Haters

[danaisle]

It's funny. Since I started blogging about this, I've gotten so much support, I didn't account for blow-back by haters. Today, this comment was posted by in response to my first entry:

"I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for you. Your’re ranting because you got caught. Theft is theft. The fact that you are a small business is completely irrelevant other than the fact that if you were a big business like Facebook or Amazon your fee for that image would have been ten times greater. Consider yourself lucky you only have to pay $980 for your theft. If it were up to my attorneys in this matter, your fee would be much higher."

I also noticed some activity, with referrals back to my blog from this URL:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=851284

Clearly, there are people (primarily photographers) who feel strongly that people like me should be strung from the highest tree.

It's amazing to me that so many people live in a black and white world. But I'm glad I opened this door and let the light shine in from my little corner. I hope it helps.

[Matthew Chan]

Most photographers have no clue.  If Getty Images, Corbis, Masterfile, etc. can't get their act together to manage their issues, most photographers won't either. The fact is most photographers are legally ignorant.  And even if they were knowledgeable, most don't have the ability to make it happen.  Most photographers are very sloppy in copyright registration matters and rarely have any actual legal experience.

I may not be an attorney but I have done my share of pro-se representation and it doesn't intimidate me.  Here on ELI, there are many ways to takedown and get payback on overzealous attorneys.

Everyone keeps barking how their attorney is going to do these magical things for them. Well, if they could work so much magic, the big stock photo companies would have succeeded by now.

And remember, it is YOUR blog.  You don't have to put with crap that people post. If people want to disagree, I think it's ok.  But if I got that kind of post, I would delete it entirely and let him continue pissing in the wind using up his time.

[SoylentGreen]

Better technology has enabled many people (even children) to take great photos and produce impressive artworks.
That's a good thing.  But it also means that the prices for stock imagery have fallen drastically.
Infringers (alleged or otherwise) continue to be the brunt of anger from photographers that feel they're "owed" something.
Of course, we all know that it's not "theft".

Some have looked at photos that I take with my little camera that got with credit card points.
They say, "wow!  you should get into this!"... and I'm like, "are you kidding me?".
Everybody's doing it, and the market's saturated.

But, yeah... it would be great if people could make 10k every time they pressed the shutter button...

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It is very clear that some of the poster on the mayhem site did not read very much, and they don't understand where we are coming from.. Everybody on this forum to my knowledge understands and respect copyright.. What they don't understand is the over the top tactics used by Getty Images, who continues to make claims, buyt show no proof of said claim, it is stricly a money maker for Getty. I've always said from day 1, send a cease and desist letter requesting a reasonable amount, if the recipient fails to remove the image, then move onto step 2.. yeah photographers tend to see with tunnel vision, as the theft of images is a big problem for sure, I don't fault them for wanting to protect their work, but there is a right way and a wrong way, and when it becomes a business model like Getty has made it, it's borderline criminal and fraudulent.

[Mulligan]

The people who write such comments have obviously never been nailed with a Getty Images' extortion letter for $980 for a thumbnail they found on a public domain site.  You can be sure they'd be singing a different tune if they were on the receiving end of such a letter.

Some of these photographers have an unrealistic and highly inflated sense of what a lot of these lame images are actually worth.

Indeed, with more than 40,000,000,000 images available on the Internet in 2008, it's hard for me to believe an innocent infringement of a fuzzy thumbnail on a mom and pop website is even worth a cease and desist order, much less an extortion letter trying to extract close to a thousand dollars.

For what it's worth, I'm a professional writer and my stuff is all over the Internet, both the things I've written and posted on my website for free as well as PDFs I sell to pay the bills around here. When I started on the Internet many years ago, I recognized even then that my stuff would be passed around, and I loved that because it was free publicity and would help me build my brand. If someone likes one of my paid products and downloads it from a Torrent site, more power to them. If they like it, and if they have some kind of a feeling for reciprocity they'll eventually end up buying something of mine. If they don't, no harm done because I wouldn't have made that sale anyway.

Those who defend extortion letters are those who don't "get" the Internet.

Of course, it goes without saying that willful infringement of copyright to make money off the work of someone else is wrong.

Moral issues aside, however, the evolution of copyright law has a long way to go before the laws meet the reality of the Internet and the ease of sharing everything digital.

[Matthew Chan]

One of these days, I am going to write a definitive editorial on the issue of "theft" of intellectual property. I get sick of the "theft" notion being thrown around. As a publisher, author, blogger, content creator, and having experienced plagiarism, I can speak to this.

When I get around to it, they can then shove the "theft" word sideways up their ass, preferably without any KY Jelly.

Since no one has written this editorial piece on intellectual property "theft", I will take it up on myself to do so.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

FYI - I have a screen shot of this, and I'm holding you to it!

One of these days, I am going to write a definitive editorial on the issue of "theft" of intellectual property. I get sick of the "theft" notion being thrown around. As a publisher, author, blogger, content creator, and having experienced plagiarism, I can speak to this.

When I get around to it, they can then shove the "theft" word up their ass, preferably without any KY Jelly.

Since no one has written this editorial piece on intellectual property "theft", I will take it up on myself to do so.

[danaisle]

I'll get it started: http://wp.me/p1S8Jh-1F

[SoylentGreen]

Simply put, "copyright infringement" isn't "theft" under law.

It's also of note that photogs often make offhand statements about attorney's and thousands of dollars in damages.
However, there would be an onus on them to show that the image in question has actually sold for such prices.
That's very, very rare indeed.

But, all this is old hat, I guess.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Nice write-up Tracy! You also have to keep in mind that even IF Getty did prove ownership and the rights to enforce infringement, the amounts they demand are way out of line, these are stock images, that for the most part are worthless these days, as they are readily available on multiple sites for a few buck apiece..No Judge in there right mind would award these kinds of numbers..Make no mistake getty knows this and now Masterfile also knows as they just got their collective asses handed to them.

I keep going back to the Veterans story, where the guy was collecting cigarettes to give to veterans, he was making no money what-so-ever, it was really just a hobby and nice gesture, yet Getty sends a letter demanding nearly 1k, then on the other hand we have Getty Images CEA ( Chief Execuive AssHat) on video, spouting off about Getty not having a problem with folks using their images, as long as they make no money...total hyprocrite.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yeah it's old hat for sure...the only thing the photographers see is that damn dollar sign in the statute, they can't seem to see past it.

Simply put, "copyright infringement" isn't "theft" under law.

It's also of note that photogs often make offhand statements about attorney's and thousands of dollars in damages.
However, there would be an onus on them to show that the image in question has actually sold for such prices.
That's very, very rare indeed.

But, all this is old hat, I guess.

S.G.

[danaisle]

Matt, Just so you know, I did not approve the comment on my blog. The guy didn't have any credibility (no gravatar, links). His name and email didn't match. Essentially, he was spouting off anonymously. If you don't have the balls to reveal yourself, you're not getting any notice in my blog and he can just piss in the wind, as you say ;-)

[April Brown (AuctionApril)]

I'll get it started: http://wp.me/p1S8Jh-1F excellent blog post.

Don't you find it interesting that writers, photogs, videographers all believe we steal from them, but what about the rest of us in other professions who have methods, procedures, ideas, processes that are original to us? Is the content they captured original to them? The photog didn't build the Brooklyn Bridge, form the sunset, position the birds, the land, the clouds. The artists didn't create the content in most cases, they only likely arranged it or captured it. The fact is almost nothing is original to A person. Is our only revenge to never buy another photo, video or audio? Like most people on this forum my intellectual property is used everywhere and not only am I rarely credited, other auctioneers have actually taken credit and copied my training word-for-word. The difference between them and ME? I never run out of great ideas and I don't waste my time on yesterday. The haters actually believe they are special when in fact, they are uninformed. Everything - content, ideas, methods, processes, etc. is likely "Stolen" from another.

[Moe Hacken]

I wonder how many people have taken that shot of the Brooklyn Bridge with their phone camera. Technically, each and every one is a "copyright owner" of that image.

[SoylentGreen]

Each image is different... and yes, each creator owns the copyright of each of their respective photos.
"Copyright at the instant of creation" is just worthless in terms of enforcement, however.

S.G.