how uncomfortable would this make you?

I personally wouldn't file a take down via DMCA unless I felt I had a chance of winning a court case, should the issue escalate. It can backfire - if it's a fair use issue you can be sued for filing a false take down.

http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request

"The best strategy when dealing with content you don’t like is to seek the advice of legal counsel. You may very well have a case for libel or another cause of action that you can use to get monetary damages from someone who posts something you don’t like, and to get an order requiring them to remove the content. However, alleging copyright infringement when it does not exist is not the proper way to proceed and can only hurt your case since it gives the other side the ability to sue you, in addition to your suing them."

If you file a DMCA notice via tumbler, the blogger can file a counter notice. At that point, you have 10 days to file a lawsuit. If you don't file, the content goes back up. (Reference, See # 20)

 

No worries here, I'm not exactly the best an clarifying things anyways. Again it's that context thing so I try and not take things that personally anyways. I've just sort of always believed...that it takes two to tango.

 

I just want to quote a post from page 10, because I think that one really said something important:

Because that's what is making me really mad.
People who think they should start doing the white knight for an artist they like...no matter how that certain artist might think about that.
Leave handling that problem to people who are actually involved instead of spamming hate-mail or whatnot.
It's nice YOU think that it might be wrong, but crying about it or taking someones else right away to handle their very own problem is childish and just plain horrible :/
(and I'm mentioning this again because it happened a lot on tumblr already, people who speak for others instead of the real artists)

 

There are times (a lot of times, actually) when I agree with your basic sentiment -- that it is better for the artist to handle the situation.

However, if tumblr's TOS says 'don't do this or we will take down your blog' and the blogger does it anyway, they are clearly setting themselves up for getting their blog yanked. Whether it was the owner of the pic or not, they did do something that was clearly against the TOS, and I have a hard time feeling bad for them. They knew, and all they had to do was simply ask permission, but they didn't and it came back to bite them. *Shrug* It might not be a pleasant lesson to learn, but at least now they know that there are consequences on the internet, and hopefully in the future will know how to protect themselves from getting their site taken down.

 

Sure, you have to right to expect anything--you have the RIGHT to expect flying lions will spring forth from my brow, but thinking so would be a bit naive, no? Just as it's naive to think that your pictures won't be used in a way you don't like when you CHOOSE, knowing full well the possibility of such an event occurring, to post something online.

On the differences of albums and digital images: I have an album in my PRIVATE home. If I were to place my photo album in Central Park, (akin to posting your picture on the internet) I fully expect them to be handled in a way I do not wish. Do you see where I am going?

 

My concern is, what if someone falsely accuses someone of stealing something they got permission for? Let's say person A contacts an artist and gets permission, they blog the photo, then someone comes along, sees the photo without a phrase like "permission obtained" or something, reports it, and it gets taken down? That's why I said it should be up to the artist. Some people just jump to conclusions in an effort to "defend" someone.

And, not everyone has the same viewpoint. Someone you think you're helping and/or defending could get really mad at you for starting drama over something they considered unimportant. A lot of innocent people get hurt in witch-hunts. Leave it to the people who are involved because only they know what went down and how they want to proceed handling it. It's not up to anyone- the people posting these images or the fans who think they're helping- only the artist to decide what can and cannot be done with their photos.

 

Yes, that would be too bad, though it may be possible to work everything out since the blogger can get proof that permission was indeed obtained. But what I think this illustrates is two things -- that it's good to cover your butt -- put in that disclaimer 'permission obtained' so that it is 100% clear that you are in the right. Second of all, the unfortunate side effect of so many people just taking images when ever they feel like it is that it creates a lot more confusion when it comes to who owns what image. One of the reasons a person may wrongly assume that a photo was stolen vs freely offered is because image theft happens so often. Fewer stolen photos = less overall confusion.

The reason I said I had no sympathy for bloggers reposting pics without permission getting taken down is because it's a very black and white situation when it comes to a TOS saying it's wrong. There are a number of gray area scenarios that pop up with in this hobby, and I really think that the artists are the only people that should ever handle those. And while I don't like witch hunt mentalities, I also feel that in this kind of situation people set themselves up by either doing something that is so clearly in the wrong (violating TOS) or by not taking measures to protect themselves (such as using disclaimers).

A lot of people have mentioned that people posting pics should know better and expect them to be taken and used without permission. However, there is a flip side to this too. People on the web using other people's photos need to take proper precautionary measures themselves. It's a two way street. The owners of the pics need to be prepared to protect their property if that is something they are serious about, but people posting pics need to protect themselves too by getting permission, and making it clear that permission was granted. The internet isn't the lawless free for all that some people keep saying it is -- ignore that at your (general you) peril.

 

I'm with Ara* on the latest point actually. As I've pointed out before, I use a creative commons license for my pictures. Which basically I'm giving people permission to reproduce them as long as certain criteria are met.

Therefor, if someone sees my stuff posted, I'd greatly prefer if they'd let me know and let **me** handle it the way I want to rather than trying to fight my battles. For example, I got someone informing me that a deviant art thief was totally stealing all my doll pictures and they'd reported them. I had to respond with 'you mean the pictures my sister took of my doll, that I let her take?'

 

Flying forehead lions? I heard those taste good barbequed. I'll take a dozen.

Choosing to hope for the best from everyone (e.g. trusting that their photos won't be stolen) does not mean that the person is naive or not prepared for the worst. Also, I'm going to highlight something that you quoted from my post, but seemingly chose to ignore. (typos and all.)

It's a fact of life that crap happens. The principle of "Action/Reaction" is another fact of life. While I agree with your analogy in principle... it ignores the fact that I can react to what others do.

 

I love how when a debate topic goes hot on DoA, everyone loses their shit and goes crusading. xD

 

-This is in response to the original post-

It wouldn't bother me unless they were trying to say it was -their- doll and then got all bent out of shape because they were called on the lie. At most I'd be annoyed and possibly contact the blog host. If they credited it to me (as you said they did) and linked my flickr, that's fine. I don't exactly leave my email out for people to get in touch with me before the fact. I might feel slighted or aggrivated if they were making fun of my doll, but eh? Everyone has their own opinion. As long as they aren't claiming the photo/doll as their own. I personally don't think it's worth my time getting mad over!

 

This reminds me of the time I saw my buddy's art in a dA gallery that I didn't recognize and I was all D8< WHO IS THIS JERK STEALING MY FRIEND'S ART?

And when I asked my friend about it, she told me it was actually her other gallery, which she created because she didn't want to put smut into her main gallery (her rather prudish family watch her main gallery on dA). XD I'm really glad I didn't report before asking! I would've looked like a moron!

So yeah, I really hate it when the internet mobs decide to go and fight the good fight for the artists without asking them.

 

Though you have to admit..internet mobs "fighting the good fight" would make a hilarious comic parody/satire Off topic, letting my devious side get the best of me hehe.

 

I was in grad school when that decision came down, and it made a huge difference in the way classes were taught. Was it a pain for professors who had to rework curricula? Yes. More costly for students, who now had to buy several entire texts instead of a pile of photocopies? Yes. But in the end that didn't matter, because copyright was being broken. People have a right to control how their property is used. Full stop.

I have to laugh at the lame defense being put forward in this thread, again and again. Every argument made has had holes punched through it, yet the same few people continue to insist that somehow their laziness excuses them from what was described very accurately as simple human decency.

Don't have the time to ask for permission to use others images? The answer is really simple-- there are three choices. Ask people to contribute to a pool of images for your use, stop using images entirely, or stop blogging. The world won't end if you make that final choice, btw.

I guess there is a fourth choice. Insist that what you are doing is perfectly fine and get huffy when people get angry at you.

As for the most persistent argument in this thread, that if you don't want your work shared you shouldn't post it, such an attitude goes against everything the internet (and academia, too) is supposed to be about. Both are supposed to be about sharing, not stealing. Taking without permission is stealing, plain and simple. The fact that stealing on the internet is easy to do and almost anonymous does not negate the fact that it is still stealing.

I am not someone who needs to worry about my photos being ripped off. (They are nowhere near good enough.) But as an educator, I have had many lesson plans published, many of them online. The purpose has been to share with other educators and to hopefully improve teaching. Yet, I have had almost all of these online lessons ripped off (none of the ones published only on paper, though!). Some of these have been plagiarized piecemeal, others wholesale, even down to diagrams and always my name has been removed and replaced with another's. And some have been published commercially, again without my consent and without compensation. I didn't post these items with the intent to make a buck off of them, but it's not fair for someone else to make a profit off my work, is it?

Finally, consider that although the people who are reposting photos without consent may have no intention of making a profit at this moment, this may change in the future. Think about the many photo submission blogs that have been turned into books, like Engrish, Cake Wrecks, etc. Wouldn't it be much simpler to get permission now, than go through the hassle of tracking down the (pissed off) owners of photos a year from now when you want to publish?

 

Actually, yes I'm quite sure Tumblr and other blogs would comply with a request for an image to be removed, if anything to protect themselves. It doesn't matter if a blog is within their right to post the image, if the owner wants it taken down, they'll take it down so they won't be involved in some ridiculous drama.


They are getting grief because of "drama-llamas" that don't want to solve an issue in a calm rational manner. Yeah, sites know the law... but even if the law is in the blogger's favor, the site will most likely comply with the photo owner just because it is definitely the lesser of two evils. They can either comply, or get caught up in potential legal garbage that could cost them. I don't know about you, but if I were Tumblr, I'd comply, because I don't want someone jumping down my throat and possibly making threats and putting my site at risk all because of one. Measly. Photo. If giving you(general you) what you want will make you hush and walk away, so be it.

That is a wonderful analogy. And perfect too.

 

Or its reporting someone who is using something that falls under fair use.

None of the examples you give have anything to do with re-blogging pictures, or making image macros out of pictures. Disney characters fall under trademark which follows a different set of rules. The Kinko's case is clearly someone taking intellectual property, copying them, and selling them. It's so straight forward I have no clue why you linked it. It's like trying to confuse the issue by bringing fashion into the discussion - "useful" non-creative works fall under patent and trademark, not copyright. From an ethical standpoint fashion is a creative work, but from a legal standpoint it is not.

In Fair Use the following must be considered: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I'm not going to say it's impossible to file a lawsuit that proves use of an image on a blog is somehow infringing on your ability use market the image (especially when you only have copyright over the image, and not the content of the photo which remains with the original copyright holder) but it would be very hard to prove and doesn't seem to have a clear precedent. It's a grey area until it goes to court.

Someone taking a photo you took and posted to your blog, and selling it as t-shirt? Yes, they are clearly infringing on your ability to market that photo.

Again this is legal discussion only, not ethical and does not represent my ethical views on the issue.

 

"In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and &#8220;transformative&#8221; purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work."
(from here)

The tranformative issue is a main point in Fair Use. "At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work."

My problem with using Fair Use to justify the blogs is that there is often not, IMO, a direct correlation between the images and the comments. (Basically, only the comment has anything to say. The image is just there to look pretty.) (What does portrait of a lone doll have to do with a gripe about certain character preferences within the community. Beautiful photograph... but it's only that.)