The Internet And Our Art

OK it's showtime!

Since I'm an elephant man.....never heard of such a thing as a person getting a mouse confused with an elephant. Where do you come up with this as an analogy?

Yeah, lets roll over and give in.

And I thought Al Gore created the internet!?

I am not sure the "royalty free" part was meant to apply to artist's copyrighted works? Do you?

If that is the case, then is everything placed on the internet free to use at will?

Justin, adjust your actions to take advantage of what the internet is and can do.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"I am not sure the "royalty free" part was meant to apply to artist's copyrighted works? Do you?"

As discussed previously, if you put it on the net, it will be taken and redistributed. Each of us has 100% control of what we put out there. Plan accordingly.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

As discussed previously, if you put it on the net, it will be taken and redistributed. Each of us has 100% control of what we put out there. Plan accordingly.

To take this one step farther. Our display images are available for public distribution by anyone, both in the from of an imbed and just taking the actual 900pixel image.

if you put it on the net, it will be taken and redistributed

Do you think the same reasoning you just mentioned could also apply to FAA's use of our high res files? (or any other POD or image sharing site)

I wonder how many artists are aware of the fact that when uploading the high res file to FAA, there may be MANY other entities who also have access to that file, including your ISP and others.


EDIT - most image sharing sites (including FAA) have wording in their TOS to the affect of having rights of royalty free distribution worldwide. They also make it very clear that TOS can change at any time. What is to stop a POD or image sharing site from distributing or selling high res images, other than our trust that they will not do so?

And then there has to be trust. There hasn't been a POD breach yet. Not saying it couldn't happen, but if it's a concern, POD isn't for you.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"TRUST"

read my edit above. :) I was thinking along the same lines as you.

"Trust" is not a widely embraced word this day in age. It is interesting that artists "trust" their high res products with a website and stranger where terms can change at any time, but take issue with those who use their display images for wallpaper. :)

Thing is, once a website has an artist's high res portfolio, the artist no longer has much to say with regards to changes in TOU or TOS. Look at what is happening with Getty, Flickr or any other image sharing site.

Once you have uploaded the high res file and taken membership, you accept the fact that TOS can change.

By accepting membership you are allowing royalty free use of images. Look at what Facebook is now doing with members images being sold on promotional type products.

Tiny, can you name an instance where an artist's high rez files have been misappropriated?

The thread is intended to discuss what IS happening, not bizarre, hair-splitting exceptions.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

No I can't Dan. But your OP claims that the internet was meant to be "royalty free" and then you also commented that "if you put it on the net, it will be used and redistributed".

I am simply asking if that stops at just what is displayed publicly, or could it spread to use of other uploaded files?

From how I read TOS on image sites, I see where it "could" spread. For now, like you have said, it is based on "trust".

With the way terms online are constantly changing, does it make any sense to only discuss what is happening "now", or is it not wise to also consider what "could" happen down the road.

There are many sites collecting many millions of high res images, voluntarily uploaded from people all over the world. Do you not see a day when those images may simply "belong" to everyone?


EDIT - I think you will find many artist do not agree with your stance when it comes to the OP. Many of them have also not fully considered the potential consequences of uploading their life's work to image sites.

"I am simply asking if that stops at just what is displayed publicly, or could it spread to use of other uploaded files?"

Tiny, if you send me high-rez files via the internet for safe-keeping, the files gets stored on my hard drive(s), as intended, not stored or displayed on the internet.

"Many of them have also not fully considered the potential consequences of uploading their life's work to image sites."

I have. Many have. Do you think that's more risky than minimum wage employees at cable companies, electric companies, gas companies, phone companies, credit card companies, banks ALL having easy access to your social security number and other private information?

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

" It has succeeded brilliantly. In addition, web architect Tim Berners-Lee and his employer, CERN, announced to the world in 1993 that the web would be open for anyone to use and build upon, royalty free, forever."



How can someone proclaim that the work of others is royalty free forever?

If I proclaim that Dan Turner's work from now until the end of time is royalty free forever, does that make it so?


One can give away what THEY own but not what other's own.


If the internet truly was meant to be royalty free forever that stipulation should have been made when we all signed up. I don't remember signing away my rights when I signed up with AOL all those years ago and I am sure the musicians in the Napster case didn't agree to it as well.

Sigh Dan, why even bother? The end of the world is nigh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Sanity will NOT reign but nay sayers will rain (on your post) from every corner of the world.

"How can someone proclaim that the work of others is royalty free forever?"

They didn't, John, simply that the web would be open to everyone -- forever.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Hi Kevin! The nay-sayers want elephants to be mice. I'm simply pointing out that each should be treated for what they are. It's a foreign concept to some!

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Tiny, if you send me high-rez files via the internet for safe-keeping, the files gets stored on my hard drive(s), as intended, not stored or displayed on the internet.

Are you sure about that Dan?

Are the high res files for FAA (or any image site) stored on an "offline" hard-drive, or are they stored on a server farm somewhere - connected to the "internet"?


I am not saying that I do not agree with your premise in the OP. I am just surmising one step farther. There are a number of people in the world, who would like to see "everything" belong to the public. No "rights" to ownership of product, property, riches, ideas.... etc... Everything shared.

No one is complaining about hi-rez files finding their way onto the net, Tiny. It's not a problem.

You know where the complaints are. I'm addressing those.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

and anyone can profess to be anything they so desire, with the right amount of convincing.
For example, I am really a 14 year old boy.
Only Dan knows that.

Just for a little clarity... I do not believe (and Abbie can correct if not) your high rez images are NOT accessible via the internet. At least not directly. If you need to get one of your high rez files because something happened to your local copy, then tech support has to move to an area where you can download it.

Abbie.. if it hasn't already been discussed can you provide a little insight as to where are hi rez images reside, and how they are protected?

I know Dan. The complaints are with regards to the display images. We had what, two more threads about those again today?

I can only really speak for me personally. The display images being used is not really an "issue" for me, as much as it is an annoyance. If they are used, I know for the most part it is harmless, unless being used to promote something I do not agree with. However, I think the part that gets me most (and probably most other artists) is not the fact they are are being used, but that permission was not asked nor granted prior to use.

With regards to the high res images, that is where I am more "concerned". You are maybe right, that the misuse of high-res images has never been an issue, but are you 100% sure of that? Are there markets out there that you are not privy too?

I just have a hard time understanding artists giving their life's work to an entity (online website) they do not personally know, based solely on "trust". That is a hard one for me to fathom.

Free to look. Not free to use for your own financial gain.

"However, I think the part that gets me most (and probably most other artists) is not the fact they are are being used, but that permission was not asked nor granted prior to use."

Thus, the reason for this thread. You have uploaded images to the web with full knowledge that that can and IS happening...millions of times per day. That is the nature of the web, that is precisely how it was designed to work, and that is how it does work.

I repeat: The web was never designed to be Fort Knox. It is instead a means of lightening-fast, world wide distribution, and everyone connected to it has a copy/paste device.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I can park my car on the street with full knowledge that it might be stolen but I trust that the laws in place and law enforcement will protect my property. The web is no license to become a thief.

Dan, repeat it one more time...I understand that things need to be said 3 times in advertising in order to stick.

Edward, are you serious? You think a car has never been stolen from a parking spot on a public street? lol

Tiny, you can't speak for all artist. To suggest that "all" are not happy would be a stretch that eve you should be willing to admit.

But you keep trying to come off as a victim or that all artist are victims and some great dastardly deed has been perpetrated against you
and all artist.

In order to be a victim as far as I am concerned you first have to be able to prove you have damaged physically or monetarily or in some other manner.

And what I am telling you is that under the current system, no one that counts, the decision makers, the politicians, the law enforcement agencies, no one that can really do anything meaningful about it, sees it that way. That don't make right. I just makes it what it is.

No mater what you say or think is not going to change that. You are tilting at windmills.

Like I said before, you have backed yourself into a corner to where you can not get out without losing face. Or to put is another way, you have dug yourself a hole and as the wise man once said the first step to getting yourself out of hole is stop digging.

You just keep beating the same ol' drum, preaching to the same choir and you really have no where to go. Your argument lacks merit simply because
you are accusing people of saying things they never said or even implied. You are creating your own strawman here. You say someone said such and such when they didn't and then you argue against you own misrepresentation of what they said. You are actually arguing against yourself because there really isn't anyone on the other side of your accusations but you keep implying there is. That is not only disingenuous, it is also strange behavior and even stranger that you can't even see that!

Roger. . Use Google images. That is how you find most images being 'borrowed'

they do a browser addon

What is really going on here?

Speaking of remedies, far too many artists think they have "court" in their back pocket as an enforcement avenue, as in "I'll just take them to court!"

The payoff on that sort of thinking is in the bark. Sometimes the threat of legal action will produce the desired result. But are you prepared to actually bite?

Unless you stand to win a substantial amount of money, I would think twice, because you will be making a 12 to 48 month time commitment to pursue legal action. If your opponent has no money, a judgment in your favor won't matter -- you're not getting paid. If he does have money, he's not legally helpless. His legal team could hold you at bay until you're either flat broke or drop the suit. If they're the vindictive type, you could find yourself embroiled in countersuits with no escape.

As others have said, pick your battles.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan, I once had an incredibly legitimate case of copyright infringement....a famous sports figure and his actress wife bought a home in Scottsdale. They had a copy artist take a pic of my painting in a model home( with signature and copyright) and copy it, changing only one color and the size.
In June, the centerfold of Phoenix home and garden featured MY painting in the model home, with My name attached to My painting....
Two months later, the very same magazine featured the copy of MY painting in THEIR home......all completely documented in the magazine.
I ran it by my attorney and then he laid it out just as you have done in your last post.
My only revenge was knowing they paid far more for the copy than they would have paid to have me paint an original for them....

Marlene, that's a great story. Oh the irony! Thanks for sharing.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Over 350 million photos will be uploaded to Facebook TODAY. 42 million to Instagram TODAY. 1.4 million to Flickr TODAY. (as an aside, photos uploaded to the net only account for about 25% of all the photos actually taken today).

At any rate, of those,
-- How many are "Rights Managed"?
-- How many are "Royalty Free"?
-- How many of those are likely to draw take-down notices from angry photographers?
-- How many are likely to draw invoices and settlement letters from stock photo houses?
-- How many can be freely shared, captioned and repurposed?

And the most important question: How does the average internet user tell the difference?

The first four categories of photos represent a miniscule sliver of photos on the web. Internet users have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than copy/pasting the "wrong" photo.

Image-makers who are hot on changing 20 years of internet copy/paste culture are barking up the wrong tree.

In 1991, there was ONE website. There was over 700 million in 2013. At the current rate of growth, there will be 1 billion websites by the end of this year.

The number of internet users reached 1 billion in 2005. The second billion in 2010. The third billion will be reached in this year.

Are any of us really thinking we're going to get in front of that snowball? Let’s put it in simple terms: If you value your property you have a duty to protect it. Maximum protection means keeping it off the net. If that's not an option, than be prepared to see your low-rez images in places you never expected.

Roll with it. If you must, pick a battle now and then. But recognize the nature of what you're dealing with and make it work for you.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Are any of us really thinking we're going to get in front of that snowball? Let’s put it in simple terms: If you value your property you have a duty to protect it. Maximum protection means keeping it off the net. If that's not an option, than be prepared to see your low-rez images in places you never expected. - Dan T.

----------------------

If you don't want your low-res images stolen or abused, don't put your work online. I do not believe I am reading into anything that is not there with that interpretation??

So if someone breaks the law by using an image that is copyright protected, without permission of the copyright holder or payment to the owner, it is the image owners fault because they put it on the internet?

That's like telling a female who has been sexually assaulted that it wouldn't have happened if she had not been drunk at the bar.

EDIT - That is a harsh example, but both sexual assault and copyright infringement are illegal. Both having a good time at the bar and getting drunk, as well as putting images online to sell are perfectly legal acts. Since when do we blame the victims of crime?

---------------------------------------------

And why do you keep going back to specify low-res? It is the "image" and does not matter whether low-res or high-res.

So why sell art on the internet in the first place? I think people want to steal ideas far more than actual art...

So why sell art on the internet in the first place?

Why not? Everything else is sold on the internet?

Music and movies are sold online and you can pay to order a physical CD that is shipped to you or you can pay for a downloaded track. No different than someone can pay to have a print delivered or pay to download an image. So, why does the movie and music industry fight so hard to prevent pirating? And it is no different than copyright infringement of an image, although would have you think that it is.

The music file is not the physical CD, yet it is protected and consider illegal to download without paying for it. it is even illegal in some countries to "stream" copyrighted music, without having to physically download the track. Is it enforced.... maybe not much, but it does not change the fact that it is illegal.

So why not the same for an image? The argument that the physical print is not taken, therefore it is not theft does not hold water. If that were the case, then the music and movie industry do not have a leg to stand on. When that image is downloaded for any use other than what has been permitted by the owner of the copyright, or used without payment, it is copyright infringement no different than downloading that music track without paying for it.

Hi Tiny, I'm not arguing, just posing a question. The risks go on and on, and so does the discussion. We need to be willing to accept the "slippage" and get on with it. Basically, if you're meant to sell your work then no one can interfere with that, if you're not, well then, that's a different reality...

"I do not believe I am reading into anything that is not there with that interpretation??"

You are and you did, Tiny. And you continue to do so. There is no need to interpret my posts. They say exactly what I mean them to say.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Ok please do not liken sexual abuse with image infringement. Chalk and cheese and exceptionally insulting to people who have gone through abuse

Dan is not, and has not, blamed anybody for image infringement in this thread. He is not saying it is your own fault or anything like that. He is simply pointing out that copyright infringement is a huge issue done by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions and that this is not going to suddenly stop just because artists want it to

He is saying that putting images on the web is opening them up to the people who do this

He is saying that, if you therefore put images up on the web, be prepared for people to do it

He is saying that, even if you are prepared to constantly search, write, stress out etc, people ARE still going to take your low res images

You have to know that, be prepared for that and, if you are not, then leave the image off the web

Nowhere has he said this is right (people to infringe on your copyright) or that it is your own fault for putting them up

Now, please stop causing mischief where there is none, Tiny

Dan, You have very good ideas and "solid" information, but you're not going to be able to reach everyone… (on another day Tiny will wow the crowd…)

Kelley, I know :-)

Confronting the problem head-on was needed. People were spinning out of control over it. A lot have relaxed and now understand it isn't the boogyman they were making it out to be, and are eliminating that worry from their lives.

There will always be the hard cases, and that's okay.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

:-)

Abbie,

I apologize if my example offended. I was not comparing the two crimes themselves to each other at all. I was taking two illegal acts (obviously one far worse than the other) and showing how some would often suggest that the victim is somehow to fault for the illegal act perpetrated towards them.

This example came to my mind this evening because of an interview I heard on the radio in Toronto today, where someone was suggesting just that with regards to assault. I was so shocked I just about drove off the road. I could not believe that someone had said that out loud on the radio.

It was the only other example I could think of where the victim is often blamed.

Anyways.... I meant no harm by it.

---------------


Nowhere has he said this is right (people to infringe on your copyright) or that it is your own fault for putting them up

----------------

Maximum protection means keeping it off the net. If that's not an option, than be prepared to see your low-rez images in places you never expected. - Dan Turner

"If that is not an option". I love the choice of words there. Of course there is an option, but the option for an artist to post their images on the internet for sale is a legal one and well within the rights of the artist. Those images are covered by copyright whether they are in a gallery, in a book or online. It does not matter where they are seen or found, copyright is there.

"If that is not an option" - If you choose to put them online.

Now lets break that statement down:

To fully protect your images keep them off the internet . If you choose to put them online, be prepared to find your low res images in places you never expected


When is the only time an artist (copyright holder), will find an image in a place they were not expecting????


When it is used without permission and/or payment (if the user had permission, the artist would expect to find it there!)


And what is it called when someone uses an artists image without permission or payment?............ copyright infringment


If I am wrong in my breakdown, then maybe Dan would like to explain or clarify just what he did mean by that statement? Because that sure sounds to me that it is being suggested, that if an artist finds his copyrighted work to be infringed, it is because they chose the option to put them on the net (online)???

I would love to hear from others, whether or not they see that statement the same way?

----------

Nowhere has he said this is right (people to infringe on your copyright)

Abbie,

I understand that at no time Dan has come right out and said this.

It would be nice though, to have Dan clarify some of these statements.

Tiny. That statement purely means... If you are not going to keep them offline. ..If that is not an option for you. If you have to have them online..

You are reading things into words that just do not mean any more or less than what they say. You are putting mischief where there is none

I am sharing how I read that statement. If Dan means differently, let him clarify it.

We will let others decide how they read it. Statements are not always what they appear to be at "face value".

I will not say anymore regarding that statement.

I would rather we move on.

“Confronting the problem head-on was needed.” --- Dan Turner

In what way are you confronting the problem head on, Dan?

If you don't want your images stolen, don't upload them?


And who are you inferring to as the people that are “hard cases”? Is this not denigrating those that do not agree with your position?

And the most important question: How does the average internet user tell the difference?

Easy. If it doesn't explicitly say it is free, it isn't. That's all you need to know as an image user.

That should eliminate about 90% of all 'Gee I didn't know' cases. Wallpaper sites that illegally spread material or other parties that distribute material that they are not authorized to distribute could be valid exceptions to this rule. I can see how this could cause confusion. If I find an infringement and the party says well hang on, I found it here and it says its free I would probably accept it. They could well be the victim of other criminals who feel they have the right to profit off the work of others. Ultimately though even in these situations it is up to the user to ensure that they have the legal right to use something.

But for the most part people need to take some own responsibility for their actions instead of hiding behind weak arguments. How many times a day do you think an average cop hears 'Oh I didn't know'. There is a difference between not knowing, not being able to know and not wanting to know. I can find out in five seconds on Google whether I can just use material without permission on my site, blog etc etc so its not like the information is not available.

I feel so much better now. So much more relaxed. Can we close this already?

Thank you Dean for getting back to the point

There is no need to interpret my posts. They say exactly what I mean them to say.

Dan,
I love that.
I say what I mean and I mean what I say...
Crystal clear!

--Donna Proctor

"Easy. If it doesn't explicitly say it is free, it isn't. That's all you need to know as an image user."

Dean, you and I are educated, up on the issue and work in the image making/buying/selling industry. We check, we get it.

But millions of Dolly Bloggers, Joey Interns, Sammy Socials, Suzy Small Business Owners, Edna Executive Assistants and even Sterling CEOs have no idea that permission might be needed or that web images accessed through Google are anything but free.

I was going to use Russian Roulette as a metaphor, but that's no good. Definition: Russian Roulette is a potentially lethal game of chance in which a "player" places a single round in a revolver, spins the cylinder, places the muzzle against his head, and pulls the trigger. If you're using a six cylinder gun, you have a one in six chance of getting popped with copyright infringement.

If I use the lightening strike odds, which are WAY on the conservative side, you would be using a gun with 1,107,143 cylinders. Spin it, pull the trigger, and your chances of getting popped with copyright infringement are approximately one in a million.

With those odds, getting people to be the least bit concerned about low-rez web infringement is a colossal task. I think it's much more realistic to educate artists on the realities of the web.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"Crystal clear!"

Thanks, Donna!

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online