Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen'images,

Reply
Thread Tools

'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen'images,

 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:26:12 AM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>
> 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.
> [..]


Your statement of the law is irrelevant. The facts are that the nature
of information technology is such that it would be completely ludicrous
to maintain that one can seriously expect a monopoly on the reproduction
and distribution of something you put on the internet.
Hence, you're not just a fascist (as far as morality is concerned), but
you're also delusional.
Lots of fascists have the law on their side, but that is just indicative
of fascistic laws.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On Monday, January 28, 2013 3:52:42 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:12:18 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
>
>
> Your claim that you 'create' by copying other people's work is an
>
> oxymoron.


My claim is merely that I can exercise creative freedom by remixing
and composing new images from images I encounter online.

http://dohduhdah.imgur.com


>
> >

>
> >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.

>
>
>
> If you publish your adress I can show you that there is nothing you
>
> can do to keep other people out of your place of residence.


So you equate breaking into people's house with unauthorized
filesharing?

Here is an example of this so-called copyright infringement:
http://www.udadennie.com/new-gallery...l#fwgallerytop

This is an image, the supposed intellectual property of
someone who clearly is under the mistaken impression that
he can effectively prevent others from unauthorized
reproduction and distribution.
Yet, there are countless places where the image shows up:

http://tinyurl.com/aql3ors

Conclusion: If your images have any artistic merit whatsoever,
there is nothing you can do to effectively prevent the image
from being subjected to unauthorized reproduction and
distribution.

Often, even without mentioning the source and in modified form.

http://imgur.com/gallery/zgqKO6c

>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>
>>


Liberal bullshit
 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.



So if i leave my bike outside the 7-11 when i go in to get my 64oz biggulp,
you have the right to come along and steal it??? I then have the right to kick
your ****ing ass!!!



>
>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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Monday, January 28, 2013 12:40:55 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-01-27 15:12:18 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Why do i get the impression that you are one of those who rarely bathes and
grow your garden in your own human feces?
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:17:48 AM UTC+1, GMAN wrote:
>[..]
> So if i leave my bike outside the 7-11 when i go in to get my 64oz biggulp,
>
> you have the right to come along and steal it??? I then have the right to kick
>
> your ****ing ass!!!
>


If you put an image online, then I can come along and copy it and share
that copy with others. Go ahead and try it out. Put an image online and
try to kick people's ass who dare to copy it and share it online
elsewhere. I will guarantee you that your fascist intimidation tactics
will be futile.

Once we have universal duplication devices, I can come along and copy
your bicycle and share it with others.

Stealing only applies when people would take something away.
Hence there is no stealing involved whatsoever in online filesharing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:20:25 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:13:30 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> -- excess double-spaced text snipped --
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Your claim that you 'create' by copying other people's work is an

>
> >>

>
> >> oxymoron.

>
> >

>
> >My claim is merely that I can exercise creative freedom by remixing

>
> >and composing new images from images I encounter online.

>
> >

>
> >http://dohduhdah.imgur.com

>
>
>
> It still entails copying.


So what? The worst that can happen is a DMCA so they take an image
offline. But that will not be effective in preventing the image to
show up elsewhere.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >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.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> If you publish your adress I can show you that there is nothing you

>
> >>

>
> >> can do to keep other people out of your place of residence.

>
> >

>
> >So you equate breaking into people's house with unauthorized

>
> >filesharing?

>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> Do you want to accept my argument that because I can, I should be
>
> allowed to?
> [..]


Sharing information is a human right. A monopoly on the distribution
and reproduction of information is not.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:09:38 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:48:43 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>
> > On 2013-01-26 12:58:24 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >

>
> > >

>
> >

>
> > >

>
> >

>
> > > So, what is your role in creating or improving either computers or

>
> >

>
> > > the internet?

>
> >

>
> > >

>
> >

>
> > > Seems like you have no substantial arguments contradicting my point

>
> >

>
> > > of view and hence you resort to attacking me personally instead of

>
> >

>
> > > refuting my arguments.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > It's that irresistible self adhered target on your forehead. It makes

>
> >

>
> > you SO attackable when it comes to this subject.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > The issue of this thread is not your puerile game playing, but

>
> >

>
> > photographs lifted by corporate entities to use in and on their

>
> >

>
> > products, from book covers to brochures, to advertising to billboards

>
> >

>
> > without paying the creators. Those photographers and graphic artists

>
> >

>
> > depend on [payment for the use of their work so they can earn a living.

>
> >

>
> > A living you seem to feel they don't deserve, so you can continue to

>
> >

>
> > cut and paste in your parents' basement.

>
> >

>
>
>
> Those photographers and graphic artists shouldn't be on the internet to
>
> begin with and then this whole problem wouldn't occur.
>
> It's clueless people who put their work on the internet and subsequently
>
> complain about copyright infringement, instead of acknowledging that
>
> there is no copyright on the internet and people can share things freely
>
> with no consequences whatsoever in the vast majority of cases.


Trouble with this is it gives me proof that perhaps involuntary euthanasia is the answer

>
>
>
> >

>
> >

>
> > --

>
> >

>
> > Regards,

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Savageduck


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On 27/01/2013 14:50, Doug McDonald wrote:
> On 1/26/2013 2:22 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:51:00 -0600, Doug McDonald <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> :
>> : The problem is common sense:
>> :
>> : If you don't want your pictures to be used without payment,
>> : only show them to prospective buyers in hard copy form
>> : where you retain physical possession, or, if on the web,
>> : in uselessly small versions (smaller than say 80 pixels
>> : smallest dimension.) If you sell them for digital use
>> : in large size, make sure you get enough to cover their
>> : value from the first sale.
>>
>> And what is "their value" in that context?
>>
>> Bob
>>

> It is what is necessary to make a business model work.
> It might be $30 for a wedding photographer or $30,000 for
> a photographic artist. But the point is ... a business
> model built on one photo, one sale, and a profit.


There's an alternative to that of course: join an agency.

Magnum, Getty Images, Corbis, Sipa Press, Alamy, and so on..


--
audentes fortuna iuvat
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2013
On 26/01/2013 08:23, sobriquet wrote:

(...)

> Employing, manipulating and remixing images one encounters in
> one's environment (like on the internet or on the streets)
> constitutes artistic freedom.


Yes. And making money with these remixed images constitutes copyright
infringement. Keyword being "commercial use".


--
audentes fortuna iuvat
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Arrest more photographers! Arrest more photographers!" RichA Digital Photography 0 09-10-2010 01:56 PM
The Directory of Indian Web Designers, Graphic Designers charan.uptrend@gmail.com Perl Misc 0 03-01-2007 04:11 PM
Invitation to ROR Developers, UI Designers, AJAX Gurus and graphics designers wheresdave Javascript 0 02-14-2007 04:41 PM
Vent Shane NZ Computing 86 03-23-2006 01:45 AM
JavaMail - Eclipse - whatever! [allow me to vent up] Rico Java 3 01-29-2005 02:42 AM



Advertisments