how uncomfortable would this make you?

I suppose I should throw in my two cents as I recently had a photo of some toys stolen. It wasn't a photo of dolls but one of zoobles toys and it was taken by 3 people: an Ebay seller in Hong Kong, a seller in the UK, and a mommy-blogger.

I politely emailed all three to have it taken off because I didn't want my photo used to mislead buyers in an auction (especially for possibly bootleg toys), and because when I clicked my image on the mommy blog it linked to their photo hosting with a copyright under it. If someone wants to talk about my photo, or show it to others that's one thing, but do not ever try to copyright someone else's work, it's just stupid. The blogger even emailed me back and told me her editor sent her the pic. -_- Ima find that editor and punch him.

The thing about the confession blogs it that right on their main page they admit that none of the photos are theirs. So if I stumbled across my photos there (my horribly lit, craptastic photos...XD) I'd be fine with it. Even if the confession was something unsavory or about recasts I would expect people to be smart enough to figure out that the text is not my own and does not represent me in any way. At least I hope people are smart enough to realize that.

 

Wowwwww. That's really scummy of her to do. Why would she steal a pic of your doll and claim it as her own? That's just ridiculous. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this and just being baffled. Some people are freaking stupid. :\

It's a good thing you took all those progress pics, though! Way to stick it to her!

 

That's crazy. I can't believe she was actually willing to fight with you over the fact that it was her doll and not yours. What did she think she was going to get out of that? It's good you had overwhelming evidence to back yourself up, though. No one should have to be in that situation.

 

@Quetz The really sad thing is at first I was so happy about it, but when she started making up crap about how hard she worked on everything for her, thats when I went WTF?? I was simi new to the hobby, I had 3 dolls by the time Kana came to me, and I got her as a full set, but as soon as she came in I changed everything, I mean, at the time my sewing wasn't as good as it is now, I still hand sewed everything from her choker, to her stockings, and I did everything without a pattern (thank you mom) I didn't want to cause trouble due to me being new, but i'll be damned if someone tries to say that A) My doll was her's, B) she did her face-up (which by the way wasn't very good but I loved it) and C) she spent all the money, time, ect ... on making her clothes. She actually had people asking if she could make another set for their dolls! >>.<< I think the thing that really got her busted though, was the fact that I still had all the cut outs from the fabric that I made the outfit with, which me being my Grrr self at that point took a picture of that and posted it. I bought a lot of that fabric, and went on to make several other things from it, but yeah, That really got me. I think the funniest part is when she tried to make everyone believe that Kana was her's I said ok, copied my sales recept, blotted out my street # left the city state and Zip code, posted that along with a link here to my box opening with Kana in it, (which also had the DollZone box, picture card, and pillows, but say that I also changed her wig to the one that she was wearing in the pictures that this girl stole from me. Needless to say, she was actually banned from there and many of the people that were at that meetup more less banned her from there section too, I moved from there a few years ago, and the girls that I meet up with now are amazing, when we post pictures from our meet up's we ask before we leave if it's ok for us to post all the pictures, just in case someone doesn't want their doll posted online. I never did hear back from that girl, But I had a friend remind me that Kana was also used as a Myspace Icon a few years back too She was cool about it and told me she found it on a doll site and thought she looked cool. I let her keep it up, due to the fact that she was so nice and even linked my old photobucket account to the picture!

 

Ethra_V11 - "Also, I find it funny how far this thread has gone. It's hilarious how so many people have nothing better to do than assert their perceived moral superiorty."

I've read through much of this debate since contributing early on but I have to say that accusing others of getting all high and mighty and returning to the thread to continue putting their ideas across is a bit rich when I see you here the most. If you want to get your point across, which you have every right to do, I would have thought it was something you are more than capable of doing without stooping to being snarky.

The fact is that these confessions blogs exist - whether people like them or not, whether people like me read them or not. They use people's photos they find on the internet to illustrate them and give credit - well that's half way to doing things right. I personally don't buy their assertion that they don't have time to contact the picture's owners first to ask permission, they could simply alter their posting schedule, that's just a matter of organisation.

On the matter of "fair usage", don't think you can take whatever you want on the internet, crop it a bit or add a caption and claim that you are being satirical and think if it comes to the law getting involved you would automatically be in the clear. Many people seem to think it is just the person who is trying to establish copyright who would have to prove their case but the person who used the picture claiming "fair usage" would also have to prove their usage was fair and prove that they are being satirical or whatever line they have chosen. As always with the law, where lawyers and their vast fees are involved, nothing is that simple... and copyright cases are never simple. You would have to prove that you are being satirical to the standard the Judge finds acceptable. There is a very long established and respected satirical magazine in the UK that regularly gets hauled into court over libel cases, and much to my surprise they keep losing. Simply saying you are being satirical isn't enough in the eyes of the law. Posting a picture of a BBB doll that many people might find beautiful alongside an article accusing those dolls of being ugly would be very hard to prove as satire because beauty is so subjective. What if the observer doesn't find the doll to be beautiful for instance? (I am not commenting on any actual instance here).

It's just common courtesy to ask permission before using someone's pic or at least sending them a message and then posting with links. It doesn't take much time and it saves a lot of bother. I've already stated earlier that I wouldn't mind if someone uses my pics not for profit and links back and/or credits me, but obviously many other people feel strongly about being asked first. Knowing that from reading this thread I would say that anyone who doesn't do that in future is being deliberately provocative and looking for a fight of some sort. Of course there will always be someone who doesn't want their work using, fair enough if they created it, move on, find another image. It seems the whole "creating a drama out of nothing" accusations can go either way if the person using other people's pictures simply can't be bothered to do that.

PS: I also stated earlier that I wouldn't be too happy about my pics being used to illustrate an article on a topic I strongly disagree with, and by this I mean articles that contain inflammatory messages of hate, racism, bullying, religious nastiness and incitement to law-breaking, etc, in that vein. Don't tell me I have no right to find my images becoming associated with things like that objectionable? If you want to accuse me of being high & mighty on those issues go right ahead!

 

One of the normal "Hey, see, we show you pretty dolls! WITH credits!" tumblrs pretty much closed down now because of that drama and because people reported them directly to tumblr.

Way to go ruining something nice for others, guys.
I found a LOT of wonderful artists and dolls through that tumblr, and it also was a benefit for all the people posted (-> more traffic, more people got to know them etc.).
I hope you are happy now

 

Libel isn't copyright. Libel is a completely different area of law with different restrictions. Then there is trademark, patent, etc which are other areas that are protected.

In a copyright case, an "important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work." A blog repost where text is added is unlikely to effect the potential income for a market for the work, especially since a picture of a doll falls under a "derivative" work and the photographer doesn't have free use of the photo. One doll company has a policy that you can't sell pictures of their dolls because they sell pictures of their dolls, including postcards and photo books. They could demonstrate in court that you are infringing on their market. A blog repost might be considered "transformative" because the text has "adding new expression or meaning."

Of course the only way to find out for sure is to file a lawsuit and go to court.

 

This. Very much this.

I find it somewhat sad that someone would be claiming that adding a multicolored caption to a photograph is somehow transformative. If so, companies like Getty Images would have closed shop a long time ago. Yet they are alive and thriving (and suing the pants off of people who steal their images-- even if they caption them!)

And as for satire, read some Jonathan Swift. That's satire. Or if you don't want to read (even though it's freely downloadable as it is not copyrighted) watch some Saturday Night Live. 99% crap, but even they know what satire is, and deliver on it every now and then. Posting a picture you think is pretty and captioning it as ugly is not satire. Satire depends on a shared understanding between audience and creator. As beauty is completely subjective, there is no shared understanding unless you are talking about someone publically recognized as beautiful, like an actress, supermodel, etc.

 

Geeeze. I just don't get it! I mean, if she was wanting to get people to commission her by using your pics, what was she going to do? It's not like she actually made the outfit, so she probably COULDN'T reproduce it. What the hell. XD

I guess she just wanted the attention and asspats that having a pretty doll with custom made clothes would get her?

I'm totally with you, though. If someone uses my work for something that I don't mind, they better give me the credit. :\


ETA: Kiyono has a point.

 

*the sound of the world's smallest violin playing just for the bloggers of this world* Stop, stop, you're breaking my heart. Credits or not, if somebody's blog is going around using others' work without asking their permission first, and some creators don't wish to have their work used by that particular blog-- the blogger doesn't get to complain when those creators find out & get upset. It's just a risk one assumes when operates a blog that way. The creators have the right to ask that their content be removed. It's the blogger's own fault that they were too lazy to ask permission for everything; it's not the creators' fault for "causing drama".

If the blogger can't be bothered to do the right thing, then s/he had better stiffen up & prepare to deal with possible repercussions..... Which may include a little hate mail (boo hoo), a little namecalling (waah), up to & including being reported. Tumblr is always going to cover their own ass, so if there's even a shred of chance that the complainant has a leg to stand on, they're not taking any chances, and they'll pull the blog (*music changes to Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings"*).

And the argument of "I don't have time to get permission & run my blog the right way" is a crock in the first place. I've had to email or PM the creators of thousands of photos for permission before, myself, and it's not rocket science. You copy-and-paste a form letter you've already written up. ("Hi! I saw your picture X on forum Y, and I was wondering if I could use it in my blog/panel/slideshow/etc.") Most people reply right away. If you don't hear back from the creator, you do not use the photo yet. You put it in a Pending folder while you wait for permission. If you need a photo now, you use one you have permission for, or you use your own, or you use one by your friends who have already given you carte blanche to use their stuff. If you don't have any photos to use with permission yet, you don't post until you've got one. It's so simple a cavegirl could do it.

 

This isn't a good example. Getty Images makes their money by selling the rights to their images. Your average doll fan does not make (and can't - because it's a derivative work) money selling rights to their images. Getty Images can directly show that people using their images without paying a licensing fee are depriving the copy right owner of payment.

 

I am! I mentioned this before, but it didn't go very far... but this issue did come up with the first confession blog. People got upset and the blog shut down. There's a precedent within the community that this upsets people, so why do it the same way when you know it's highly likely to start drama? It's like the saying "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but each time expecting different results."

In before the drama club: I'm not saying that the blog owners are nuts. I can understand, with the first blog, if the owner really didn't know that it would cause such a fuss... but with the blogs that cropped up after? Those owners either didn't take a known public opinion into account, or they acted knowing that it would cause a fuss. They should not be at all surprised that they're getting hate mail, or that there is a drastic increase when they are called out for what they're doing. (not saying it's wholly justified, I don't know what's in the emails, just that they shouldn't be surprised.)

The flip-side of that argument is that the people who need to know aren't finding out because the blog owner can't be bothered to say that they are using the image. And, unfortunately, you can't count on people to be "smart enough" not to connect a doll with a comment about recasts, either. A lot of people take what they read online at face value.

I'm of the opinion that if you have to explain a joke (e.g. telling people that "Oh hey, this is satire"), especially to people who should get it, then it fails miserably as a joke.

You just spent two pages arguing, rather convincingly, that some of what's being posted is legally allowable. Why go back to this argument that it's OK for the blog owner to do whatever they want, legality aside? I honestly wouldn't have a problem with these blogs if it could be shown that most of the stuff that's posted falls under a legal precedent, but I haven't seen any hard evidence that it does. (BTW, I think that tumblr's TOS trumps Fair Use. They specifically tell you not to post stuff you don't own or have permission to.)

I don't have a problem with the idea of the blogs... I've submitted a few times to the text confession blog - I have a problem with the not-Fair Use co-opting of other people's art. (I would call it "theft", but I know you object to that. *eyeroll*)

I agree with this, totally.

 

@Kymera: If you'd have read my post a bit better you would have realized that I am NOT talking about a confession blog.
I'm talking about a blog who just shared pictures of beautiful dolls to show them to a wider range of people, with a link back to the original owners site/published photo.
What is bad about that?
That's good, cheap, nice advertising, especially when the blog is called "pretty dolls", AND it's also a big compliment.

 

I think i am going to have my Two Cents here, so ways i am a little late to the party, but oh well:

STEALING IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL - just because a lot of people do it, doesn't mean it is OK. Taking something that is NOT yours is stealing.

This hobby kicks off so much when someone recasts a doll, but stealing other things is OK? That is double standard really. I am really appalled by the casual "Well you put it on the internet, people will steal it" attitude. Yes it is a risk! But it doesn't make it OK, it doesn't meant that the original owner isn't going to do everything in their power to stop it. They have EVERY right to. The fact people are telling these people "well you shouldn't put it on the internet if you didn't want people to steal it." Is so dumb!

Not knowing the copyright law is not an excuse either. If you broke the law, you have broken the law. The fact you didn't know, doesn't make it any less of a crime. It is still WRONG. It does do some artists a lot of damage as some people have pointed out. Just because it wouldn't hurt you, doesn't mean it wouldn't hurt other artists.

Also, "Well they are not making money out of it, so it is OK," is a stupid excuse as well. So if i steal your doll. But don't sell it on, that is OK? Because it is for personal use and i am not going to sell it on and make money? It doesn't matter that i have broken the law and hurt the original owner, because i didn't make money? It doesn't work like that.

The reason why I personally would hate my image being used for the confession blogs, which is back on the original subject. I really disagree with them. I really think they bring out the worse in this hobby. Yes not everything is happy and rainbows (because people like to say that) but that doesn't mean i am going to accept it and be OK with it. Yes some blogs are light hearted, but others are really not.

I would not want to be associated with the blog in any way, or think that i was supporting the negative comments that confession blog produces. I have seen some god awful posts in that blog that have really lowered my opinion of people in the hobby and humanity come to think of it. I would certainly want my image to be recognized and associated with some of the confessions.

Imagine if they had a confession accusing doll owners of a certain type being pedophiles (yes there are some like that) and someone uses your image. Now people see your doll again on another photo of yours or the same photo even, now associate you with being a pedophile because of that confession, rumors can spread. That could ruin your reputation so much. And you could have done nothing wrong.It has been said not everyone reads disclaimers, or cares. There is also racist and prejudice ones too, any of these could potentially be really bad for the original photo owner..

Also imagine if some was slagging off something like face-up, sewing or photography skills etc. And YOUR image got used. Something you was proud of, you would feel hurt. Like people are taking a dig at you, your skills or your doll.

These blogs hurt people in many ways, and because of that i hate them and think they are wrong. I think we should at least TRY to get on better because at the end of the day we all have something in common. I know you can't get on with everyone, but that is no excuse to be horrible just because you can. I have seen these blogs put people off the hobby too, which again is bad.

If you personally don't mind your photo being used then, fine it is your photo. But don't expect other people to be OK with it too.

 

You say it is theft, but then you don't address theft. What you are addressing is "libel" - there are protections against libel, but it's a different set of protections then copyright.

I actually used to be VERY-ANGRY-ABOUT-DOLL-COPIES and what helped me the most was to learn more about intellectual property and the way it works. For instance, a doll is covered under copyright as a "creative work", but the jointing systems are "functional" and covered under patent, not copyright. I feel much more confident about my own work because I feel I know where those grey areas are, and I avoid anything that could be considered a grey area in my own work. I have different views from an ethical standpoint, and avoid doll companies that violate my sense of ethics. But I recognize now that some of what is done that I disagree with is legal or not clearly legal or illegal.

 

I know for certain under UK law i have copyright on everything i create on creating it. I know i have copyright on all the photo's i have taken and art i have drawn.

I didn't go too much in going this is why it is illegal because it has been covered alrady. I will quote from the first page:

"Please see international copyright law (specifically the Berne Convention, under which the US is a signatory).

Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration. The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide their own protection terms, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms."

In the case of doll recasts they have stolen the whole doll, including the image of the doll. Which comes under the copyright. I am not going to go into the wrongs or re-casting because that thread has already been closed. But this is the sense i meant when i used it as an example.

 

No, you don't. That is why I recommend you study more on intellectual property, it's pretty clear you only have a vauge concept of it. That's pretty normal.

If you take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night, and put it on your facebook, you've violated someone's copyright. The lighting on the tower is considered and artistic work.

If you take a photo of a doll, it's a derivative work of that doll and the copyright gets fuzzy. You then get into those four points mentioned earlier:

1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

Not exactly clear cut is it? I would argue if you do a painting of a doll, and the doll is the focus of the painting, you're violating the doll creator's copy right. If you do a still life photograph, and the doll's hand is sticking out somewhere, and it's blurry and not the focus of the photo anyways, you're probably in the clear. In both cases, it would come down to a court ruling to know for sure.

I'm really convinced that art schools should all require a course on intellectual property law for their students.

 

I would like to add to Kiyono's point that no, you DON'T own the copyright to any art you have drawn:
If you reproduce something that someone else owns the copyright to, even though you yourself have done the work of drawing that image, even if it might have been a lot of work drawing it, you don't own the copyright to it. For example: if I did a really detailed image of Mickey Mouse and tried to sell it, Disney would sue my pants off.

Also photographing something that is someone else's work and trying to sell it is violating that other person's copyright. ^_^

 

I suppose that depends on whether they were just grabbing photos or if they were re-blogging something that had been posted by the owner who knowingly had buttons available for people to reblog their stuff. *See the comments about flikr's reblog options.* auntbear determined that the default in that case is probably "do not share" so if the owner sets their stuff to "Share" then they are giving permission for their stuff to be reblogged on the specified platforms.

If they were just grabbing photos wherever, then I don't see much difference. I love getting compliments... but tell me, don't just hide away in some corner of the internet and wait for me to find you.

@Kiyono: Are you sure the Eiffel Tower is a good example? In many cases, copyright ends after a certain amount of years past the copyright holders death, and the Tower is Hella old. Also... How do you apply copyright to a national monument?

 

Kiyono: don't know if you were referring to my comment above when you defined Libel, but I wasn't using the many court cases against the UK Satirical magazine for that reason. Yes, their cases are about Libel, written content, which I agree with you, has very different legal repercussions.

I was pointing them out because these people are very well known and have the word "Satirist" on their CVs, appear on satirical reviews on TV and you would imagine no-one could accuse them of not having the aim of satire when they take people in the public eye on... but they keep having to defend the very definition of satire.

These people are professionals, very well respected and known in their field and their targets are political mainly, an arena where satire is very well established and has centuries of precedent. If they have to keep proving that their work is indeed satire then I am sure an individual blogger writing about obscure dolls on a comparatively (in a global sense) little read blog in a niche hobby won't stand a chance!

Copyright is a minefield for both parties involved, that's something that those who go round infringing other people's rights seem to forget. The general consensus seems to be that people won't try and protect their copyright because it's a costly business with little guarantee of success, but being accused of infringing someone's rights will cost you a bundle as well, especially if you lose the case.