appropriation of images
Laura
it as an art form. I have a question for the group, and if it's off topic,
please let me know.
I was wondering how people feel about appropriated images that are
incorporated into art work. Do you consider this stealing? Do you feel it
is a copyright violation? How much appropriation does there have to be
before it's considered stealing?
Personally, I like what people do with appropriated images, but I'm still
rather fuzzy on how the rest of the world feels about it. I have quite a
few digital images that I've created using pieces of advertising,
propaganda, posters, and whatnot. Where is the line, both legally and
morally, between what is "art" and what is "theft".
Laura
--
My Art - Laura Transforms
http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics
http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
jaymus
i go by a simple rule.......
if the original creator could (even with scepticism) look at your final
piece and say "i did that" to ANY part of your creation, then that would be
stealing.
Jay
Dorothy Combs
It depends on what is copied and why. An artist may use part of a well known old
master to make a statement in a new work. This is using their own talent to copy
a part of the work. Andy Warhol's work comes to mind. He used a soup label and
other familiar things, and also a Marliyn Monroe photograph to make statements
on contemporary life. This is not the same as seeing an unknown photograph and
using it.
The trouble with scanned images, and digital photos, it is too easy to cut and
paste. What is original about that? Any school kid with old magazines, and some
scissors, and glue, can and does do this very thing.
There are always going to be creative people that want what they do left alone
and unchanged. And they might even want some credit for it? There are always
going to be people that look at what someone has done and feel the need to use
it in their own work with their own name on it.
Dorothy
Laura wrote:
> And is that how you feel about other artist's work as well, or is that the
> rule for your personal work only?
>
> I've seen a lot of works of art where you could easily recognize a portion
> of it as being part of someone else's work, yet with what they had done with
> it, I felt the appropriation was suitable (for lack of a better word).
Laura
news:oKll5.12262$Nd1....@news4.atl...
And is that how you feel about other artist's work as well, or is that the
Gary Schooley
Laura wrote:
> I've been working with Photoshop for about two years now and I really enjoy
> it as an art form. I have a question for the group, and if it's off topic,
> please let me know.
>
> I was wondering how people feel about appropriated images that are
> incorporated into art work. Do you consider this stealing? Do you feel it
> is a copyright violation? How much appropriation does there have to be
> before it's considered stealing?
>
> Personally, I like what people do with appropriated images, but I'm still
> rather fuzzy on how the rest of the world feels about it. I have quite a
> few digital images that I've created using pieces of advertising,
> propaganda, posters, and whatnot. Where is the line, both legally and
> morally, between what is "art" and what is "theft".
>
> Laura
> --
> My Art - Laura Transforms
> http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
> My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics
> http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
My graphics tutor, who is a commercial professional illustrator for a fairly
large publication, says that you must alter an image at least 50%, or use less
than 50%, to "get away with it". He knows because he does it all the time. Now,
there are more in-depth details to it (if it gets becomes a legal issue), but
that's the basics.
Gary Schooley
Gary Schooley
Laura wrote:
> And is that how you feel about other artist's work as well, or is that the
> rule for your personal work only?
>
> I've seen a lot of works of art where you could easily recognize a portion
> of it as being part of someone else's work, yet with what they had done with
> it, I felt the appropriation was suitable (for lack of a better word).
>
> Laura
>
> --
> My Art - Laura Transforms
> http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
> My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics
> http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
Exactly. As I mentioned, most of the stuff on my old CATS site originated on
other sites, but by the time I finished, either they couldn't say for sure where
it came from, or I did something so creative and original with it that they just
didn't care. (There was a bit of jealousy from those less creative, though).
Gary Schooley
Gwarsbane (Nick Julian)
cricket wrote:
I use other peoples work in my pictures. If I didn't well all i'd be
able to do is abstract art which not everyone likes.
I feel that as long as you're not selling that graphic with the other
persons work in it, then it is not stealing. If you do sell it thou,
then it is stealing, unless you contacted the artist before hand and
got permission to use it and sell it as part of your art.
********************************************
* Nick Julian
* mailto:nju...@ns.sympatico.ca
* http://nmo.cjb.net NMO Homepage (Mech 3 Group)
* http://gwarsbane.cjb.net Photoshop site
* http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/pjulian Visual File Lister
********************************************
Mr. Jim
>I was wondering how people feel about appropriated images that are
>incorporated into art work.
The short answer (and, just IMO):
Using other people's photos for experimentation is great, but try to use
your own photos for anything you plan to show. The amount of other people's
effort in your artwork reflects on your ability to some degree. Also, pros
probably use stock photos all the time, so there is some merit to
practicing with them.
Here's an example of how I would use stock photos:
- shapes (object outlines, for example)
- backdrops (use sparingly)
- textures
- reflections
A 'net search for copyright info would be wise.
--
Jim Hall
ICQ#84327163
I am looking for work in the San Diego area.
You can find my resume at:
home.att.net/~hall.j.m
Gwarsbane (Nick Julian)
cricket wrote:
Stock Photos are ok, if you can find them. Most of us can't afford
paying for stock photos, and besides, what I like working with there
is basically no stock photos.
I like working with, Anime and recent game photos. I grab all my
stuff off of other sites and then put my own style to them.
In all my searches, I have not found any good stock photos that are
free.
John Boy
magazine, about appropriating music samples, and I was struck by the
response - "If you feel you're 'getting away' with something, you're
probably wrong." There seems to be this idea out there, "If it's easy to
steal, it's OK." Hey, stealing is strealing. Whether or not you will get in
trouble depends on the way the original author views your use of their
image. I would say to ask yourself how you would feel if the image was
yours, and somebody else was using it. I wouldn't mind someone using
something of mine, as long as it was clearly used as a mere element of a
greater whole, and even then it would depend. Some attribution would help,
but getting a release would be best.
- John
"Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3996ABB4...@texas.net...
>
>
> Laura wrote:
>
> > I've been working with Photoshop for about two years now and I really
enjoy
> > it as an art form. I have a question for the group, and if it's off
topic,
> > please let me know.
> >
> > I was wondering how people feel about appropriated images that are
> > incorporated into art work. Do you consider this stealing? Do you feel
it
> > is a copyright violation? How much appropriation does there have to be
> > before it's considered stealing?
> >
> > Personally, I like what people do with appropriated images, but I'm
still
> > rather fuzzy on how the rest of the world feels about it. I have quite
a
> > few digital images that I've created using pieces of advertising,
> > propaganda, posters, and whatnot. Where is the line, both legally and
> > morally, between what is "art" and what is "theft".
> >
> > Laura
> > --
> > My Art - Laura Transforms
> > http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
> > My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics
> > http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
>
Dorothy Combs
What you are doing is taking characters that belong to a big company, not some
poor photographer and appropriating their work. These companies hire many
artists to work on the characters. It depends on the company and what their
policies are. For your own use...they will not bother you...a web site they
might ignore unless it gets too much attention...then they might keep on
ignoring it. As long as you don't start selling their characters on posters or
T-shirts or whatever, you should get away with it.
Dorothy
"Gwarsbane (Nick Julian)" wrote:
> On a tall mountain top in the middle of a great battle a little
> cricket wrote:
>
> Stock Photos are ok, if you can find them. Most of us can't afford
> paying for stock photos, and besides, what I like working with there
> is basically no stock photos.
>
> I like working with, Anime and recent game photos. I grab all my
> stuff off of other sites and then put my own style to them.
>
> In all my searches, I have not found any good stock photos that are
> free.
>
> >Laura wrote:
> >
> >>I was wondering how people feel about appropriated images that are
> >>incorporated into art work.
> >
Laura
Thank you for your replies! Wow. :)
The reason I've asked about appropriation is I tend to like it as a tool in
my artwork. I have removed my digital art from the web for the time being
as I was worried about copyright issues. For example, I have used the Body
Shop's "fat barbie", a promo shot of the devil in "Legend", and slices of
the human body from the "Visible Human Project". I believe I've used all of
these in ways that are creative and beyond just "cutting and pasting". I'm
still leery to show the work though.
I think it's okay on a website... but what if I were to print them really
huge and have them up in a gallery somewhere? I have my doubts that anyone
would come after me, but is it worth the risk? I'm not sure.
Thanks again for all of your opinions..
Laura
--
My Art - Laura Transforms - http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics -
http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
BATDING - http://www.20-eyes.com/laura/index.html
Sambo
flat out copyright violation. It's illegal.
The beauty of it is the federal penalty in law suits is damages of three
times the value of the the original.
Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who persist
after a warning.
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote in message
news:y%kl5.146650$ef6.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> I've been working with Photoshop for about two years now and I really
enjoy
> it as an art form. I have a question for the group, and if it's off
topic,
> please let me know.
>
> I was wondering how people feel about appropriated images that are
> incorporated into art work. Do you consider this stealing? Do you feel
it
> is a copyright violation? How much appropriation does there have to be
> before it's considered stealing?
>
> Personally, I like what people do with appropriated images, but I'm still
> rather fuzzy on how the rest of the world feels about it. I have quite a
> few digital images that I've created using pieces of advertising,
> propaganda, posters, and whatnot. Where is the line, both legally and
> morally, between what is "art" and what is "theft".
>
> Laura
> --
> My Art - Laura Transforms
> http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
> My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics
Mr. Jim
>Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who
>persist after a warning.
Practically every day, actually, *several* times a day someone comes into
the local copy shop to knock off copies from a professional photographer
...
The company policy is to "wink and look the other way". They won't copy
it *for* you, but they are great at enabling YOU to make the copy. The
needs of the customer are their #1 priority, and enabling a customer to
skirt the edge of copyright law is just something that they do.
"This statement is true and factual to the best of my knowledge"
--
Jim Hall
John Boy
stating that they had obtained the rights to an image. There's always the
question as to whether they really DID, but at least if they hadn't, our ass
was covered.
- John
"Mr. Jim" <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8F8F99B...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Gary Schooley
John Boy wrote:
> I remember a few years ago when someone asked this question, in Keyboard
> magazine, about appropriating music samples, and I was struck by the
> response - "If you feel you're 'getting away' with something, you're
> probably wrong." There seems to be this idea out there, "If it's easy to
> steal, it's OK." Hey, stealing is strealing. Whether or not you will get in
> trouble depends on the way the original author views your use of their
> image. I would say to ask yourself how you would feel if the image was
> yours, and somebody else was using it. I wouldn't mind someone using
> something of mine, as long as it was clearly used as a mere element of a
> greater whole, and even then it would depend. Some attribution would help,
> but getting a release would be best.
>
> - John
It seems to me that there are certain "obvious" things that people come up with
that beg to be duplicated. Common sense dictates it. For example: A "T-shirt";
suppose the first person to "invent" one demanded that all other T-shirts were
the same color, material, etc.? But, that basic concept is SO practical, that it
begs to be copied. There is no avoiding it.
Gary Schooley
Dorothy Combs
become a member of Webshots upload photographs to, "albums," on their server.
Webshots says that members must be the owners of the photos or have the
permission of the owners, and that Webshots is not responsible for any content
in any album uploaded by members. Webshots also has in their TOS that once a
photograph is uploaded to their server they have non exclusive rights forever to
the use of that photograph. This is because they let members download any photo
from any album, and they also have a card shop where any photo in any album is
available. Photo collectors have uploaded many photos they do not own to
Webshots. Webshots will only remove a photograph if the real owner can prove it
is their copyright property.
So what do you think. Is Webshots home free with their rule that says the member
who uploads a photo is totally responsible if that photo turns out to be someone
else's property even though Webshots is claiming rights to the photo themselves
and exercising those rights when they disperse the photo to others?
Dorothy
Gary Schooley
Dorothy Combs wrote:
> Nick,
>
> What you are doing is taking characters that belong to a big company, not some
> poor photographer and appropriating their work. These companies hire many
> artists to work on the characters. It depends on the company and what their
> policies are. For your own use...they will not bother you...a web site they
> might ignore unless it gets too much attention...then they might keep on
> ignoring it. As long as you don't start selling their characters on posters or
> T-shirts or whatever, you should get away with it.
>
> Dorothy
What about parodies? Or "Fair Use" criticism to make a valid point and inform
others?
http://schooley.home.texas.net/Fairuse.htm
A few examples:
http://schooley.home.texas.net/GO2.gif
http://schooley.home.texas.net/infosuck.gif
There are certain 'liberality's" allowed by law.
Gary Schooley
Dorothy Combs
The law does allow for parodies. A magazine cover or a skit on TV, something that is
not ongoing would probably pass. Fair use doesn't mean totally free use. Someone
reviewing a book can quote from it but cannot print out the whole thing! There is
some common sense applied, and everything is up to a court and a judge if it ever
comes to that. Someone mentioned Disney and that they don't come down on every little
thing someone does with Disney characters. I do know that they have come down on
people selling un licensed Disney merchandise at flea markets and swap meets!
Gary Schooley
"Mr. Jim" wrote:
> Sambo wrote:
>
> >Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who
> >persist after a warning.
>
> Practically every day, actually, *several* times a day someone comes into
> the local copy shop to knock off copies from a professional photographer
> ...
>
> The company policy is to "wink and look the other way". They won't copy
> it *for* you, but they are great at enabling YOU to make the copy. The
> needs of the customer are their #1 priority, and enabling a customer to
> skirt the edge of copyright law is just something that they do.
>
> "This statement is true and factual to the best of my knowledge"
>
> --
>
> Jim Hall
It's kind of like wiretaps and bugs; you can make and sell them legally all day
long. But, God help you if you are ever caught using one (without proper
authority).
Gary Schooley
Dorothy Combs
I don't think that a photograph or painting is the same as a T-shirt! Unless that
T-shirt is printed with some one else's copyright image. Inventions are patented,
and are a whole other thing from intellectual property. Remember the Kodak instant
camera? Gone! Because they stepped on Polaroid Land camera's patents.
Dorothy
Laura
news:8n749m$dim$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> It has nothing to do with "how the rest of the world feels about it."
It's
> flat out copyright violation. It's illegal.
>
> The beauty of it is the federal penalty in law suits is damages of three
> times the value of the the original.
>
persist
> after a warning.
Ahh, but I am a photographer... so not all photographers are against
appropriation.
How much of an image does someone have to take before it's called a
copyright violation? Any amount? A certain amount?
If we take the stand that any amount of appropriation is a copyright
violation, why is it that international artists get away with it all the
time? Is this simply because the original artist chose not to pursue it, or
is there some other reason entirely?
Laura
--
My Art - Laura Transforms - http://www.20-eyes.com/aeon/index.html
My Linkware - Laura Transforms Graphics -
http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
BATDING - http://www.20-eyes.com/batding/index.html
Mr. Jim
>So what do you think. Is Webshots home free with their rule that says
>the member who uploads a photo is totally responsible if that photo
>turns out to be someone else's property even though Webshots is claiming
>rights to the photo themselves and exercising those rights when they
>disperse the photo to others?
Webshots is risking a lawsuit, IMO.
Meghan Noecker
>Everyone, and Dorothy,
>
>Thank you for your replies! Wow. :)
>
>The reason I've asked about appropriation is I tend to like it as a tool in
>my artwork. I have removed my digital art from the web for the time being
>as I was worried about copyright issues. For example, I have used the Body
>Shop's "fat barbie", a promo shot of the devil in "Legend", and slices of
>the human body from the "Visible Human Project". I believe I've used all of
>these in ways that are creative and beyond just "cutting and pasting". I'm
>still leery to show the work though.
>
>I think it's okay on a website... but what if I were to print them really
>huge and have them up in a gallery somewhere? I have my doubts that anyone
>would come after me, but is it worth the risk? I'm not sure.
>
If you don't have permission, it isn't worth the risk. Even painting a
photo by hand requires permission. The painting may all be done by the
painterm and with a few changes, but the original image is
copyrighted.
Why not just ask permission? Most likely, you will get it, and then
you don't have to worry. Most people just want a credit line if you
are just posting it on a website. It is when it comes to making and
selling copies or advertising, or something more commercial that
people get into legal issues.
I personally don't mind if somebody asks to use my photos. But if I
were to find one in use without my permission, even if it isn't be
sold, I would be upset. I would complain, and possibly threaten legal
action depending on its use. If they removed it, or added a link and a
credit line, I would probably let it drop. It depends on the
situation. I would definitely respond though.
Meghan
Friesians in the Northwest
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Meghan Noecker
>"Sambo" <wha...@whoat.com> wrote in message
>news:8n749m$dim$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> It has nothing to do with "how the rest of the world feels about it."
>It's
>> flat out copyright violation. It's illegal.
>>
>> The beauty of it is the federal penalty in law suits is damages of three
>> times the value of the the original.
>>
>> Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who
>persist
>> after a warning.
>
>
>Ahh, but I am a photographer... so not all photographers are against
>appropriation.
>
There is a difference between being against appropriation and being
against appropriation without permission.
I will let people use my photos as a basis for other artwork, but I do
NOT accpet people doing it without my permission. And if they intend
to sell the work, they either pay me or give me some form of the
artwork. If they are selling prints of a painting made from the photo,
I get a nice print as my payment.
You say you are not against appropriation, but would you be upset of
you found YOUR work or part of it on somebody else's website without
any mention of your part of it?
GTF
for assisting someone else to break a law is no protection that you will not
be charged and convicted. It simply fuzzies things up a bit so that a
high-priced shyster has a leg to stand on.
Dorothy Combs <dotc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39972A9E...@mindspring.com...
> This sounds similar to the TOS at Webshots-Excite. They let anyone who
wants to
> become a member of Webshots upload photographs to, "albums," on their
server.
> Webshots says that members must be the owners of the photos or have the
> permission of the owners, and that Webshots is not responsible for any
content
> in any album uploaded by members. Webshots also has in their TOS that once
a
> photograph is uploaded to their server they have non exclusive rights
forever to
> the use of that photograph. This is because they let members download any
photo
> from any album, and they also have a card shop where any photo in any
album is
> available. Photo collectors have uploaded many photos they do not own to
> Webshots. Webshots will only remove a photograph if the real owner can
prove it
> is their copyright property.
>
> So what do you think. Is Webshots home free with their rule that says the
member
> who uploads a photo is totally responsible if that photo turns out to be
someone
> else's property even though Webshots is claiming rights to the photo
themselves
> and exercising those rights when they disperse the photo to others?
>
> Dorothy
>
> John Boy wrote:
>
> > At the lab where I used to work, we had a form the customer had to sign,
> > stating that they had obtained the rights to an image. There's always
the
> > question as to whether they really DID, but at least if they hadn't, our
ass
> > was covered.
> >
> > - John
> >
> > "Mr. Jim" <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:8F8F99B...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Sambo wrote:
> > >
> > > >Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who
> > > >persist after a warning.
> > >
John Boy
Not Swipe", by Jean S. Perwin, that describes how an ad agency used a scan
of a picture without permission, as a comp, and then recreated the shot with
another photographer for the final ad. They got socked to the tune of
$140,000.
- John
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote in message
news:csJl5.149002$ef6.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> "Sambo" <wha...@whoat.com> wrote in message
> news:8n749m$dim$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > It has nothing to do with "how the rest of the world feels about it."
> It's
> > flat out copyright violation. It's illegal.
> >
> > The beauty of it is the federal penalty in law suits is damages of three
> > times the value of the the original.
> >
> > Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who
> persist
> > after a warning.
>
>
> Ahh, but I am a photographer... so not all photographers are against
> appropriation.
>
George
back, they will not touch a copyright photo now without written permission
of the copyright holder. It gets very costly for them if the copyright
holder wins. Here they did not think the copyright holders would win, but
they did.
George
"Mr. Jim" <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8F8F99B...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> Sambo wrote:
>
> >Photographers, at least, are tired of it and going after people who
> >persist after a warning.
>
Laura
> against appropriation without permission.
>
> I will let people use my photos as a basis for other artwork, but I do
> NOT accpet people doing it without my permission. And if they intend
> to sell the work, they either pay me or give me some form of the
> artwork. If they are selling prints of a painting made from the photo,
> I get a nice print as my payment.
>
> You say you are not against appropriation, but would you be upset of
> you found YOUR work or part of it on somebody else's website without
> any mention of your part of it?
I think we are talking about two different things though. Simply taking
someone's artwork/image/photo/etc and posting it on your own webpage is
plain stealing.
Taking someone else's image/artwork/photo/etc and using it in your own
designs that you sell for money is also stealing.
When I mentioned appropriation, I didn't mean simply using someone else's
work to decorate/embellish/or create a website. Nor do I mean taking
someone else's work and displaying it for all to see. I also don't mean
using someone else's photographs as a basis for a design.
I think what I meant was more along the lines of appropriation in fine art.
Maybe it's the same thing... I'm not sure.
I guess what I'm wondering is this: Why can a famous artist take another
famous artist's photos, add some text to them, and call them his/her own and
get away with it? Are they getting away with it because it isn't actually
illegal in such a situation? Are they getting away with it simply because
they have not been challenged legally on this issue? Are they getting away
with it because it's generally accepted in fine art as a form of expressing
oneself?
I guess I'm just fuzzy on the copyright laws. If I use just the eyeball
from a photo in a magazine, could someone potentially sue me for copyright
infringement? What if I took a blue sky? What if I utilized a famous
Calvin Clein photo to create a crazy nightmarish landscape?
Please don't get me wrong.. I'm not attempting to say that stealing
another's work is right, more I'm trying to get a feel for where everyone
sits on the issue, and what the laws might be.
I guess I should also note, I'm not trying to find out the laws so that I
can go run around and use other people's work. I'm just curious as it was
an issue in a lot of my classes and so on :)
Laura
Dorothy Combs
What you do for a class is a learning experience. No one sees the work other
than your classmates and your instructor. So I wouldn't worry about
copyright...this would be a fair use issue. Later you wouldn't be using these
classroom assignments for anything else.
Years ago artists could not copyright their oil paintings or watercolors etc.
That changed, but I don't know if works done before the laws were changed were
included. I would guess not. So there may be things done based on famous modern
paintings that are allowed where newer artwork is off limits. I sure see a lot
of websites and web graphics based on Thomas Kincade paintings and many other
current artists though. I think this is more tolerated than it is legal.
>Laura: I guess what I'm wondering is this: Why can a famous artist take another
famous artist's photos, add some text to them, and call them his/her own and
get away with it? Are they getting away with it because it isn't actually
illegal in such a situation? Are they getting away with it simply because
they have not been challenged legally on this issue? Are they getting away
with it because it's generally accepted in fine art as a form of expressing
oneself?<
I would think that first it is the original artist either tolerating or giving
permission, and not making a legal challenge more than anything else. So the
original artist may not mind that the second person is using their work to
express a new idea. If there were a challenge then I don't think that the second
artist would win in court. That is just what I think. It would still be up to a
court to decide.
Dorothy
JKEliason
this question. To know that one's livelihood is being taken and
used by another is similar to shoplifting. My work is creating
montages out of photographs with Photoshop. We require a
signature indicating that all our customers' submitted photos are
free of copyright restrictions. I think that it is only fair that
a photographer who lives by his art should be paid for the use of
his art.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
the tree by the river
Dorothy Combs <dotc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>This sounds similar to the TOS at Webshots-Excite. They let anyone who
>wants to become a member of Webshots upload photographs to, "albums,"
>on their server. Webshots says that members must be the owners of the
>photos or have the permission of the owners, and that Webshots is not
>Webshots will only remove a photograph if the real owner can prove it
>is their copyright property.
>
>So what do you think. Is Webshots home free with their rule that says
>claiming rights to the photo themselves and exercising those rights
>when they disperse the photo to others?
I reviewed Webshots TOS and disclaimers before setting up a few albums
there myself, and I have no doubt that they would utterly fail to
stand up if it came to a lawsuit. Even apart from the shaky legal
standing of the contract itself, the hoops they claim that one must
jump through to report copyright violations are high enough to hurt
any claim they might make of being free from liability; their "report
copyright violations" instructions are:
[quote]
Send email to busi...@webshots.com to report a violation if you own such material and you want it removed from the Webshots Community.
In the email, you must provide:
. Your name and personal email address.
. The complete URL for each image that is in violation.
. Proof that you own the rights to each image listed above, for example:
. Your watermark or logo embedded in the image.
. A link to a website that you operate that demonstrates ownership
. (such as a artist's site).
. The name of a publication which contains the image.
[endquote]
Now, the funny thing is that, though much of their stock in trade
*is* material where it's patently obvious that the album creator
doesn't have the rights to the material (screen captures of
"Highlander" episodes, etc.), the other day I got a notice from
their staff that they had removed one of my images for copyright
violation.
Now, granted, it *was* a copy of a magazine cover...but, the
model on the cover was me, the magazine and photographer were
clearly credited, *and* it was put there with the knowlege and
permission of the publisher. Go figure.
But, then, they also decided that some of the pictures that
showed my unclothed back from the waist up were "suitable
for mature audiences only" and viewers have to swear that
they are over eighteen and promise not to be offended or
hold Webshots legally responsible for any emotional trauma
or psychological distress they might suffer as a result of
seeing my naked upper back.
--
pics: http://community.webshots.com/user/trygvelode [ Trygve Lode ]
music video and mp3s: http://www.mp3.com/TrygveLode [ http://www.trygve.com ]
soc.singles FAQ [ Nyx Net, free ISP ] Misc.Fitness.Weights page
www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html [ http://www.nyx.net ] www.trygve.com/mfw.html
Dorothy Combs
This wouldn't apply if the owner knowingly uploaded their own work to Webshots. I think anyone with special photographs is dumb to give
Webshots such sweeping rights to their photos. Even Yahoo-Geocities says the rights stop when the work is removed from Yahoo servers. Not
Webshots! Once you put your photo there they have a non exclusive right to use, change, distribute, your work forever. They use the word
perpetual which means forever! On this one they would win in court!
Dorothy
c-tide
> I do think that Webshots would lose if it were proved that the owner of a photo did not give permission or upload the photo themselves.
There has been an ongoing discussion of this in rec.photo.technique.nature.
A lot of the images on webshots were scanned directly from National
Geographic. You can still see the halftone pattern on some of the
images. I looked at the site and recognized photos from
several well known nature photographers.
The problem is, how many of these photographers are going
to have time to go out looking for their images on websites
like this? I personally don't have time to do that. A lot of the
photographers who had images copied illegally were notified
by members of that ng.
I'm not sure what success they had with removing the images.
c-tide
---
Dorothy Combs
You are right most photographers are not going to look through the two or three million photos on Webshots for their work. Webshots-Excite is
counting on this. They also make it difficult to prove ownership of a photo...the owner has to jump through the hoops Webshots has laid out
anyway. They should make every person uploading photos send in documentation or at least a faxed signature swearing that the work they upload
is their own. Forget about some third party permission.
Maybe someday they will get sued!
Dorothy
RTM
prove it to a court then that will count a hell of a lot more and will be a
lot easier too.
I don't think it matters much what rules and regulations Webshots lays down
to claim rights to use someone else's work, they cannot impose rules that
are in contradiction of the law, and copyright is defined by law in just
about every country in the world. Also they cannot claim the rights to
anyones work unless that person submitted the work
themselves in knowledge of and in agreement with such terms. Otherwise that
would deem it okay for me to take someone else's picture, submit it to
Webshots and they would have the rights to it forever? I don't think so. The
law in any country does not allow me (or anyone) to give away what I don't
own, or the rights to anything I don't own.
--
Ron.
In an infinite universe all things are possible.
the tree by the river <tl...@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:96650650...@irys.nyx.net...
>
> I reviewed Webshots TOS and disclaimers before setting up a few albums
> there myself, and I have no doubt that they would utterly fail to
> stand up if it came to a lawsuit. Even apart from the shaky legal
> standing of the contract itself, the hoops they claim that one must
> jump through to report copyright violations are high enough to hurt
> any claim they might make of being free from liability; their "report
> copyright violations" instructions are:
>
>snip<
the tree by the river
Dorothy Combs <dotc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>the tree by the river wrote:
>>
>> I reviewed Webshots TOS and disclaimers before setting up a few albums
>> there myself, and I have no doubt that they would utterly fail to
>> stand up if it came to a lawsuit. Even apart from the shaky legal
>> standing of the contract itself, the hoops they claim that one must
>> jump through to report copyright violations are high enough to hurt
>
>I do think that Webshots would lose if it were proved that the owner
>of a photo did not give permission or upload the photo themselves.
I don't think there's any doubt of that; I think their TOS (which
I'm guessing that most people who have uploaded pictures have
never actually read) would not shield them from liability or
damages in a court case. But it's not the first time I've been
surprised by the legal "reasonong" of major companies.
>This wouldn't apply if the owner knowingly uploaded their own work to
>Webshots. I think anyone with special photographs is dumb to give
>Webshots such sweeping rights to their photos. Even Yahoo-Geocities says
>the rights stop when the work is removed from Yahoo servers. Not
>Webshots! Once you put your photo there they have a non exclusive right
>to use, change, distribute, your work forever. They use the word
>perpetual which means forever! On this one they would win in court!
Almost certainly (I can think of some legal arguments and cases
that suggest it's not quite that clear, but they'd have a good case).
"Perpetuity" and "change" bothered me significantly, and I did
have someone on my legal staff review their TOS agreement before
putting anything up there. I don't like those two terms in the
agreement and there are pictures I won't put up there as a result,
but even with those provisions, I do think it's a useful site
to use as a promotional tool.
It's a bit like clipart--it's a pain to have to worry about sometimes,
but I am careful to have model releases (that cover this kind of
distribution and use) and keep trademark/copyright issues in mind.
For example, I feel free to distribute "clipart" photos of antique
furniture and decorative elements that are hundreds of years old,
fossils, plants, and other natural objects--but I wouldn't take a
picture of a Furbie and call it clipart, and I'd worry about an
outdoor shot that just happened to include somebody's logo or
trademark in the image.
But on Webshots, things like movie posters, movie stills and
video captures, CD album covers are popular--and it's not going to
bother me in the least if Webshots makes a few bucks here and there
from printing up copies of a movie poster or album cover, so I feel
relatively free to upload those, at least.
I'm not as happy about the "modification" term, but I decided I'd
chance it anyway.
Dorothy Combs
also have Blue Mountain Arts which is an online card shop. I imagine they will be
looking for good stuff to put into new cards once in awhile. Making a photo into a
birthday card etc. would mean modification of the original image.
Also I would be surprised if album covers and things like that are going to go un
noticed if Webshots does start selling copies. Webshots probably thinks they are
protected because the first person responsible is going to be the one that
uploaded the copyright material to Webshots. I am sure these people will be
included in any lawsuit, but it is going to be Webshots with the deep pockets.
Then I am sure that Webshots could turn around and sue these people themselves.
I wouldn't upload a bad photo of my dog to Webshots!
Dorothy
Gary Schooley
the tree by the river wrote:
> It's a bit like clipart--it's a pain to have to worry about sometimes,
> but I am careful to have model releases (that cover this kind of
> distribution and use) and keep trademark/copyright issues in mind.
All these came from either silhouette clipart, dingbats or actual photographs, yet
they are so enhanced ("changed") that no one can even recognize them, let alone
lay claim to them: http://schooley.home.texas.net/ClipTemp.htm
They would be hard pressed to say anything. The Eagle, lizard, tarantula and
crawdad came from photos. The lion came from a larger silhouette; had to cut it
out, repair the leg and tail, flip it and do my *magic* to it. The rest are
dingbats.
Gary Schooley
the tree by the river
>> video captures, CD album covers are popular--and it's not going
>> to bother me in the least if Webshots makes a few bucks here and
>> there from printing up copies of a movie poster or album cover,
>> so I feel relatively free to upload those, at least.
>>
>> I'm not as happy about the "modification" term, but I decided I'd
>> chance it anyway.
>
>because they also have Blue Mountain Arts which is an online card shop.
>I imagine they will be looking for good stuff to put into new cards
>once in awhile. Making a photo into a birthday card etc. would mean
>modification of the original image.
If that's their motivation, that would worry me a bit more--maybe
I'm engaging in a bit of hair-splitting here, but I think it would
be tacky at best to feature an artist's work on a greeting card
without first contacting the artist about it. I'm not sure I'm
explaining it well, but for some reason it does seem different to
me to have a page of greeting cards outside of any other context
and use the work of artists without their knowlege (especially
with modification without the approval of the artist), than to have
a portfolio of an artist's work (with whatever comments and credits
the artist chooses to put there) where the hosting site has an
option for "order a greeting card with this print."
>Also I would be surprised if album covers and things like that are
>going to go unnoticed if Webshots does start selling copies. Webshots
>probably thinks they are protected because the first person responsible
>is going to be the one that uploaded the copyright material to Webshots.
Webshots is already very much in the business of selling copies
of artwork placed on their site. Every time you display a
picture on their site, right at the top-left corner of the image
is a button you can click to order a print of the picture. The
price is pretty reasonable--$0.49 for 4x6, $0.99 for 5x7, and
$2.99 for an 8x10. I couldn't tell you the quality of their
prints, not having ordered any myself, but they are obviously
making some money off of this option.
Personally, I don't begrudge them the money--I assume that's a good
part of what pays for their servers and bandwidth--but one minor
quibble is that I don't know of any way to find out how many (if
any) prints of the pictures in one's albums have been ordered.
The "manage your albums" page does tell you how many people have
viewed your pictures and how many have installed them on their
desktops using Webshots software--I can see that, since early
August, 6,173 people have viewed the pics I've put up and 77 have
put them on their desktops; that's a lot lower traffic than, say,
my own personal page gets, but it's large enough to be worthwhile.
In the future, I probably should organize the albums better for
gathering statistical data--to some degree, I do have CD covers
and movie posters intermingled with personal pics and stills from
movies, videos, and TV--but it's not that big an issue, so I
haven't worried about it too much.
>I wouldn't upload a bad photo of my dog to Webshots!
Well, see, I don't have a dog, so I gotta make do with what I
have on hand.... :-)