Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Fascinating story about the consequences of sharing your art in the Internet age
wraith808:
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
-jgpaiva (March 21, 2011, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think a big part of this issue is not being aware of what the licenses mean... and also the flow of rights, since the photographer released it as CC... so then shouldn't the photographer be liable for any issues arising from the model since that was where the break in the link was?
app103:
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
-jgpaiva (March 21, 2011, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
Anyone that comes along and just snatches your profile pic and uses it without permission would be violating your rights.
But...
If you read the facebook agreement that you clicked "OK" on when you signed up, which has been changed a million times since, and by your continuing to use the service you are agreeing to the changes, Facebook itself has a certain amount of rights to the images you upload...the agreement essentially gives them the right to do whatever they want with them. What if they want to start a stock photo site with them and sell them for commercial use? There is nothing in the agreement that would forbid them from doing so. They would be within their rights...and you already gave them permission to do it.
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
--- End quote ---
40hz:
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...
-wraith808 (March 21, 2011, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think the point I was trying to make is that so much of what gets claimed as somebody's "personal" creative work is quite often exceedingly similar, if not exactly the same, as somebody else's.
It's not a question of playing into anything. It's more a question of deciding where "creativity" actually occurs and what's the limit of what we're going to call uniquely creative.
And no, I don't have the answer to that problem either. :)
Please note too that the whole concept of "licensing" a creative work is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the mid-70's, virtually all creative work was done on a work-for-hire basis where the buyer bought exclusive and perpetual rights to the artistic work.
It's only recently that attorneys and artists (mostly acting on their attorney's advice) have attempted to extend patent and copyright laws in order to have art be seen more as a service than a product.
And the public, rightly or wrongly, is largely refusing to go along with it. People want to buy art or music - not license it. They don't want to have to bring the artist on board as some sort of landlord or perpetual business partner.
So much as it would personally benefit me (as a composer and musician) to be able to hang a taxi meter on my music and get a payment every time it gets listened to by somebody, I'm not holding my breath it's ever going to happen. The people don't want it. And I really can't blame them - even though I'll lose out because of it.
Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.
One thing I do know however. Art & music are not necessities. If the creators of such works make the cost of acquisition too expensive - or the terms of use too onerous - people will just stop buying. And once that happens (or more to the point: once that goose that lays the golden eggs finally starves to death) the artists will either have the choice of doing something else with their lives - or accepting the buyer's terms.
Just my 2ยข. 8)
cranioscopical:
How about your face appearing in an ad for a Herpes medication, in a way that would imply you have Herpes?
How would this make you feel?
-app103 (March 20, 2011, 10:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sore!
wraith808:
One thing I do know however. Art & music are not necessities. If the creators of such works make the cost of acquisition too expensive - or the terms of use too onerous - people will just stop buying. And once that happens (or more to the point: once that goose that lays the golden eggs finally starves to death) the artists will either have the choice of doing something else with their lives - or accepting the buyer's terms.
-40hz (March 21, 2011, 04:25 PM)
--- End quote ---
Though not necessities in the normal definition of the term, to many of the industries that ride on the back of art and music, they are necessities. And if they can make money in perpetuity off of the sale of that work, then why shouldn't those that they choose not to hire, but instead contract with for their services?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version