how uncomfortable would this make you?

If someone wants to repost one of my general photos (not for profit) and gives me credit and or links back to my original work, then the fact that they never asked my permission to do so wouldn't worry me at all. They would have taken some steps to behave responsibly which is all I would ask. It would be a nice courtesy if they had asked and also would have been them taking the proper steps, but I wouldn't lose sleep as long as I was credited.

Obviously it would be different of the person reposting was using my image to illustrate some sort of inflammatory or illegal issue, or just an issue I strongly disagree with. Then I would ask them to remove the image altogether, if they would not comply I would be contacting their ISP to see if they think the user has breached their terms of service.

I've only found out about "confessions" Tumblr blogs recently and I was really, really bemused by the self important and self pitying "disclaimer" that one of the blog's admin put about not having the time to go round asking for permission. Poor little thing - the world as we know it would crumble to dust if your latest blog post didn't come out on time. Why do these confessions need imagery anyway, stolen or otherwise? If you are working to a schedule that doesn't allow you to run your site properly then change the schedule numbskull!!! If you really think your endeavour requires these images then operate in a way that allows for you to get the proper permissions in place before you post, that isn't so complex is it?

Usually the "you"s are general but in this case quite specific and directed at... oh, you know who you are

 

In all honesty, I would probably never know any of my pictures had been "stolen" unless someone else who knows me spotted them somewhere and told me about it... I'm not sure what my reaction would be... Depends on how the picture is used, I suppose...

 

You can state in your ToU for your photos that people may use your photos without asking. You can also give specific permissions, like that people may repost but not sell your photos, or that you allow reposting as long as you are linked back to. Giving no other instructions except posting your own copyrighted piece means all your rights are reserved and no one has any right to use them without your permission.

Using an image for reference is not illegal. But if you copy it so closely that it's recognized as being "copied" (or a part is copied) from the original by the average person, you CAN get in trouble.

Sure people are going to steal art -- they steal everything else they can, but the ease of stealing on the internet comes with the truth that it's easy to FIND stolen stuff on the internet. And like I said before -- steal from the wrong person and that thief will lose their blog or a whole lot more. Ask anyone who Disney has caught.

 

once I posted a doll picture found on flickr (now before you yell at me about copyright, please notice that flickr has a little tumblr button to share pics more easily. and it is possible to disable that button. by leaving it there, users are agreeing that their picture will be shared on tumblr with the held of that button. and it gives full credit and direct link) and someone reblogged the pic just to say "this wig look so cheap, like some 80s barbie hair!". I was like; wow, how kind! the doll has a pretty face and mighty gorgeous faceup but the only think this person can think of is the wig! >.<

if someone used one of my pic to bitch about BJDs in general how my doll directly, I'd be upset.
but if it says something nice and that credit is given, I wouldn't mind

 

FYI -- that button absolutely does not supercede copyright law -- neither does a disclaimer saying "if you find your photo here we'll take it down if you ask"

But, I am sure no one (except maybe Disney) has a problem with people who truly didn't know better about copyright law -- especially when those people make an effort to abide in the future. Internet users learning to respect intellectual property is a whole new ball game. Education is the key.

 

I think the overall solutions here are really quite simple.

While I personally don't see a problem with examples like these blogs who give credit and link back to the original owners of these photos, opinions are subjective.

If the use of those photos violates a ToS, then it doesn't really matter what my opinion is (or what anyone's opinion is, for that matter), as rules are rules... and while I tend to joke that rules are made to be broken, in all seriousness, they have a place and are very much necessary.

If someone is bothered by where their photo is placed and how it's used, they have every right to ask it be taken down, or report the location that used the image if it violates a rule.

But in a place as open as the internet, one should at least be prepared for this to happen if they post something. It is unfortunate, but... well with the analogy used about putting a bench or bird fountain in our front yard... while we may have the expectation that people will be decent humans and not steal... you'd be stupid if you chose to neglect the fact that it *can* happen.

 

Critique, educational purposes, parody, and transformative works ARE protected under copyright law, though.

Transformative works are the most difficult of them- see all the Barbie image and collage based lawsuits. It's the most gray of the gray areas. Can you take someone else's doll picture and use it in a collage? Depends on what judge your case gets. The rulings haven't been consistent.

But if someone is using your doll pics for the purpose of a critique or non-profit educational or parody... then yeah, they're NOT actually breaking copyright law.

ETA: I also find the subject of whether we can even own a BJD photo interesting. For example again, the Barbie lawsuits. The company that made the doll does have some degree of control over how you portray their doll- just as certain buildings and landmarks can be copyrighted so making your own postcards of them, even if you took the picture, is still illegal. Just because you took it doesn't automatically mean you can reproduce it or sell it, depending on the copyright of the content.

Again, though, that falls into the 'transformative works' realm- how much do you have to change Barbie before it becomes protected as a transformative work? That's still undecided, in so far as conflicting court case results have shown.

 

You know, there's a stupidly easy solution to this whole "But wahwahwah I don't have time to ask for permission, so I just take what I like!". Just.... require that each contributor not only submit a confession, but also a photo. They can take their own, or THEY can go and seek permission from the original artist and present the proof along with the photo and confession. Disable anonymous contributions (at least submissions, they can be still posted publicly as anonymous) so that if anyone decided to be coy and faked a permission, or severely misrepresented the situation to the artist in order to get the permission, they can be blacklisted from ever contributing again for being a dirty liar should the artist find the submission and go "Um, no?". I remember the original person who ran BJD confessions said the longest part of their day was finding an image to use, so isn't that a win/win situation all around?

Also, there is nothing that makes me more mad than the stupid "Lololol if you don't want it taken, don't post on the internet!". It's like "Why did you wear your nice watch if you didn't want it stolen from you? Don't you know people like to take things that they see and like?". This whole "you should have known better" victim-blaming is prevalent on all levels of our society, and it's frankly disgusting. Oh, so I should either accept that people can do willy-nilly with my property, or I should pack my balls and lock myself away in a dungeon somewhere, away from all human contact? Those are my only options? Screw that. I'm NOT responsible for other people's crappy actions, and I fully believe that I am entitled to expecting a little bit of common human decency from others. This decency being respecting me and my rights. I know it doesn't happen that way, but that doesn't say anything about me - just about how much of a crappy individual the other person is.

And see, I don't really even have too many issues with people sharing my work and spreading it around. I've seen it crop up in a few places, and I've had people tell me they used it for such and such (for personal their enjoyment). I upload my work for people to look at and enjoy (and this also encompasses passing it around, saving it to the hard drive to look at later, etc). Or look at and critique, because I like critique too. But that doesn't mean some crappy person can just take it and do whatever the hell they want with it - edit it, and then, for example, paste some nasty negative message that I do not agree with. My photos should not be used to represent it. (I know, long shot that someone would use my photos, but whatever). And you're foolish to think that people do not associate the photos with the messages; I distinctly remember this popping up in the first photo confessions blog (I only follow the text one now, because frankly, the text one DOESN'T have an admin who feels entitled to other people's property). It was I believe a confessions about recasts put over someone's pretty photo of two Volks dolls, and one of the comments was basically "Ew gross, I didn't know these were recasts, that's so scary!"

So yeah. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with an owner of a photo who says that it's okay if their photos get spread around for good, and not for bad. Can you not think of, I dunno, just one reason why people might NOT want to have baseless but serious accusations and petty drama started because they had their photo taken without permission and associated with that negative message? Can't think of why someone might want to, you know, NOT have to deal with stress and people's crappiness in their fun-time relaxing hobby? How about people who are small, but do doll stuff for a living (I can name at least a few face-up artists, not to mention artisan doll makers and the like) - can't think of why they wouldn't want to have those messages associated with their work and way of making a living? Potentially leading to loss of business? Our brains are wired to see pictures better than words, and therefore perceive words and pictures together. That's why textbooks and presentations have pretty pictures to go with the presenter's words - it makes understanding easier for us. The association between the message and the photos WILL happen, and it will require something as strong as "The owner of this photo may not in any way endorse what was said here" at the end of every confession to break that flow up.

As far as using reference goes for artistic purposes. Um, "reference" =/= tracing. Tracing can in fact violate copyright laws, and it is NOT referencing. I see this all the time from non-artists, and I've busted far too many weasels posting up art for critique and claiming to use "reference" while blatantly tracing a photo that wasn't their own without permission (You can trace your own photos, because it's assumed that you probably gave yourself permission to do that). When you reference a photo for your own drawing, you look, you study - maybe break it down into anatomical details like bone and muscle - and then you put it away and draw from what you've learned. Doing anything else is tracing or eyeballing, and both are highly frowned upon in the artistic communities as unethical conduct (and in some cases, it also violates copyright laws).

 

Lelite: Bravo. I agree completely.

I don't think it's at all fair to say 'you put it on the internet, it's free for anyone to pick up', I don't believe in victim blaming. It is the thief's responsibility to not steal, not the victim's fault they've been burgled (whether physically or technologically.)

I have to say I prefer the PostSecret format of making your own image to go with your confession, rather than submitting a confession and having someone else pick a background on your behalf.

If you desperately want your confessions blog to have pretty pictures, why not do that?

For the most part I stay well clear of the confession blogs, I'm not particularly interested in the whinging and ranting of anons. I'd rather hear some constructive criticism from someone with a name, rather than vitriol from someone cowardly enough to hide who they really are. If someone really wanted to make a postive impact on the hobby they'd do better to stop hiding behind an image picked by someone else and be the change they want to see in the hobby instead of complaining that other people don't behave the way you'd like them to.

I also think that anonymous confession blogs are the natural homes of trolls who can flurry in and create a big drama and slink off howling with laughter at everyone being worked up. Don't feed the trolls!

 

Lelite: totally agree with you, saying that if you post something on the internet you should expect it to be stolen and just suck it up is like saying that the internet is just for criminals, a lawless zone, and anyone who doesn't want their head kicked in shouldn't leave the house. Copyright laws are still trying to catch up with how quickly this world wide phenomenon developed but they do offer a certain amount of protection and there are definitely rules that ISPs have to adhere to, even if some of their users don't think those rules apply to them. Just as often as people think, well, I can do what I want because the person I am stealing from can't afford to take me to court, other people think, take the website down because we don't want to get embroiled in a whole heap of trouble.

One thing I take issue with you over a little though is over tracing. While probably not actually referred to as that, tracing is totally acceptable up to a point in Commercial art. From the 80's I worked as a magic marker visualiser and storyboard artist - tracing is pretty much exactly what that job is about because you have to make photographically real looking quick images. Not always, some art directors want sketchy styles but just as many want something that has the feel of a photo.

Similarly, if you look through any commercial Illustration agents portfolio you will find reputable and very talented artists who work from photographs all the time. Their own photos or ones that have been taken expressly for them to draw from or vintage copyright free images. You can dress it up how you want but I can draw just as happily from real life as I can by tracing over a photo, it isn't a question of draughtsmanship but of the fact that a camera sees differently to the human eye and the resulting image has a different quality - I would urge anyone who hasn't tried drawing the same subject directly from life and then from a photo to do so, it's quite an interesting experiment if nothing else.

It's well accepted that a lot of the great masters traced as well. Huge screens were set up in the artist's studio onto which an image of a set up was projected and so the set up could be traced round to get the composition the artist wanted. Many mural artist also work this way as it is much simpler and more spontaneous than making laborious copies on grids. Art is always a about a lot more than the straightforward act of drawing, it's about how things are interpreted - having said that stick to tracing your own or copyright free images. Tracing the work of others is never acceptable. There are still an awful lot of people in the art world who don't find collage acceptable either, but that's a different can of worms!

 

I forgot to actually answer the ops question: when someone says something unflattering about one of my dolls, or uses it for an unflattering purpose, its like a bee sting. It hurts. But I can pull out the stinger and put ice on it or run around crying.

But I also use creative commons non commercial share alike licenses for all my pictures, so I may not feel the same as someone who doesn't.

 

Ack, sorry! Got carried away. I mostly meant it in a sense of being an illustrator, because that's probably what I'm closest to in terms of what I do. I do realize there are valid ways in which tracing is used in various artistic endeavours (though they also come with their own set of rules on what is and is not allowed under ethical conduct, I think), and it's not usually referred to as "referencing" for the purposes of making a drawing.

 

All of your post, but THIS in particular. I don't know why an artist or photographer should have to spend all their time defending their rights or tracking down misuses of their work and then asking the person who stole from them to stop it. If you want to use something that belongs to someone else, you ASK PERMISSION. It is called common human decency. You don't just take something and walk off with it. Last I heard, that was called theft. Basically, any time I hear this argument "if you don't want it stolen, don't post it," all I hear is some whiny, spoiled brat who thinks that being able to do what they want supercedes all other things.

There is no argument that will ever convince me otherwise. There just isn't. People need to grow up and learn to act responsibly and respect others.

If you want to use someone else's property, you ask. If it is "too hard" to ask, you probably shouldn't be doing whatever it is you're doing in the first place. Period. End of story.

 

Lelite: we are probably both coming from the same place

It's one of those big ironies that you (general) can use tracing or referencing (whatever you want to fancy it up as) if you are a good enough freehand draughts person to be able to draw perfectly well without having to, because it will just be used to get a particular effect you want! If your drawing (again, general you) needs work then I wouldn't resort to tracing because it will hinder your learning process to be honest. Nothing beats actually sitting staring at the real life subject in the round for teaching you drawing skills

 

I don't think I should be able to do what I want, and that what I want supercedes laws and rules. Yeah, there are people out there that think that, and yeah, those people need a good reality check. But the argument of "if you don't want is stolen, don't post it" is a valid one whether you like it or not. It's unfortunate, yes, but if you absolutely don't want to ever have to deal with it, or even the possibility, you'd be better off just not posting it.

That isn't to say that one who does post is not well within their right to demand that anyone who broke the law and used their work have that work taken down and face some sort of consequence (one that fits the crime, mind yoy). But... perhaps my way of thinking is simply because I was raised to acknowledge that anything I do out in the world has risks, and ever decision I make is going to have a consequence, and if I can't handle that consequence or deal with those risks, I better shape up because I have no other choice.

If your work was used in a way you don't feel comfortable with it being used, ask that it be taken down, or go to whoever hosts the site its on and demand that they do something. It's that simple, and until copyright laws catch up with technology, that's all you can do... Yeah, people need to grow up and respect others, but not everyone is going to. Welcome to the real word, the sad, unfortunate real world.

 

the option is "allowing others to share your stuff"
if you click yes, it means you do give the permission to random people to reblog your pictures. therefore, no copyright infringement! logically....

 

I'm not sure what you mean . . . you can't be opted in as default to give up your rights. Flickr and most other hosts "assume" that people know about copyright and will abide, if you are breaking the law, they have lots of language in their ToS that the user is the only one held liable.

I've never used the buttons -- are they just linking to the flickr page?

 

yes. it is a direct link to the picture. a direct way to share with facebook and tumblr and it links back to the whole gallery or just the specific picture

I am not sure what you are confused about though. this is literally an option to make it easier for EVERYONE ELSE to share your pictures on their blog.
you can choose if yes or no, you want others to be able to share your picture.
it's not breaking the law if the person agreed!

 

@sahoma: What's the default setting for this feature? If I went right now and made a new account... would it be set to yes or no? I think what mojomaca is getting at is that it's not really cool if the default setting is yes, because then the owner of the photo didn't make a conscious decision to allow others to share their work; flikr decided for them. A new user or someone unfamiliar with how flikr works might not know they have the option of turning something like that off.

(Thanks for the diagram, btw.)

 

Thanks for the pic Sahoma, I just went and looked at my own flickr pics and there is no T symbol but there is one for facebook and twitter (can you share pics on twitter, I hardly ever use it?) I don't remember ever saying i wanted to be able to share my content on facebook and twitter so it must be set to default. Bizarre!!!

Bizarre and sneaky