David Parsons wrote:
Are you aware that Model Mayhem posts on Facebook that feature member pictures, and they don't pay for the usage.  Is that fair?  It drives visits to the site and is in effect advertising for MM.

Yes, I think a strong argument could be made that the image that Facebook stores on its servers constitutes fair use. 

Here's an example of such a post:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s … 5691915584

See also Perfect 10 v. Amazon, et al., in which the right for Google to create thumbnails of photos and display them in Google Image searches was considered fair use.
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case476.cfm

DougBPhoto wrote:
It is disappointing that on a site primarily made up of photographers and models, that SO many people have so little respect or concern for intellectual property, not just your own, but all of ours.

While today it may not be your property (or the property of a photographer you have worked with) tomorrow it may be your images (or images that you contributed to) that are being stolen.

Okay, you may not care if your neighbor's house across the street is being stolen from, or the house to the right of you, or the house to the left of you, but one of these days it WILL be your house.

Why sit around and say that it is no big deal UNTIL they come to your house to take your property.

Be a professional and stand up for all of our rights, and it does not matter if you think your images (or my images) are worth anything, it IS important to stand up and protect all of our property.

well said.

D S P wrote:
291: Thanks for posting... And you are correct. I've seen this industry slowly erode since I started in 1985 due to, among other things, photographers who have no problem with (or encourage) their images being published someplace/anywhere for free.

I dont buy that. Mathematicians publish their work, usually incredible amounts of it and nothing any photographer should sniffle at, for free use all the time...

The industry of the 80s, any industry, is not the same as it is today. People have to adapt...

I'm not saying people who expect to be paid shouldn't be paid, but don't blame people who are charitable with their work as the reason yours has gone south...

Optix  wrote:
This is about as effective as convincing people not to expect mp3s for free...

The cat's out of the bag.  Time to figure out ways to protect online content, instead of trying to stifle current technology.

Note: Flash 1 HTML5 0

It's very easy to take the images from a Flash site. They are downloaded to your PC. it's just slightly more difficult that right clikcing and selecting 'save image as'.

20C wrote:
The industry of the 80s, any industry, is not the same as it is today. People have to adapt...

just what does adapt mean to you?

is yours an argument that one shouldn't protect their work? just allow it to be taken with no qualm?  that's fine for the starving artist myopic or hobbyist, but the discussion goes to otherwise, those who's work feeds them, the daily profession.

the argument isn't really about dollars and cents.  it's about value.  when it's reduced to nothing, that's what it's worth.  when it become larceny, then someone else is taking the dinner away, even for the starving artist.

20C wrote:
I dont buy that. Mathematicians publish their work, usually incredible amounts of it and nothing any photographer should sniffle at, for free use all the time...

The industry of the 80s, any industry, is not the same as it is today. People have to adapt...

I'm not saying people who expect to be paid shouldn't be paid, but don't blame people who are charitable with their work as the reason yours has gone south...

Right, just like people with lemonade stands selling at a normal industry rate (of say $1/glass or 50cents/glass) have no reason to complain when other people set up lemonade stands and start giving their lemonade away for free.

No reason to blame those charitable lemonade stand people for giving it away for free as a reason that could possibly impact others who are actually running a business trying to sell their wares at standard/normal pricing.

Why should people be bothered by having their income ruined by charitable individuals who are content giving their work away for free without regard or the slightest concern over the impacts of their actions.

Hell, maybe we should find out where your day job is and have a bunch of us go into your work and talk to your boss saying they will gladly do YOUR job for free, I mean, it is just being charitable, right?

Do you think your boss or employer would want to keep paying you your salary if someone is willing to do the same job for free?

I mean, you just need to work harder at your job, right?

Who cares, you should JUST ADAPT, after all, it is not that big of a deal, because it is only YOUR living.

WHY should you care, or want to protect your job/living.  Who cares about your friends or coworkers either.

That would be just silly.

291 wrote:

just what does adapt mean to you?

is yours an argument that one shouldn't protect their work? just allow it to be taken with no qualm?  that's fine for the starving artist myopic or hobbyist, but the discussion goes to otherwise, those who's work feeds them, the daily profession.

the argument isn't really about dollars and cents.  it's about value.  when it's reduced to nothing, that's what it's worth.  when it become larceny, then someone else is taking the dinner away, even for the starving artist.

Have you gotten an attorney drawing up a class action suit yet?

GCobb Photography wrote:
Have you gotten an attorney drawing up a class action suit yet?

note that i stated it is underway.  also note i didn't declare it was me behind it.  there are some pissed off pros that have taken that step which i support.

Doobie the destroyer wrote:
I'm actually surprised about the lack of lighting knowledge on Model Mayhem. I'd think that a photography forum on a site dedicated to glamour and fashion shooting would be much more advanced in terms of lighting, and past the "which lens/camera should I buy" discussions.

your enlightened contributions throughout the forums continue to astound in being so irrelevant.

DougBPhoto wrote:
It is disappointing that on a site primarily made up of photographers and models, that SO many people have so little respect or concern for intellectual property, not just your own, but all of ours.

While today it may not be your property (or the property of a photographer you have worked with) tomorrow it may be your images (or images that you contributed to) that are being stolen.

Okay, you may not care if your neighbor's house across the street is being stolen from, or the house to the right of you, or the house to the left of you, but one of these days it WILL be your house.

Why sit around and say that it is no big deal UNTIL they come to your house to take your property.

Be a professional and stand up for all of our rights, and it does not matter if you think your images (or my images) are worth anything, it IS important to stand up and protect all of our property.

it IS unbelievable that "artists" (obviously i'm using the word very loosely here) are mocking other artists for standing up for ALL artists rights. i sorta get stupid teenagers who still live with their parents not understanding why they should have to pay for music ("music belongs to like, you know, the people and stuff") but other artists - wtf?

do they not have rent, medical bills, children, aging parents, car insurance, vet bills? do they eat for free? does daddy buy their camera equipment? wow, i wanna live in their world.

291 wrote:
one, pinterest takes the images their users collect and places them on their servers while stripping the exif data. that is a violation of the law to remove copyright info.

Ca Ching!!!!

I love it when some idiot posts an image of mine stripping the exif data.
It makes my case more solid. I just hand the link to the guilty website to my lawyer and wait for a fat check. I always come down on perpetrators like a tone of bricks.

Monday I will be handing over last weeks finds. Two designers that sell internationally at Bloomingdale's etc stole my images.
Should be $5,000 to 15,000 each and they have to take down the image.

One little tech-o-socialmedia-hipsternerd had the audacity to be plain rude over the phone when I called him before handing things over to the lawyer. I happened to be in his city so a paid the little turd a visit with my 200 lb Lakota Mastino... looks like a giant pitbull crossed with a rhino and has this habit of making develish loud growling shouns if anyone raises their voice even the slightest bit with me.. I left with a check and some personal satisfaction. It was fun to bring some real world into this turds virtual world.

20C wrote:
The industry of the 80s, any industry, is not the same as it is today. People have to adapt...

Yup I've adapted. Got a lawyer and a f@#king big dog

Maria Michaela wrote:
do you hate tumblr as well?

I've seen a lot of photographers, designers and model on pininterest. most of them mention the name of the artist and/or the source where they got it from (and I think they also say in their terms of agreement that you as a user should to that), and I'm learning about new great photographers every day . I see it as inspiration and exposure...

Bloggers are not allowed to take photos and post them up on their blogs either, unless they have permission from the photographer.

I get many bloggers who msg me asking to post my work on their blogs and I have no problem giving them the go ahead as long as they credit me and my team (if there was a team involved)

I have no problem people saving my photos in their computer files for inspiration or whatever I don't even have a problem with people posting my work on their blog or whatever as long as I am credited and give them permission.

It's like someone taking a facebook pic of you or your girlfriend and then selling it or posting it on a website that is pornish and saying hey no big deal at least people see your work.... UMMMMM really?

Erlinda wrote:
It has nothing to do with people "not taking credit for your work" it has everything to do with the fact that I DIDN'T POST THEM up there.

English law is significantly different than US law when it comes to the likes of pinterest

* Inserting an image to a website is publishing [R. v. Perrin et al] This is not necessarily, or always, the case in the US;
* Publishing [on the Internet] is "communication the the public";
* "Communication to the public" by publishing, even on the Internet, is an exclusive right of the rights holder in the UK. The US has not fine tuned their law to include similar language;
* Ergo, anyone subject to UK law who inserts an image on pinterest without authorisation is infringing and is an infringer;
* If the physical act of uploading occurs in [from within] the UK, EVEN IF the website and server to which the images are published is offshore, then the infringement is actionable under UK law against the person doing so. [again, R. v. Perrin, et al]

Studio36

Irish Photography wrote:
If you post images to web then expect them to be copied, if someone pays for your images you need to state terms they can use, if they are using your images on web then hopefully you brokered a good deal for your images to be in public domain.

Modern world, think people need to accept this, cant stop images from being copied once you publish....if you dont want images out there then do not distribute....simple as....

^^^^ ... to be on public display ... ^^^^

Merely displaying an image, on the Internet or in a printed form, does NOT put into the "public domain". NO ONE has any right to just use it as they please.

Studio36

Irish Photography wrote:
If you post images to web then expect them to be copied, if someone pays for your images you need to state terms they can use, if they are using your images on web then hopefully you brokered a good deal for your images to be in public domain.

Modern world, think people need to accept this, cant stop images from being copied once you publish....if you dont want images out there then do not distribute....simple as....

In the US, images on the web are not in the public domain.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Right, just like people with lemonade stands selling at a normal industry rate (of say $1/glass or 50cents/glass) have no reason to complain when other people set up lemonade stands and start giving their lemonade away for free.

No reason to blame those charitable lemonade stand people for giving it away for free as a reason that could possibly impact others who are actually running a business trying to sell their wares at standard/normal pricing.

Why should people be bothered by having their income ruined by charitable individuals who are content giving their work away for free without regard or the slightest concern over the impacts of their actions.

Hell, maybe we should find out where your day job is and have a bunch of us go into your work and talk to your boss saying they will gladly do YOUR job for free, I mean, it is just being charitable, right?

Do you think your boss or employer would want to keep paying you your salary if someone is willing to do the same job for free?

I mean, you just need to work harder at your job, right?

Who cares, you should JUST ADAPT, after all, it is not that big of a deal, because it is only YOUR living.

WHY should you care, or want to protect your job/living.  Who cares about your friends or coworkers either.

That would be just silly.

Listen, its my opinion and belief that if you want to sell a product, then that product has to be better than everyone else's. It doesnt matter what the price tag says, even if "theirs" says "free". If you are doing something no one in your market can do, you will sell your work...

Photography is a unique field, unlike others. Technically, its not that hard to grasp and understand to be fairly proficient. It doesnt take weeks/months to create an image. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand how to create a good image. (and if you want to critique me technically, go ahead. I dont care, I shoot what I shoot because I want to).

The other point is, every person walking the street has a camera in their pocket in one form or another. Taking pictures is every much a past time as it is an industry. Always has been. I see people on google+, flikr, etc... taking pictures with their phones that blow half the supposed pros around here away. They do it becuase they enjoy it and like to share their enjoyment.

If that affects you in terms of making money, do what you do better, or pick another line of work. There are a few photographers around here that I think are brilliant in terms of what they do, but for the most part, most peoples work isnt all that different from the rest.

So your logic is actually backwards, you want money for something (and I did not look at you work, so this is just a general statement) for something that may very well be quite mundane and hardly a commodity... Again, not speaking in terms of you in particular...

Now, back to the point at hand, if you feel your work has value and you dont want people stealing, then protect it. Dont put it online, put a big fugly logo across the front, whatever it takes....What more can really be said.

There was no WWW in 1985 (though, there was internet). There weren't cameras in phones that could generate instant high quality pictures. Times are far from what they used to be... You have to adapt accordingly or deal with it..... But for Petes sake, dont blame people who take pictures because they want to and want to share what they do. Photography is just as much about art as it is about business....

Fred Greissing wrote:

Yup I've adapted. Got a lawyer and a f@#king big dog

There you go, simple as that, and from someone whose work I truly respect...

See this is the thing, and the point Ive tried to make. I would recognize Fred's work if I saw it. He has made his career get to the point that he does work that is "his", not because he put a copyright on it, but because it has a feel and quality to it that no one else (that Ive seen) does...

I would know a "Greissing" if I saw it... Much harder for someone to come along and steal and make money off of...

ARA Photo wrote:
I think if you translate this to a bricks and mortar analogy it's easier to understand that it's fundamentally wrong. So..

I buy a piece of property off the edge of town dirt cheap. I invest in a lick of paint open the doors and let people wander in and hang artwork they like on the walls regardless of if they own it or not. More and more people come because there's cool stuff to see. I now have a cool place where lots of folks hang out so how do I make money? Maybe I don't even have to worry about that, I'll just sell out with all the traffic that someone else wants. Thing is I never sold any of the cool artwork I just displayed it without the artists permission, so did I do anything wrong?

So, people who own a physical copy are wrong for placing that work wherever they wish?  You can hang artwork that you own anywhere, once you own that copy, the artist has no say.  That's how galleries and museums work.

20C wrote:
Another point I want to make to hammer home the argument. We live in an "Open Source" world. Its a fact. I dont have to buy Photoshop. I can download GIMP for free. Do you hear GIMP developers who contributed to developing it, complaining? Did people stop buying Photoshop? Linux didnt kill Windows or Macs..

I work in software. There is wonderful pieces of software out there, that cost nothing, but it didnt put Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle, or any other company out of business....

This

20C wrote:
Another point I want to make to hammer home the argument. We live in an "Open Source" world. Its a fact. I dont have to buy Photoshop. I can download GIMP for free. Do you hear GIMP developers who contributed to developing it, complaining? Did people stop buying Photoshop? Linux didnt kill Windows or Macs..

I work in software. There is wonderful pieces of software out there, that cost nothing, but it didnt put Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle, or any other company out of business....

But in a certain sense it would be like someone making a shell or shin for Photoshop and then selling it complete with unlicensed Photoshop embedded in the shell.
If that this website does is OK would it be OK for Apple lets say to integrate Photoshop for free by hosting the photoshop code remotely or something like that.

Fred Greissing wrote:

But in a certain sense it would be like someone making a shell or shin for Photoshop and then selling it complete with unlicensed Photoshop embedded in the shell.
If that this website does is OK would it be OK for Apple lets say to integrate Photoshop for free by hosting the photoshop code remotely or something like that.

Yes and this is a good point, but it proves the complexity of the world we live in and the problems associated with it. Im not against the OP's opening argument.

Im trying to state the difference between today and 1985, but most importantly the argument called "people are doing it for free and my business is in the tubes because of it".

If someone cared enough about my work to steal it AND somehow make money off of it, yes, I would be pissed and want reimbursement. However, I cant stand the whole "my business is a failure, cause some kid with an iPhone is doing it better than me and is giving it away for free"....

David Parsons wrote:
I pin other photography that I like.  .

You are violating copyright law if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder. And also violating the Pinterest TOS.

I find it amazing that people who claim to be photographers or other whose livelihood depends on IP protection would defend the theft of intellectual property.

Tells us how much they value what they create, I guess.

20C wrote:
Yes and this is a good point, but it proves the complexity of the world we live in and the problems associated with it. Im not against the OP's opening argument.

Im trying to state the difference between today and 1985, but most importantly the argument called "people are doing it for free and my business is in the tubes because of it".

If someone cared enough about my work to steal it AND somehow make money off of it, yes, I would be pissed and want reimbursement. However, I cant stand the whole "my business is a failure, cause some kid with an iPhone is doing it better than me and is giving it away for free"....

Did you happen to note that you are inserting your own words for what other people are saying, and trying to put your own words in their mouths for the sake of your argument?

No one in this thread is saying their business is a failure, no one is saying some kids with an iPhone is ruining their business.

While your statement that you're in software and the fact that freeware has not put Adobe is out of business is fundamentally irrelevant, because Adobe is ONE company selling their product to a broad market, compared to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of professional photographers, not only having their markets diluted by millions of people taking advantage of improved technology that makes photography easier, but ALSO an UNPRECEDENTED erosion of protections and respect for Intellectual Property, whether music, writing, movies, or photography, just to name a few.

It is idiotic to think that people giving away adequate quality images for free does not impact the ability of professionals to sell their images.  I'm NOT claiming that is the ONLY reason, as it obviously isn't the ONLY reason, but one would need to be quite foolish to think that it is not a factor, among many factors, that is changing the face of professional photography in our current society.

TRYING to revert back to the ACTUAL topic of this thread, it is important that everyone who takes photography seriously give matters adequate thought to RESPECT the ownership rights of photographers, because if WE, the people within this industry don't respect what we do, then we stand very little chance of convincing people outside our field that our work is worth respecting and worth paying for.

I understand if people don't want to respect their own work, but indiscriminate taking of other people's images and circulating/using them WITHOUT permission undermines all of us and disrespects/deminishes the value of what we all do.

IF we can't get fellow photographers to respect ownership rights of photographic images, how the hell will we ever get anyone else to.

David Parsons wrote:

So, people who own a physical copy are wrong for placing that work wherever they wish?  You can hang artwork that you own anywhere, once you own that copy, the artist has no say.  That's how galleries and museums work.

nope, wrong bad bad post

you can not take that image and place it into a set and then film that set

and that is only one usage I can think of that is not allowed by merely owning a piece of artwork

DougBPhoto wrote:
IF we can't get fellow photographers to respect ownership rights of photographic images, how the hell will we ever get anyone else to.

I guess the problem is I haven't seen any real photographers in this thread who aren't fighting for photographer's rights. It reminds me of a guy who changes his own oil saying that it is fine to pour the used oil down the drain.

edit- sorry was on ipad and spell check changed my spelling on pour to poor

DougBPhoto wrote:

Did you happen to note that you are inserting your own words for what other people are saying, and trying to put your own words in their mouths for the sake of your argument?

No one in this thread is saying their business is a failure, no one is saying some kids with an iPhone is ruining their business.

While your statement that you're in software and the fact that freeware has not put Adobe is out of business is fundamentally irrelevant, because Adobe is ONE company selling their product to a broad market, compared to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of professional photographers, not only having their markets diluted by millions of people taking advantage of improved technology that makes photography easier, but ALSO an UNPRECEDENTED erosion of protections and respect for Intellectual Property, whether music, writing, movies, or photography, just to name a few.

It is idiotic to think that people giving away adequate quality images for free does not impact the ability of professionals to sell their images.  I'm NOT claiming that is the ONLY reason, as it obviously isn't the ONLY reason, but one would need to be quite foolish to think that it is not a factor, among many factors, that is changing the face of professional photography in our current society.

TRYING to revert back to the ACTUAL topic of this thread, it is important that everyone who takes photography seriously give matters adequate thought to RESPECT the ownership rights of photographers, because if WE, the people within this industry don't respect what we do, then we stand very little chance of convincing people outside our field that our work is worth respecting and worth paying for.

I understand if people don't want to respect their own work, but indiscriminate taking of other people's images and circulating/using them WITHOUT permission undermines all of us and disrespects/deminishes the value of what we all do.

IF we can't get fellow photographers to respect ownership rights of photographic images, how the hell will we ever get anyone else to.

Kids with iPhones or adults with Hasselblads, not the point, I was making a response to DSP's comment above who complained that this industry has gotten bad b/c people are giving stuff away for free. Maybe it is a factor... Oh well, nothing is going to change that...

Its not just "this industry". Its any endeavor that uses the internet for anything. There are risks. Obviously, its easily solvable as Fred points out...

291 wrote:
become pro-active.

Good luck getting photographers to stand together against anything.

As a group, we watch out for each other less than just about any other.

rp_photo wrote:
Good luck getting photographers to stand together against anything.

As a group, we watch out for each other less than just about any other.

This is such a competitive field, that expecting one photographer to stick up for another one is about as self-defeating as telling a customer to buy from the store next door, because their product is better.

There is so much money to be made from photography and, fortunately, very little of it has to do with using links to some lowres, too-poor-for-print-quality image link.

Copyright laws are not going anywhere -trust me. And if they are being violated, then revenue is being created for images that might not have been worth one tenth of the litigation costs, if they were sold in a stock photography market.

All I can say is that instead of trying to push the clock back, people should try to be more enterprising, and help promote industries that will create more revenue.

For example, instead of trying to put Pinterest out of business, why not nudge it into a direction that creates a market?

Someone alluded earlier to the music and film industry and how it was affected by piracy.  Guess what... a lot of artists have bypassed the old model, and they are selling their art directly to their customers.

Advertise - Promote.  Get your work out there and try to sell it.  You won't care if some schmuck posts your photo on a website, if you are already making money selling a high quality version to paying customers.