You might possibly have seen this before, since it is from June. Short story: The owner of a site has taken down the photos he put up there, and then gets an email with threats of getting sued if he does not put up the photos again, because those photos are used by another site (without permission). The photographer is a rather nice guy and explains the case to the offender, and after a talk with his lawyer, the thief finds out what he did was wrong. Or rather, found other images to put up, possibly without permission.
So here comes the case: There have been many a thread about piracy and art theft (art section only), and the offenders usually stand by their "right" to use these medias. As one of the comments says:
Increasingly, people are taking the attitude that if it's posted online, that makes it public property. I've had people insist to me "if I can google it, I can use it, end of story".
So, how come people are increasingly ignorant to the laws of copyright? We are living in a world where our lives are still more influenced by the internet, but yet many are not aware or even ignore what is legal and what is not, and in some cases like this one, they even thing they have the right to complain. Is it really how it should be, where nothing is secure and private (and commercially clean)?
Also, for more examples of this/hotlinking consequences, check the comments. /edit: quote
Most people can hide behind a username, and IP-hiding software, there have been many cases involving illegal activities on the Internet, obviously. Google is a bad thing sometimes, it gives access to hundreds upon thousands of images per search, each one easily obtainable with that handy [Copy Link Location], and the even more notorious [Save Image As...].
It isn't right, and it's not fair that you cannot easily share artwork [or anything for the matter] with your online friends and not have it at risk for being downloaded and exploited across the Internet by people who don't care how much time and effort you put into that piece, but you can't really stop it, unfortunately.
People usually think that if it doesn't say copyright directly on it, anyone can use it. Of course, that is often the case. Take images from Google for example. People use them all the time, so they assume that other websites are no different.
I personally think copyright law is outdated, and ignorance of it is to be expected and should be taken into account by the creating artist.
Is the concern that someone else will take credit for your work? Watermark your photos. A good watermark will have your name and your web site in it. At this point you can very well welcome the "theft" of your art, because anywhere it shows up serves as extra advertising for you. And people who lift images like that aren't going to be PAYING you for anything anyways - no loss of profit here - but who knows, maybe someone visiting their site will fall in love with your work.
If its on the internet is public property. This is a natural law that state law tries to interfere with. It is of human nature and reasoning to make use of what they have right in front of them. Copyright is a way of trying to disrupt this reasoning with threats of being sued.
IT IS public property once you upload something to the internet. Don't post it on the internet if your not aware of the risks of it.
Well copyright is a thing people like to disregard just cause its there if you want something to remain private then don't go around posting it on the internet I don't know how many articles i've read bout idiots who post stuff up on facebook just to have it turned into some scandal people have to learn that the internet is like a public park not their own private backyard
If its on the internet is public property. This is a natural law that state law tries to interfere with.
This statement couldn't be more wrong.
For starters.. have you ever seen a site that you had to pay to be a member of? There's tons of them. Too many to count. They don't strike me as 'ublic property'. As for calling it a natural law... the internet is not a natural thing.
People usually think that if it doesn't say copyright directly on it, anyone can use it. Of course, that is often the case.
Trouble is that a big watermark ruins the image really bad, and a small one can and will be removed.
At this point you can very well welcome the "theft" of your art, because anywhere it shows up serves as extra advertising for you.
Which lead us to the next problem: Hotlinking. It steals bandwidth and thus you actually have to pay more, if it is a payed domain. And in the case in the OP, the offender actually stated on his website that the images was under his copyright, and wanted to sue the owner because he took the images down.
Copyright is a way of trying to disrupt this reasoning with threats of being sued.
In some way it just seems like the way piracy "justifies" itself: We have the internet, we share, we do not have to pay. Since a lot of business is done over the internet (most artists take commissions and this would only happen on the internet) would you say that you should not pay for something you order over the internet? That once a commission is online, it is up for grabs?
I don't know how many articles i've read bout idiots who post stuff up on facebook just to have it turned into some scandal people have to learn that the internet is like a public park not their own private backyard
I generally dislike FB because of its stupidity and until recently (I have been told) their ToS.
As an artist myself I would hate to know that not only are people taking my art and say it is their own, they are also putting them up as prints so they will get payed for this theft. This does happen.
Many, many people are quite ignorant about a lot of subjects.
I know, I will think about making a topic on the next wth moment: People unable to use simple search engines.
For starters.. have you ever seen a site that you had to pay to be a member of? There's tons of them. Too many to count. They don't strike me as 'ublic property'. As for calling it a natural law... the internet is not a natural thing.
And considering many artists pay for having a website up, or in general pay to make their art, or use huge amounts of time and work on writing half a novel or make that music that everyone likes... And even if it is not on the internet, it will come there, copyright or not, as we have already seen.
In some way it just seems like the way piracy "justifies" itself
This is because what we're facing more than "iracy"; we're facing a new model of how people do business, and view art and music in general. The "iracy" horse is being beat to death by established, OLD businesses who are hurting not primarily by theft, but by their unwillingness to let go of certain levels of control and embrace sweeping changes in today's society. The reality is, these people sharing don't have a criminal mindset. They are merely following the path of least resistance, for many it's try before you buy - or perhaps because you really can't buy. And why should I deny someone the pleasure of my creativity if they wouldn't be paying for it anyways? Artists and businesses should adopt and cater to the market... anything else is doomed folly.
Consider the other side of the internet; suddenly, you have to compete with every single other artist on the web. I propose that the real danger isn't in how many people will steal your work; it's in how many people will never even see your work to begin with.
If I were you, I would explore ways to leverage the viral, sharing nature of the web, and use the art to promote YOU, the artist. Especially if you'd like to get paid for your talent, it is much more important to develop close relationships with dedicated art lovers. These are the people who will really take care of you. For everyone else, I just try to be happy if anyone gets to experience and enjoy my creations. The folks out there who really want to keep you going, will keep you going.
What hosting do you use? I pay about $8 a month for 5gb/day traffic. If I was really pushing that limit, I'd consider myself pretty successful!
For people using photobucket (there are cases of this) the bandwidth limit is easily crossed. I am not really updated on what other might use, and as I do not have a website myself...
As for the other post of yours: I have not had the experience of someone stealing/borrowing/whatever my art (because I am a lousy artist), but I am much against it, especially when it is people who actually says it is their art. Having a watermark or signature on the art is often not enough, because if people really want to use it, they will either remove the signature or say the signature is one they use themselves.
Considering how many problems there are with infringement of copyright, not only on the internet, but in "real life" too, it shows two things: People either do not care, or will use it to gain money (artists usually just want people to see the art, and suing is often not a possibility due to low amount of income). And the people who do not care is often the ones stealing, while the ones wanting to get money out of it... They will find their way.
In art communities like dA art theft is often handled rather immaturely (and is here on AG too): The ones who find out someone is stealing will either be making fun of the person or directly flaming them. On dA this often leads to the offender flaming the original artist, and the watchers of that artist will flame back and so forth (dA does not have the best of politics when it comes to art theft). And after a while the artist is sick and tired of it all.
Sure there might be good things about copyright infringement, but often it seems like someone is trying to steal something dear to you, when someone else is stating they made something you used so much time on. And that is often what the first feeling is: "How can someone think it is okay to say they own my child". I doubt many artists find it to be good advertisement. And as far as I know cds are not increasingly sold if someone have found one track on the net. No, then they will rather find the rest for free too.
That's the word you need to stop associating with this kinds of stuff. It's sharing
And as far as I know cds are not increasingly sold if someone have found one track on the net. No, then they will rather find the rest for free too.
Well, I buy Tool albums because of the amazing album artwork the band puts in them, the last one came with these 3d lenses, and a flip book of art created by band members. Maybe if more bands put that kind of work in things would be different for them.
They are merely following the path of least resistance, for many it's try before you buy - or perhaps because you really can't buy
The world changes, and laws need to change with it. For me it's always been try before you buy, I download music for free. The problem is, I like the collectability of an album, and if I find myself downloading 9 of 12 songs on an album those guys deserve my money!
I talked about music because that is what I know when it comes to this.
And guess what? I get a project for school where I have to make a powerpoint presentation, google images. If it's got a little copyright image built into it I don't use it, but thats because I'm too lazy to go to the 2nd floor and use Photoshop at that very minute =P
People do not care
Exactly. And why should we? I have never felt as though I've hurt anyone by downloading music or using that image I found in my google search.
That's the word you need to stop associating with this kinds of stuff. It's sharing
To many artists it is pretty much like if someone took your bike.
Besides that, you seem to be one of the proper minded people. I know many who would download the entire thing and then simply burn it down on a cd, if they wanted it for that.
And guess what? I get a project for school where I have to make a powerpoint presentation, google images. If it's got a little copyright image built into it I don't use it, but thats because I'm too lazy to go to the 2nd floor and use Photoshop at that very minute =P
This is okay too, considering many is okay with this as long as the proper disclaimer is put up. Since many projects need you to actually state where you got both images and sources from, it is often considered alright to do so. Well, in most places, at least.
Exactly. And why should we? I have never felt as though I've hurt anyone by downloading music or using that image I found in my google search.
You are not claiming it as your own (which is often worse).
Besides that: The copyright laws is actually updated ever so often (at least here in Denmark), which means we have had almost a change a year: From it being okay to borrow an album and copy it (for your use only) to pretty much nothing being allowed. I do agree there should be proper rules on the field, so it would be easier to remember the rules, but people should also be aware of it all. Doing like you would most likely be the optimal... And this a bunch of blah, I guess.
