1. Become a DoA Archivist!
    Volunteers Needed!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. The Mod team regrets to inform the community that Mirodoll is now banned from Den of Angels. Please view the following thread:
    Mirodoll Banned from DoA
    Dismiss Notice

how uncomfortable would this make you?

Apr 14, 2012

    1. this is all theoreticall...
      Let's say there's a blog you stumbled upon... maybe they're talking generally about dolls and one of the posts is general chat about "oh so cute" or even "Why can't they make more manly men?" or something but the photo to illustrate the blog post is one of YOUR photos of YOUR doll.

      It's credited and there is a link back to you, but you weren't asked first about your photo being used.
      (It's a photo from your home, and not taken at a meet IF that makes any difference)

      Maybe the post isn't particularly complementary and is directly about that individual doll...
      Ok with you?

      what it if's complimentary but kinda personal, like "wow nice ass/boobs" and the blogger is anonymous but you don't think it's someone you know... still ok or not ok for your photo to be used?

      If when you ask the blogger not to use your photos without asking, the response is "well then you should've water marked it? without the watermark it's free for anyone to use..."

      or "If you don't want your work used you shouldn't put it on the net."?

      What if the anonymous postings are talking about having a doll that's a recast, or discussing something maybe not so savory in their doll life, and it's still your photo (with credit and link) on the anonymous posting?

      at what point is the random use of your photo, artwork, etc on someone else's blog not going to be OK with you?

      what would/could you do about it? and at what point would someone feeling discomfited be seen as over reacting?

      IMHO any time one uses someone else's photo /artwork or text (dolly related or not) one SHOULD ask permission first, and clearly letting the source know what the context is going to be,
      just to be on the safe side. Sure a DCMA will get the photo taken down, but how many DCMAs sent to a blog hosting site is going to result in losing access to the site?
    2. This has happened to me with my Rook, Sugarble Genie. Pictures were taken, without asking, onto two other dolly forums that I did not know existed, and they are in a different language. Out of curiosity I used google to translate the pages:

      One was very nice just taking about the release at first, then a user came and started to make claims that it seemed like Sugarble copied the Idealian body because of the similar looking peck cropping for the chest joint. Now I own both bodies and I can tell you there is no way they could be a copy, everything is different, everything. ( just to make that clear) I didn't like my pictures to be used to spread hate about a complain I am very fond of, Sugarble, who takes great care into making their sculpts. But since it was really only that user and it didn't escalate into a big thing I let it go. A friend of mine independently asked that the post at least have a link back to my original post as crediting me, and the girl responded saying she would but never did.

      But this really didn't get to me. The second fourm was kind of rude though.

      I had to translate it and I know google translate is not the best but one of the users said they didn't like him at all and that his make up made him look like a emo boy. My Rook is no emo boy. When I read that I L-O-L'ed. Its funny how trolls will talk their talk as long as they think you can't hear. I mean to each their own but if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything at all. Thats how I feel.

      I kind of take it as , its the internet and people will do what they want, and as long as no one is trying to claim my dolls as their own or using them in their own images editing and arts without asking, I'm cool with others sharing the love of my dolls. Not saying its OK to take without asking, but I don't let it get to me. I don't rent out space in my head.
    3. as far as i see it, if you post it in the public domain, anyone can take the image and do or say what they want with it. this doesn't mean that they're not violating your copyright or that you shouldn't be upset if you find the context upsetting... the problem is that unless you want to take legal action against them over something like that, or they won't respond to a polite request to remove the image, then there is nothing you can do.

      so you either decide to act upon it (you know, technically you might be able to sue them or their ISP if it was very, very important to you or caused you monetary loss or slandered you... but i'm not a lawyer so i really don't know what would be acceptable grounds for that) or you have to ignore it completely and not let it affect your emotions. be as zen as possible!
    4. if it was a picture you have taken then there is a copyright issue, they should have at least asked for
      your permission before showing the pic..its nice they credit you tho.
    5. I just had to have one of my photos (of my Ingenue) removed from this blog (a blog I had never heard of before.) The "confession" was a poster thinking it would be "funny to watch the Drama" caused by bootlegging Twigling's sculpt. This is extremely distasteful to me, and I was horrified to be informed by another doll lover who recognized it that my photo was being used to illustrate this post.

      The blog owner went on to blithely say (and has a whole post written on it) that she doesn't have "time" to ask for every photo she wants to use. So basically, she's decided to steal them instead. It's kinda like telling the police, "I don't have time to stop at stop signs, so unless someone asks me to slow down, I'll be zipping on through."

      She did take mine down when I asked -- but that's really not the point. It's against the law to use copyrighted material without permission PERIOD. I do hope if someone else finds their work being used there and doesn't like it -- they contact Tumblr directly and report the theft.
    6. I think I know the blogs you are talking about...

      There's a thread in the debate section of DoA discussing this (but it was about blogs praising the photographs, and they had this same issue), and I have recently found three blogs that use owners photos; only one asks permission to use owner photos, and waits for replies.

      The other two do not do that. They do include a disclaimer saying that if you do not want your pictures up there, to send them a message, and they'll remove it (and to their credit, they DO remove it when asked); the obvious flaw I find in this (besides the fact that they did not ask permission) is that to do that you'd have to find someone who had an account on that site, or you'd need to get an account just to tell them to take it down. To me, that's kind of non-nonsensical. When people get upset about it, they just tell people to butt out of their business.

      What confuses is me is that the one site that does ask is pretty much identical to one of the sites that does not. When the non-asking site complains that there's too much to do, and it would be better to put pictures up and take them down instead of waiting, I just have to as myself... how the heck is the other one doing it, while asking permission? I would think an easier way to do it is to have users volunteer their own photos (that they own) so that the blog runners have a steady supply to choose from later on.

      I'm not OK with my pictures being used under the topic of a few hot-button issues in the BJD world (like the recast thing), but it wouldn't inherently bother me if they just posted it because they liked it, and didn't claim it as their own. I've seen people's photos taken just to mock their skills or the dolls in question, and I don't think that's right on a few levels.

      Watermarking isn't going to stop anyone from using your photos; it'll just be harder for them to claim it as their own.

      One of the blogs on Tumblr did get some kind of warning from Tumblr Staff, and were told that if they did it again, they (their blog) could get shut down - and the blog owner did not let their anger go hidden on their blog.
    7. If you don't want it used, don't put it on the internet. I'm a part of several BJD photo confessions and one in particualr gets so much hate mail from people about using their photos without permission. Luckily, the mods there do have a policy where they promptly remove a photo if asked to...but the fact remains, no part of the internet will ever truly be private, and people need to accept that.

      Unless you have exclusive rights to the work that are acknowledged by law, you really don't have much leg to stand on. Some photos you take and then put on the internet for people to see, yeah you may as well not get bent out of shape just because you see it somewhere you don't want it to be. All you can really do is ask and hope they are nice enough to take it down.

      Now, if it happened to me? Well I'd ask if it could be taken down. Because that's all I *can* do.

      Bottom line: if you don't want it to used by another party, or used in something that may be distasteful to you... don't put it up. That's all there is to it. And in terms of the confession blogs, one should honestly be thankful they give credit where credit is due. They could just as easily say they took the photos...you sure see a lot of *that* on the internet...
    8. I've had this happen to me before. I don't understand the mindset that thinks it's ok to post a photo without asking permission first-it just isn't polite or respectful.

      'If you don't want it used, don't put it on the internet' is a mindset that, honestly, in this day and age, makes no sense. The fact is, almost every creative community has an online presence now. More artists promote and share their work in online galleries than in physical galleries now. There really is no other choice than to put it on the internet...unless, as artists, we're expected to stash our works away in a dark closet out of paranoia so that people won't use our images without our permission.

      99% of the time BJD artists are flattered when their work is used as an example. 99% of the time they will give their ok to have their photography used. I never understood why people don't just ASK FIRST lol
    9. This has come up before... I think there's a big, long debate thread about the first iteration of the BJD confession photo Tumblr. The first one (as far as I know) was shut down by the owner because people were getting justifiably upset about their photos being used without permission.

      If it was me and the owner of the blog didn't have the decency to inform me first I wouldn't bother to request that the owner of the blog remove my photo. I would jump right to emailing the service that hosts the blog and demand they shut the blog down. Posting photos that you do not own or have permission to use is against the Terms of Service (TOS) for a lot of free services, like Tumblr.

      It's not just because art theft of any sort ticks me off. I want to see how my photo is being used, especially if it's something like the BJD Confession blogs, that should be FUN. (...but isn't. The whole art theft kind of taints them for me.)

      I'm sure that sounds petty or harsh to a lot of people. I don't see why I should give a break to someone who is so rude. It's not like we (doll people in general) are that hard to get in contact with. I know the owner of one of those blogs, and they had the gall to take photos from people in the same Facebook group without so much as a "please." (And I'm pretty sure the owner doesn't care at all, because "hey, they credit people." :doh) I mean, even a quick note that explains the situation and ends with "Not answering this email assumes that you give permission. You can ask for your photo to be removed at any time." would be acceptable to me. Because then I know my photo is being used and I have the option of checking out how it's being used.

      (Tumblr's report email: abuse@tumblr.com) (I would report all of those blogs myself... but I think a complaint from someone who actually had their images stolen would carry a lot more weight.)
    10. While I can agree that it would make things much better for everyone if someone were asked... it's just not always gonna work that way. And if you have a paranoia about your work being "stolen" then you'd better not use the internet, or get over that paranoia quick, fast, and in a hurry.

      The fact is, credit is still given. The only time this is a theft issue is if they use your work to make money, or if they use it and claim it as their own. If they use it, and credit you, you have no leg to stand on. The only right you have is to request it be removed, and if they don't comply, then you can report them. If they comply...then that's it. It's done.

      Sorry, but that's kind of just how it is.
    11. I think I know what you're talking about too. Myself, I wouldn't be bothered unless, as a poster stated before, the message associated with my doll seemed to imply something about my doll in particular. Like the recast confession: If my doll is being used for a "I want to buy a recast" confession, it implies that my doll is a recast, and since I'm getting her directly from the company she definitely is NOT. If the confession was something like "I hate recasters and I want to support the artists by buying from the company," I wouldn't mind that, because I agree with that sentiment and it shows my doll in a good light, you know?

      Then again, Photography isn't my passion or my Art. If I found someone posting one of my drawings or paintings without my permission, depending on the circumstances, I might be super pissed.

      I do have to be extremely amused by something someone e-mailed to the owner of one of these blogs. It was something along the lines of "copyright violation is more than just "drama," it's taking food out of my children's mouths."
      While I agree that selling an artist's work without their permission and without giving them the proceeds they deserve is despicable... REALLY lady? Having your photo used on a confession blog is TAKING FOOD FROM YOUR CHILDREN'S MOUTHS?????
    12. Please see international copyright law (specifically the Berne Convention, under which the US is a signatory).

      Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration. The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms.

      As you can see, a photograph is already given automatic protection under the law, and is the exclusive property of the photographer (the "owner," for simplicity's sake) for at least 25 years from the date the photo was taken. Since these dolls haven't been around for that long, I highly doubt anyone's right to control of their photographs has expired.

      Effecting that control can be another matter. The the tired old, "if you don't want it stolen, don't put it online," routine is not only erroneous, but also intentionally misleading. The physical equivalent would be, "if you don't want it stolen, don't put it in your front yard." And yet if someone stole our new, expensive concrete bench or bird bath, I'm sure we would all be very upset and take appropriate action by filing a report with the authorities and/or attempting to track down the thieves on our own.
    13. You do have exclusive rights to your own work. It's called copyright. And if you are thinking that fair use grants you an exception, think again. There are four tests that have to be passed, and a confession blog fails miserably.

      And really it's quite lazy for you to be posting other people's work without asking first. Saying that you just don't have time is no excuse. The confessions blogs would work just as well without any photos at all. Makes me wonder if posting other's photos is just a strategy to bring drama and therefore more views to your blog.
    14. I know a guy who makes a living off of selling art, and he uses Facebook as a place to showcase and sell his stuff. I remember briefly talking to him about BJDs and them using them in art, and he told me of an artist who just uses random dolls and toys for his own art.

      I'm sure not everyone knows this issue is an issue, and might be doing it with no kind of malice behind it. Hopefully, people who do do this - unaware - will see that many people disagree with the practice of posting before permission, and take actions to find the original owner or remove their pictures.
    15. lets turn this around a little bit, if you had a blog, and new you have a posting schedule of something going up every Wednesday... don't you think that KNOWING your scheduale that there's enough time to find several options for photos and to ask for permision first, or even if "time is an issue" to send an email to the owner of the photo the day before the post is going up saying "we're featuring your photo?" would be a minimum courtesy?

      Artists have to educate themselves all the time about what rights they have to determine how their work is used. Don't presume that giving credit and a link back is adequate without also having consulted a lawyer who specializes in copyright law. The cease and desist letter isn't a requirement... the artist could complain to the site host and shut down the blog, even if it would require getting a court order. There could be fines even if there isn't a provable loss by the artist/photographer.

      There's LOTS of artists blogs, where they'll want to feature or highlight the work of another artist, and I've been glad to be asked ahead of time not only if they can use my photo, but if I'd want to say something about the featured piece.

      Likewise if there's something like the confessions blog, why not take the time to take your own photo, or to create a related artwork to illustrate the point. If there's "no time" to wait for permission, maybe the blogging shedule needs to be changed.

      People forget that maybe they aren't selling that piece or that photo, but maybe the blog is running ADS, in which case there's revenue made (maybe not by the blog directly) from the use of that other person's work. AND it still doesn't matter, permission is required in order not to be a copyright violation. ANY revenue made from that piece, by anyone, the blogger or the site hosting the blog or the advertiser, or... owes some of that revenue to the artist. (so yeah it's a loss to that artist.)

      If the blog is on tumblr or blogger, (hosted on a site that isn't exclusively owned by the blogger) there's a secondary issue of the violation of the TOU. If reported to tumblr, blogger, wordpress etc, that blog will often get shut down.)

      In the case of someone doing professional work (say face ups, or photography or what not) if that image is used without permission in a blog, it can't later be sold to a client and include "Exclusive publication rights" (which yeah, depending on the client, if it's something they want for a greeting card, calendar, book cover, etc... they may want exclusive rights to that piece or it will be of no interest to that client/publisher. )

      What happens if someone else down the road ends up using someones family snapshots in a published way, and later the original artist wants to do something published or money making with those same photos. (I've actually known artists who got sued by the company that stole their design and patterns, for continuing to sell their work like they always had, without knowing that someone else had commandeered rights to their work. Hopefully, it will get worked out in the courts, but artists rarely have the money to hire lawyers.)

      Since becoming disabled, it's often the internet that provides me with ways to market, show and sell my work.

      Likewise, my work, whether it's a painting or a photograph, (even just "family snapshot" sort) is protected by the Berne convention: International law provides a "common law" copyright from the moment the piece is created. a registered copyright or the imaged marked copyright , or being watermarked is NOT a requirement. Simply the creation of the image or the piece.
      Joe Smith's snapshot of his dog has copyright the same as Susan Professional Artist's photographs are copyrighted from the moment they are taken.

      fair use is defined very very specifically: it has to be an educational use, parody/satire, or artistic review... (ie: a movie still used in an article discussing the movie it is from directly: can't for example use a still from _Wizard of Oz_ to illustrate an article that's about movie making, or special effects without getting permission FIRST).

      There does not have to be proof of a loss to the artist, since it's possible for copyright violation suits to occur after the artist has passed away. (It's harder to get a lawyer's help if one can't demonstrate a loss but it happens.)
    16. Maybe that's how it is... It's not how it should be. Change will only happen when enough people have the guts to stand up and say so.
    17. trinlayk

      I can agree that would be very unfortunate, and I am against someone taking another person's work and using it to make money.

      And like I said, it would make things so much easier for all parties involved if extra time could be taken to actually get permission from someone to use a photo, especially in the way these confession blogs do...

      I honestly give props to those who allow their photos to be used on those blogs for highly serious issues....because it's for confessions, and not all of them are going to be sunshine and rainbows. I know if I had a photo that was used for something like recast confessions, I would ask it be taken down...


      Then I suppose more people need to start "saying so." But from the looks of those blogs, not many seem to have a problem. I keep up with them because I find them entertaining, and I have only seen two or three people come on and ask their photos be removed. It's not like they are taking these photos and claiming them as they're own, and they explicitly say that if you want something removed, you can say so, and it will be, which is ten times better than most places on the internet...

    18. in a way it seems a bit extreme, but if there was a possiblity of that photo eventually being sold... greeting card or calendar or some other publication contract usually REQUIRES exclusivity rights...
      so yeah, the ability to sell that photo for the price that would give the publisher/owner the exclusive rights to that image (which is much higher than just a right to publish) might also make it nearly impossible to find a buyer for that photo or image. The difference between selling that photo along the way at $25 (or perhaps to the same prospective buyer) as opposed to selling that image and the rights to that image for $1000+.

      granted with the vast majority of doll photos, that would never come up... but it's not up to the person deciding "credit and a link is enough" to decide if that photo is worthy of sale for publication, or whether that artist should have the ability to sell that photo's exclusive rights.

      If the chances of the photographer seeing their photo used are slim... it's EVEN MORE unfair to say "if you ask us to take it down we will"... because there seems to be an expectation that the owner of the image will never see it being used.
    19. Unfortunately, many free photo-sharing sites (Flickr, and -I think- Twitpic, being two) somehow have non-exclusive rights to your photos, or something like that. Here's a link to Flickr's TOS; it's somewhere in there. Here's an article to the cracked.com article I'm referring to: (it took a little creative Google searching, but I found it): http://www.cracked.com/article_19683_6-terrifying-user-agreements-youve-probably-accepted.html. It's #6. It's written in a humorous way, but the information is still unnerving.

      There have even been stories about people's photos being used ALL OVER THE WORLD in advertisements. I can recall one example of some woman's family photo - just her, her husband, and their two kids - being used somewhere in Europe as an add for something, and she didn't even know. There are some famous pictures that were created from someone else's photo. Here's the article for that: http://www.cracked.com/article_19179_6-people-who-had-no-clue-their-faces-were-world-famous.html

      It does creep me out that a company could be using my images for advertising anything - not even applicable to my photo's intent.
    20. If they linked back to me, I think I'd be okay. A little flattered if it was good (okay, bowled over. I'm no artist) and a little hurt if it was bad, but hey, it's the internet; at least they gave credit. If they didn't give any credit or link back to me I would PM them and ask them to do so, but I wouldn't ask them to take it down unless they were using it to be downright nasty or make a profit. What I post online I do so others can enjoy it how they like, what I don't want shared I don't put up. If I was making money off of my photos it would probably be different, but for now it's all just for fun.