how uncomfortable would this make you?

Uh oh we're already all the way up to comparing borrowing photos off of flickr to the people who steal things in prison.

 

It makes perfect sense. If you absolutely cannot deal with the possibility, then don't put yourself at risk. It's just like if someone cannot deal with possibly getting hit by a car, they'd better not go outside. Everything we do has risks. We accept risks everyday we go to school, or work, or shopping, even eating a meal. You take a risk. Deal with it.

You'd better read up, sweety, because while the uses are limited, one is legally permitted to take certain pieces of media and use them without consulting the original owner. If you don't like it, then I suggest going to school, getting a law degree and take every step you can to get the doctrine changed. Otherwise, you and a lot of other people better suck it up.

You not likeing it doesn't change a thing.

Nothing irks me more than people trying to infringe on other's freedom of speech just because they don't like how it was exercised. Get over yourselves. Just because you do good artwork doesn't give you the okay to cry "theft" everytime you think you have the oportunity, and it certainly won't make anyone take you seriously.

Hun, trust me, I've seen worse comparisons. Much worse.

 

And which law is this, so that we are on the same page?

As a note, no one is infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. They have as much right to say what they want as anyone else does. It doesn't matter whether the art in question is good or not. Everyone deserves the same amount of courtesy to not have their work stolen. I don't deny it doesn't happen, but some amounts are just unreasonable.

 

I officially like you. Please continue to say the things I am also thinking. :3

The amount of hate towards a tiny little blog on this thread is disgusting to me. Seriously, take your pick forks some where else. This didn't even need to be created! The OP could have just asked the blog to take down her picture, and they would have done it.

It's just a swirl of rudeness, disrespectfulness and people thinking they're above what people do on the internet. (And yes I am allowed to make up my own words.)

 

See here's the thing. If it's protected under the Fair Use doctrine...It's. Not. STOLEN. Obviously, you are only paying attention to the bits and pieces that don't render your argument useless.

Sadly, it seems like lately, a lot that goes on in the community is disrespect and hate mongering, and some of the newer debates have tumbled into the same pitfall. It was funny for a while just because of how childish it is... but now it's just sad and sickening.

 

I don't think the First Amendment covers this at all. From what I'm reading, the First Amendment doesn't cover media use. Yes, it covers advertising, but this is for companies advertising services. It also says "with some restrictions".

My info comes from: http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational...es/FirstAmendment/WhatDoesFreeSpeechMean.aspx

And I found a site discussing copyright and fair use: http://www.copyrightguru.com/belmon...ties/LectureNotes/topic8_fairuse/fair_use.htm

 

Isn't being like "Look at this picture! Here's who made it! Go look at their stuff!" technically advertisement? >>

 

@Ethra_VII: I assure you, I'm not picking and choosing anything. Fair Use doesn't mean everything is fair to use. I'm using information from copyright.gov which say "Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

@writerm: That's a very nice link.

 

Once again, you are ignoring what I have said over, and over, and over. I'm passed the whole credit deal.... waaaaaay passed that. No, not everything is fair use, and if you'd paid attention and read you'd know that wasn't what I was saying.

I said, limited uses are permitted under fair use without one being legally obligated to seek permission. How about you read everything and stop "picking and choosing" like are clearly doing.

 

But why couldn't the individual have just said, "I saw some really cool art by [so-and-so]. Go check them out:" and provide a link?

 

I can agree it would make things easier to seek permission to post or to just use a link, but you see this falls under morality. Yes, it would be easier and much more considerate... but in some cases, there is no obligation to do it... and sadly, the only way certain things are done in a way that is acceptable by all is by having law in place. If one isn't obligated by law to do something a certain way....even if it's morally better to do it that way, many won't.

It really saddens me, all of the useless drama so many of you people are causing. And yes, it is indeed DRAMA. You're convincing people that their work is being stolen when it isn't, you're breeding paranoia where there doesn't need to be any, and you're overall just ruining this hobby and community for everyone who just wants to enjoy some dolls, meet other people who enjoy some dolls, and talk about some dolls.

 

Law definitely trumps morals, I agree with you on that. I also understand how some people might not know this is situation is a thing. I understand how someone would not know that this issue existed until now.

That being said, if I may quote one of the links I pointed out earlier:

It is very hard for us to decide what falls under fair use. We can't assume that, once it's on the internet, it falls under the fair use policy.

In terms of parody, someone actually had to go to court, and the final ruling said it was OK to do. It wasn't always like that.

 

This is not picking and choosing. You said as long as it falls under Fair Use, it is not stolen. However, unless permission is obtained, it is stealing. Yes, there are limited uses, which include educational use, parody, etc. in which cases the minimum amount of an image can be used. However, if the image is unchanged, and is simply re-posted elsewhere without permission, this does not fall under Fair Use.

Blogs, personal websites, etc. may or may not fall under parody. They have to be directly mocking the theme/element in the photo to be parody. It also may or may not be for non-profit education, but even under education the whole image may not be used. Criticism and comment are gray areas, but unless they are directly talking about my work's elements, it is also not fair use. News reporting is the the most hard to define area of them all, but I hardly see owner photos used for news articles.

~~~
Tying in to the OP's question again, taking all this into account, if someone used my photo in a photo-manipulation or the like somewhere, I would be a little weirded out; but if it isn't made up of more than 60% of my work, I don't think I'd mind as long as they credit and show me the finished work.

 

See this is how I know you're not paying attention. I said nothing about parody. I was talking about satire. No, they are not the same, but yes, they are both protected under the fair use doctrine, and NO, you are not obligated to get permission to use media if that use falls under protection by the fair use doctrine. Morally, one should get permission before using someone else's work... but personal morals do not mean jack squat in the eyes of the law.

I wouldn't be constantly repeating myself if I made this up, I would have just left it alone and tried another approach. But you either putting words in posts, you're interpreting what I'm saying in a ridiculous, backward fashion, or you're just flat out not reading... If you are going to argue with me... argue about what I've actually said, and not stuff you think/wish I said.

 

@Taco: So eloquent.
@zekarmisama: Very well said.

Thanks for checking that out, auntbear. I was wondering about that, but I don't use flikr.

Yeah... but they are still using the photos in a "non-complimentary" way. That photo of the really gorgeous BBB doll that says "I think BBB dolls are ugly" might be intended as a satire... but it still says "BBB dolls are ugly." If the person looking at that image doesn't recognize that the doll is actually beautiful, the only message that the reader is going to get is "BBB dolls are ugly."

There's also a huge hole in the logic of their disclaimer. By not informing the owners of the photos, the owner of the blog is taking away the photo owner's choice whether or not they want their photos displayed. The internet is so vast that most of the people who have had their images stolen probably don't know these tumblr's exist. And I'm sure there a lot of people like me, who don't give a rat's patoot about tumblr, so they wouldn't be browsing there anyway. If the victims don't know that their work is being shared, how can they ask to have their photos taken down?

The owner of the photo might also have a specific way they would like their photo to be credited - for instance, the reposter could only show the image as a thumbnail, or listing sculpt, faceup artist, wig maker, etc. or they could hand out banner images that they want displayed.

Besides all that, I really, really, agree with this.

I don't buy that. I could forgive an ignorant kid, but I think it's more rude and inconsiderate if an adult, who should know better, does the same. The owner of one of those blogs (probably the one in question) is darn well old enough to know better. They use the same format as the first blog that shut down, even though they know that what they're doing upsets people once they catch on. They just straight up don't care.

I also dislike the attitude that I'm seeing, that just because something is made out of data and has no physical form, that makes it worth less than a tangible object. That "miniscule" piece of data can mean a hell of a lot to someone. It's just as real as the chair you're sitting in and air you breathe. If someone stole your watch, but they didn't sell it for cash... is that OK? Or would you take every action available to get it back? Sure, watches get stolen, it doesn't mean we have to sit back and accept it.

 

Things like this do not make me 'uncomfortable', I am a proactive person with my work.
If I find it used in a place or way I do not want it used (and it's super easy to track your work on the 'net with a digital watermark), I ask that it be removed.
I have never had a further problem, and that solution satisfies me.
I also don't sit around thinking about it overmuch. ^^

 

Couldn't agree more! It doesn't take much time or effort at all to contact someone and ask for their permission to post a picture, but just to be on the safe side, I usually make a note in the artist's comments on DA when I post art there saying that people are not authorized to use my work.

 

Wrong. They are just not going to let people like the morally righteous ones around here and who hate-spam them keep them from doing something they are well within their right to do. But... maybe they don't care. I sure don't care that my sexuality upsets thousands of people across the world, but does that mean I'm wrong to be what I am? No.

People do things that upset others all that time... but unless they are going against law, people can cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

People need to stop trying to ruin things for the rest of us just because they got a little butt-hurt....

 

I'm not arguing. I was just stating examples. I apologize for forgetting some of them, but I put "which include educational use, parody, etc." to cover the ones I mentioned and others. It was not meant to be all inclusive. I only listed a few examples, since I didn't want to spend all night listing all the elements Fair Use would cover. I'm aware parody and satire are different, but once again, many blogs, websites, etc. may or may not fall under satire, and few things intended as satires actually pass as fair use. I apologize again for the misunderstanding.

 

It is true that "Satire" and "Parody" are not the same thing, though similar.

Two places seem to have a good idea of the difference between the two:

1. http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectu...yrights/are-literary-parodies-protected-under
2. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-parody-and-satire.htm

BUT legalzoom.com also says in its article:

Where the two blogs are concerned, I don't see anything related to satire or parody. The blog is specifically aimed at 'confessions' (even though, I will admit, it's more anonymous fighting rather than confessions to anything).

I'm sure that a lot of people don't know that this is an issue, and no matter what their age, I'm willing to let things go if they say 'we'll check it out, and see what we find,' or at least make an attempt to rectify things. I think we've offered a lot of valid tips to keep things happy for both parties. There are a lot of people who do love these confession blogs, and I'm sure someone would want to volunteer to be the person responsible for permissions. The people who love the blog can wait a few days, I'm sure. I like the text confession blog, and they haven't updated in a while - but I'm still checking back daily because I like their blog.

Edit: One of the blogs has responded (on their confession blog website) in anger.