«

On 1/27/2013 11:56 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> |> One example was a photographer
> | > who had used wedding pictures (bought and paid for by
> | > one of his customers) in ads for his business that showed
> | > up on buses. It had nothing to do with the Internet, and
> | > the thief was the artist.
> |
> | Not so sure we have all the facts on that one. What did the contract
> | provide? A typical event agreement provides that all rights in the
> | images are retained by the photographer. IOW The purchaser only gets the
> | rights to view the images he purchases. The photographer retains the
> | right to use the images for advertising purposes.
> |
>
> That may be. That's also be an interesting aspect
> of the discussion. I certainly wouldn't hire a photographer
> who claims to own the negatives/images that I pay
> for and further claims rights to reuse them in any way
> they see fit. And I doubt many people would consider this
> photographer's actions acceptable, regardless of the
> contract. The photos were personal.
>
> What if a contractor spread around pictures of your
> bedroom without asking; or a hair replacement company
> used your before/after pictures without asking; or a
> photographer took semi-nude pregnancy photos of your
> wife or daughter (a currently popular trend) and published
> those in a magazine ad? There's clearly more to the issue
> there than just who owns copyright. In the first two cases
> you wouldn't have any ownership claim at all. The photos
> would clearly belong to the photographer. But that wouldn't
> make their actions right.

See bob Coe's comment.
While you may not sign such an agreement, most people here do. Indeed
reproduction rights commonly remain with the photographer. I can think
of lots of good business reasons for that. Not the least of which is
that before I hire a photographer, I want to see some real life examples
of his work.


--
PeterN

On 1/27/2013 11:30 AM, sobriquet wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 4:28:32 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>
>> [..]
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> the Internet is a modern communication medium. Artists should get paid
>>
>> for their work. From a moral standpoint, and regardless of copyright
>>
>> laws, using another's work without their permission is nothing more than
>>
>> stealing.
>>
>
> Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who
> claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp
> the most basic aspects of information technology.
>

You are making that statement in a transparent attempt to justify your
self proclaimed malfeasance. Besides you are trying to evade my point,
which is clearly stated above.


--
PeterN

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:23:46 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> On 1/27/2013 11:30 AM, sobriquet wrote:

>
> > Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who
>
> > claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp
>
> > the most basic aspects of information technology.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You are making that statement in a transparent attempt to justify your
>
> self proclaimed malfeasance. Besides you are trying to evade my point,
>
> which is clearly stated above.
>

There is no stealing involved in filesharing and people who claim
otherwise fail to understand information technology.
The claim that artists have to be paid has nothing to do with silly
attempts to impose outdated business models on modern information
technology that is simply incompatible with intellectual property.
People share information freely and copyright can only be enforced
through fascistic practices like censoring websites such as piratebay.
Indiscriminate filesharing illustrates what a fantastic virtual
library the internet would be if people were free to share
information regardless of spurious intellectual property claims.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that accepting this means
that artists wouldn't be paid anymore, because artists enjoy the
freedom to share information online just the same.

>
>
>
>
> --
>
> PeterN

On 1/27/2013 5:46 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:23:46 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>> On 1/27/2013 11:30 AM, sobriquet wrote:
>
>>
>>> Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who
>>
>>> claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp
>>
>>> the most basic aspects of information technology.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You are making that statement in a transparent attempt to justify your
>>
>> self proclaimed malfeasance. Besides you are trying to evade my point,
>>
>> which is clearly stated above.
>>
>
> There is no stealing involved in filesharing and people who claim
> otherwise fail to understand information technology.
> The claim that artists have to be paid has nothing to do with silly
> attempts to impose outdated business models on modern information
> technology that is simply incompatible with intellectual property.
> People share information freely and copyright can only be enforced
> through fascistic practices like censoring websites such as piratebay.
> Indiscriminate filesharing illustrates what a fantastic virtual
> library the internet would be if people were free to share
> information regardless of spurious intellectual property claims.
>
> There is no reason whatsoever to assume that accepting this means
> that artists wouldn't be paid anymore, because artists enjoy the
> freedom to share information online just the same.
>

Very simple. If I post one of my images for folks to comment on, it
remains my image. Nobody gets any right or authority to sell my image,
unless I expressly give that right. Indeed, any use of my image, except
for fair comment purposes constitutes theft of my image.
similarly, if I post a section of code belonging to another, you have no
right to use that code. I would have no right to post that code to a
file sharing site, unless the owner of the rights to that code gives me
express permission to do so. You know that is correct. Your use of my
images without my permission os no less theft, than if you were to steal
my money.
Stop trying to justify your self proclaimed thefts of property.

--
PeterN

On Monday, January 28, 2013 12:00:16 AM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>
> Very simple. If I post one of my images for folks to comment on, it
>
> remains my image. Nobody gets any right or authority to sell my image,
>
> unless I expressly give that right. Indeed, any use of my image, except
>
> for fair comment purposes constitutes theft of my image.
>
> similarly, if I post a section of code belonging to another, you have no
>
> right to use that code. I would have no right to post that code to a
>
> file sharing site, unless the owner of the rights to that code gives me
>
> express permission to do so. You know that is correct. Your use of my
>
> images without my permission os no less theft, than if you were to steal
>
> my money.
>
> Stop trying to justify your self proclaimed thefts of property.
>
>
>
> --
>
> PeterN

That is simply a fascist idea of 'intellectual property'. Your false and unfounded accusation of theft is something that infringes on my creative
freedom. If you show an image online, that implies that people can copy
and share it and for you to claim that making such a copy constitutes
theft is fascistic. The way I see it, is that you have the freedom
to share something you created online, but the very act of doing so
implies you grant other people the freedom to copy that and to use
that copy as they see fit.

If you disagree, you can show an image here in rec.photo.digital to
demonstrate how you can effectively prevent others from making a
copy and subsequently sharing this online, either in identical or
modified form. I will show you that there is nothing you can
effectively do against people who defy your assertion that it is
up to you as the purported owner of it as intellectual property
to decide what people are or aren't allowed to do with it once you
have made a digital copy available online.

On Monday, January 28, 2013 12:40:55 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-27 15:12:18 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
>
> >
>
> > That is simply a fascist idea of 'intellectual property'. Your false
>
> > and unfounded accusation of theft is something that infringes on my
>
> > creative freedom.
>
>
>
> Since your "creative freedom" is based on a false, self justifying,
>
> immoral premise for theft of other's work, my final thought regarding
>
> this is, screw your "creative freedom"! It is a lie.
>

Likewise, my opinion on spurious intellectual property claims is that
you can stick it under a rock and I'll enjoy the freedom to share
information indiscriminately (or at least with complete disregard
for spurious claims involving a monopoly on the distribution and
reproduction of information) and I'll expose your fascist attempts
to infringe on that freedom for the myths that they are.
People who demonize sharing information as stealing are fascists
of the worst kind.

>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

| While you may not sign such an agreement, most people here do. Indeed
| reproduction rights commonly remain with the photographer. I can think
| of lots of good business reasons for that. Not the least of which is
| that before I hire a photographer, I want to see some real life examples
| of his work.
|

You're addressing only the legal issue and not the moral
issue. That's what I was trying to highlight. As long as both
sides only care about their own concerns there's no difference
between you and sobriquet. You're both avoiding messy
ambiguities by sticking to the letter of the law. Also, a
photographer showing you their portfolio is not the same
issue as a photographer using those photos in an ad campaign
without permission.

I guess it's always been normal for the photographer
to control the negatives or original image, but does that
also give them the right to use the images as they like, for
any purpose? I don't know what the norm is on that issue.
But I'm glad this came up. I'll be on the alert, should I ever
need to hire a photographer, to make sure I don't sign away
rights and allow them to put my face on top of a body dressed
in S&M gear for a feature article in a neo-nazi magazine.

As I understand it there seems to be a gray area there. Famous
people can sue for commercial use of their photo because it's
potentially profitable. But I'm not sure about other people. There
was a woman who sued recently for the use of a picture of her
face that was taken at a sports arena and then used in an ad
campaign, but I don't remember now how it worked out. (It was
just a month or so ago. Perhaps someone remembers...)

On 1/27/2013 6:12 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 12:00:16 AM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>>
>> Very simple. If I post one of my images for folks to comment on, it
>>
>> remains my image. Nobody gets any right or authority to sell my image,
>>
>> unless I expressly give that right. Indeed, any use of my image, except
>>
>> for fair comment purposes constitutes theft of my image.
>>
>> similarly, if I post a section of code belonging to another, you have no
>>
>> right to use that code. I would have no right to post that code to a
>>
>> file sharing site, unless the owner of the rights to that code gives me
>>
>> express permission to do so. You know that is correct. Your use of my
>>
>> images without my permission os no less theft, than if you were to steal
>>
>> my money.
>>
>> Stop trying to justify your self proclaimed thefts of property.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> PeterN
>
> That is simply a fascist idea of 'intellectual property'. Your false and unfounded accusation of theft is something that infringes on my creative
> freedom. If you show an image online, that implies that people can copy
> and share it and for you to claim that making such a copy constitutes
> theft is fascistic. The way I see it, is that you have the freedom
> to share something you created online, but the very act of doing so
> implies you grant other people the freedom to copy that and to use
> that copy as they see fit.
>
> If you disagree, you can show an image here in rec.photo.digital to
> demonstrate how you can effectively prevent others from making a
> copy and subsequently sharing this online, either in identical or
> modified form. I will show you that there is nothing you can
> effectively do against people who defy your assertion that it is
> up to you as the purported owner of it as intellectual property
> to decide what people are or aren't allowed to do with it once you
> have made a digital copy available online.
>

The Duck has stated my opinion and the morality of your position.
EOD




EOD

--
PeterN

On 1/27/2013 7:00 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> | While you may not sign such an agreement, most people here do. Indeed
> | reproduction rights commonly remain with the photographer. I can think
> | of lots of good business reasons for that. Not the least of which is
> | that before I hire a photographer, I want to see some real life examples
> | of his work.
> |
>
> You're addressing only the legal issue and not the moral
> issue. That's what I was trying to highlight. As long as both
> sides only care about their own concerns there's no difference
> between you and sobriquet. You're both avoiding messy
> ambiguities by sticking to the letter of the law. Also, a
> photographer showing you their portfolio is not the same
> issue as a photographer using those photos in an ad campaign
> without permission.

Nothing immoral, see below. the difference between me and Sobriquet, is
that I am stating what the law is, not what I wish it to be. I have also
stated my opinion on morality. BTW, it's unfortunate that you never took
my college course covering the difference between law and morality. You
might actually have learned something.

>
> I guess it's always been normal for the photographer
> to control the negatives or original image, but does that
> also give them the right to use the images as they like, for
> any purpose? I don't know what the norm is on that issue.
> But I'm glad this came up. I'll be on the alert, should I ever
> need to hire a photographer, to make sure I don't sign away
> rights and allow them to put my face on top of a body dressed
> in S&M gear for a feature article in a neo-nazi magazine.
>
> As I understand it there seems to be a gray area there. Famous
> people can sue for commercial use of their photo because it's
> potentially profitable. But I'm not sure about other people. There
> was a woman who sued recently for the use of a picture of her
> face that was taken at a sports arena and then used in an ad
> campaign, but I don't remember now how it worked out. (It was
> just a month or so ago. Perhaps someone remembers...)
>

Just what is immoral about an agreement that clearly states the rights
of each party. You have stated that you would never agree to what I
stated the agreement was. Nobody is compelling either side to enter into
the agreement. (assuming there was one.) If there is a clear agreement
setting forth the rights duties and obligations of each party, and such
agreement that doesn't violate public policy, and is not overreaching,
it is not gray.


--
PeterN

On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:17:36 AM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>
> The Duck has stated my opinion and the morality of your position.
>
> EOD
>
>
>
> --
>
> PeterN


See, your intellectual property claims are spurious and there is no
way you could substantiate your phoney claims.
If you show me a piece of your purported intellectual property, I'll
show you that you're simply confused about the nature of information
technology. But you won't do that, because you know that would expose
your fascist scam.