how uncomfortable would this make you?

I have stated many times i do not agree with the drama and kicking off with the person blogging. I have mentioned this before. It seems like i have to keep repeating myself with you. My main point. If someone stole MY work i would file a report and ask for it to be removed. I would not drama i would not hissy fit. I would go by the book to get it dealt with. I agree that ANY artist who gets there work used in this manner who does the same.

The only way i wouldn't report myself if i did not have an account with the site in question, in which case i would asked a trusted and calm friend who had an account to explain my situation to the site. I have also not caused a drama when i have seen these blogs on many occasions steal my friends works. I have simply told the friend and have let them deal with it. One friend said, well actually i am OK with them using my work. My response was fair enough, and i left it alone. I have not gone on some crazy drama on the blogs. All i have done is state my opinion on here.

The reason sites do take them down, is because of copyright law. There has been some very valid points to how the images used are not fair use. I suggest you read them.

Also i do not see why you think it is such a problem for them to ASK first. Again me repeating myself. It is their own fault for being too lazy to ask, and now they are getting the backlash for it. If they asked the artist first, there would be none of this drama.

Any way, i have said my point. I am not going to have chance to talk about it any further because i am going to be away for the next few days. I also feel that i have said what i think and other people have also said some VERY valid points which cover what you have said.

 

@karla-chan: In Ethra's defense, they have said in previous posts that they agree with the idea of asking for permission. Covering your butt, even if your work is protected by Fair Use, saves a lot of stress and hassle. I think most people in this thread agree with that sentiment. (When you're part of a smallish community, like DoA, then it's just common sense, IMO.)

The problem, IMO, is teaching people that they should ask for permission. Some people would be receptive to it and make an effort to change. There are some people you can talk to until you're blue in the face and you won't convince them that they have any legal or moral obligation to contact the owner of the photo. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try... but we should be prepared to fail spectacularly every once and a while.) (BTW: People is general people)

I'm sure I've sounded a bit militant in past posts, but I like trinlayk's point about degrees of reaction. In the case of a "pretty doll" blog I probably would contact the blog owner first, and maybe I would ask them to replace the full photo with a thumbnail and link. I would also try to convince the blogger that they should get retroactive permission for as much work as possible, because I would still go to tumblr to have my photo taken off any reblogs. I'd make a point of explaining that the owner and I have come to an arrangement, so it's not an open complaint, but I can't guarantee that tumblr wouldn't choose to investigate the site anyway.

In the case of a blog that I patently disagree with... yeah... I'd go straight to tumblr.

I don't assume that a hosting site like tumblr would shut down a blog for one complaint of copyright infringement or TOS violation, but if they have many complaints, definitely, yes. On the other hand... it is very clear that the blogs host multiple violations of tumblr's TOS, questionable application of Fair Use aside... there should be negative repercussions for that.

 

This blogger is DEAD WRONG. Copyright to a photograph belongs to the PHOTOGRAPHER. Period.

CORRECT.

WRONG. The Internet is NOT public domain. Public domain means that something has passed out of copyright, which for a vast majority of things, in the US, equals the life of the creator PLUS SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS.

Basically, what's in public domain is stuff from early in the last century.

CORRECT. You own copyright to photos you have taken. You do NOT own copyright to pictures other people have taken.

THIS!!

I don't keep harping on this every chance I get to be obnoxious. It's just mind-boggling to me that people can't "get" the basics.

NO, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. You can NOT have it just because it's there.

ETA:

Please be aware of this: The "somehow" is a result of your opening an account with them. You agree to give them non-exclusive rights when you accept their Terms of Service.

READ THE AGREEMENTS, PEOPLE. THEY ARE LEGAL DOCUMENTS.


ETA2: Yes, I realize people discussed this all to death and beyond after the few posts I cited. But all of the above still merits another note in red. No, I'm not a moron who thinks that just because I have copyright in my photos they are not re-used - I've had it happen.

And it's going to continue happening.

But that doesn't make it a bad idea to keep hammering the idea home. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT JUST BECAUSE IT EXISTS. Someone else took that picture and owns it, and guess what, Einstein? It isn't you.

 

It seems that I too have to keep repeating myself, not just with you, but with a few...

Just because I mention those that cause drama does not mean I mention you in particular. If you feel the need to take everything said personally, then you really shouldn't be in a debate. If you would not go the drama route, good for you. And I hope other artists who don't want their work used in other ways will go the rational route and be calm about it... cuz it's not the end of the world.

Also, I may have been misinformed early on in this debate, but I do have the ability to read, and that is what I did. Had I not read, I would not be using fair use in my argument. You can bring up your copyright argument all you want... I think they are well within their rights to use the images given how they are used, and many on here think so too...so just because I have on opinion that's different from yours, don't assume I argue out of ignorance.

And. AGAIN. I never said I had a problem with them asking. I have said numerous times that it would be easier, I'd encourage anyone making a new blog that uses images, to ask, and I'd encourage existing blogs to alter their policies and invest extra time in it. Just because I argue that they are within their right to what they are doing, does not mean I have a PROBLEM with them asking permission first. Do no argue with me if you are going to put words in my mouth, twist what I have to say, or if you are only going to focus on bits and pieces of my argument taken out of context. Honestly, I'm getting sick and tired of having to repeat this point over and over and over again, and I refuse to defend myself on the matter further, when I have made that point several times.

Kymera- ...I find it funny that you are willing to give a general picture blog a break... but yet you will work to shut something down since you don't like it. That's honestly laughable; "I don't like it, so I'm gonna shut it down muahahaha." To me, that statement makes you no different than the morally righteous who feel that if they don't like something, it's automatically wrong, and should not exist. *sigh*

I'll say it again... stop trying to ruin things for other people just because you don't like it. To think you even have a right just because you don't like the blogs is absolutely childish.

 

@Ethra: My evil cackle is more of a "Kya ha ha ha." I have won trophies for the evilness of my cackle.

I named a specific type of online format as an example. My point was that I would, in fact, be willing to cut someone a break based on the context in which my work was used and the overall tone of the blog. Granted, it's not much of a break because I would still report it to the site host; mostly for the sake of consistency (e.g. if the first person has to remove or change what image they've posted the same is true for everyone else). I have a problem with all of it... some details just bother me more than others.

Also... the argument of "ruin[ing] things for other people just because you don't like it" goes both ways. As it's been said, if people (general) respected intellectual property, this whole debate would be moot.

 

HEY EVERYONE:

There's a reasonable solution that would make both the bloggers and the photographers happy.

EVERYONE should use a creative commons license and have it clearly posted with their pictures.

Here's the basics:

1) Works covered under creative commons must ALWAYS be attributed
2) Commercial nature: You can choose Commercial or Non-commerical use only
3) Sharing: You can choose Yes (unconditional), No (unconditional), or Yes (conditional) - for example, I only let people who believe in creative commons sharing use my work.

So I would say: My work is covered by creative commons attribute, non-commercial, share-alike. (As I have mentioned before).
A blogger sees my work and checks out my creative commons license and goes 'Score, I can use this!' WITHOUT having to take the time to contact me for permission.

You don't want bloggers using your stuff? You say it's creative commons, non-commercial, no sharing. Blogger sees that and goes 'Guess I better look elsewhere.'

That leaves no questions for either side. Bloggers know what pictures they can use, and which ones they can't, without the entire burden on them to figure it out. I LOVE it when DA artists bother to put in the creative commons license- it lets me know who would be okay with me making a doll tattoo or shirt out of their stuff, even if the artist hasn't logged onto DA in a year.

(I'd actually love it if creative commons license options became available as DoA gallery options in the future. ^_^)

Reasonable to everyone? Y/N?

 

Excellent advice, DeadLegato.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion - tell people up front whether you want to share and how you want to be credited. I'm not going to disagree with that. At the same time, it's also reasonable to assume something is "all rights reserved" when no other instructions are given, and there are a lot of people who seem pretty happy to ignore that all the same.

In short, good idea, it's just not a cure-all.

I think that would be Sharing: Yes - conditional - name the condition.

 

I shared the work of an artist I loved on tumblr once.
I asked her permission beforehand telling her exactly what the post would say, and gave her full credit when I posted it.

I feel like that's the polite way to do things. I know not everybody is going to be that way, and it sucks, but as long as it's not a derogatory thing, I'd be alright with somebody crediting my photos and using them (although they're too crappy for anybody to want to).

 

They're not getting grief from some random person running around creating trouble just for fun and ideology. They're getting grief because those blogs did it wrong. They're getting grief because those blogs used other people's content without permission, and some creators of that content didn't like it. And when this happens, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 photo or 100 involved.

A content creator who reports a site isn't the one creating the drama... Drama gets created by reactionaries who start these great howling laments over some poor innocent persecuted blog getting pulled "just" because some content's creator called them out for using content without permission. This particular kind of drama seems to be some kind of face-saving measure against the complainants, as far as I can tell. Or perhaps a smokescreen. On the order of "Yeah, I did wrong, but-- you're making drama for reporting the blog! So there!"

As for Tumblr, they don't care who is being more dramatic; pulling the offending blog is the easiest way to clean the wound and shut everybody up.

There we have it. Nor is projecting loud laments of "you meanies spoiled all our fun insisting upon your petty legalities!" It just draws attention to the offense, and makes its defenders sound lamer & lamer by the minute.

 

Admittedly, I have to agree with you here.

While I do believe bloggers can be well withing their rights to use photos (in limited cases, even without permission) that doesn't change the fact that people do steal other's work. I cannot, and I will not deny that, and I will say that such theft is shameful... when it occurs.

And you're right. If such theft did not occur, then there would be no need for these debates... and in an ideal world we wouldn't have them.

But I still believe that some are going after the wrong people, overreacting, and just being flat out mean. Maybe not on this debate, but I know that people who read this debate are likely going to other sites and harassing people, even people who may not even be in the wrong. That is where I take issue.

I take issue with people being falsely accused and demonized when there is no need for it. ANd I'm sorry... but even the presence of theft does not excuse such behavior. There is a difference between getting justice and being needlessly cruel.

DeadLegato Brilliant idea. Because of how open the internet is, some may innocently assume something is fair game to use, especially if they will be giving credit where it is due. Expressing how you allow you work to be used outright will clear things up perfectly... then if an image is misused, there can be no excuses made.

Ohhhh no, no, no. They are getting grief from random people running around wanting to create trouble. They are getting grief from people not even involved who feel the need to take "justice" into their own hands and fight the good fight. If a photo owner wants to report a blog because that's what it takes to get their photo taken down, fine. I don't care. But I suggest someone tell these little "white knights" to keep their hate to themselves and stop making things difficult, because they are not helping your argument, but rather they are making you all look completely irrational and foolish (which is not your fault, but still...).

If they are being calm and rational about it, then no, they are not creating drama. And anyone who tires to use that pathetic argument you quoted... well they are frankly idiotic. And before anyone makes the claim, no I'm not making that argument. As I stated, people wanting to get their images pulled are within their right to do so... so I couldn't care less if they exercise that right... but the blogger has rights too, and that includes not being harassed.

No, I don't think a blog should be pulled if the problem can be solved as easily as asking a photo be taken down. While one may not like where their photo is, many more either like the promotion, are flattered, or just flat out don't care. So really, trying to rally for a blog to be pulled because of one or two people is just stupid.

Trust me, I know this. Hell, if I were a blog host, I'd go the easiest route in the same fashion. After all, it easier to just make someone shut up and send them on their merry way than to potentially get caught up in legal garbage... even if it turns out that a blogger had done no wrong. It's a very obvious lesser of two evils, IMO.

 

*highly incredulous expression* Hopefully you aren't implying that anyone in this thread is that blind and unrealistic. Only the highly delusional would argue that crap doesn't happen and I think most of the people in this thread would agree with me.

It doesn't really matter if you think it's OK if there is a legal or TOS precedent that says it is not. I maintain that the claim of Fair Use (i.e. not a crime) with regards to the blogs is questionable at best, but I'm willing to agree to disagree. Since none of us has owned up to being an intellectual property lawyer, we could go back and forth on this point forever and not reach a definitive conclusion.

Unless you actually happen to be the mod of one of these blogs and can show us examples, this is mostly speculation. I'm not denying that a few people might take the vigilante route, but the tone of your post is implying rabid, pitch-fork waving mobs. The blogger could just as easily be trying to "demonize" the people who are trying to call them out because the blogger knows they are in the wrong.

 

Evidence, please. I don't recall anyone in this thread saying falsely accusing or demonizing anyone. But maybe I missed that post. Please share.

Again, where is your evidence of all these rabid meaniepoops running around and creating random drama? Have people actually written to you, given their name and told you that no, their photographs have NOT been infringed upon but they are nonetheless going to try to take down your blog? Or are you making inferences based on random posts to blogs (which may be trolling) and hearsay?


edit: Kymera, I see you beat me to it!

 

Yeah- if you want to share it if people ask permission first, you could put that under sharing- conditional. DA only allows three different 'conditionals', but DA doesn't cover all of what the license can do.

Paul and Storm used a creative commons disclosure before Wootstock to say what you can/can't do with video/photo you take and how the copyright is retrained for them as performers and you as a filmer. So yes, it's not just something DA made up- real professionals are using it. ^_^

 

No, you're still chasing unicorns. Or white knights, as the case may be. How do you know WHO was the one who reported the blog? How do you know who was personally involved in the blog being pulled or not? You personally have no idea who wrote in to complain their own images were being used, versus who was just trolling, do you? If you do, I'd love to hear it. If there's no proof, then I call shenanigans.

And so would some others here, I see...

... This last bolded because that is a classic trick, much-beloved by politicians, sexual harassers, and other miscreants. If you're caught in the wrong, flip it around and demonize your accusers, so that you're the one who gets to be on the cross, & thus garner more sympathy for your methods. Call them "do-gooders" or "white knights" to make them sound ridiculous and give up their attempts to call attention to you; call them "haters" to shame them into changing their tune; call them "hysterical" or "dramatic" or "shrill" (especially if the complainant is a woman) to embarrass them into keeping quiet. And it seems that the bigger the wrong, the louder the bellowing. Easily-spotted tactic, heard it a million times, and I hear it here.

 

Yes please, I'd like to know just how much of an issue random angry passers by really are vs how many have legit complaints. Of course no one would have legit complaints if the bloggers did things right and just asked for permission. Geez, you'd think they were being asked to do some kind of impossible herculean task rather than just using the internet for what it is best for -- communicating quickly and easily! If there is any question at all whether or not something is on the up and up that is the answer right there. So painfully simple, yet so completely ignored by so many.

 

I agree with this idea - it's great to include this information on content when you upload it, whether it's creative commons or another explanation of your copyright usage.

I do think it's down right disingenuous to suggest people are not responding emotionally to this subject if you have read this thread, not to mention numerous off-DOA discussions about the topic.