how uncomfortable would this make you?

I did... but I like the way you phrased it better.

As far as I know... nobody has directly said they've reported the blog(s). I think what Ethra's talking about is claims of people harassing the blog owner directly and sending hate-mail.

(You could also add calling someone naive or childish to your list. I've gotten that one thrown at my twice already. *eye-roll*)

You were indeed. Intellectual property is a very wide-ranging topic with varied opinions. I think... since people were pretty quick to jump to discussing the confession blogs - that the specific instance/issue must have been uppermost on people's minds. They were just waiting for someone to open the floodgate.

 

*random 2 cents*

If you put it on the internet and specified nothing when posting it, what happens to the picture then on is toobadsosadtellyourmummywhenyougethome.

You put it on the internet. You did not say "Hey don't use this without asking me." or whatever it is that bothers you. YOU PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. If you don't like the thought of random strangers saving your photo and using them for good/bad/neutral purposes, then you dang well better say so when you post it.

DOA in particular is home to hundreds (maybe thousands?) of people. You don't know who all of these people are do you? Do you really know every single person who likes/has looked at your dolls? Maybe your thread has 30 comments but 1953 views. Do you know what all those other people say/do with your pictures?
Maybe a thousand of them just look and click away.
Maybe a few hundred of them save the pictures on their computer to look at later.
Maybe a couple hundred saved them and used them as icons on websites you don't know about or background wallpapers that you'll never see.
Maybe 50 of them saved the picture and sent to their family and friends to look at in awe.
Maybe a couple dozen of them photoshop inappropriate things all over the picture and distribute them to their douchebag friends laughing and thinking gross thoughts.
Maybe 5 of them think the picture is nice and posts it on their blog.
Maybe one of them decides to use it as a tool to show secret confessions of what people are afraid to say with a link to you to show who owns this sweet doll.

I'm sure there a more than just one way to take what I said up there differently but, ya know, people have had different experiences.

If you have a disclaimer in/near the picture that you're not cool with it being used without being asked first then shiz bro, get as rude and nasty as you want. But if you didn't say anything *shrugs* The Internet works in predictable ways that should be obvious to everyone AKA if you don't put a sign that says "Don't Walk On the Grass" how can you be shocked and appalled that people walked on the grass? If you do put a sign up that says "Don't Walk on the Grass" yeah, there's gonna be those few that still do but THOSE are the kind of people no one defends lmao. This is what I call "Get off my lawn, I have a shotgun" mentality.

 

Did you read the other responses in the thread? The ones concerning legal ownership of the pictures? It is implicit that the pictures belong to the photographer and can't just be taken because someone feels like using them on their blog. You don't have to do anything -- the pictures are yours, not the blogger's. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that. That and the fact that simply asking permission avoids all kinds of future unpleasantness.

People on the internet do things they aren't supposed to do (like steal pictures). People offline do things they should not do. That does not mean that everyone should restrict reasonable activities or be at the mercy of people who do bad things. I am so tired of hearing 'well, it's the internet, what do you expect?' That mentality just gives people free reign to do whatever they like even when they clearly shouldn't, and it's a poor excuse. If someone is really worried about having pics taken, then stating something to the effect of 'don't use this without permission' isn't a bad idea -- in fact it's a good one. But not having said disclaimer does not automatically make your pictures fair game. It's sad when people feel like it's ok to just take what they like and use it any which way without giving an ounce of thought as to how the photographer might feel about it.

 

Although being offended isn't a legitimate reason for filing a harassment court case, people have done it (and some won).

The reason why I brought it up is exactly what you said. However, people are taking "blogs in question" to mean Confessions blogs or certain types of blogs, which wasn't what the OP intended (as she recently mentioned). It's getting a bit confusing and unfortunately, I think some people could (and have) taken it the wrong way. That's why I brought it up.

CC Licenses seem like a good way to avoid that kind of thing. People who don't want their images taken ideally wouldn't, and people who don't care if their images are shared can have their wish. Then, if someone infringes on their rights with warning, they can take all action necessary. I still think it's basic human courtesy to ask, but not everyone has the same level of morals.

Edit: Since I didn't want to double post, I'm replying to what's below my post: It shouldn't matter whether art is "good" or not. I don't think my stuff all that amazing either, but it doesn't stop people from trying to take it. I'd just hate to have something I worked hard on, and told people not to use, to show up on someone else's website where 80% or people aren't going to care about that credit beneath it.

 

While this is true, it certainly would make things easier.

People assume that if its on the internet where it can be seen and freely manipulated by anyone, that it's fair game. Putting a disclaimer would make things much easier, especially if the photos were still taken and used. It means the owner of the photo has concrete proof that they do not allow for their photos to be used by anyone else, and then there would be no dispute.

Even the issue of how the photo was used wouldn't come into the equation, because the owner specifically said "no" to any use by anyone.

Even in the real world, we take measures the secure our things. The internet should certainly be no different especially considering that anyone can access something of yours anywhere, at any time. If you don't want someone to use your photo without your permission under any circumstance, I'd suggest putting the disclaimer. I would...if my art weren't... not all that good.

 

@roxxihearts: Watch your language, please. Cussing (even implied) isn't necessary.

No one in this thread has stated that they believed that people aren't going to do whatever they want, regardless of legalities or consequences. This has been discussed and refuted multiple times. And yet, it keeps getting dredged back up by people who either are not bothered enough by the situation to assert their copyright or they are openly willing to disrespect others copyrights. (people = general people)

We are not discussing is whether something will or won't happen. Much of the conversation has been revolving around the issue from a purely legal standpoint - e.g. copyright, Fair Use, and a website host's TOS.

You're more than welcome to your opinion, but can you actually add something constructive to the conversation?

 

@Kymera

Ha. I bet I know the group I fall under...

Anyhow.

Admittedly, I don't think anything can be added to this debate that is constructive and new. Other than people proclaiming their side... but what will that do but cause more arguments to explode. Someone will pick their side, and someone else will come up and say how/why that side is wrong. Even I can admit, I haven't done much else but defend my stance, and argue against people who felt the need to repeat things and take things out of context (not you, just to let you know, so please do not jump down my throat).

How many times has one side refuted the other, only to be refuted themselves? We can argue about copyright all day, and about what's legal and what isn't when it's unclear...but unless someone here is a legal expert, we can either argue all day or just agree to disagree and go our merry way.

The disclaimer idea had to be the best thing brought into this discussion. Really, after that, there's nothing. There's really nothing left to debate.

 

...says the person who has posted 44 (yes, forty-four!) times in this debate.

I wonder how many permission-seeking emails you could have written in this time.

 

See here's the thing. I don't take other's photos and put them in blogs. I don't even blog. I honestly don't even know why I have a tumblr... maybe because I love memorizing passwords or something.

Just because I was defending something you personally don't agree with doesn't mean you can accuse me of being what you want to blindly call a thief. And if you want to think that of me, keep it to yourself, because while you think you're being witty you sound like the foolish judgmental... people that make your argument into a mockery.

And I really don't care how many times I posted in here. Like I said, I'll admit most of what I did was defend my already established view and argue, albeit pointlessly, against people who think an argument is to make someone else repeat themselves. And admittedly, I quite enjoy arguing with people.

Oh, and it's adorable how you felt the need to count how many times I posted. Like that's going to benefit your already dismal response any.

With that, I'm done. Your post just proved flawlessly where this debate is going to end up, and I won't be part of it after this.

 

Welp, I hope a mod closes this thread. The second someone stops talking about the subject and begins talking about someone on the other side, the debate is over and has become a mud-slinging contest. Guess I came in too late *shrugs and walks away*

 

sakuraharu, while I agree with your points in this argument, I kind of don't really think that was necessary. We don't know if Ethra is one of the people who runs one of those blogs, and considering especially s/he already stated that s/he supports the idea that the bloggers should ideally acquire permission, I don't think s/he does.

Anyways. I guess I need to start putting disclaimers now, regardless of how amateur my work is. I kind of assumed that the "all rights reserved" stuck below the image on DA or beside the image on Flickr (It does - I just checked) was enough, and to be honest didn't want to be ridiculed as "one of those people who has too high of on opinion of how much their work is worth", because I'll admit, I'm currently strictly a hobby photographer/illustrator (I used to do commissions from time to time, but not anymore), and I don't think it's worth that much. Yet, anyways.

I suppose I should probably answer the OP questions. I don't actually have a problem with people looking at my stuff and linking their friends to it through the share option on Flickr/DA, or reblogging an image of mine via tumblr or another blog, as long as there is still a direct link to me. Also, I don't have a problem with people saving it to their hard drive, or hell, even modifying the image for their own private use - i.e. if they wanted to shop a different wig/eyes over the photo of my doll because they want the same mould and like my photo, that's totally okay as long as their hard drive is the only places that image will be found and their immediate friends the only people to see it. While it's nice when people tell me that they've shared it with their friends (especially if they had something constructive but negative to say, because I always love critique) or ask for permission to quietly modify my image, I don't really expect it, and don't get terribly upset when I find out that it's been used in such a fashion (well, except the modifying part, because for me to find it, it would likely have to be hosted on some image hosting site, freely available to the public, which is already something I do not approve of).

It's when people start modifying it willy-nilly thinking that the internet is some kind of a giant game of free-for-all, and sticking it with messages I don't agree with that I start having an issue. And I mean, think of it this way.... What would happen if, an image confession blog, instead of dressing up the pretty text overtop of the image, would just reblog a tumblr photo and stick a confession underneath? It either wouldn't make any shred of sense, OR, most likely in most people's eyes, the image will be supporting evidence of the confession. So the pretty, unrelated Volks dolls reblogged and added to a confession about recasts suddenly implicate the owner of those dolls in owning recasts. A confession about how ugly a company's doll is added to a photo of that company's doll WILL be saying that hey, here's a handy example of said ugliness, regardless of what the individual looking at the confession will think. (They may not agree with it, but they're likely to not interpret that use of the image as "ironic, to prove the confession submitter wrong"). People tend to forget how powerful subliminal messages and assumptions are, but they're even more powerful that explicit statements, because you form an opinion and don't even realize that you did. That is why I have a problem with it - because it can do damage, to anyone, without people realizing how harmful it is. (well that, and it REALLY rubs me the wrong way when people assume they can just take what isn't theirs without asking, because that line of thinking is one of the MANY that continuously depreciate and devalue an artist's work, which makes it exceedingly difficult for an artist to make a living off of their craft. You want my property? You can't have it!)

I do agree with the notion of not going on a holy rage crusade on behalf of someone else though. If you find art theft, just quietly notify the artist first and let them deal with it first. Now, if, after being contacted by the artist the thief did a neener-neener and started claiming ownership or being an immature brat with no respect for other people's rights, refusing to take it down, then, well... I don't really have much sympathy if they got swarmed by white-knights after that.

 

@Lelite: I interpreted the above to mean that Ethra_VII is part of one of the BJD confessions blogs (as that is what she wrote). If she is not a mod at one of these blogs, she might have said so more clearly, as in "I am a subscriber to.." and described the harassment she spoke of several times as hearsay, not fact.

People have asked her for evidence of the harassment she has claimed. She has provided none, and after posting a multitude of variations on the same theme has decided that there is nothing left to debate. Apparently it isn't worthwhile for her to provide support for her spurious claims. Or maybe that support just doesn't exist.

 

Okay. Very well. You want your so-called proof, here it is. Whether you decide it's good enough or if you want to dismiss it at hearsay, I really don't care. Frankly, your opinion on what I have to say is worth even less than it was before that foolery you decided to post.

I am not a mod of any blog except my own personal one which has like... nothing on it (I love to memorize passwords). But I am subscribed and keep in track of them (cuz I get bored easily). The ones I am a member of have posted several messages they have been sent that, to me, look like hate mail sent by trolls who feel the need to fight battles for others. And I believe that once people start pouring in hate-mail, as these blogs have claimed, that is harassment. So maybe the number of messages is hearsay. But the fact that they exists, regardless of quantity, is fact.

No, I will not post these messages, because these blogs don't want to be physically involved in this debate, and I will respect that.

I brought this up to prove a point, that if people are going to stoop to that level, it does harm to your argument, and you'd do well to discourage it.... but really in your case specifically, you've pretty much crashed your own argument into the ground.

This trend of trolling, hate-mailing, and idiocy isn't new. I see it happen in various other art communities I am a part of where I am much more involved, and sorry, the BJD community is not so special that it is immune to said idiocy, and just because you want to turn a blind eye, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So... what does that make 46? Just in case you feel the need to keep further track. I should smack myself for even dignifying you with a response... but like I said... I looooooove arguing. And if this sounds a bit too nasty... oh well. I don't really appreciate being called a thief by someone who doesn't know jack squat about me...

Now, for real this time, I'm out. Peace.

 

Arguing isn't debate.

In your multiple replies to this thread you haven't seemed to grasp that. You've made your point over and over again-- you think reposting someone else's images on a blog is fair use. You think it's okay, so people should feel okay doing it. Yet that is not how the law works.

As for your status as a mod/not a mod at a confession site, the admin on one site posted very clearly that s/he was upset that someone was representing herself as a mod. So I wasn't the only person who interpreted your statement as such.

And, finally for all your talk of white knighting, that is exactly what you have been doing.

 

Ah, I see. I guess I just generally tend to assume that when people say they're "part" of something online, they might just be an active participant in the ensuing conversations, or a frequent submitter, versus being an administrator. Kind of how I'm part of DoA, but I'm not a mod or an admin - that type of thing.

The confession blogs do also occasionally publicly post criticism they've received of their blog though, so it also wouldn't surprise me that someone who wasn't an admin would know at least some of the messages that were received (but probably wouldn't be able to give an accurate proportion of the exact things).


Also, there was one more thing I wanted to touch on in regards to taking images and stuff. What constitutes as "not a big deal" is really... subjective. So I might not think that having my image reblogged or linked elsewhere a big deal. Neither does Susie. But Jenny, well... She's had instances of people stealing her photos before - maybe Mijn Schatje got her hands on one of her images. Maybe she found it in someone's icon, contacted the person with that icon - and while they were very nice and accommodating in taking it down, they nevertheless shared a disturbing fact that they found this image online, somewhere on an unrelated website where Jenny never posted and never gave permission to post, which gave Jenny no credit and thus the individual had no idea who to contact to ask for permission. So to Jenny, it IS a big deal when people repost things without her permission - even with credit, it's easier for that credit to be dropped in a re-blog - either by accident or on purpose. Maybe she makes up her livelihood on dolls - making outfits, painting face-ups, selling doll art books. It's important to her that her work is ONLY attributed to her at all times - and considering she puts a roof over her head with these photos, she doesn't really uh... have the option of not putting it online as some people have very helpfully suggested. She has the right to having those feelings respected, even if I don't think it's such a big deal, and even if I only post my photos to share it with the world, hoping* that people will link their friends to it.

(*So long as people respect my personal boundaries and what I consider permissible in terms of spreading my art around - i.e. not hosting it on any other service that ones I've designated so there's always a clear link back to me. Really, respect for my rights in regards to my images is honestly the biggest thing that's important to me, more than anything else.)

 

As a vast majority of them do, my dear. It's unfortunate but not much we can do in the long run.

 

Once again, as a mod of BJDC2, both myself and my co-admin have elected not to participate in this discussion and would like to remind everyone that the opinions stated here within are not representative of our blog. We would prefer that, as such, the people within this debate refrain from making assumptions or insinuations of our blog or personal character based on anything stated by others. It seems that, from feedback we are receiving, that people are eager to equate the stances of people in this thread with our identity or as associated with us. They are not.

No one within this discussion, besides myself and my previous disclaimer, is associated with our blog beyond following it, or possibly submitting the confessions to us. (I wouldn't know, that sort of thing is anonymous. ) That is all, thanks.

 

Rather than remain an interesting and thought-provoking debate on the legalities and the social netiquette of blogging/re-blogging images belonging to others, this debate has become more about whether certain Tumblr blogs are okay or not. This is not what the OP is asking.

We don't permit offsite drama to be brought to Den of Angels. The moderators of the offsite Tumblr have twice now expressed their wish not to be drawn into this debate and not to be represented by well-wishers or otherwise.

There are no reasons why anyone should resort to personal attacks in this debate. It is possible to debate another person's standpoint without snitty comments towards them - this goes for both perceived sides of this debate. We know debates can get heated and make allowances for that, but there are no excuses for personal attacks or swearing.