how uncomfortable would this make you?

But with the confession blog, it doesn't seem likely that they're going to suddenly start selling random artists' photos or claiming to have exclusive rights to them? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

You actually can't copyright your face. (Though using someone else's photo for something like that would, of course, be quite illegal.)

ETA: What I mean is: if someone snaps a picture and you happen to be in it and they sell it/market it/whatever, they're in the clear and should be fine (this is why paparazzi get away with snapping all sorts of pics of celebs and selling them in magazines). However, if YOU snap a pic and someone ELSE sells it/markets it/whatever, then they're violated your copyright.

 

@Ethra_VII: We're working on it, sweetie. Why don't you grab a picket sign and join us? There are many, many threads, just on this forum, including this one, about how people don't like any sort of art thief.

Also... I prefer the BJD text confessions blog. Secrets without the extra drama, thank you very much.

Ah... but if they don't care enough to get permission for the one... whose to say they would bother to get permission to publish the photos in a book? Posting images on the blog implies that they have permission to post, when in fact, they do not.

 

Ethra --- you're incorrect. I'm a pro illustrator who hears copyright law-ignorant people say things like what you're saying all the time. People who take and use copyrighted art without permission are breaking federal (and international) laws and could find themselves in big trouble if they "borrow" from an unforgiving intellectual property right owner. While it is true that the Internet makes it easy to steal -- taking just because it's easy to do so is stupid and dangerous. I have an illustrator friend who made more money last year suing copyright infringers than she did illustrating.

I have had to hire an IP lawyer this year myself. I've had good luck so far without going to court --but I am prepared if I need to. I already spend about a quarter of my time trying to protect my rights and it is ridiculous and unfair to think that a copyright owner should have to go SEEKING violations amongst millions of obscure blogs and websites.

Now fortunately, even if most Internet users seem to be ignorant about copyright law, the sites that host them are not. In order to use a site like Tumblr (or Blogger or Facebook or photobucket, Flickr or any other site) you must agree to their ToS, which ALWAYS includes the clause that the user won't upload any copyrighted material they do not own themselves. Repeat offenders will lose their blogs if reported.

Disclaimers and "credit given" do not replace the legal need to receive permission to use copyrighted photos and other material. Nor does it matter whether the blog is trying to make money off the image.

 

Oh I can imagine it, and I'd be pretty pissed about it. That doesn't change the unfortunate reality that it's gonna be damn hard to keep your photos from being used once you post them for BILLIONS to see.

And I know the life of an artist can be a difficult one. I'm not that ignorant, since I considered doing freelance work for a while myself, but I stick to it just being a hobby.... I'm not arguing that people shouldn't exercise what rights they may have to work they do especially if they believe there is a danger to their livelyhood... But it's a bit unrealistic to think you can post something online and expect it to reamin untouched, don't you think?

And Kymera, I can further agree wit you about the text confessions... much easier, much less drama, no worrying over credit and copyright when all that's used are words that are posted anonymously.

 

It's completely valid for someone to use it in my mind. I don't understand why people get so butt-hurt over it (But it's MYYYYY PICTURE!). If you choose to post a picture on the internet, you should expect that people are going to use it.

It's NO different to have someone put it on their blog and blog about it than have someone call their friend over, point at the picture, and comment on it. It's free speech. If the photo is being used to promote something, this is different and can be considered immoral without first consulting the owner. People who jump to getting the blog taken down are over reacting to the extreme.

I think any photo (Including mine!) can be used for any purpose other than personal profit as long as the credit is given! It should be taken down at the request of the owner if it makes someone uncomfortable , however.

 

^This. Totally this.

 

Don't be too amused -- I was the one who wrote that and you're taking what I said out of context. I said that as an artist, (my sole source of income for the past 25 years) copyright infringement (as my photo was illustrating a "confession" suggesting someone copy Twigling's sculpt) was a lot more than drama to me. Internet theft of my artwork over the past couple of years especially has indeed impacted my wallet --- as it would impact Twigling (and many other artists and companies.)

 

There's a lot of drama there, too. True, not as much as the photo confessionals, but I've seen people calling each other names in the notes section. I think, in all three of the blogs I've looked at, there's drama on all of them. If it's not in the notes section, where people reply to confessions, it's in the confessions themselves. It takes away the enjoyment (for me, at least) of seeing what new confession is up for that day when all it is are more complaints about the same thing that people complained about yesterday.

I figure a lot of the recast debate (once the thread here was locked) carried over to the confession blogs; I think all three had to repeatedly post that they really didn't want any more recast confessions because that was all they were getting. Some have finally said no more recast confessions at all, and that's that.

 

There is no drama in the photo ones.--well admittedly not as much as the text one (the text one can get crazy...)--just people who get mad when their photo is used in a confession they don't like. I bet if the same photo was used in a happy or good-natured confession, there would be no problems...

 

Maybe so, but even if a photographer specifically states that they're OK with their images being used in positive confessions, or things they agree with (i.e. "a happy or good-natured confession") - and not anything negative, misleading, hurtful, or things they don't agree with - they can do that.

It's their photo; if that person sees their image cited and linked to a confession they agree with, and they don't want to do anything about it, they can do that. If they see that photo on something they don't agree with, they can ask it to be taken down. It can seem like it's a double-standard, but there really is no such thing in this case.

If I find one of my pictures is used in a confession about how much someone loves MSDs, and it's cited and linked back to me, I probably wouldn't care. If someone decided to say how much they thought people were using their dolls to only portray bad things, and my picture was attached to it, I'd ask them to take it off - and I'd ask them to not use anything by me again, just like one photographer did in one of those Confession blogs.

I don't even have to have a reason if someone questions why I let one photo go in one place, and not the other. Luckily, like I said, they'll take the photo off without question.

It would be easier for these confession blogs to put out a post asking for 'picture donors' for confessions. And even though that has flaws, why not have another person on staff specifically used for permission emails to photograph owners. The main people wouldn't have to deal with that, and they could have a bank of usable photos, with appropriate usernames/names, links, and everything needed. I'm sure someone who frequents the blog, and likes it enough, would eagerly volunteer.

I actually never knew about that cellphone issue you mentioned. Do you have a link? I'd like to read about that.

I think there is also a degree of paranoia even when you go out. There are hundreds of websites where someone's secretly taken a picture of someone - and that individual never knows. I've known people to get up-in-arms of the stock footage news stations take of people walking around, with their heads cut off. People will love to make comments about the individuals in that footage, but I know I'd cringe and want to take some kind of action if I recognized my clothes. Apparently, it is legal to film someone from the neck down because the individual can't prove it's them...?

I also don't get what's so fascinating about getting photos of a celebrity drinking coffee "Ooh, she's drinking coffee... she thinks she's people." - I meant that in sarcasm, to be like what we sometimes do when we see out pets do something 'human-esque'. People sometimes can't connect that celebrities are humans; they have coffee like everyone else.

I don't know how celebrities go about their lives, but I've heard tales from both sides; there's one side that says they're people and need their own space, but then there's the other side that says that PA's or PR reps inform the press of where someone is going to be beforehand. I don't know what to believe; what I DO believe is that we really don't need reality shows.

Cracked even made reference to that Star Wars light saber fighting guy (not the same issue, exactly, but he didn't know his innocent antics were on the web for all to see and make fun of). He actually had a lot difficulty living with the fact that his friends posted his video without his knowledge, and sued his friends (according to Cracked).

 

I'm sorry, but... I'm still amused. I would be totally understanding if your complaint was more along the lines of "this casts me in a bad light," because being linked with the recast issue does that and I'm sympathetic. Or even if your complaint was just "This is mine and you didn't have permission to use it." But saying that that post is directly taking food/money from you is ridiculous. And you might not think that's what you were saying, but that's what it sounded like to me when I read it.

I understand and fully support your right to control your art and where it's posted, but I still think you were over dramatic and that, in my mind, undermines your message/complaint.

@Trinlayk - I see what you're saying now. It was kind of unclear at first.
I am curious about your example though. If some random blog using your photo for a confession would have that much impact on a business deal, what about the site that the blogger got the work from? Like I know DA and Flickr have some really weird shit in their ToS about rights to the works posted on them but since I don't use either of those sites, I don't know much about that. Would that have any impact on the hypothetical deal we're talking about?

 

I'm not saying its not a person's right to ask a photo be taken down if it's used in something they don't agree with... I'd do the same... But why on earth talk about getting a blog that people enojy and frequent taken down just because your picture was used in a way you don't like, when all you need to do is request it be taken down? If it's taken down right then, that should be the end of it, none of this going on accusing those running the blog of being thieves. So your photo was the backdrop of someone having something nasty to say.... boo-hoo... it could be much worse.

And yeah, it could be handy to ask another to be on staff just for permission emails....

Admittedly, I was amused at that message as well... I found it very unnecessary to such a minor problem.

 

i already posted my opinion but i thought i should add, i remembered i have actually seen people repost photos i have taken of my dolls and figures once or twice, without credit or linking, and it didn't bother me. i was surprised ("wait a minute, that's--") and then scrolled on.

it doesn't bother me is because those blogs were not promoting a cause i would be against (i don't know how toys could be used to promote hate crimes, but whatever) and because i don't make any money from my photos at the moment, they are just a hobby that i decided to share with others from my POV.

if and when i wanted to make money this way, of course it's a completely different matter. i feel like there are two different people in this thread, some who rely on their creative work to make their living, and others who are upset by the fact that their pictures are being used without permission even though their pictures don't generate any money.

if your livelihood relies on your creative productions then you have every right to do as you see fit and not back down if you or another is being harmed... and it's nasty to have your picture used for a cause you don't agree with, but you can't always win every battle. for example...

did you know that pro-life activists used Dr Seuss' famous childrens' book, "Horton Hears a Who", to promote their cause? but he, his wife, AND his biographer all stated that they were explicitly against this and that there was no such message within the book. nothing ever came of their objections, and the book is still used as pro-life propaganda, going against the (now deceased) authors' wishes.

(as a disclaimer, i don't want to bring politics into this discussion, i'm just showing an example of how unfair the world can be when it comes to copyright cases. anyone can take anything innocuous and innocent and use it for their own purpose, often without repercussions, even if we act or speak out against it)

 

I don't even know where to start with this...

Posting images anywhere online is a gesture of trust and good faith. Very few people want their personal photos taken and used willy-nilly. Even if billions of people and aliens from Alpha Centauri can see your pictures, you, me, and every other person has a right to expect that they won't be used without the owner's permission.

Would you feel the same if you showed someone an album of actual printed photos? Would you let that person just grab one and start showing it around online without asking? What if it was really personal and only meant to be shown to a select group? Most people would be very upset by something like that. How is a digital file different from a printed image?

While I accept that I won't be able to catch every offender, I reserve the right to lay the smack down on the those that I do.

@Leitan: Why does it make a difference whether or not I make a living off of my doll photos? Just because the photos are a hobby thing doesn't mean I don't have the right to say who can or cannot use them.

 

Yes, the photo was taken down. Yes, the people were polite about it (I'll commend them for not putting up a stink about taking it down). But they violated the terms of service. The ToS of the hosting site (Tumblr, for example) trumps any kind of disclaimer you apply to your blog. Yes, I agree, it is helpful to have a disclaimer for things that say it images aren't your own, they will be taken down if asked... but none of it matters if the ToS is violated.

Like I mentioned before, one blogger already heard from Tumblr, and was given a warning. They voiced their anger on their blog, and kept pointing to their disclaimer. Personally, I felt this was unprofessional to some degree; I'd rather someone take steps and ask their viewers for help in improving the site so they abide by the ToS rather than going on a rant about people. Some people are going to feel good about that disclaimer being there, and won't report it, and others won't feel so at ease because it still violates ToS.

Like you said, it could be much worse - and I know there is one blog where I think it is much worse, and we haven't discussed it. I don't want to jump into discussing it because I don't know the in's and outs of how they get their photos, or if they're owner-submitted or not. But it can get much worse.

My big issue is having my photos manipulated in some form to make the picture not retain it's original intent. That means, to me, having someone take it and write a story below it that goes against my beliefs or feelings or altering it to make it look like something else. THAT is what most people are annoyed by; they don't believe in recasts, but the blogger has randomly chosen their photo to be the 'unofficial poster child' of recast dolls. Not everyone reads the disclaimer, or cares about it, and they might pass unnecessary judgement onto the owner of that photo. Should that person be around DoA, and see the photo and the user attached to it, and that person can be labled a recast owner showing their doll all around DoA.

Come to think of it, Mistula had this issue a while ago with their bass player, Lugosi, and Joey's pictures of him all over the place. Some claimed he was a vampire, some claimed he had a different name and background. Needless to say, they were not happy:http://www.mistula.com/uno/2005/12/the-desecration-of-lugosi/ and http://www.mistula.com/uno/page/25/?cat=68

 

It isn't if said file is on your hard drive and therefore not accessible to the public unless someone hacked your computer.

But once that file is on the internet... it is a different matter. Maybe we don't want it to be, but it is. There is no special private corner of the internet just for each of us where we can post our things and no one be able to take them and use them.

Personally, I think that if you post it in the public domain, you've accepted the risks, and the reality that it can/will be used by another party, and be thankful if you're credited and be further thankful if they are considerate enough to actually remove your work if you ask.

 

Having some knowledge of copyright law (thought not as much as I probably should have at this point in my BFA), I really do have to disagree with this.

A work of art, any kind of work of art, becomes copyrighted at the moment of its creation. Once it's "published" (ie, placed anywhere were ... I think it's 3 or more people can see it), no one SHOULD be able to use it without your permission.

If I draw a picture and post it in my gallery or on my webpage or whatever, I SHOULD be able to reasonably expect no one to steal my art and repost it elsewhere without my permission. When someone does use my art without my permission or in a way I don't condone, I'm perfectly within my rights to get pissed at them and demand that they stop. They can't tell me "Oh you posted it on the web, so obviously it's okay if I use it." Just putting something on the web doesn't make it public domain.