here and the Tumblr in question; primarily the part I bolded above.  Feel free to click on the link that I provided earlier in this thread to see what the page is and what the OP said on that page.

Stephen Markman wrote:
I'm not suggesting that anyone should become an expert.  In an ideal world, everyone would know the bare minimum necessary to actually work in the field and know when it is necessary to retain counsel.

well i'm with you there. lol

i'm continually surprised at how misinformed some professionals are on here about how things work.

there should be a bitchslap button on here.

Stephen Markman wrote:
Having your image linked to a "fan" site where they praise your work and are NOT using it commercially or profiting from you or your work is an instance in which it is not only not necessary to retain counsel; but it's also an instance in which it's not necessary to take any action, at all.

but that's not all sites like tumblr can be used for... and the burden falls to us to defend ourselves, which over the years can add up to substantial amount of time.

your post seemed a bit cruel for a guy that was just trying to be in control of how his images are used.

Stephen Markman wrote:
I'm not suggesting that anyone should become an expert.  In an ideal world, everyone would know the bare minimum necessary to actually work in the field and know when it is necessary to retain counsel.

There was a statement I encountered recently in discussion [with a lawyer who also sits as a judge] to the effect that:

Everyone has a basic obligation to arrange their business affairs in such as way as to not to, in the first instance, plan to involve the courts.

That is similar to what I have said here in the past, more than once, that when engaging in any undertaking, photographer, model, MUA, retoucher, and so forth, one needs to have some understanding of the "business of the business". Unfortunately many do not.

Studio36