Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Fascinating story about the consequences of sharing your art in the Internet age

<< < (6/9) > >>

mwb1100:
Here's a twist...

You're standing around somewhere when someone nearby snaps a picture of some of their friends and you're in the background doing something. You do not own the copyright in the image... Now suppose the composition has some sort of unique quality like being funny or whatever, and you play a significant role in that. It goes viral or is used commercially.

Is that a problem?
-Renegade (March 21, 2011, 01:05 AM)
--- End quote ---

Well, here's a small discussion about how someone's photo from Flickr was used in a Virgin Mobile ad campaign, and the photographer and the person in the photo weren't too happy about it:

  - http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

rxantos:
What is his art? A picture of his face?

If so, then every soldier found on a WW2 picture should have the right for royalties since copyright has not expired.

I will never understand the reasoning of I made a picture of something once, thereof I should be payed for it the rest of my life. Will you pay a doctor the rest of your life when he saved your life? The doctor did a lot more than this guy. And should every surgeon that makes a bypass surgery pay a royalty to the one that invented the procedure? After all its creation, isn't it.

Yes, is illegal, yes (under the eyes of the law). Has it being stolen, NO (as the original user can still use it). It has being pirated and transformed, not stolen. That makes a case to go to court and let the court decide. However, it does not makes a case of getting public pity in hopes of milking the situation.

Is it a mater of principle. Maybe, if  you agree that however invents something (including medical procedures) have the right to keep receiving royalties from it for the rest of their lives and then more. BTW, if that is the case, be sure to use ONLY IBM pc, as they where the ones who invented the personal computer. Otherwise you got your principles screwed.

40hz:
There's a big difference between commercial use in ads, shirts etc. and non commercial reuse for learning, sharing, sampling etc.

And the greater good is NOT criminalising the latter in order to prevent the former. Not matter how good a story you trot out.

I have had my images reused, my copy copied word for word to be used on a competitors brochure etc. but I will never consider that in order to protect me for this, people should be given the right to take children to court for "plagiarizing" Harry Potter on a home video, or make it ok to put limitations on my device that prevent totally legitimate use in order to protect from hypothetical non legitimate use.-iphigenie (March 21, 2011, 11:08 AM)
--- End quote ---

I find myself in complete agreement despite having also had my own creative work borrowed either word for word (or note for note) on more than a few occasions.  :)

After all we can also never forget that everything we create, write, code is hugely inspired from things we have seen, read etc. that has someone else's copyright. We are all sharers, remixers and plagiarists - learn-by-by-copying-and-doing is how we are wired.

For example the image in question is hugely reminiscent of art that others were doing before this guy did it - he inspired himself and copied the style, and it is very similar to many others - it doesnt make it right to pinch it, not when it would take the shirtmaker 10 minutes to do a good enough image to use... On the other hand most of the other "offenses" he mentions are people inspired by the t shirts to do a graffiti... and articles about the story.

--- End quote ---

+1!

One problem I've seen in music and graphic design is the desire of some people to take one photo, draw one picture, or compose one song that will allow them to get rich and retire thanks to. It's a variation on the old "brass ring" or "get rich quick" game where the goal is to get lucky and hit the jackpot rather than pursue one's art form as a career. This has much in common with the people who start companies solely with the intent of being quickly bought out rather than running an ongoing business.


My sister is a career artist. Her feeling is that the only people who are desperate to wring every possible penny out of everything they do are the ones who are afraid they're going to run out of talent or ideas. The ones who basically believe they will only generate one or two good pieces of work in their entire career. And once those are gone, they're done.

She's had her designs copied, her art used without attribution or permission, and things she's created claimed by others. There have been a (very)  few times when she's pursued legal remedies. But most times she doesn't bother. Her attitude is that she has plenty more art where that came from. So she's not going to waste her productive time agonizing over who is borrowing her stuff. But that's because she went into art to do art. And to make a living from it if possible. She did not go into art with the intent of getting rich and famous, even if she didn't rule out the possibility it might happen.

As she put it: "I'm an artist. This is what I do. I'd do it for free if that's what it took. I'd probably even pay to do it if I had to. Because it's not just the work. It's who I am."

I asked her if it bugged her when somebody used something of hers without her permission. She sort of shrugged and said it didn't really matter since "there's really nothing 'new' and it's all been done before." She said you've got: three primary colors; a dot, a line, a circle, a square, and a triangle; light and darkness; perspective and texture. Once you get beyond those, it's mostly playing with different combinations and interpretations.

I had her watch the video. She said she could sympathize up to a point, but she hoped he realizes that sort of thing happens all the time in the art world.

Then she hauled out an art book and showed me a half dozen similar looking pieces of art from the 60s and 70s.

Like she said - nothing new, and it's all been done before.

 8)

wraith808:
@iphigenie, rxantos, 40hz

But the issue isn't with fair use.  If someone else used it in their campaign, product, etc., and it didn't have any intrinsic use, why not go snap it for themselves?  If you like the pose- re-pose it and take the picture.  If it's *just a day's work*, then why not do it yourself?  I think the fact that they *didn't* places intrinsic value on the work.  And if you are going to make money, then you should be willing to pay for the privilege.  This says nothing about fair use if you aren't making money- and in fact, he says he has no problems with that and is quite happy to see it used in that manner.  

It appears that TANSTAAFL applies to anyone- unless you are a large enough company to make suing you non-worthwhile, or your target is so small that you can be sure that they won't do anything.

And the fact that it is already been done is IMO just buying into the system and making easier to do the same in the future...

jgpaiva:
mwb1100: I think you have just brought a very interesting addition to this conversation!
From what I understand from her flickr page, that girl isn't even a photographer, her intent sure was not to share her work with the world.

What if your "cool" facebook profile picture got used in a publicity campaign all over the world? There are no rules against it, right? (Now that I think about it, the facebook profile picture doesn't even have a copyright notice anywhere).

ps: sorry for going slightly offtopic, but I find this also very interesting

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page