Doll Tumblr for pretty BJDs (updated to be less offensive X__x)

Most of the photos I run into on Tumblr have the original owner/photographer's watermark on it, somewhere.

 

Something I run into with my day job related to this: bloggers ganking "all rights reserved" images from flickr -- people add that attribution BECAUSE they don't want people reposting their stuff all over the place, though I doubt it stops it from happening. I've added a "some rights reserved" attribution to my flickr photos so that people are free to repost them without my knowing about it, but I won't repost anything marked "all rights reserved" in my own blog (other than the occasional commercial image, but no artist images, unless I'm promoting the artist and have their permission). The problem with things like tumblr and Pinterest is that sometimes, people take images and save them to their hard drives, and then post them as their own, so the original attribution is lost.

 

lol @ the first half of this statement

But I'm in 100% agreement with the second. You must get the person's permission to use their picture, even if you are linking back to their blog/original photos.

 

Another DOA-er/friend showed me this tumblr a while back which had a picture of a doll of mine. I will feel more comfortable if the owner of the tumblr had ask me for my permission before posting my picture but I dont see the harm in it[he/she isnt making any profit], so I didnt do anything about it.

Advantage for me about this tumblr: I can go on this tumblr and see all the pretty dolls in one place without going all over the internet scrounging for pictures. But yeah, agreeing that the owner should probably put a "XX Doll belong to XX Owner."

 

I don't know if this is relevant but, tumblr is for this.
Tumblr is a place to just share, the blogger isn't stealing just sharing.
Tumblr is a place to appreciate the beauty of photograph for some blogs, with or without proper credit.
I don't think it's a big deal. Art is art.
Just think of literature from years and years ago, they have no 'rights' anymore and can be downloaded for free. If you're not selling you're pictures and you upload them to the internet I think it's great that there are blogs out there that bring BJD's to new audiences!

 

How about, the person with such a big problem about people seeing a picture they posted on the internet.... -stops posting pictures on the internet.-

I go to conventions in costume, I have for the past 17 years of my life now, usually 4 a year. I find pictures of myself on Flickr, on Youtube, on forums and so on. I'm always surprised when I find myself. Actually recently I found I was in the background shot of a short movie on cosplay.

I think that it's really in the same vain as this debate. If I didn't want people to take pictures of me and post them online, my only option would be not to go out and enjoy my conventions in costume.

How do you share pictures online, which is in this analogy, basically like going out into public, then tell other people not to share them? And if we decide that as a community it isn't appropriate behavior, where does that line end?

Is it then not okay to take pictures of other peoples dolls at a doll meet and post those online? Something which I'm also very overjoyed to see with my own girls?

The bottom line is, I follow this site since I've found it and I now follow several people on Flickr who I'd never know about otherwise because I found them via this site. I think it's a wonderful idea to have a site with doll pictures and links up in one place, so you can explore the galleries of people you'd otherwise never have known about.

Overall it's just a silly thing to say, 'I posted this on MY site and if you aren't on MY site to see it I don't want you seeing it at all!' I think we're all pretty happy that the doll companies don't have the same narrow minded attitude and start telling people to stop posting all these pictures of -their- intellectual property all over the internet.

 

^^ this

 

O_O My boys are there too... The photo isn't mine, the friend took the picture and put it on flick... I don't have account.
Personally I don't mind Even thought my Sard was mistaken for Dia XD

 

There must be like a dozen tumblrs of this kind out there. Some praising dolls, some mocking them.

Honestly, as long as they're not hotlinking the images and stealing bandwidth I don't care. It's just one of those things that are bound to happen if you post pictures on the internet, whether you like it or not.

 

Posting a photo anywhere on the internet is regarded is publishing the photo. Technically, if it is done without permission of the photographer, it is a copyright violation. The photographer can contact the owner of the site (not the individual, but the main host), and get it removed.

The photographer may not know the image is posted... or may not have the time or motivation to go hunting for images that have been posted without their knowledge, so most stuff gets reposted or linked to or whatever... It's not right, but it's hard to stop. And many copyright owners have given up or do not care.

I agree with the thought that just because it's done, doesn't mean it's right. But unfortunately, that's how it often goes in the world.

On the other hand, there are worse things that can happen to the images. They can be used to make money or claimed to be someone else's... They can be on a site for people who hate dolls.

 

That is the most ideal situation, and I think some people tumblr forget that if you're looking at the pics on your Dashboard, you can see what the source is, but if you're looking at it directly on the person's blog, you can't always see the source (and I know this is the case with this particular tumblr account). So it definitely doesn't hurt (and is really only polite) to explicitly state the source.

 

^^^^^^^^ THIS! 100% ^^^^^^^

Visible attribution to the photographer isn't enough. The owner of that blog should be getting the photo owner's permission before she even thinks about putting it up on her Tumblr, and then specify that the owner did give their OK. I would think that most people would be flattered and would agree to such a request, so shooting off a quick email shouldn't be that hard.

Even Flikr's guidelines say not to post things that don't belong to you, as does Tumblr's - "Subscriber shall own all Subscriber Content that Subscriber contributes to the Site..."

I don't think that's a silly idea at all. Those are the rules for printed books and images so why should the rules be different for images that are posted online? Just because more people have access to the image doesn't make it OK for it to be shared around willy-nilly. Linking to an image you like is one thing, but reposting it without permission is a copyright violation (and if a person really, really wanted to, the matter could be taken to a court of law).

The Fair Use Clause in US copyright law says that you can reproduce part of the whole work for purposes of parody, teaching, research, etc, as long as you attribute the information and it doesn't infringe on the original creator's right to reproduce, distribute, or make money off of their work. Reposting doesn't fall under that umbrella. We may not make money off our doll photos, but we still have the right to say who can and cannot distribute them. Also, "Rights Reserved" is implied - copyright begins at the moment the work is "fixed" in tangible form (including digital) - you don't need to put stuff like that on your work for copyright to apply. It's just a good idea to do it anyway.

I appreciate that the blog owner is posting the images because they love BJD, but my feeling on the matter is "Look but don't Touch." The intent of the theft is unimportant. We get up in arms when an unscrupulous dealer uses others work to sell phony dolls, instances like this blog should be given the same treatment.

You better believe I'll sic the site admins on anyone I catch reposting my stuff.

More Copyright Resources:
Copyright FAQ
Copyright FAQ - What is Copyright
Copyright FAQ - Websites
US Copyright Law as PDF

@Little_Fox_Lady: If you take the photo of another owner's doll then it is your photo to share, but it would be polite to get permission from the doll's owner first.

 

If you're seriously trying to come into a discussion like this, with a massive post linking us to all manner of -copyrght law sites- like we were all just didn't understand what that was, I think you've missed the point.

You say, 'that's the rules for images and books' but people have shared their favorite quotes or even whole poems by scrawling them on the sides of buildings, for as long as there have been books. And images? People take pictures of paintings and upload them online, where other people take those ("copy written") pictures and distribute them so many times that it stops mattering who took the picture of the picture.

Sometimes there are people I meet on doll sites who take things to such ridiculous extremes that debate or opinion threads just become invalid, because someone like you will come in and say that something you don't like is illegal, even though it's widely regarded that with the continued use of online mediums of expression, 'ownership' of digital property is much more fluid than black and white, being a thief vs an upstanding citizen.

Which has been proven time and again when people try to make frivolous lawsuits, using the same laws you're detailing as their foundation. It's the same as the girl who overpainted other people's BJD pictures and sold them as ads to MTV and Sony. There's not one court in the land who would uphold those laws vs that woman, because digital property seeded over the internet is to fluid and gray to put concrete laws onto. If you'd like to dispute that you can read up on how hard a time the Supreme Court has with internet law breaking and how one even begins to classify such 'crimes' to hold them in court.

What this thread -was- about, was our personal opinions on a blog, not lawsuits or copyright law, which people love to throw around as if it actually means something in the digital world, when even the highest court in the land can't even nail it down.

 

Awww - my Beeta is on there! I'm flattered and think it's great!

 

That's the bottom line, isn't it. You (the general "you") are posting photos without permission of someone else's artwork. Perhaps people should have to get permission from Soom or Volks before they post photos of their dolls. But I don't think the doll companies sold you the right to create derivative works when you bought the doll. The copyright argument is moot unless the photographer has actually submitted the photograph for copyright. According to the site, you can't sue for infringement otherwise. But feel free to apply for a copyright of any doll photos.

But to get back the the OP's intent, I think it's very informative and no different that the Gallery + section here on DoA. A place to see pretty pictures of pretty dolls without having to spend half your life scouring the internet.

I don't have to worry about finding any of mine on there. . . I've no talent as a photographer and, well, my boys are probably only pretty to me.

 

I get that a lot of the posters in this thread are flattered and don't care that their work is being stolen, but this bothers me deeply. Referencing Copyright law just reinforces my "Look, don't Touch" mantra. (I make no apologies for my black and white opinions.)

Why is it so hard to just shoot off and email and ask? It's not just polite, it makes copyright and reposting a non-issue. If I ever received such a request, I would definitely say yes. But going and taking my stuff? Heck no.

Reality vs. the way it should be are two different things, but the same rules apply for both printed and digital mediums.

This blog owner IS in violation of Tumblr's TOS if she does not and cannot prove that she has the permission of the people whose photos she is reposting. If she does have the permission of the owner, she should say so. Submitting images to the blog implies permission but, even then, it should still be clearly stated.

If she was just posting some little thumbnail image that she had created and used it to link back to the original, then the people viewing her blog would be guaranteed to go to the original source of the image if they wanted to see it. I wouldn't have such a problem with that. (Posting links and thumbnail images is closer to the intent of Gallery+, because the person still is able to, and must, view the original thread to see the work.)

(P.S. Those aren't just copyright law sites - that's THE US Copyright Law site. I posted them in case you guys were wondering where I got my information from. I don't rant unless I can back up my opinion.)

 

You know, as someone who makes a living selling licensed digital content and has for a great while taken interest in this matter, I have to say you're not as on target as you think you are with this. Copyright absolutely does mean something in the digital world -- the DMCA wouldn't exist otherwise, and there are legal actions taken constantly over matters of copyright and intellectual property online. Why? Because it is the law, no matter how fashionable it may be to ignore it.

Don't want someone to steal your song? Never play it.
Don't want someone to steal your painting? Hide it in your attic.

This is the logic you are presenting and to be utterly frank, this is not a suitable reality for artists who make a living from their work. You're talking about something you do as a hobby (of, I gather, dressing as the trademarked characters of other people, no less) and holding it up in comparison as though the fact that you don't care if you show up in someone's photograph means no one else is allowed to give a damn -- well, it does show pretty plainly that you don't give a damn about anyone else's rights, but that doesn't mean that is a correct attitude to have. You've heard of model releases, right? Think for a wee moment about whether they would exist or not if there weren't legal issues surrounding that as well.

It's all well and good to sniff down your nose at those interested in protecting their rights to their work as if such things don't matter and the world should just suck it up and let people do whatever the hell they like without consequence, but it's a horrific level of self-centered and childishly deluded arrogance to do so, to put it as politely as I possibly can. (And that really IS putting it as politely as I possibly can.)

 

Not to add too much fuel to the fire, but the issue of image linking is still very gray and is going back and forth in the courts. Look up Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com and Perfect 10, Inc v. Google. Bridgeman v. Corel has been resolved, and though it mostly involves thumbnails in print format, it it still cited as precedent within the digital world.

The point is that we can't actually cite current copyright law as the whole story. Regardless of where the law stands during any given year, it remains that it's only polite and moral to cite your sources (as well as providing a P.10 v. Google defense should the copyright holder decide to sue for infringement)

 

Honestly if you post something on the internet, whether it's text, art, photos, etc. It's at a risk of being stolen. You can watermark it as much as you want but someone will find a way around it if they really want. HOWEVER this blogger isn't claiming that the images or the dolls are hers. She is merely showcasing beautiful dolls. I think it's a brilliant way to show off some unnoticed artists in our hobby and to show other people how beautiful these dolls can be.

There's a doll owner on Deviant Art who monthly showcases the best bjd photos and photographers. I know that she doesn't notify the people who's art she is posting. However I am honored that i've been a part of this. I don't feel shes doing something without my permission that I wouldn't want her to. *shrugs*

 

Why not? Why not inform the person that they want to include their dolls in the showcase? The worst they can say is "No." An email takes two minutes to write. It's just pure laziness on the blog owner's part.

I don't know what you would want to call it - possessiveness, praise-hound, or just plain snotty, but I would like to know when someone wants to legitimately share my work.