As for the people over at Istockphoto calling us idiots. They still talk about copyright infringement as theft, when CLEARLY no property has been taken, and in fact it had added value to their pictures. So they must be very shortsighted.
The worst thing you, as an artist, can have, is obscurity.
If you don't want anyone to showcase your work, even if they do it for free, then what do you expect the end result is?
What is better little to no sales, or a few extra sales through added exposure?
I know what I'd choose.
I would be thrilled if they'd take my Flickr pictures and mocked them in similar fashion. I could learn from it.
"Isn't the point that the photograph is his property and it is his decision about rather to donate it or not."
It's free publicity. And if you read the article, he was in talks with Apple about them using his photograph. It hadn't been signed yet, but clearly he hadn't shown disinterest in Apple using his creative work on their Ipads. Otherwise there wouldn't have been talks in the first place.
"It isn't like record companies were plucking random people off the street to see if they had talent."
erm. What about XYZ Idol, XYZ got talent, Popstars, So you think you can dance, and all those other audition-type tv-shows?
Random people basically plucked from the street (because I can't believe that that many delusional people would sign up), to see which one's got 'talent' to offer them a contract...
"It was several more years before Amazon provided a DRM free reasonably priced alternative for everyone else."
Everyone else, except those outside the US borders.
Istockphoto adds a large watermark on their photos.
Partly to protect misuse of the photo and presumably also to advertise where the image came from, otherwise a white cross or some other watermark would be enough to prevent people from grabbing the image without paying, and they wouldn't need to add the advertisement "Istockphoto.com" on there.
So why do they object, when people use the watermarked image to drive customers their way? I simply don't get it, unless they just objected to the awkwardness of the photos in question. But then Istockphoto is acting in a childish way.
BTW, this bullish reaction from Istockphoto will make sure that I will never put my photos on their website ever, nor will I buy a photo from their website. Even if they'd offer it for free.
In that case, why did istockphoto threaten to sue the website in question, why not send them an email asking them if they'd kindly use a thumbnail instead?
It can be done civilly, without resorting to legal nastygrams and threats.
Incidentally without using the images, the site doesn't really have a point, now does it?
post 1: oh look at this funny picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 2: oh look at this embarrassing picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 3: oh look at this funny picture over at whateverelseforstockphotositesyouhave.something.
BTW, I'm almost 100% sure that this nastygram wasn't sent because of copyright violation, but because of the embarrassing nature of a number of those photos. Embarrassing to istockphoto.
The photos on the stock photo sites are there as advertisement for the sale of said photos...
The page is not a "work", that would be a perversion of the copyright law.
The photo is the work.
And if they didn't hotlink the picture, but instead host it themselves, the site'd cry foul as well, as that would be a copyright infringement.
This was CLEARLY fair use.
Otherwise even sites like Kelkoo would be illegal under current copyright laws. As they use pictures to show the products that are on sale on another site.
All this site did was point out awkward photos that can be found on stock photo sites. While keeping the pictures completely intact, including the original watermarks and giving links to the pictures on the original site.
You can try to pervert the copyright law all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true. If it was a TRUE copyright violation, Istockphoto would not have needed the DMCA to hit the site with.
So by your definition, if I talk about a product favourably to my friends, show it to them, show all its features and then encourage my friends to buy that product, I could get sued by the company that makes that product, for driving traffic to their products? WTF!
Remind me never again to write a review of a product on Amazon!
Have you ever heard of "word-of-mouth promotion"?
I consider this site to be large-scale word-of-mouth promotion of these photos, and I'm sure the photographers were glad for the extra money they received from this site.
Don't forget the worst kind of attention you can get is 'no attention'. The biggest problem for the photographers on iStockphoto is obscurity and not this free promotion.
you do realize that 2008 was a recession year, right? and that a 3% growth during a recession is actually quite an accomplishment... Pat yourself on the back, rather than complain about that the growth wasn't big...
Actually no, I don't think $10 for Avatar was a good deal.
I paid 11 euros for my ticket. And I thought it was a rip off.
Let's just forget about the 8 euro for popcorn and drinks.
Sure, new technology and long movie and all that.
But the experience for me didn't warrant the price tag.
Mind you, I have a lazy eye, so I couldn't quite see it all in 3D (in fact, the movie gave me a blistering headache), but my friends wanted to see it in 3D.
It's a decent film, but to me it wasn't worth 11 euros.
The proxy itself isn't illegal (just as P2P programs/sites aren't in and of themselves illegal), but if you use it to watch video you are not entitled to watch (because of licensing), then you are either breaking a law (not sure) or at the very least in violation of the terms of service of the website you are accessing.
I make a copy of all your digital music, have I committed theft?
Well let's see... do you still have access to your digital music? Yes? then it's no theft.
It may be illegal under the copyright law, (depends on the situation), but it does not flag any other laws.
Copyright infringement does not equal theft, never has, and never will be.
"great disincentive to continue to produce leading to a great society costs"
Yes, because since the rise of P2P networks no new music has been made...(/sarcasm)
RSS
Twitter
(as Marcel de Jong)
Giving people what they want? Preposterous! They don't know what they want, we do...
Sigh, these suits will never get it. I hope the media industry dies off and quickly.
(as Marcel de Jong)
As for the people over at Istockphoto calling us idiots. They still talk about copyright infringement as theft, when CLEARLY no property has been taken, and in fact it had added value to their pictures. So they must be very shortsighted.
The worst thing you, as an artist, can have, is obscurity.
If you don't want anyone to showcase your work, even if they do it for free, then what do you expect the end result is?
What is better little to no sales, or a few extra sales through added exposure?
I know what I'd choose.
I would be thrilled if they'd take my Flickr pictures and mocked them in similar fashion. I could learn from it.
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
"Isn't the point that the photograph is his property and it is his decision about rather to donate it or not."
It's free publicity. And if you read the article, he was in talks with Apple about them using his photograph. It hadn't been signed yet, but clearly he hadn't shown disinterest in Apple using his creative work on their Ipads. Otherwise there wouldn't have been talks in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: They signed with Atlantic last week. (as Marcel de Jong)
"It isn't like record companies were plucking random people off the street to see if they had talent."
erm. What about XYZ Idol, XYZ got talent, Popstars, So you think you can dance, and all those other audition-type tv-shows?
Random people basically plucked from the street (because I can't believe that that many delusional people would sign up), to see which one's got 'talent' to offer them a contract...
Re: (as MadJo)
is Google Checkout available outside the US?
Well there is Moneybookers that's globally available, that might work as a competitor to Paypal. But that one isn't without scandal/problems either.
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
"It was several more years before Amazon provided a DRM free reasonably priced alternative for everyone else."
Everyone else, except those outside the US borders.
I just thought of something (as Marcel de Jong)
Istockphoto adds a large watermark on their photos.
Partly to protect misuse of the photo and presumably also to advertise where the image came from, otherwise a white cross or some other watermark would be enough to prevent people from grabbing the image without paying, and they wouldn't need to add the advertisement "Istockphoto.com" on there.
So why do they object, when people use the watermarked image to drive customers their way? I simply don't get it, unless they just objected to the awkwardness of the photos in question. But then Istockphoto is acting in a childish way.
BTW, this bullish reaction from Istockphoto will make sure that I will never put my photos on their website ever, nor will I buy a photo from their website. Even if they'd offer it for free.
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing? (as Marcel de Jong)
Would you say that if I use one of your quotes with attribution to you, that that's fair use?
Now if you put a photo up somewhere, with a watermark in it, and I show it with attribution to you. How is that any different?
Re: it's getty images, what did you expect? (as Marcel de Jong)
snakeoil is what he meant...
Re: Re: Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
In that case, why did istockphoto threaten to sue the website in question, why not send them an email asking them if they'd kindly use a thumbnail instead?
It can be done civilly, without resorting to legal nastygrams and threats.
Incidentally without using the images, the site doesn't really have a point, now does it?
post 1: oh look at this funny picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 2: oh look at this embarrassing picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 3: oh look at this funny picture over at whateverelseforstockphotositesyouhave.something.
BTW, I'm almost 100% sure that this nastygram wasn't sent because of copyright violation, but because of the embarrassing nature of a number of those photos. Embarrassing to istockphoto.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
The photos on the stock photo sites are there as advertisement for the sale of said photos...
The page is not a "work", that would be a perversion of the copyright law.
The photo is the work.
And if they didn't hotlink the picture, but instead host it themselves, the site'd cry foul as well, as that would be a copyright infringement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
This was CLEARLY fair use.
Otherwise even sites like Kelkoo would be illegal under current copyright laws. As they use pictures to show the products that are on sale on another site.
All this site did was point out awkward photos that can be found on stock photo sites. While keeping the pictures completely intact, including the original watermarks and giving links to the pictures on the original site.
You can try to pervert the copyright law all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true. If it was a TRUE copyright violation, Istockphoto would not have needed the DMCA to hit the site with.
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
So by your definition, if I talk about a product favourably to my friends, show it to them, show all its features and then encourage my friends to buy that product, I could get sued by the company that makes that product, for driving traffic to their products? WTF!
Remind me never again to write a review of a product on Amazon!
Have you ever heard of "word-of-mouth promotion"?
I consider this site to be large-scale word-of-mouth promotion of these photos, and I'm sure the photographers were glad for the extra money they received from this site.
Don't forget the worst kind of attention you can get is 'no attention'. The biggest problem for the photographers on iStockphoto is obscurity and not this free promotion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
So, if it isn't described explicitly in the law books, it's illegal? Are you out of your tree?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where... (as Marcel de Jong)
you do realize that 2008 was a recession year, right? and that a 3% growth during a recession is actually quite an accomplishment... Pat yourself on the back, rather than complain about that the growth wasn't big...
Re: Re: Re: We, the People (as Marcel de Jong)
IKEA will sue you for copyright infringement. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: We, the People (as Marcel de Jong)
Actually no, I don't think $10 for Avatar was a good deal.
I paid 11 euros for my ticket. And I thought it was a rip off.
Let's just forget about the 8 euro for popcorn and drinks.
Sure, new technology and long movie and all that.
But the experience for me didn't warrant the price tag.
Mind you, I have a lazy eye, so I couldn't quite see it all in 3D (in fact, the movie gave me a blistering headache), but my friends wanted to see it in 3D.
It's a decent film, but to me it wasn't worth 11 euros.
(the regular 2D version was 'only' 9 euros)
I wish I made $1000 a day (as Marcel de Jong)
but yes, that is a low number. But that's a very short run time, 10 days. Not nearly long enough to gather any kind of momentum online.
Re: Re: Re: Re: People waited long. (as Marcel de Jong)
The proxy itself isn't illegal (just as P2P programs/sites aren't in and of themselves illegal), but if you use it to watch video you are not entitled to watch (because of licensing), then you are either breaking a law (not sure) or at the very least in violation of the terms of service of the website you are accessing.
Re: Re: Re: 0 Cost? (as Marcel de Jong)
I make a copy of all your digital music, have I committed theft?
Well let's see... do you still have access to your digital music? Yes? then it's no theft.
It may be illegal under the copyright law, (depends on the situation), but it does not flag any other laws.
Copyright infringement does not equal theft, never has, and never will be.
"great disincentive to continue to produce leading to a great society costs"
Yes, because since the rise of P2P networks no new music has been made...(/sarcasm)