how uncomfortable would this make you?

No it isn't parody...I never said it was. I am arguing that the photos are being used in a satirical manner, which is still protected under fair use. Yes, fair use is mainly personal use. Uses protected under fair use are limited, but parody and satire are protected and not necessarily personal. And I think we can agree that these photos are not being used to intentionally bully or harass people... so I don't even why you brought that into this. Whether it upsets an owner or not has no bearing on whether it is protected use or not.

I used the barbie example to show you that just because you own some kind of media or copyrights does not necessarily mean you will win a suit against someone who used your material. But to answer you, the person used actual barbies in photos, but those barbies are still under copyright, therefore, Matel saw a need to bring a lawsuit against the photographer... maybe they thought it was bad promotion...

 

Well said

Although the artist is not meant to harass the person stealing the photo's because also comes under a different law. But sending a angry message on how you disapprove that your picture is being used without your permission and you wish to have it removed, is likely to happen in a lot of cases.

It is for this reason however that a lot of sites have systems where you can report the person using your work, without having to deal with them.

Firstly the actual barbies being used and someone taking the photo's comes under a different law, because the person who took the photo does have some copyright to the photo he took. This was talked about before. So that point can't really be valid.

Also it CAN be interpreted as harassment:

The standard definition for harassment is unwanted conduct on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. which has the purpose or effect of either violating the claimant's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

It can be degrading, humiliating if someone is talking about how ugly or doll is, photography/face up/sewing skills is etc. Which saying that across a photo implies they link it with your work and it is how people will see it.

Saying how you should get out of the hobby if, you can't afford clothes, can't afford a expensive doll. Is intimidating, hostile, degrading environment for them. If the doll they own is under that statement.

Saying how people who style dolls in Lolita clothes are closest pedophiles (an example of a confession) is violating the claimant's dignity.

I could go on with many more examples based on some of the confessions i have read. Some of the confessions have also been racist and prejudiced. Having hate on Chinese and French dolls (and French people no joke). As well as some of the "I hate gay dolls posts" it all comes under that definition.

 

Everyone can have an opinion about anything, but not all opinions are created equal. In terms of people debating an issue, an opinion that is not backed up well or that doesn't make a lot of sense can indeed be 'off.' Doesn't mean you don't have a right to it, just means that people won't necessarily agree.

Are the photographers making money? In the case of doll photos, probably not. However, it's still their pics. Like it or not, the blog owner is the one in the wrong.

And here's the thing you have to understand -- you see a blog owner posting people's pics as positive because it's free promotion. However, depending on how the image is used, it might not be a positive thing to the owner. Maybe the blog entry or people's comments aren't positive. Maybe the blog owner intends for it to be positive, but the image is being taken out of context or used in a way that maybe offensive to the photographer. If the blogger asked permission and explained how the pic was to be used, then the owner of the pic gets a say -- they retain control over their own property. Just because something is in virtual form (in this case an image), doesn't mean that there isn't true ownership of it.

In this case that you mention, it might be all positive loveliness, but that's going to vary depending on the website, which is why having control over your stuff is a good thing. And the internet as I said before, is not some entirely separate entity. Just because a portion of the user population believes that anything goes because it's the internet, doesn't mean that's actually true. All it takes is taking and using the wrong thing the wrong way and you can get into trouble for it (that was hammered into us in a number of classes I've taken). In the case of doll pics and doll blogs, I doubt that there's as much threat of serious reprucussions -- I just don't see many people taking the issue that far, so in this case it's more about doing the right thing.

And for the record, it's not morally superior to ask that people show some respect for your property -- all they have to do is ask, and well, maybe the blog will come out a little late or they'll have to use a different pic, but for a for fun blog, that shouldn't be that much of an issue. I wouldn't go stark raving mad on someone because they used my pic -- especially if it was in a flattering way, but they should ask and not all pics are used for flattering purposes. Most of all, I really take issue with the ideas that 1) It's the internet, and the internet isn't 'real' so we can do whatever we want; and 2) It's ok to just take what you want. What people are trying to tell you is that you are not entitled to other people's property.

 

...So basically anyone that states their opinion is harassing someone if that opinion is unsavory. That's what you're saying? Really? Because all of those examples are people's personal opinions... last I checked, that was freedom of speech. However you do not live in America, and I am aware that other countries do in fact have some censors in place (not that I'm against that...censors could sure come in handy in the states....).

However, here, those examples all fall under protected speech, therefore, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you brought that up in an American court.

No. What was said is an opinion. Putting it across a photo can imply that, but it can also be used as a form of irony which denounces the statement.

Again, this is an opinion, a stupid one, but an opinion. It would become harassment if someone continued to tell someone to get out of the hobby because they were not doing these things, or to even go so far as to threaten or commit an act of harm because of that opinion... but the opinion itself... just an opinion.

I know this confession, and I had a few words to say about it. But it's still an opinion. If someone is allowed go outside and hold up nasty signs about homosexuals, then someone is allowed to go on and say they think someone is a closet pedo because they dress a doll a certain way.

But again, I'm talking about how things work in the US... if it doesn't work that way where you are... then my arguments don't have much substance there.

 

But removing the confession blogs won't stop people being negative about dolls. Before they were created people saved pictures and screencaped threads to show people dolls they thought were ugly and of the blogs stop exsiting people will continue until the end of time. Also harassment is not stating something is ugly or you disslike something nr some type of doll on a public page where for the most part no owner names or doll names for that matter are used. That is like saying I ham harrasing and bulling people when I say green is an ugly color and no one should wear it

 

Actually even though America has freedom of speech the law is very similar and if you do cause someone distress and harass them, it can be brought up in a court of law. All the person has to do is save the evidence.

And in the UK recently they have arrested what the call "internet trolls" and one case was editing photo's of people who had died. The have served time for it too. It has been a big thing all over the news.

But they way it works, if you say it. It is OK at first. But if a person states they do not like the idea, and it carries on. Over here (and i have heard so in the US but don't know the law as well) that is when i does become harassment and more action can be taken. So for example if my photo was used for something i found offensive and i stated that i was unhappy with it. If they did not remove the image then it does come under that law.

@ Stella Twilight yes you are correct people will still think that. But at this point the owner of the photo is not being linked to the opinion. Which is what the issue is.

 

A person cannot just say they don't like an opinion and it become harassment if the opinion is stated again. That would basically mean that this whole debate is just constant harassment on both sides. Unless you mean something different...but that is what your statement seems to say to me.

And I'd like to point out that the blogs in question have policies where they will remove an image if asked to and do not give anyone grief about it. But the thing is, they get more anon hate-mail than requests to have photos removed... so who is really getting harassed here?

That doesn't mean anyone is getting harassed. That just means people are coming to false concusions... which is still not harassment.

 

I will try to word my argument better.

It is not that they don't like an opinion. But if something nasty that could be taken personally, was over your photo it is more personal then a general statement. So for example, if someone said "i hate all resinsoul dolls, and resinsoul doll owners and they should quit the hobby because no one takes them seriously," (I have seen something similar to this). If that was said as a general statement, i would not take that personally. And the case for harassment would be loose and probably not stand well.

But if someone then took my photo of my RS doll, then made that statement. That statement then becomes a lot more like a personal attack. I know some say they are meant to be ironic. But still, i don't think that is the case for all of them.

Yes it is good that they will remove it (or you can report it) which at this point it is no longer harassment because they have stopped. Although if they said something similar and used your photo again. Then you have a case. But they should just get permission first and avoid all this. I also mainly brought this point up, because you also brought up other laws in the debate.

Also this could turn into harassment, if you wanted nothing more to do with this and left the thread. But if i then PM'd you and started it all over again. That could then become harassment.

 

There's a quote that says that a person can't say what offends others or not. Basically, while you might think saying "Green is an ugly color." isn't offensive, if the other party says they are offended it is automatically offensive. The feeling of harassment is subjective, just like any other emotion.

Also, there are no "blog in question". The OP just mentioned blogs in general, not just confession blogs. You were actually the first person to bring up confession blogs and tumblr. While many confession blog do have "disclaimers" that they don't own the images, many normal blogs (blogger, wordpress, etc.) and websites do not.

 

They do not choose their photos in order to create personal attacks. If someone feels it attacks them, that why they have the policy in place to take the photos down. And I have yet to see an instance where they put the photo back up with the same confession, or even put the photo back up period. Now other blogs out there may be a different story, and if a blog is asked to take a photo down, and then they put it back up, then the owner is well within their right to act... but I don't think they'd get very far with a harassment suit... "They used my picture on something I didn't like" really wouldn't stand up in court...

Larin-Lazet

Just because you are offended does not mean you have a case. People say things I'm offended by all the time. Does that mean I can take them to court for a harassment suit? No. And if I tried, I'd likely get laughed at.

And yeah, the OP mentioned blogs in general, but people replied to me using the "blogs in question" in their counters just as I used them in my example, so it doesn't matter if I brought them up first. I am going to reply using relevant information, so if people respond to me using my same example, I'm going to continue using that example if it remains relevant. So, I don't even see why you brought this up.

Arguments change if certain details change. So if one blog uses material in a different way, then depending on the method of use my argument may not even apply... do you think I do not acknowledge that, or something?

 

Thing is, they are removing the images if asked. So I don't really think that's the issue in case with these blogs.

The professional thing to do would contact the admin to the blog in question and have the image removed or further action would be taken. The unprofessional thing to do would be to stomp around stark rabid mad and let every one know it. I think some of the hate-mail anon spam and the whining and complaining in such an extreme way is seriously unprofessional. Again that's just my opinion.

I know I was taught at my art school. ( not a crappy one but one of the top in the nation.) That you should even carry yourself professionally even on the internet because you never know if it will come back to bite you..so to say. So generally the best thing to do would be to politely talk to the admin and well if they refuse..that's a whole different can of worms. Again that's solely up to the owner of the picture. Who are people to report something that has nothing to do with them? The best thing they can do is contact the artist and let THEM take care of it.

When one acts like a child, it only reflects poorly on them..and I actually kind...pity them. It's really solely up to the artist who's work is in question...no amount of harassment, or forcing or complaining can say otherwise. YOU may not like it, and quite frankly...that's too bad.

@ Ethra..Unfortunately if anything is said that is remotely different from the norm..people will consider it harassment because THEY don't want to hear it. It's kind of selfish really, too fracking bad if you don't want to hear it. ( generalizing lol)

I usually get ignored when I try and bring some sense into these things but I feel I had to comment again lol. Perhaps thats the masochist in me

 

I have seen some where they could be seen that way. For example there was one that talked about recasts. Then the comment belong said it wasn't going to give image credit because the image came from a known re-caster. That is an example where it could be seen as a personal attack. I also saw the aftermath of one confession that someone did take personally, more then one person thought so and the image was removed.

It is unwanted and welcomed conduit from the point of view of the person who may be offended by someone using their photo. Which does come under harassment. They may not repost, but in theory they could. They could also use that artist again, which is the same. Also with how tumblr works, maybe people can end up reposting that image, so more people see it and cause more upset.

To avoid any offense, they could simple just ASK first. That why they KNOW the person is OK with their picture being used.

 

They can *think* it's harassment all they want. What one *thinks* has no bearing on law. Just because someone gets a little mad about someone else's opinion doesn't mean they have case. Yeah, it's selfish, and it's a lot of other things I won't mention, but it doesn't matter.

Here's the thing: mere upset is not the same has harassment. So... boo hoo someone got upset. If they are upset, they can ask the image be removed and give their reasoning as being they took offence to the way the image was used...and they can do so politely.

Once again, I agree that people can just ask the photos be used... but again... if they are not legally bound to, and in limited cases they are not, they don't have to, and there's no sense in going on a rampage and freaking out about it... because you can't do a thing about it and you will look foolish.

 

Unless it escalates into something more that can be emotionally damaging. Just wanted to add to that before somebody else does. They'd also have to try pretty hard in court to prove it. I have a really good friend who is a prominent lawyer so yes I do ask him silly questions like this. There's been a lot on frivolous lawsuits lately, according to him...so if a judge believes the suit to be frivolous then it could more than likely be thrown out. It's really hard to get a lawyer to even go to trial with something like student loans, I could imagine how they'd try and talk people out of this type of suit. ( off tangent.) I've heard, from my friend that a lot of lawyers won't try a case they don't think they can make money off of. But I'm just taking his word for it.

 

With one exception, which I'll address below, I don't mind my pictures being re-posted as long as credit is given. Ever since I opened up my Flickr account, I find that my dolly pictures are regularly being posted on other BJD-related forums mostly for reference purposes. This does not bother me, as credit is given. Would it be nice if I'm asked first? Sure! But, even though I've never been asked for permission, I'm not concerned given how the pictures are being used.

However, here is the exception I mentioned above. I do not want my photos associated with any hot-button issues and/or negative drama-filled confessions. When it comes to the Confession blogs, context is everything. Like it has been mentioned multiple times throughout the thread, people "borrow" images on the internet all the time, with or without credit. Let's imagine a scenario where a confession has been posted along the lines of "I really hate company X's dolls, they are so ugly!". The blog owner, having good intentions, finds a picture of a doll by company X that, in his view, is beautiful and Photoshops the anon's confession onto the picture. Now, a visitor to the blog comes along, finds the picture/confession combo interesting, saves the Photoshopped picture and posts it on the local BJD forum - the person may or may not give credit, and may or may not mention the context of the image/text. What we have now is an image and text taken out of context and will likely be misinterpreted by many folks, losing the original intent of the blogger. THIS is the scenario I do not want to see with my images. I will kindly ask the blogger to take down the post.

Finally, even without the re-blogging issue, I simply don't want my images carrying a negative message of any kind. I want this hobby to be a happy place and don't want my images being vehicles for making anyone feel bad or sad, myself included, over the not so pleasant sides of BJD fandom.

 

At this point i am repeating myself, but if you cause someone to get upset even on the internet. You can do something about it. As i have pointed out over here there have been cases where internet trolls have done time in prison, for taking someones images and altering them to cause offense. Some of them have just been words said. But this have been ACTUAL cases over here.

I have not gone on a rampage, nor have i freaked out. I have mainly stated how i think it is wrong. I have also used examples where the law would back me up, but in copyright laws and possibly if it got serious harassment laws too. I have also stated that harassing someone for stealing your photo is wrong.

If they where in their rights to post the pictures, tumblr would not be removing them when the artist has reported them. They have had drama's about the fact they have been reported and tumblr have threatened to close the blog. This is because sites like this know what the laws are and don't want to get in any potential trouble over it. Many sites have a system like this and they have a system for a reason.

I am not going to keep going on about the same points at this point. If you want to disagree with me then you are free to do so. It does not make my points any less valid.

 

Again, photo student at the Art Institute speaking here... These images are used in satire which is fair use... (thanks for correction on my last post, I just forget who corrected me)
Even if it wasn't, really think for a second...

Unless you're licensing the images to the doll companies or things like that (IE, I give DDE full exclusive rights to a well shot photo of the Puki Puki Cupid2 I bought from them, for them to use in advertising, not that they'd want it, but full hypotheticals here) you're not making money off of the image... you can still use it in your portfolio if you'd like for a product shot or if lit well enough portrait even, but let's face it, for the most part no one wants to buy photos of dolls to hang on their wall... You (the photographer) makes no money off of it...
One of the confessions blogs finds your image and uses it (like mine was used) they link the confession to your images, and suddenly your portfolio/blog/website has more traffic. They also make no money off of it. People see the image and laugh, cry, get angry, commiserate, whatever. No one is harmed, even if the photo is of a broken, poorly customized, or even bootlegged doll.

 

Tempers can run a bit high in a debate thread. Your comment is directed in a very general way, but I don't believe that anyone has been going around "stark rabid mad" or stomping like a child. The problem with an online debate is that many people tend to color other's words with their own emotions.

Also, unless the admin of the blog posts all of the hate emails where people can read them (anonymously!), we can't know for certain that anything truly horrible is being said, or what proportion of the emails are unreasonably horrible and which are just angry but reasonable. I do not condone actual harassment on either side, but I don't think we have enough factual information to say what's what.

 

I agree with you completely, again I was really just generalizing. Text can be taken out of context and I just suppose to me, it feels a little extreme. Then again it's not as extreme as some of the things I've heard. I for one would actually like to see the hate mail, as it may shed some light on that situation. Of course assuming it isn't made up. ( I'm such a middle ground girl it's kinda weird and may sound contradictory sometimes lol.) I'll be honest ,and again I could be wrong, but the screaming of theft before the facts are all gathered is what I contributed to the stomping and starking and what not. ( All this talk of starks reminds me that winter is coming.)

I should have clarified that I has meant that comment to be for both sides of the spectrum. I wasn't trying to be biased but a very generalized unprofessionalism. If that makes any sense. For all we know the tables can be turned and the bloggers may be considered unprofessional as well.

 

But you can't just say "Oh it's satire" and have it actually be satire. Satire is meant to be humorous, but it is intended to shame someone/thing, to point out a negative trait. I'm sure that some of what's posted might honestly be satire, but more of the images are just general commentary about the hobby, not satire or parody and not Fair Use. There is no clear rhyme or reason why many of the images are chosen. If you post a comment about recasts over a photo of a random Volks doll... the reader isn't going to know that the doll is or isn't a recast, or if the blogger is poking fun at recasts because the doll isn't. No other information is given other than the comment.

(Also... if it means my comment carries more weight with you, I have a BA in Web Design from one of the Art institutes.)

Ah... I see. I'm glad I moderated my post a bit then. I have to try really hard to not put too much of my own spin on what others say.