Forums > General Industry > Pinterest vs SOPA
guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21896

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

Al Lock Photography wrote:
So, theft of services is still theft... funny how it applies to a hotel room but not to photographs, huh?

It's not a colloquialism. Stealing does not require physically removing something and making it unavailable to the owner. All it requires is taking something you do not have the right to take.

That's why infringement is not theft in a classical sense because theft requires exactly that deprivation of the physical property from it's rightful owner.

It is so in English law and it is so in US law. HOWEVER, English law solved the problem by incorporating infringement [for profit] into the fraud statutes, in particular the Fraud Act 2006. There is a recognition that is manifested there that though the property is not physically dispossessed from it's rightful owner the value, or a portion of the value, of it is. Infringement for personal or business profit is thus treated as a form of fraud by conversion.

Now, in the US one might look to how penalties are imposed and, big as life, there in the Federal criminal statutes Title 18 of the United States Code, and specifically at 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 113 [STOLEN PROPERTY], right there amongst penalties for various "stolen" tangible goods such as vehicles and livestock you find three sections related to copyright - - -
Section 2319 Criminal infringement of a copyright
Section 2319A Unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances
Section 2319B Unauthorized recording of Motion pictures in a Motion picture exhibition facility

These penalties, where the activity is defined as criminal, are in addition to those made out in the copyright statute 17 USC 506

So, yes, infringement IS theft to the extent that it deprives the rightful owner not of the property itself but rather of it's value.

Conversion, classically, is the adaptation of someone else's property to your own use and for your own benefit. The essence of conversion, however, is not benefit to the wrongful taker but detriment to the rightful owner. That pretty well describes the nature of infringement as well.

Studio36

Apr 14 12 08:34 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:
For 14 years plus one 14 year extension.  Not 70 years after the death of the creator.

Having perpetual copyright reduces incentive to create more works.

Actually, the US Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power ....

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Might bother to actually read the document before making false claims.

Apr 14 12 11:04 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Actually, the US Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power ....

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Might bother to actually read the document before making false claims.

Yes, a limited time of 14 years.  The copyright act 1790 clearly states 14 years, plus an optional extension of 14 years if the author is still alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

There was no specific term listed in the Constitution.

Apr 15 12 07:14 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:

Yes, a limited time of 14 years.  The copyright act 1790 clearly states 14 years, plus an optional extension of 14 years if the author is still alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

There was no specific term listed in the Constitution.

It seems you have a hard time understanding the difference between the enumerated powers of the Constitution and specific legislation. The Copyright Act of 1790 is no longer in effect. It's been replaced. But the clause of the Constitution providing the power to Congress to provide those protections still is in effect. And Congress has done so in the form of the current protections and legislation.

The average lifespan in 1790 was 45. Currently, it's close to 80. Think that might make a difference in how copyright protections are provided?

Apr 15 12 10:14 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:

It seems you have a hard time understanding the difference between the enumerated powers of the Constitution and specific legislation. The Copyright Act of 1790 is no longer in effect. It's been replaced. But the clause of the Constitution providing the power to Congress to provide those protections still is in effect. And Congress has done so in the form of the current protections and legislation.

The average lifespan in 1790 was 45. Currently, it's close to 80. Think that might make a difference in how copyright protections are provided?

And you seem to be interested in nitpicking every point you can.  No one is disputing that the government has the right to enact copyright legislation.  Your assertion that long copyright periods stimulates creativity is what I am disputing.

IMO, lifespan has nothing to do with the continuing extensions to copyright.  Corporations have driven that far more than any individual has, as they have a much greater incentive to maintain control of the copyrights that they hold for a longer time than an individual would.

My opinion is that shorter copyright terms will actually increase 'creativity'.  If you can't milk a successful work for your entire life, then you will have a very big incentive to create more works. 

IMO, all this is really moot anyway.  The people who are driven to create will do so whether or not they have copyright protection on their side.  The group that is helped the most by long copyrights are corporations that profit from holding copyrights, and can afford to pay lawyers to enforce those copyrights.

Pinterest is not the problem, it is merely indicative of larger problems with copyrights.

Apr 15 12 10:45 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21896

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

David Parsons wrote:
Pinterest is not the problem, it is merely indicative of larger problems with copyrights.

Why not just take a retrograde step and declare [as it used to be - and this is absolutely true of how it used to be in US law] that NO copyright at all subsists in a work until, and unless, it is "published", but where mere display of the work, as on your website, is not "publishing" it.

Then everyone can steal "create" all they like.

Studio36

Apr 16 12 01:01 am Link

Photographer

JohnEnger

Posts: 783

Jessheim, Akershus, Norway

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Taking my property without my permission is theft. No way around it. Regardless of what pirates want to claim.

I don't agree. If the person you claim is a thief, took your image, and left you without that image, that would be considered theft. But since you still have your image, it's considered infringement.

I'm not by any means supporting those who use other peoples work without permission, or paying for it, but if the copyrighers are to be take seriously, they should get their terms correct.

And the claims of gazillions of dollars lost is not really 100% accurate. It he material copied or downloaded was not done so illegally, it does not always mean that the infringer would have bought it if it could not be copied.

I just wish both parties in this debate would add some realism to their claims and statements. Because I think that is currently not the case.


J.

Apr 16 12 01:32 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:
Corporations have driven that far more than any individual has,

I'm sure ASMP, APA and the other organizations that represent individual artists would be very surprised to hear this. You might want to take the time to learn a bit about the history of copyright legislation from a source other than the pirate crowd.

Apr 16 12 01:56 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

JohnEnger wrote:

I don't agree. If the person you claim is a thief, took your image, and left you without that image, that would be considered theft. But since you still have your image, it's considered infringement.

Same question for you that I asked someone else.

If someone checks into a hotel room, spends the night and leaves without paying their bill, what crime have they committed?

Apr 16 12 01:57 am Link

Model

Kristen Gandy

Posts: 51

Albuquerque, New Mexico, US

Whats a pintrest? I dont know how anyone even has room for another social networking thing in their life. In fact, I don't even know if I have the energy to go google it...

Apr 16 12 02:00 am Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:

I'm sure ASMP, APA and the other organizations that represent individual artists would be very surprised to hear this. You might want to take the time to learn a bit about the history of copyright legislation from a source other than the pirate crowd.

Continually calling me a pirate does you no favors.

Apr 16 12 05:37 am Link

Model

Deadlynightshade

Posts: 4774

Los Angeles, California, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Which is why the founding fathers of the United States put into the Constitution the power to protect intellectual property. Because without protection (as the Soviet Union found out so well), people won't exchange ideas or innovate. There is no incentive to do so.

Yes, I won't disagree with anything the founding fathers believed in, but these "rights" are man-made rights, dictated by men. I'm not sure I agree with people not exchanging ideas without protection...there is a whole world out there with free-exchange systems. Look at linux and linux-based software, all available for free. This materialism to "own" everything is ridiculous if you look at it from the bigger picture.

Apr 16 12 07:17 am Link

Model

Deadlynightshade

Posts: 4774

Los Angeles, California, US

somethingproductions wrote:
Ironic side note to the OP
by asking for a solution to this problem, you are basically asking someone to submit an idea that is arguably worth money and post it here for anyone to freely market and make money from.
We are in a strange transitional age where not only ideas but even vague concepts can be turned into money.

Holy f&*% this is EXACTLY my point! I'm sure this poster wrote this in jest, but the thought is still the same: Because the need to "own" everything innovation is restricted. Like this person stated, submitting an idea in which someone could make money, may restrict those with worthwhile ideas.

Apr 16 12 07:20 am Link

Photographer

redbanana

Posts: 777

Lexington, Kentucky, US

291 wrote:

it isn't always the case where work can't be used without being paid for, it might go to just seeking permission and one granting it without be compensated.  it's where such permission isn't sought where the problem(s) lie.

for a site like pinterest to survive without conflict to intellectual property owners the solution is to allow only material uploaded by those who own title to the property.  then, users/members could purchase the rights to make an interesting user experience on their pinboard.

with that comes some inherent problems.  one, photographers/artists would probably charge too much and two, users simply wouldn't purchase the work for a pinboard as they are already accustomed to simply taking it from other sites as they do now so they would opt out of using the site.

the answer is to think in terms of gumballs.  think nickels, dimes and quarters instead of dollars.  create an annual fee to participate then return that fee through low cost use of imaging.  as well, offer low-cost use by members paying (x) to join the site that gives token value for purchasing items to pin.

without the brass tax of a business plan to work out the actual costs, let's say a photographer/artist pays $100 annually.  each piece of work that is displayed on member pinboards brings a return of a token value each time an image is used.  the site retains the member fees from both artists and pinning members, the artist is paid for each image used based on the low-cost token value.

the site protects the integrity of intellectual property, the owner of such property is compensated with return based on strength of numbers, a nickel, dime or a quarter at a time with "pinned counters" to ensure accounting integrity.  somewhat similar to a stock photography concept, but return comes from sheer numbers of images used, not just a big payday from a single image (although a single image could create hundreds or even thousands of pins).

as per thinking gumballs, my neighbor growing up owned penny gumball machines all over town.  they paid a fee to place their machines in stores and kept all the sales.  they had the biggest house in the neighborhood along with all the toys a modern family could want.

the difficult thing about creating the answer is the cat is out of the bag from sites like pinterest who have built a business model on allowing users to go get any imaging out there to pin without both penalty and compensation.  that makes it a difficult egg to put back into the shell.

Apr 16 12 07:37 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

Deadlynightshade wrote:

Yes, I won't disagree with anything the founding fathers believed in, but these "rights" are man-made rights, dictated by men. I'm not sure I agree with people not exchanging ideas without protection...there is a whole world out there with free-exchange systems. Look at linux and linux-based software, all available for free. This materialism to "own" everything is ridiculous if you look at it from the bigger picture.

By choice. Not by theft.

You do understand that those who work on Linux do so by choice, share by choice, and some choose to get paid for their work on Linux?

Apr 16 12 10:59 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:

Continually calling me a pirate does you no favors.

Continually supporting those who facilitate and encourage the infringement on intellectual property does you none.

Apr 17 12 09:42 am Link

Wardrobe Stylist

H Jules

Posts: 303

Brooklyn, New York, US

Svend wrote:
It's a fantasy.  Human nature is no longer capable of compromise.  Those days have come and gone.  We're doomed.

We have been doomed. LOL

Apr 17 12 09:47 am Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Since Al Lock felt the need to send me emails to me after I blocked him here, I'm going to post the same thing that I sent to him via email:

------
Al, tries to demonstrate that I am stupid by linking to a file:


Subject:  That you are too fucking stupid to follow your own directions…


A pin in Pinterest:

http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/uploa … SRP8_b.jpg

Click on it and here’s where you go:

http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/uploa … SRP8_f.jpg

So much for your claims.

Like I said, you’d already been proven to be wrong, but you really aren’t smart enough to figure this out, are you?

Or do you work for Pinterest?

-----------

How about this little demonstration:

Pin:  http://pinterest.com/pin/277815870733615710/

Link back/click through:
http://www.homedsgn.com/2012/04/16/mali … ssociados/
(12th image down on the page)

Image URL on Pinterest:
http://media-cache6.pinterest.com/uploa … YfZG_f.jpg

Grabbing the URL of the file on Pinterest and expecting it to go
anywhere but back to Pinterest shows complete ignorance of how the
Internet works.  I can make any picture link to anywhere else on the
web no matter where it's hosted.

http://home.comcast.net/~david.parsons2 … e/Jackass/

Hmm, the file is hosted on MM, but the picture links to Netflix.  But
if you copy the source location like you did it will never show where
the click through points to (don't worry, I didn't steal your file, I
just linked to it).

--------

So, not only did Al feel the need to track me down after questioning my age and experience, he completely misunderstands how the internet works, and completely failed to refute anything with his email.

So, I have proven that Pinterest links back/clicks through to the source web page when pins come from a website.

I'm done trying to prove anything to Al, or even have a discussion with him.

Apr 17 12 11:07 am Link

Model

The Grace Gabbana

Posts: 351

Santa Rosa, California, US

Here's the point; we're in the middle of an economic downfall, and everyone is scrambling for ways to get money, but there just isn't money out there. And, let's face it; art is the last thing people spend their money on during an economic crisis.

So let's be realistic - people need art most now, and the people who need art the most are probably the least capable of paying to view it.

You get what you pay for? I don't pay anything at all to view the works of the greatest artists; Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, I could go on forever and explore hundreds of genres... For free. As a creator, you have a duty to be honest with yourself. Is your work more valuable than the creations of the great artists that I view for free? Let me answer: hell fucking no. Let me tell you something else, none of those people were trying to profit from their ideas and creations; they were trying to change the world, which means they were hoping OTHERS would profit from their ideas and creations.

That's really the point you're missing. Art is for the sake of the world, not something to be owned and regulated. Art is free expression, so why would we try to put a price on it? Some things are far too valuable to put a price-tag on. Do tou know what that's called? It's called priceless. Art is the antithesis of money. Art is money's arch-nemesis. People who try to capitalize off their creations are not artists. They're spiritual and emotional mongers, trying to put a price on our feelings, and charge us for the experience. There is no freedom in something you have to pay to view. Art is freedom.

The compromise is to be a competent enough photographer that clients are hiring and paying you on a regular basis. To do your job well enough that you are financially stable. So that when you do make art, you make it for art's sake. So that when you see your image displayed somewhere, you are grateful for the publicity, and comfortable knowing that your style is a signature everyone can recognize.

Stop this selfish nonsense. As a creator, your job is to contribute or share, not to take. Once you have become expert at this, then you start getting hired and paid.

As for the hotel room analogy, here's another:

If a man loses his job, his wife, his child, and his home, and he sleeps in a hotel room for one night, and doesn't pay; which matters more? The money the hotel lost, or the comfort it gave that man for one night? You are all fools besides one model who has been making some superb posts. Don't miss the point of being a human being. What good is a compromise between the illogical, and the irrational?

The answer is clear. Grow up, stop being selfish and unmotivated, if you can't earn money in this industry without suing people for copyright infringement, then find another job.

Apr 17 12 11:11 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:
Since Al Lock felt the need to send me emails to me after I blocked him here, I'm going to post the same thing that I sent to him via email:

------
Al, tries to demonstrate that I am stupid by linking to a file:


Subject:  That you are too fucking stupid to follow your own directions…


A pin in Pinterest:

http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/uploa … SRP8_b.jpg

Click on it and here’s where you go:

http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/uploa … SRP8_f.jpg

So much for your claims.

Like I said, you’d already been proven to be wrong, but you really aren’t smart enough to figure this out, are you?

Or do you work for Pinterest?

-----------

How about this little demonstration:

Pin:  http://pinterest.com/pin/277815870733615710/

Link back/click through:
http://www.homedsgn.com/2012/04/16/mali … ssociados/
(12th image down on the page)

Image URL on Pinterest:
http://media-cache6.pinterest.com/uploa … YfZG_f.jpg

Grabbing the URL of the file on Pinterest and expecting it to go
anywhere but back to Pinterest shows complete ignorance of how the
Internet works.  I can make any picture link to anywhere else on the
web no matter where it's hosted.

http://home.comcast.net/~david.parsons2 … e/Jackass/

Hmm, the file is hosted on MM, but the picture links to Netflix.  But
if you copy the source location like you did it will never show where
the click through points to (don't worry, I didn't steal your file, I
just linked to it).

--------

So, not only did Al feel the need to track me down after questioning my age and experience, he completely misunderstands how the internet works, and completely failed to refute anything with his email.

So, I have proven that Pinterest links back/clicks through to the source web page when pins come from a website.

I'm done trying to prove anything to Al, or even have a discussion with him.

You blew it.

The links I provided proved that pinterest hosts the full-size image. So do the links you provided. You didn't bother to pin one of your own images and then take down the original from your site to see if the pins came down. If you had, you would have discovered they don't. The one demonstrating that he doesn't understand how the internet works is you. It's real simple. Pinterest hosts more than just thumbs, they host the full-size images, in violation of the finding of Perfect 10, inc. vs Google. In addition, they strip the meta-data from those images, in violation of the DMCA.

Tell me again how you understand?

Apr 17 12 09:16 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

The Grace Gabbana wrote:
I don't pay anything at all to view the works of the greatest artists; Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton,

Do you really think you can wander the halls of the Louvre, of the Met, of MOMA for free?

Who do you think pays for those facilities? For their upkeep?  For the documentation, guards, staff, and everything else involved?

TANSTAAFL

The problem with some people is that they haven't learned the truth of that.

I find it kind of ironic that you make one claim for artists and then justify someone stealing because they can't afford the hotel room. That person is probably a starving artist because people that think like you are stealing the fruits of their labor.

Apr 17 12 09:20 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:
You blew it.

The links I provided proved that pinterest hosts the full-size image. So do the links you provided. You didn't bother to pin one of your own images and then take down the original from your site to see if the pins came down. If you had, you would have discovered they don't. The one demonstrating that he doesn't understand how the internet works is you. It's real simple. Pinterest hosts more than just thumbs, they host the full-size images, in violation of the finding of Perfect 10, inc. vs Google. In addition, they strip the meta-data from those images, in violation of the DMCA.

Tell me again how you understand?

Sigh.  I never said that they didn't store files on their servers.  That has never been in dispute with anyone in this or the other threads.  I know full well how the site works.

You claim that they don't link back to the source.  They do.

And another thing.  I really don't care how you feel about this situation.  I have asked you to stop emailing me at my personal email address, yet you continue to do so, haranguing me.  If you do it again, you will be CAM'd for harassment.

Apr 17 12 09:38 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:

Sigh.  I never said that they didn't store files on their servers.  That has never been in dispute with anyone in this or the other threads.  I know full well how the site works.

You claim that they don't link back to the source.  They do.

No, I claim they don't leave the content on the source and link to it (as required by the finding against Google). That's called linked content (or hot linking).

It's a really basic part of how the internet works.

They don't display the content from your site. They display the content from their servers. Which means you can't remove it. You can't change it. And you can't control it.

Even though as the copyright holder, those are your rights.

Btw, where did this pin come from?

http://pinterest.com/pin/282530576592872821/

Oh, wait, there is no link....

And another thing.  I really don't care how you feel about this situation.  I have asked you to stop emailing me at my personal email address, yet you continue to do so, haranguing me.  If you do it again, you will be CAM'd for harassment.

Wow. Gee, I'm worried about what a piracy advocate is going to do...

Apr 17 12 09:47 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Btw, where did this pin come from?

http://pinterest.com/pin/282530576592872821/

Oh, wait, there is no link....

Uploaded by user

Apr 17 12 10:00 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

So, in other words, source is unknown and not linked...

Turn brain on, David....

Oh, and for those that claim piracy isn't theft?

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/201 … -it-theft/

Apr 17 12 10:11 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:
So, in other words, source is unknown and not linked...

Turn brain on, David....

When the file is uploaded by the user, there isn't a link because it comes from the user's computer.

When the picture is linked from a webpage, there is a link back to the source page.

There's no way to make it any clearer.

Apr 17 12 10:16 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:

When the file is uploaded by the user, there isn't a link because it comes from the user's computer.

When the picture is linked from a webpage, there is a link back to the source page.

There's no way to make it any clearer.

And neither is controlled by the Copyright owner, which is the whole point!!!

Someone uploads one of your photos from their computer, how do you find it, David?
How does it push traffic to your website?

Instead, let's say they pin from your website. The full-size image is on Pinterest. Why should they go to your website? What is the benefit? They've already seen the full-size image.

What's your point, David?

That Pinterest is detrimental to photographers?

That's pretty clearly established.

Apr 17 12 10:35 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:
That Pinterest is detrimental to photographers?

That's pretty clearly established.

And I disagree.  IMO, it's not detrimental.

To you it is.  That is fine.  I have no problem with you having your opinion.

What I have a problem with is your attitude that you are the only person that can possibly be right, and the way you choose to argue your point, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a pirate.

Apr 17 12 10:45 pm Link

Photographer

howard r

Posts: 513

Los Angeles, California, US

The Grace Gabbana wrote:
Stop this selfish nonsense. As a creator, your job is to contribute or share, not to take.

and yet you are a "paid only" model - lol

so to make sure i got this straight:

#1 you make money (take)

#2 the websites who post the photographs make money from advertisers (take)

#3 and the photographer who creates the image "contributes" (give)

fascinating perspective . . .

Apr 18 12 10:26 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

David Parsons wrote:

And I disagree.  IMO, it's not detrimental.

To you it is.  That is fine.  I have no problem with you having your opinion.

What I have a problem with is your attitude that you are the only person that can possibly be right, and the way you choose to argue your point, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a pirate.

Read the DMCA
Read the finding regarding Google Images

Apr 19 12 01:02 am Link

Photographer

howard r

Posts: 513

Los Angeles, California, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:

By choice. Not by theft.

You do understand that those who work on Linux do so by choice, share by choice, and some choose to get paid for their work on Linux?

exactly.

it's ridiculous that an artist should have his or her artwork turned over to the public without their consent, and if they object, find themselves being called "greedy" and "materialistic".

it is also absurd that there would be one standard for say, a sculptor, whose worked cannot be digitized, and a photographer (or musician) whose work can be digitized.

Apr 20 12 07:32 pm Link

Model

KCLynne

Posts: 466

Omaha, Nebraska, US

I kinda of look at it this way.  Remember back when you were in Jr High, High School, College, and maybe even Grad School and all those LOOOONG term papers you had to write.  You had to cite all your sources otherwise it would be considered plagerizing.  Now, since we are on the subject of intellectual property, would that not also then deem anything that is written by a journalist, writer or text book author?  If everyone starts charging for their intellectual property to be used, or has to at least give permission, then I'd like to know, are we going to start charging our students so that they can learn?  I've been a writer for years.  Every editorial I write, I WANT people to "pin" it or "tag" it, or "share" it.  Why, because I have something to say I want it to get out.  I look at it this way, if someone likes my work so much, when I finally get around to publishing something, they actually BUY it because they want to.  Just like, when a new musicians album comes out.  If I download one or two songs to get an idea of the album and I like it, I'll actually go buy the album.  As for Pinterest.  I've come across some amazing pieces of art, that I never would have found had it not been for someone 'pinning" it to their wall.  I've since found and bought two pieces to hang in my house and am on the search for the others.  Those couple of pins, that really cost nothing, just scored that artist a sale.  If I see something that I like so much I will go out and buy the real deal. 

I live in a small farm town.  There aren't exactly a lot of places for me to go where I can see amazing works of art.  So I find these special gems on Pinterest and I search the artist and whatever piece I've fallen in love with, so that I can purchase it.  I would gladly allow samples to go out for the world to see that way people could search me out and purchase whatever it is that I'm producing.  That's where the money is made.  Yes, you have a right to your intellectual property.  You have a right to not have your stuff stolen.  But honestly, if some people would just be smart about it, they would see that allowing others to be able to sample their work could in fact be more beneficial then putting all these restrictions on it.

So, to get to my point.  In order for this to work, the "owner" releases a few samples that he or she (or they if a corporation) is ok with the public having.  The public in turn will search out the artists (or writer or what have you) to see more of their works.  Of course most will do this by way of the internet, SOOOO, you make sure anything other than the few samples you have put out have watermarks or whatever the owner can think of so that the property cannot be recreated without it basically being destroyed.  If the consumer is interested enough in the samples, they will go searching for more information and, because we have become such a materialist society, will buy items, because "We just have to have whatever is cool at the moment."   That is my solutions.  Owners put out limited samples for publc use, consumer likes what he or she sees, and in turn wants more, which will result in making a purchase of the orginal item as well as more, meaning more money for the Owner. 

I don't know, but to me it seems like a win win for everyone.

Apr 20 12 10:51 pm Link

Hair Stylist

johnylive

Posts: 4

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

Interesting discussion. Seems to me that the owner of a property should have the right to say how it is used.

Apr 21 12 12:49 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

KCLynne wrote:
Now, since we are on the subject of intellectual property, would that not also then deem anything that is written by a journalist, writer or text book author?  If everyone starts charging for their intellectual property to be used, or has to at least give permission, then I'd like to know, are we going to start charging our students so that they can learn?  I've been a writer for years.

Have you ever bothered to read the Copyright Act?

You're a writer. It effects you. Have you read it?

Have you written any books?

Would you be happy to have a book you had written copied by someone else and sold or distributed for free?

Apr 21 12 12:51 am Link

Model

KCLynne

Posts: 466

Omaha, Nebraska, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Have you ever bothered to read the Copyright Act?

You're a writer. It effects you. Have you read it?

Have you written any books?

Would you be happy to have a book you had written copied by someone else and sold or distributed for free?

First off if you had actually read everything you would have seen where I said something along the lines of wiring one SOMEDAY, which would I'm fact mean that I had not.  But to answer your question, would it bother me, not really.  For starters I'm more of an editorialist.  Everything I write is put on the web by me at no cost to me for the whole purpose of actually HOPING that people will redistribute it.  If that what it takes to get my message out so be it.  The only name even attached to my work is my blog name.  It's actually an amazing feeling to be discussing something with a person and they quote something from a piece I wrote.  At least I know my message is getting out there.

Im actually surprised.  Do you think so highly of yourself and think your so "big named" that a little free publicity will actually harm you?  I'm going to guess that at one time when you were just starting out, if somehow people came up to you asking for you to shoot them based on an image they saw that was passed on you'd have been stoked to get any work, but now you're to good for that?  No publicity, well means no publicity.  Bad, good, and questionable publicity, hey, it gets people talking.  The more people know your name the more work you could get. The more money you make, since, the way I see it, this whole issue with people downloading or using someone else's intellectual property is more about money than anything.  That's how it started in Hollywood.  So basically greedy uppity, too good for everyone else, celebrities (and wanna be celebs) are losing out on some precious dollars.  The funny thing is, I could easily download one of your photos, and upload it elsewhere, and you'd probably be none the wiser.  How the hell do you think you're going to stop that?  Oh wait, that's right...SOPA and all the other acts that are really not about protecting your precious intellectual property but stripping away our basic America freedoms.  But, as your profile says your from Thailand.  What do you care?  Most those governments spy on their citizens throughout the interwebs anyway.

Apr 21 12 06:40 am Link

Model

KCLynne

Posts: 466

Omaha, Nebraska, US

The Grace Gabbana wrote:
Here's the point; we're in the middle of an economic downfall, and everyone is scrambling for ways to get money, but there just isn't money out there. And, let's face it; art is the last thing people spend their money on during an economic crisis.

So let's be realistic - people need art most now, and the people who need art the most are probably the least capable of paying to view it.

You get what you pay for? I don't pay anything at all to view the works of the greatest artists; Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, I could go on forever and explore hundreds of genres... For free. As a creator, you have a duty to be honest with yourself. Is your work more valuable than the creations of the great artists that I view for free? Let me answer: hell fucking no. Let me tell you something else, none of those people were trying to profit from their ideas and creations; they were trying to change the world, which means they were hoping OTHERS would profit from their ideas and creations.

That's really the point you're missing. Art is for the sake of the world, not something to be owned and regulated. Art is free expression, so why would we try to put a price on it? Some things are far too valuable to put a price-tag on. Do tou know what that's called? It's called priceless. Art is the antithesis of money. Art is money's arch-nemesis. People who try to capitalize off their creations are not artists. They're spiritual and emotional mongers, trying to put a price on our feelings, and charge us for the experience. There is no freedom in something you have to pay to view. Art is freedom.

The compromise is to be a competent enough photographer that clients are hiring and paying you on a regular basis. To do your job well enough that you are financially stable. So that when you do make art, you make it for art's sake. So that when you see your image displayed somewhere, you are grateful for the publicity, and comfortable knowing that your style is a signature everyone can recognize.

Stop this selfish nonsense. As a creator, your job is to contribute or share, not to take. Once you have become expert at this, then you start getting hired and paid.

As for the hotel room analogy, here's another:

If a man loses his job, his wife, his child, and his home, and he sleeps in a hotel room for one night, and doesn't pay; which matters more? The money the hotel lost, or the comfort it gave that man for one night? You are all fools besides one model who has been making some superb posts. Don't miss the point of being a human being. What good is a compromise between the illogical, and the irrational?

The answer is clear. Grow up, stop being selfish and unmotivated, if you can't earn money in this industry without suing people for copyright infringement, then find another job.

I couldn't agree more.  When it comes down to it, greed and being power hungry is what is driving this from both sides politically and "artistically" speaking.  As for the hotel room analogy, I'm a perfect example of that.  Lost my job, lost my house.  Paid for as much time in a hotel with me and my two kids until I couldn't afford it.  But I stayed until I could think of another way.  Charge me for theft if you life, you precious 50 bucks a night is not worth nearly as much as that of my life or my children's.  I'm now waiting for Mr. Al to start calling me a horrible person because I'm now considered a theif in his eyes.  In mine however, I am a mother who at one time in her life did whatever it took to keep a roof over her kids heads.

Apr 21 12 06:57 am Link

Photographer

howard r

Posts: 513

Los Angeles, California, US

KCLynne wrote:
I couldn't agree more.  When it comes down to it, greed and being power hungry is what is driving this from both sides politically and "artistically" speaking.  As for the hotel room analogy, I'm a perfect example of that.  Lost my job, lost my house.  Paid for as much time in a hotel with me and my two kids until I couldn't afford it.  But I stayed until I could think of another way.  Charge me for theft if you life, you precious 50 bucks a night is not worth nearly as much as that of my life or my children's.  I'm now waiting for Mr. Al to start calling me a horrible person because I'm now considered a theif in his eyes.  In mine however, I am a mother who at one time in her life did whatever it took to keep a roof over her kids heads.

so, financially troubled, fiercely protective mother of two - what would you do if someone took a short story of yours that you posted online, and used it as the basis for a hit television show?

would you call an intellectual property attorney and say "I wrote this. they have NO RIGHT to just take it. i did this by candlelight because i couldn't afford the electricity. IT'S MY STORY! i could put my kids through college with this money!"?

or would you say "gosh - i'm just thrilled my words meant something to so many people"?

Apr 21 12 10:35 am Link

Model

KCLynne

Posts: 466

Omaha, Nebraska, US

howard r wrote:
so, financially troubled, fiercely protective mother of two - what would you do if someone took a short story of yours that you posted online, and used it as the basis for a hit television show?

would you call an intellectual property attorney and say "I wrote this. they have NO RIGHT to just take it. i did this by candlelight because i couldn't afford the electricity. IT'S MY STORY! i could put my kids through college with this money!"?
or would you say "gosh - i'm just thrilled my words meant something to so many people"?

I never said at this moment that I was financially strapped for starters. But seriously???  If I was THAT financially strapped to where I couldn't afford electricity do you really think I'd be writing a short story???  No, I'd trying to figure out a way to get out of my situation.  But to answer your question....I would be thrilled.  I write because I love to.  Because it means something to me.  Just because I model because I enjoy, and I sing because it makes me happy.  I'd do it for free.  I don't do this to be rich and to make a ton of money, I do this because I really want to, and because I love what I do.  The problem here with so many is $$$$$$.   When you stop doing stuff because you love it, and start worrying about the $$ you can get from it, then why are you still doing it.  I'm a firm believer in doing things that you love and make you happy.  If you happen to get paid in the process that's great.  If not, at least I'm happy. 

Oh wait, I forgot, that doesn't set well with the mindset of today where everything is about how much money you have and all the material things.  Because apparently you can't be making lots of money, or suing people for lots of money, or doing whatever it takes to make LOTS OF MONEY to be happy. 

So yes...I WOULD BE THRILLED!!

Apr 21 12 11:04 am Link

Photographer

Studio MD - Casting

Posts: 1213

New York, New York, US

This thread spiraled out of control.

PEOPLE: Play there game. No one cares about your opinions or logic. We just want you to come up with a solution to the problem (make everyone happy).

Get back to playing the game or be deemed "someone who can't read and an internet idiot who has poopy pants."

Apr 21 12 11:07 am Link

Model

KCLynne

Posts: 466

Omaha, Nebraska, US

So I'll post my solution again because it seems it was to far down in my first post and no one got to it. 

KCLynne wrote:
In order for this to work, the "owner" releases a few samples that he or she (or they if a corporation) is ok with the public having.  The public in turn will search out the artists (or writer or what have you) to see more of their works.  Of course most will do this by way of the internet, SOOOO, you make sure anything other than the few samples you have put out have watermarks or whatever the owner can think of so that the property cannot be recreated without it basically being destroyed.  If the consumer is interested enough in the samples, they will go searching for more information and, because we have become such a materialist society, will buy items, because "We just have to have whatever is cool at the moment."   That is my solutions.  Owners put out limited samples for publc use, consumer likes what he or she sees, and in turn wants more, which will result in making a purchase of the orginal item as well as more, meaning more money for the Owner. 

I don't know, but to me it seems like a win win for everyone.

Apr 21 12 11:15 am Link