Chalk one up for the good guys. I can't wait to hear how much he wins in the settlement.
A friend of mine just sent this to me from Australia. Sounds like copyright theft is just becoming more common every day. This time it was stolen from a Flickr account:
It's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out in 10 years.
You know, I actually think Google image search and others like it, could ironically be the tools that allow artists to guard their material. Imagine an automated process that searches the web for usage of an image, finds it, and then automatically sends the infringer a bill. Whoever writes the program that does that task is going to be the one that really cleans up.
ChiMo wrote: It's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out in 10 years.
You know, I actually think Google image search and others like it, could ironically be the tools that allow artists to guard their material. Imagine an automated process that searches the web for usage of an image, finds it, and then automatically sends the infringer a bill. Whoever writes the program that does that task is going to be the one that really cleans up.
So Google needs to partner with TinEye and make it happen sooner than later. Although Google would probably prefer to just buy them outright.
ChiMo wrote: Imagine an automated process that searches the web for usage of an image, finds it, and then automatically sends the infringer a bill notifies the copyright holder.
chimo wrote: Imagine an automated process that searches the web for usage of an image, finds it, and then automatically sends the infringer a bill notifies the copyright holder.
Yup Digimarc. Searches, notifies the copyright owner.
But Automatically billing the infringer is a bad idea. It assumes that one size fits all/one fee covers all uses.
ChiMo wrote: It's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out in 10 years.
You know, I actually think Google image search and others like it, could ironically be the tools that allow artists to guard their material. Imagine an automated process that searches the web for usage of an image, finds it, and then automatically sends the infringer a bill. Whoever writes the program that does that task is going to be the one that really cleans up.
I suggested the same idea a year or two ago related to music filesharing.
Google will have the leverage to collect because if you don't pay, they can ban you from their search results, turn of your gmail, google voice and in some places they're an ISP too. They can make you cease to exist in the modern world.
37photog
Posts: 595
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
ChiMo wrote: It's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out in 10 years.
You know, I actually think Google image search and others like it, could ironically be the tools that allow artists to guard their material. Imagine an automated process that searches the web for usage of an image, finds it, and then automatically sends the infringer a bill.
I've heard of two cases similar to this, not by Google per se, although it may have been involved. Once, someone used an indie artist they were a fan of (it was a forum & they declined to say who, though they said it was more of a local/regionally known act). The artists assistant sent them a cease & desist notice, and said a lawyer was getting involved. Basically the attorney threatened them with lawsuit or something unless the sent a portion of the previous years earnings from weddings (something like 10%). Oddly the poster said he was in touch with the musician at times, via email, and the artist said he wasn't that upset, but it was more of a legal & paperwork annoyance they were upset about. It settled for something like $1,000. The other times a videographer found HIS demo reel on someone elses website?! The person claimed he was just in the process of getting a website, and their web builder was just using it as a placeholder. It could have been possible, because the site looked half finished. Still, do you really need a youtube placeholder, and if so, can't you use a generic one, like your own one or a friends for a few days/weeks. Or Call Me Maybe:P Eventually it seemed so many posters from the forum emailed nasty stuff to the persons email on his site, they shut the entire website down & had a blank homepage or something.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,242
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
37photog wrote: The other times a videographer found HIS demo reel on someone elses website?! The person claimed he was just in the process of getting a website, and their web builder was just using it as a placeholder. It could have been possible, because the site looked half finished. Still, do you really need a youtube placeholder, and if so, can't you use a generic one, like your own one or a friends for a few days/weeks. Or Call Me Maybe:P Eventually it seemed so many posters from the forum emailed nasty stuff to the persons email on his site, they shut the entire website down & had a blank homepage or something.
That is just a horse-shit excuse. With 5 minutes work the web developer could have constructed their own test clip. If they were to later embed a youtube player then all they had to do was set up a youtube account and upload it there to stream it back to the site.
It is an infringement, end of story. I delight, when working for a client, in killing the youtube instance if the use is infringing of the client's work, or, changing it to something indicating that the use of it embedded on some other site is infringing if it is my client's youtube posting, because it also kills or changes all the remote instances on somebody's shitty blog at the same time.
| 
| 
| edu