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

Dan,

Just because things "are" happening, does it make it "right"?

Someone saying that the "web" would be royalty free to use and build upon forever, is a far cry different than saying that copyrighted "content" uploaded to the web is royalty free.

The internet service providers are making "royalties" for providing access to the internet. To me, this also goes against that statement that the web would be royalty free to use and build upon forever.

I do not believe that the "web" to use and build upon, is the same as "content".

In my mind the term "build upon" would refer to someone creating their own personal space or website, but then even that is not royalty free?? is it?

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

Are you sure, Edward? People log onto the net to obtain information that will improve their lives in every possible way; financially, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, aesthetically. They expect to profit from their time surfing, window-shopping, communicating, information-gathering.

As to your car analogy, 3D objects that are stolen deprive the owner of the use of that object.

Digital files, on the other hand, can be copied an infinite amount of times without depriving the owner of his copy.

Please use the correct terminology when addressing alleged misuse of digital files: infringement. Then we can all be on the same page.

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

The same technology that allows one to "lift" work off the Internet also works in the reverse. It is easier to find the thief.

Plagiarism has occurred since the beginning of written words. but today a politician using a plagiarized speech is found out within minutes.

Tiny, your royalty-free issue has already been answered twice. Last time at 3:59.

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

An image licensed at a premium for exclusive use is diminished when "infringed". For example, teenagers on Figment.com who grab images off the Internet and slap them on their ebooks, diminish the value of that image in the book cover licensing market.

Really Dan? Because comments I made in my post at 4:52 were not mentioned by me prior to 3:59?

If you are saying that the "content" is not royalty free Dan (at 3:59), then what is the point of your thread and why do you continue to discuss the use / lifting / copying and pasting of CONTENT?

Even the premise from your OP regarding the "web being free to use and build upon forever" is not accurate, because we are charged for access to USE the web and we are charged to "BUILD" upon it to create a website and have our own address.

Edward, I ask you once again to please refrain from using "thief" and similar words when you mean "infringement." In copyright trials, judges have set ground rules that such inaccurate terms are not to be used. One such example, from Judge Kathleen Williams of the US district court in Southern Florida:

"In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfile’s founders) are ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves,’ nor is there evidence that they were ‘stealing’ or engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft.’ Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs’ case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml

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

Greeting from Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee on the Web's 25th anniversary from Web25 on Vimeo.

Edward, I ask you once again to please refrain from using "thief" and similar words when you mean "infringement."

Seriously Dan? Now you are asking that those who disagree with you, do not use words you do not like.

You are correct Edward. Here in Toronto, the chairman of school board was forced to resign for plagiarizing when writing a news editorial. (ironic coming from a school chairman of the largest city in Canada). They treated it no differently than if he had stolen something.

Great little video, Ed, Thanks!

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

"Now you are asking that those who disagree with you"

And the court system, Tiny :-)

The proper term is infringement. Let's use it.

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

Please forgive me, I didn't realize I was at a trial.

Edward, if we can agree on terminology, we can find solutions. Hyperbole only serves to inflame and divide.

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

Solutions? You've already given in. Go with the flow. Hey, if everyone does it, it must be ok.

"Solutions? You've already given in."

How do you figure? Given in to what, exactly?

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

You know Edward there is a river that flows by my house. If that river were flowing elsewhere it would be a desert here and wet there, no?

Or to put it in more base terms "If a dog had a square butt he would make bricks."

If there were no "net" you could not put your work out there for any reason in the way you do now.

I don't know if you have any kids but I try to instill values on mine. If you find a wallet on the ground that doesn't mean its yours to keep. If you write a paper at school, you include a bibliography and your sources.

You are confusing a technology with culture. Just because something is easy to do, that doesn't make it right or even legal.

Now I understand your premise is that we should lighten up and think about the positives of getting "exposure" etc with the Internet and not going crazy every time someone "borrows" our work and posts it on their blog uncredited or they pass it off as their own on a Zazzle product.

This works a lot better if you create sculpture than a digital artist.

I agree that we need to adapt to the reality of today's internet. I'm not spending my time filing endless takedown requests, or putting watermarks on my previews.

But let's not forget that the internet is still very much under development, and will change and evolve - possibly for the better. While small fish like myself have no leverage, big content companies have been agressively lobbying for new laws enabling - or even requiring - ISPs and backbone providers to be actively involved in preventing copyright infringement. Where this will end up is anyone's guess.

"This works a lot better if you create sculpture than a digital artist."

Precisely, Edward! Now apply that thinking and discover how your 3D examples are of no use when discussing digital images.

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

@Edward - as for parking your vehicle - including your driveway - they get taken all the time - which one of those other reasons you have insurance. NOT EVER does one depend on the law or law enforcement to prevent theft. I might consider the County Sheriff's work prison or a hanging judge as more effective prevention device.

"big content companies have been agressively lobbying for new laws enabling - or even requiring - ISPs and backbone providers to be actively involved in preventing copyright infringement."

Impossible. They don't understand what they're asking. They are willfully ignorant. They are simply trying to shift responsibility for their actions to someone else.

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

Dan, all of that may be true, but it won't stop them from trying. They want the internet itself - i.e. the basic protocols, the backbone - to be a platform for packet-sniffing that they can use to detect any transfers of their copyrighted content. At some point that will become not just technically possible, but easy. The broadcast networks couldn't detect who was receiving their signals. And for a long time the cable companies couldn't detect home-brew decoders in use. But eventually - if the government cooperates - Comcast will know the instant I try to stream a pirated video. They could be doing that today, of course, although I doubt they are because it would be prohibitively expensive in real time.

How do you figure? Given in to what, exactly?

Dan, every one of these threads to do with "content use" becomes a tail chase. You post a comment like the one I have quoted here, but then a few posts above make the comment at 4:53. "They expect to profit from their time surfing, window-shopping, communicating, information-gathering."

You know exactly what Edward was referring to when he mentioned "giving in".

There are others who do not agree with you that people who surf should profit from what is not theirs in the first place. Just because someone spends time surfing the net for images, does it give them the right to profit from them?


You did not respond to this question:

If you are saying that the "content" is not royalty free Dan (at 3:59), then what is the point of your thread and why do you continue to discuss the use / lifting / copying and pasting of CONTENT?

Even the premise from your OP regarding the "web being free to use and build upon forever" is not accurate, because we are charged for access to USE the web and we are charged to "BUILD" upon it to create a website and have our own address.

Until 5 years ago I had no presence on the internet. I did not want my originals stolen or copied or printed.
I used galleries, weekend shows and festivals to get the word out.
Then I built a website.
Here I am today and 100% of my business in 2013 was online for original art. No more galleries or shlepping to shows.
No more paranoia that someone is stealing my work either.

Jim, infringement needs to be prevented at the source by the copyright holder. If the litigation-seeking copyright holder's low-rez images can be copied/pasted with the same ease as the unconcerned copyright holder's images; that's wrong, and the fault lies squarely with the litigation-seeking copyright holder. If the web-surfing public cannot tell the difference between the images, the fault lies squarely with the litigation-seeking, responsibility-dodging copyright holder.

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

Marlene, why are you not a-scared someone will copy/paste your low-rez images from FAA and put you out of business?

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

Jim, infringement needs to be prevented at the source by the copyright holder. If the litigation-seeking copyright holder's low-rez images can be copied/pasted with the same ease as the unconcerned copyright holder's images; that's wrong, and the fault lies squarely with the litigation-seeking copyright holder.If the web-surfing public cannot tell the difference between the images, the fault lies squarely with the litigation-seeking, responsibility-dodging copyright holder.

OK Dan.

So if the unconcerned copyright holder does not physically mark their work (watermark), but the concerned one makes certain the work is marked online as ©artist on the image, does this take the responsibility from the litigating copyright holder and place it squarely on the surfer who copied/pasted/used the work?

Are you now arguing a "use" for watermarks?

EDIT - what if the © notice is placed under the displayed image (in noticeable print), does this take the responsibility away from the concerned copyright holder?

Tiny, watermarks designed to prevent infringement are large and can't be defeated by content-aware software.

Artist's who use those complain that "People aren't buying my art because of that obnoxious watermark!" Well, darlin', you can't have it both ways.

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

Why do they have to be large Dan? As long as they are readable, they do not have to cover the entire image.

A notice of copyright on an image does not have to hinder the viewing of an image and should hold just as much validity as one that covers the image in entirety.

The only reason why some artists cover the entire image with a watermark and/or notice of copyright, is because those after work to use without permission will simply erase the small mark and pretend like it was never there.

The people you are talking about who surf and use images, do not care whether the work is marked or not, so it does not matter if the concerned copyright holders work looked different than the unconcerned copyright holder.

One thing I have never understood about the FAA display image in the gallery, is that at no location near that image does FAA make any reference to a browser (public viewer) that the image is copyrighted by the artist and that permission should be asked and received prior to use. Even Flickr and Google make this very clear next to the image when it is displayed.

FAA tells us that we own copyright in the TOS, but they do nothing to inform the public of it in the gallery. (at least not that I have found)

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

The original Internet was never intended for graphics at all. The original use was all government and the public did not have access.
There was little or no concern about stealing information. The entire purpose was to SHARE information, not limit the use.

Not to mention the fact that it is no one else's job to protect your images. If you don't want to share information and you want to limit
the access to it, then the Internet is not the place to be. Pretty simple stuff.

The entire system is designed to do the direct opposite of what some people are trying to do and they trying to make it OTHER people's
problem and demand the solve it. That is so typical of today's society where it is always someone else's job.

Incidentally both Amazon and eBay are forcing sellers to up load larger images, including original art and fine art collector prints.

FAA has got it right. The trend is for bigger not smaller.

Dan,

The reason you continue to bring up the realities of the internet is to bring balance to the various views being held here at FAA. Because of your work as a graphic artist you have a pretty good grasp of the internet culture and how it works.

I hear fear based opinions in the discussions and have to ignore it because I'm learning that Is how it works! Anyone who has tried to market their work on the internet learns pretty quickly not to be possessive of their images. The internet is a different animal than anything that came before it. If someone wants one of my images I now say "Please take it so someone else might see it!! You don't need my permission to copy my images, or put it on your blog. If a few want to put it on their wall so be it, there are still plenty who are willing to pay!

Tiny, watermarks designed to prevent infringement are large and can't be defeated by content-aware software.

Dan, removing a copyright notice from a work of art is illegal.

Why else would someone be using "content aware", if not to remove the copyright notice. That completely takes away the responsibility of the litigating copyright holder and places in on the person who removed the mark.

Does it not?

And why would someone use "content aware" to DEFEAT INFRINGEMENT in the first place? That comment from you, goes to prove the knowledgeable intent of the person who is copying/pasting/using the work.

"The web is no license to become a thief."

The "web" is not stealing images. People are, thieves are and sine when does a thief apply for a license of care about the law?

This discussion overlooks the fact that the internet can change, has changed, and will changed. We don't have to talk only about how the internet "is".

First of all, the internet originally wasn't even open to the public - just the government, military and few defense contractors and academics. It had no commercial applications whatsoever! Eventually it was opened up to everyone, for everything - I'd say that's a pretty big change.

In it's early years, the internet consisted of email and file transfer protocols, and a few other boring things - the Web came much later. Another pretty significant change.

Originally, the internet was a strictly American network - part of Defense. Today it includes the whole world. Major difference.

In today's internet and under today's laws, protection of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder. Yes. And for most of us, that's impossible - the tools we have to work with are hopelessly inadequate. "DMCA takedown notice" - don't make me laugh. Search the world, every day, with TinEye? Not really practical.

Things will change, both legally and technically, as this new medium evolves.

"Why else would someone be using "content aware", if not to remove the copyright notice."

That's pretty low-level use for content-aware, Tiny. There are lots of other uses; I love it! Here's a demo for you:



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

In today's internet and under today's laws, protection of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder.

That is true Jim, but for some reason or another, image sites do not make it any easier for artists to protect that "copyright" status.

FAA does not mention anywhere near your image in the gallery, that the work is copyright protected by the artist and that permission is needed prior to using. NO, it is left up to the artist to place it in the description, where a surfer may not even notice.

Image sites seem to be making it easier and easier for the public to access and use copyrighted work without permission or paying for it.

Why is that?

I hope new and better measures do come into place.

You are unreal Dan. I was referring to the same "use" you were in the earlier comment. I know full well what "content aware" can be used for.

Your original comment about using "content aware" was in direct relation to watermarks and "defeating" them.

Here it is for you again in case you have forgotten.

Tiny, watermarks designed to prevent infringement are large and can't be defeated by content-aware software.


Tail chasing.

OK.. so we visit Central Park and bring along some of our artwork with us. Lean one against that tree and lean one up against that other tree over there. and maybe three or more over there. It's hot so we decide to go over to the ice cream vendor and get something to cool us off. Mean while a bunch of sneaky photographers saw our artwork and photographed all of them. We didn't see them.. we were buying ice cream. Well some time later we are browsing the internet and low and behold.. there is our artwork being sold and on someone's blog.

So do we go down to city hall and complain to New York City government that they didn't do enough to prevent photographers from taking photos of our art work? Or do we blame ourselves?

bob

Bob, if the artwork is under copyright, the artist could sue the photographers for selling them.

If I had my artwork displayed in a vendor cart at the same local park and while I was busy speaking with an interested customer, a photographer took images of the art and uploaded to the internet for sale, would I still be to blame? Would I have the right to pursue legal action against the photographer who is selling my images online?

No the park is not responsible for the photographer taking the images.

The analogy does not work with regards to lack of copyright notice on FAA display pages.

Why does Google and Flickr show a copyright notice right next to a display image that is copyright protected by the artist? Are they covering themselves and doing something to prevent the potential "misunderstanding" that because it is online it is free to use by the public. I think so.

EDIT - If image sites were "TRULY" interested in protecting the copyright of artists, they would make it clear and obvious to surfers that the work is copyright protected, but they don't. Why?

Yes.. exactly. if your images are "infringed" from the internet, then yes you certainly have to right to pursue legal action against the photographers. But NYC has no obligation to start posting signs under the NO Rollerskating, NO skateboarding signs stating that "all images that are visible anywhere in Central Park are copyright of the owners of said artwork". Here on FAA it is your decision whether or not to add water marks or not. Most choose not.

It takes a lot to scare me, my friend and comrade.
Let 'em have all the low-rez images they want.....they cannot duplicate what I have created on canvas...and that's where my money comes from. ;)

Yes, digital photography is certainly an easy target. And no this isn't really FAA's problem - although if we lose a sale, they do too.

But there's also the phenomenon called Blame The Victim and we all know what a "Take Back The Night" rally is about.

I'm as mixed up now as someone who can't tell an elephant from a mouse!

"If image sites were "TRULY" interested in protecting the copyright of artists,"

Tiny, when did they say they were and -- why would they be? That's not their business. They can empathize and they can disable right-click. All of that is window dressing. They are not protection or enforcement. Both of those responsibilities belong to the copyright holder.

Bob, beautiful analogy. You get it.

Marlene, YES! Let 'em have all the low-rez images they want. You get it.

Jim, I'm not following your Take Back the Night thinking. I know it's about violence against women, but I'm not following how that ties in with art on the internet.

Vincent, one has peanuts on his breath, the other does not :-)

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

So, Dan, you take these words from a * single Judge * and infer, no...insist that it should apply to all cases?

Read this part of the judges quote again.


"In the present case...”

You quote a single judge, in a specific case then say this? “And the court system, Tiny :-)

“The proper term is infringement. Let's use it.”


What say we all engage in a game of semantics now? Thief. Pirate. Infringer! As I may assume you are a lawyer, perhaps you could extrapolate on the difference between the three terms?

I look forward to your elucidation.

To address the earlier question to Abbie about how the work is protected and where it is stored....

You will not get an answer to that any sooner than you will get an answer to exactly how the search works here. If that information is public, it could in fact help the unscrupulous defeat the very protections in place.

As far as "theft" on the net goes I am 100% with Marlene. I know and understand that people take my 900 pixel images. Oh well.... That is not where I make my money.

Car wise, hey, I drove a 1000 dollar Honda for a while as well as a couple 500 buck cars before that. I left the title signed in the glove box and the window was stuck down on at least one of them. Could someone have stolen it? Sort of but not really as they would have had the title. Now, my Porsche 928 stayed garaged and under a cover in the garage and came out only on beautiful days and was only ever parked in secure areas, had an alarm, low jack and was well insured.

My low res images are like the cheap Hondas. Can people take them? Sure. Would I rather they didn't? Yeah. Is it a big loss for me if they do? Not so much. The high res versions stay covered in the garage.

I love how my words are twisted. Anyway...

There are people working on the problem by educating people such as this article:

http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/33098/How-Not-to-Steal-People-s-Content-on-the-Web.aspx

"The thing is, sometimes marketers get a little protective of their stuff because there are less than scrupulous people out there who take content and then try to pass it off as their own. All that hard work, and none of the credit. Not cool!"

@Marlene, after twenty years of painting and hand embroidery, I am with you.

To-Tam

Good article, Edward. Thanks for posting the link to it.

I love how my words are twisted. Anyway...

No kidding Edward!


JC,

At Flickr and on Google images, both entities make it clear to a surfer that the image they are looking at "may" (in the case of Google) or "is" (in the case of Flickr) covered by copyright protection. On Flickr you have the choice as to what license you want applied to your images and if you chose copyright-all rights reserved, Flickr will post this right beside the image along with a link to the definition of what that means.

It would be nice if FAA did more to inform the public of this in the same manner. When I look at any image in an FAA gallery, I see a public link to embed the image on a blog or website, but I do not see any place where FAA makes it clear to me that this image is copyright protected by the artist. On Flickr it is place right beside the image.

FAA offers the watermark, but then does not make any "real" effort to let the buyer know that the "mark" will not appear on the final print.

Dan is right. If the public surfing the internet does not see any difference between an image where the artist is concerned about copyright vs the artist who is not, they are likely not going to think twice about copying/pasting/using/screen-shot that image and I would not blame them.

I am not saying it is FAA "responsibility" or their "fault" (as some who are not really comprehending are suggesting) if an image is "infringed". I am simply saying that FAA could do more, very easily, to put more onus on the surfer when it comes to using images without permission. If it is clearly stated beside the image and the surfer uses it without permission, the artist now has more teeth when it comes to actions.

I really do not think many artists care that much about low res images being used on blogs. What I and probably others would care about more, is the fact no one asked first. And how can artist expect surfers to think to ask first, if our images do not in some way stand out as being "different" than other public images on the net?


EDIT - FAA assures the artists in the TOS that they retain copyright on images uploaded. Why not take the next step and inform the "public" of the same status?

It seems to me the big commercially successful photographers are still making lots of money and are on the internet and galleries like FAA, Anne Geddes for one. I wonder how many have copied her work from the internet and other sources - probably too many to count. It has probably helped more than hurt her business!

This thread reminds me of complaints made when using Pinterest, making sure the FAA gallery, their name, the name of the print is in two places for the image and amazed when some or all of the information is removed for different reasons. Who cares about those who remove everything, there will still be plenty who don't. I remove some of it if it has too much information so it can be more visually exciting because I have art to sell.

not worth it anymore. Dan wins. Artists have no rights when it comes to their images online.

I would love to see the day when one of Dan's images with his name, end up on a blog without permission, promoting a radical idea he does not agree with. What would be the reaction then? Oh well that is the nature of the internet..... copy/paste away? I doubt it.

Dan, the analogy is that it's easy to put all the blame on copyright holders for putting their images on web sites where they can be easily lifted. - just as some people assert that women shouldn't be out on the streets at night, and if they're assaulted it's their own fault. The "Take Back The Night" movement asserts that women should have the right to go anywhere at any time. So maybe we need to "Take Back The Web" and shut down these jerks who are selling my photos as wallpaper or using them on ad-supported blogs.

No one is saying it is not wrong, what they are saying is there is nothing that makes sense or is
practical that anyone can do about. The key word here is "practical".

You can bitch and moan all you want but no one is going to protect you images for you to the level some of you
seem to think they should. That is not gong to happen. So the question becomes how much sense or how
practical is it for you to go out and try to police the web?

There are some things that you as an artist has to do to protect yourself. But trying to put that responsibility
on other people is not going to happen no matter how right or wrong you think that is. That is the reality
of life and life on the Internet. You either accept it and do what you can to protect yourself and then move on.

Or you can drive yourself crazy trying to bring every Internet scofflaw to justice. Some people spend their entire
lives tripping over dollars to pick up pennies.

"just as some people assert that women shouldn't be out on the streets at night, and if they're assaulted it's their own fault."

Well Jim, as much as I don't like saying it, that is pretty much true and it applies to men as well as women. When you go out
on the street at night, you have put yourself at risk. The streets you chose will either increase or lower that risk.

Every one of us have read the stories in the news about assaults and asked the question, "what the hell were they
doing walking around in that area at night?"

The only way you can guarantee that you are not going to get mugged is to stay off the streets. I am not saying that it is okay for
the muggers to attack anyone they see on the streets. What I am saying is it is going to happen and there really isn't anything anyone
can do about it accept stay off the streets. Horrible fact of life, but it is what it is.

The law enforcement community can only do so much, but the fact is every single day people get attacked on the streets.

Now apply that same brutal truth to putting your images on the Internet.

Personally I would rather see our legal system concentrate more on keeping our streets safe then protecting artist's images on the Internet.

Choice is our greatest freedom. Google search bots do not ask for permission to post a copyright work . There should be an option to not have copyright images posted on the web.. The web is cottaging intellectual properties.people are stealing the works all of which boils down to the web not being in the best interest of some properties.

Charles,

I agree with Dan, Bots knowing when to pick up images or not to pick up according to copyright, it's not what the web is designed to do, all the "legal" rights may bring complications that it would cause it to no longer have the access it now employs. In other words, bots not being able to "discern" then let's have no bots, no internet or sharing pared way down!

Ms.Powers; Good day to you.
There should be an option that controls the search bots as in not this item. Don't forget google is a registered corporation and therefore is subject to copyright legislation. The information google posts on their site is used to generate income for google. The internet is not free. There are no free rides. The web has become nothing more than a sales catalog.

Bots could easily read the metadata in JPGs and ignore them if they're copyrighted.. Google could make that happen next week, if they wanted to. Or, they could give us a way to tag our images, using an existing metadata field, to indicate whether we wanted them indexed. Google won't do anything like this unless and until they're somehow forced to. And of course there are other search engines in the world.

But it's not correct to say that things can't change. Governments could, for example, declare that indexing by search engines is a violation of copyright. Again, the real barrier isn't technical or legal - it's Google's limitless greed and enormous lobbying power.

Perhaps the question is whom do you want to control your art? If your art is on the web how much control do you have over it.

Late coming to this thread, but that really doesn't matter because the OP and much of what follows is cliched, boring, and been previously said a billion times. Definitely a thread not worth following.

Concerning the BOT suggestion... as soon as that is implemented you will see a flood of scammers that put up their images.. let the bots find them, then add the tag that tells bots to ignore this image, then start a lawsuit claiming that google took their image without permission. And really why would you want Google to ignore the images that you are trying to sell? How do you think most customers find your images?

Just going with my own flow here...

I quit worrying about it for the most part except when an image is used for any reason I don't condone. For example - One of my images has been used on a political blog that has denounced another major country. I don't sway to the blogger's political ideology and I don't want my image used for his political agenda. It's my image and I have the right to ask him to take it off his site. The watermark was stripped and the image goes to no-where. I contacted him twice and nothing...

I wrote to Google who wrote back with - In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have completed processing your infringement notice. We are in the process of disabling access to the content in question at the following URL(s): xxxxxxxxxxx. The content will be removed shortly.

This guy infringed on my right in more than one way... he used my image without asking AND for something I am totally not in favor of... I noticed today it has not been removed by google and so I replied to their last email to let them know it's still up, and asked will it be taken down soon - I received their email at least 2 weeks ago...

It's going to happen. I've decided to pick my battles wisely... out of all the ones I see with either my art or photography, I chose to go after this one. I probably wouldn't have if he wasn't using it in a manner that goes against my grain. Why? Because it's going to happen and we can't stop everyone... so I choose my battles wisely.

Heck, I'm even considering a Pinterest account which I have been completely against in the past...

--Donna Proctor

The web was created to share information and ideas. Google would like everything to be free including copyrighted works so they can use it to show advertising and profit from it.

You are confusing the fact that somebody can do something with the other issue of if it is ethical, legal or moral to do so. Those are different issues. The ability to commit theft or murder does not excuse the act. The ability to "borrow" change from your mother's purse without telling her nor intent to repay, for example, is an issue that most children understand is wrong. Confusing the issues by ignoring relevant dimensions is childish, and excuses and even encourages immoral behavior. Example: He shouldn't do hard time for stealing that car, because it was an older model without electronic theft protection! Instead, it's your fault for parking that restored historic vehicle in a park and ride for your daily commute!

Please explain how the common man can use the internet for publicity, while still getting revenue for his work, rather than just telling folks to accept the losses of revenue from license infringement. I'm sure your position has a practical up-side, but frankly, all you raise to mind is the down-side.

Gregory... so far I do not think anyone is condoning "infringement" only discussing if there are any practical things that can be done to prevent it or police it. When discovered whose responsibility is it to "go after" the infringer.

I think we are getting caught up in semantics...

Your are free to post images along with a statement of copyright. But there is no mechanism to prevent someone from copying them. Copying an image that is copyrighted is still infringement.

Dan can correct me if I misread his original post, but "free from royalty" refers to the internet itself not the content that you put on it.

You can be charged to have access to the internet, but no one can collect a "royalty" from profits that you may earn by using it.

"Dan can correct me if I misread his original post, but "free from royalty" refers to the internet itself not the content that you put on it."

That's correct, Bob. The statement couldn't be more clear. People around these parts are a little touchy whenever anyone mentions free. They immediately assume a personal attack and "something has to be wrong somewhere!"

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

Mr. Galka: Good day. Why buy art when one can get it for free on google? It's like paying for freeware. The artwork posted on google is not all thumbnail size.
Mr. Sweek: Good day. Have you checked out the QUO board.or QUO Computer’s latest maxQ2 computer.
Lanier in some ways is too far ahead of the current technological curve ,especially when it comes to 3d printing verse traditional manufacturing. Anyone familiar with metals will tell you that 3d printing material does not have the strength of certain specifically machined metals- there are some parts you just can't print.
Also with ownership comes responsibility. Say you wanted to buy a pacemaker . You would not want the cheaper knocked off version and unless you were very familiar with pacemaker design
you might not know the difference until it is too late. Also Lanier talks about checking the super computer networks control and government intervention. The super computer networks control the governments these factions are not going to check themselves,it would be against their own financial interests.
Funny in the case of Adobe for an example, their programming is copyrighted, but you never see it posted on google, makes one wonder if their copyright is in someway special?
As far as paintings go on the web, sure not many have the time to copy a posted painting, but they can be used in other ways- digitally.
I can't understand how any website can be free of the restrictions of royalty, which is like saying a website is free of copyright restrictions.

"The reason you continue to bring up the realities of the internet is to bring balance to the various views being held here at FAA. Because of your work as a graphic artist you have a pretty good grasp of the internet culture and how it works."

Suzanne, thanks for your comment, you are exactly correct. People are fearful, and I want them to know that there is no need for fear when it comes to their low-rez photos on the net.

Low-rez images are pictures of their products, they aren't the products.

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

Donna, that is why I adore you...you re wise enough to pick your battles....and you are a veritable Spartacus, girlfriend!

Mr. Turner; Good day. Low rez are pictures of products not the products. Resolutions can be modified and who from a low res image would know the difference in the hacked object?

Charles, there IS a market for low-end crap. Crap IS a style. Do you suppose people's low-rez art is being used in the fashion you describe? Probably.

A lot? Enough to worry about? No. If it was, we would hear about it. That sort of thing is not an issue. At least not today.

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

Mr. Turner: So ... Isn't once too much?

I was able to download my work from google and double the size and resolution with the downloaded object from that of the original psd file. This issue is very common especially in regard to portraiture photography and then there is the poster market.

Dan, Didn't you get the MEMO? WE are ALL PRODUCTS to be MANIPULATED.

Charles, honestly, if that is of major concern to you, get your work off the internet today. And don't put up any new images.

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

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
Kurt Vonnegut

This is an interesting thread. I can understand why people have such passion around the very thought of others lifting their images without compensation. I really hate it myself.

I can't find anywhere in the thread where Dan said he condones it. Or that he's throwing his hands up. What he is saying is that its a reality that we can't change. Since that's the case how much time, energy, and money are we willing to spend to fight it? Where do you draw the line? How are you going to deal with it? These are good questions and there is no blanket answer to them, no one size fits all.

A hard fact is that if they are taking the image (and it IS theft. Theft of potential income. Use of the term "infringement" is simply legal semantics. But from this point on I will use the term infringement) they weren't going to pay for it to begin with. Just like illegal downloading of copyrighted music and movies, the intention was never to make a purchase. What the RIAA and MPAA learned from chasing this issue was they spent a lot of money and lot of time only to give themselves a black eye because of the little people they were going after, for what amounted to very small losses. They backed off. Again, that doesn't make 14 year old Johnny right for downloading music without paying for it, but the entire legal battle raised by the RIAA and MPAA turned out to be a waste of resources for very little gain. And think about it, these organizations have deep pockets and they didn't really win the battle. How many artists on FAA have that kind of capital?

As said above, pick your battles.

Good thoughts Floyd.

Mr. Turner: I'm free to do as I please, as are you. A pod site has it's uses , pro and con. If one has a heavy investment in software a pod site is a great way to share work among friends without jeopardizing one's computer system.Also anything posted on the web will in 90% of the cases, be dismissed by art directors and never used commercially- a common industry practice. Realistically, an individual selling art on a pod site that individual does not own, is not a good investment, especially when compared to other investment alternatives.
Copyright infringement on any level should always be a major concern. Trademark infringement is a felony. Telling me to "get your work off the internet today. And don't put up any new images.", as you stated, is poor advice on your part.

Charles, you appeared to be stressing and preoccupied with the potential abuse of low-rez images. If that's the case, my advice to remove your work from the internet, and thus yourself from the situation, was excellent advice.

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

"I can't find anywhere in the thread where Dan said he condones it. Or that he's throwing his hands up. What he is saying is that its a reality that we can't change. Since that's the case how much time, energy, and money are we willing to spend to fight it?"

Very well stated, Chuck, thanks for your input.

The strategy for artists is to understand the system and make it work for them. Being preoccupied with low-rez image infringement or changing the way the internet works takes away from productive time.

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

"Leave it to Charles whether or not he should worry about low-resolution images. You don't, fine. And the advice of removing ones work and oneself from the situation is the authoritarian rule and argument. Luckily, in a democracy, it's not a prerequisite to stop taking part in a society and remove oneself from it if one has a critique on an aspect of that society. That's what choice is about. Your advice is not about choice, it's about the lack of choice."

Everything is a choice Philip. But not every choice we make is going to reap results that are always in our favor. When we put up our images up on the Internet for all to see, we already know, or should know that they are now vulnerable and can be easily exploited. That's one choice. Another is simply not to put them on the Internet. They both have advantages and disadvantages. You have to weigh out what risk you're willing to accept. Critiquing either choice is not going to change the fact that displaying images on the Internet makes them subject to infringement. Doesn't matter if its a democracy. That part doesn't make the bad people go away and no amount of ranting about it will either.

This is sort of like deciding to own a car. In the US a car is pretty much a necessity unless you live in a place like NYC or Chicago. You stand a fairly high chance of getting killed in a car at some point. And its expensive to own a car. Yet most us of make the choice to own one because of the advantages. The dangers and costs are still there, and no amount of legislation and safety equipment has completely removed those risks. Yet many people have made the choice not take those risks. In US society that often puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

So would pulling one's image off of the Internet. But that's the only sure way to avoid infringement issues.

Philip, now you are arguing just to argue. You enjoy taking up space and being disagreeable. You have no point.

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

"And another choice on which one can act is to not agree with the possible consequences ( like infringements ) of choosing to put ones images on the internet. To use your car analogy, it's not because driving a car is a risk that one shouldn't have the choice and right to argue for better safety rules and regulations in traffic and cars and that one has to accept deaths caused by cars which could have been prevented."

Philip, I know you don't live in a fantasy world, at least I hope not. Me, I'm a realist. Yes, you can lobby for better rules and better this, and better that. All well and good. But in the meantime, the realty still exists that your images will be infringed, just the reality exists that your chances of dying in a car are high. No matter how many safety rules you can come up with, there are always bad drivers that are a danger to others. Just as there are always people will infringe your images. You can't change that. Not through legislation or by any mutual agreement.

In the meantime, how do we deal with such infringements? Is ranting about it solving anything? Or do we have to take the stance of the RIAA and just learn to deal with it?

Go to the following link and there are about 50 "pages" of threads concerning copyright, watermarks, etc., etc:

http://fineartamerica.com/discussions.html?sort=true&key=lasttimestamp&direction=ascending

The argument is about choice and freedom of choice.

I'm not sure what you are arguing anymore. I don't have an argument against choice, only that you find the option to not participate to be "authoritarian rule", or to be lack of choice. Its not. Reality dictates that somehow we have to deal with the consequences of our choices. One perfectly valid choice is to "stop taking part in a society and remove oneself from it" as so put it. I clearly stated my reasoning about why its fruitless to rant about the consequences of putting one's images on the Internet. But it sounds like you want that choice without having to face the realities of what that choice gives you.

"By looking at the bigger picture. See my 4:37 post and also Jaron Lanier's books about the open content web and its implications."

You're looking for a "one size fits all" solution. Ain't going to happen no matter how many experts publish material supporting it. There are far too many differing interests out there. Everyone is out to protect their own.

No one says you have to give it all away. Many entrepreneurs have made money by giving things away. The trick here is to understand if infringement of small images is really hurting us, or if there is a way to leverage that into something positive. I don't have a good answer to that. But ranting about it won't do anything positive.

"Go to the following link and there are about 50 "pages" of threads concerning copyright, watermarks, etc., etc:"

The topic must be kept front and center, Greg. As you can see from the new threads generated in just the last week, many people new to art and the internet are fearful and upset regarding image use that they didn't authorize.

Education is key to alleviating that fear.

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

"It's amusing that Dan thinks..."

Philip, you have no idea what I think. You're in your own world talking to yourself.

Bob -- hilarious!

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

Mr. Sweeck is absolutely correct: resolution is not the issue, copyright infringement is.
Lukas Films, Fender and Coca Cola all had infringement issues with a website posting low resolution images without expressed permission.
Mr. Turner states:” The strategy for artists is to understand the system and make it work for them. Being preoccupied with low-rez image infringement or changing the way the internet works takes away from productive time. “.
Surely, understanding the system incorporates an understanding of copyright infringement at any image resolution. This is a main concern for any artist and their clients. Making a criminal act work in one’s favor makes one a criminal thus nonproductive and or preoccupied with crime.
Telling a judge in a court of law the infringed image was low resolution isn’t going to help one’s case.
People change how the internet works constantly.
Anyone can look at the court cases and settlements on copyright infringement- these are statistical facts that point out rampant abuses and criminal behavior. Mr. Turner may turn a blind eye to this behavior , but it does not make the practice of infringement right. What would Mr. Turner say to someone infringing his “Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online “? On the basis that’ it’s an electronic book not a real hard cover bound edition?

No one here has said that infringement is not WRONG. Why are you saying that? That is not the topic of this discussion.

Mr. Galka:Mr. Turner said,"Charles, honestly, if that is of major concern to you, get your work off the internet today. And don't put up any new images. "
Reason enough!

Where in that statement does it imply that infringement is not wrong?

Mr. Galka: It implies a major concern.

OK.. so I hereby state I think that copyright infringement via any means is WRONG.

But now I guess that will lead us to a LONG discussion on what exactly infringement means. When does infringement occur?

"The same technology that created and is the web can also be used to recreate and redesign the web by simply implementing the technology differently so that not only the few that control the web are being rewarded on the efforts and work of the many, who after all are the ones who literally make and contribute to the content creation of the web"

Like I said, the key word is "practical".

Look at the overall size and volume of information on the Internet and couple that with the overall volume of the commerce that is being done on the Internet. To suggest
that the tiny, tiny, miniscule number of artist's images that are being misused is a big enough problem that they should stop the world and get this problem fixed suggest to me that some artist have seriously overinflated idea of their worth and value to the Internet! lol

It isn't going to happen.

I don't care how many safe guards you put on the internet, some one is going to find a way around it. There is never going to be a way to prevent the theft of the images off the net.

Look at Internet security. Target was the latest but how many "big businesses" have had hackers break into their systems? How many credit card and identity theft cases have we had? These security breaches represent millions and million of dollars and billions collectively. Do you really thing any one is gong to get to excited about a bunch of whiney artist bitching about losing a couple of jpegs? That is laughable.

Philip, I don't understand this statement?


'In any case, infringement does not entail putting the responsibility of the infringement on the creator of the infringed work. That's the world upside down."
Are you suggesting that there is some sort of law enforcement agency out there investigating the type of "infringement" we are talking about here? Really?
I don't think there is.

Or are you suggesting there should be if there isn't? I don't think that is going to happen either!

Let me repeat that one word: practical.

To sum up:

1) The internet was designed to function a certain way. It has always worked as designed.

2) Everyone connected to the web has a copy/paste machine. Copy/paste is ingrained in the culture, worldwide.

3) There is no way to prevent copy/paste (or screen grab, cache dive, etc)

4) Most things on the net, including images, can be copied and shared without consequence.

5) Full-rez images that artists upload to POD services are not on web display, but their low-rez images are.

6) There are no cases of artists being damaged from unauthorized copy/paste activity (real, provable damages, not imagined damages).

7) There is no need for artists to be fearful or upset when bloggers or pinners copy/paste your low-rez images.

For those wanting to change the internet, please start your own thread, that's a separate discussion.

Thanks,

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

"What would Mr. Turner say to someone infringing his “Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online “?"

Charles, what I think is already in the book, in fairly large print: "If you like this ebook please send it to every artist, fine art photographer, jeweler, sculptor and gallery owner who needs to read it!"

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

Here's something I just saw:

"U.S. To Cede Control of Internet Regulating Organization"

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/u-s-cede-control-internet-regulating-organization-n53306


Well, that should provide some fodder for future discussions. ;)

hold on...

Hey! Before I forget, Happy St. Patrick's Day! I'd start a new thread, but this is just a quick break.

http://www.jibjab.com/view/fGMjNtsTHJOKQ0ve0ipp

Heh! Break dancing. Now back to the internet and art...

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

"The according to you "tiny, tiny, miniscule number of artist's images that are being misused" is not the big enough problem that I'm suggesting to stop. Such use - if it is tiny - is merely the symptom of the disease."

No where near as much money is being put into research to cure the common cold that is being put into research for cancer, heart disease and other killer diseases.

When looking at the big picture, stealing a few jpegs off the net is not near as big a problem on the net as the common cold is to the human race. But no one cars that much about the common cold, again, compared to cancer, etc, etc. The common cold is a medical nuance but it really kills anyone.

So no, they are not going put much effort into solving the problem.

"So no, they are not going put much effort into solving the problem."

Agreed. Nobody outside the industry sees it as a problem. Of the ones that do, I believe the greatest concentration of them are members of FAA.

Thus my timely thread :-)

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

"No, I'm suggesting and *stating* that it's not up to the creator of an infringed work to be responsible for the infringement when the work is being infringed. Clearly the responsibility lies with the infringer."

I am sorry but this does not make sense. That is like saying the thief is responsible for stealing.

As far as I know, this is how it works when something steals something from you. First you have to complain to the proper authority. Then you have to actually prove that some one stole something. You have show where your house was broken into. Or you have tell them where you were mugged and show any injuries, if you have any. Then they investigate, assuming that they are convinced that a theft has taken place. If you have an image stolen, they YOU, the creator has file the complaint with the proper agency. Then you have convince them it was your image and show them where it is being illegally used.

So, yes, the infringement is the responsibility of the creator. At least in that sense it is.

I guess I just don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying you want someone to step up and take the responsibility to safeguard your images, including the low resolution images. What I am saying that with the current infrastructure of the net, law enforcement agencies such as they are, that is never going to happen. And all the pissing and moaning it the world is not going to change that because it just isn't that big of a problem compared to the huge endeavor it would be to do so.

Did you here about the snail that got beaten up and his image stolen by a turtle ???

When questioned by the proper authorities the snail said .... "it all happened sooo fast I don't remember."

"I agree. Which doesn't mean that there can't be or shouldn't be a way to facilitate a compensation for the creators of the images and content on the net. "

This is totally unrealistic. Who is going to track all those thousands of incidence of use and then set the price, track it, collect the money and distribute it.

Look at the music industry. The do a great job when it comes to radio, or TV or other high profile musicians from recording it. But do you think for one minute they are even
trying to collect fees on every garage bad, pick-up band and DJ?

How many artist here have made a YouTube videos and put music to them? How many of them have paid the ASCAP fees? I bet none. How many restaurants and other business are paying the ASCAP fees for the music they are playing in their business?

How many people are loaning there CD's to their friends to copy?

Let me ask you another question. Most people in here think that $30 a year is a lot of money to pay. How much would you be willing to pay to support an ASCAP type agency to try to do the same thing to protect your low resolution images? Let me guess, NOTHING!

.

Mr. Turner: You say:"There are no cases of artists being damaged from unauthorized copy/paste activity (real, provable damages, not imagined damages). "
What about loss of revenue? What about the music, software and film industries artists and their losses?
How is the loss of revenue from a sale on FAA or any other POD site different from the loss of a famous recording artist?
Turning a blind eye to the problem of copyright infringement will not make the problem go away, nor will my taking my images off the internet and not posting anymore as you advise, which in my opinion is pathetic advice.
So lets get to some math. You the author of "Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online", How much money have you actually netted from the sale of your art on line?

“Philip, now you are arguing just to argue. You enjoy taking up space and being disagreeable. You have no point.”---Dan Turner.

Actually, I think the man does have a point. While I may not agree with it in it's entirety; I did understand it, or at least the basis for the argument. But for you, Mister Turner, to castigate him in such a personal and rather ugly way, does nothing to add to your credibility.

“Edward, I ask you once again to please refrain from using 'thief' and similar words when you mean 'infringement.'”---Dan Turner.

And in this case you have insisted that you KNOW what the man MEANT to say.

How dare you sir! Mister Turner, I posted a comment regarding your postulation that “The Courts” have decided that what you said was true.

I was careful to point out for you the flaw in your own statement, and invited you to correct it.

Let me say that when, and/or if, someone uses my copyrighted images without benefit to, or compensation for, me, I consider that person a THIEF! Plain and simple.

Mister Turner: For you to ignore my particular concerns with your attempt to decide what terminology is, and is not, appropriate---and has been “decided by the 'courts'”---brings into question,for me at any rate, your lack of attention to detail.

I would very much appreciate your adding evidence for your postulation as to what “The Courts” have “decided”.

As to the term pirate? People that market counterfeit goods are widely accepted as “pirates”.

See definition number four here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pirate+?s=t

Walter, you can not prove a negative. There is zero case law on the theft of low resolution images. If there was,
it would have been posted here a couple thousand times already! lol

To get a case to court you have to have damages and be able to prove them. How, pray tell, are you going to prove damages?

How many people here have records where you can prove the value of you low res images? Even if you do have those records,
how are you going to prove the theft actually hindered sales or preventing you from selling the image more often they you did.

The courts have basically said they don't want hear these cases. Most attorneys give a free consultation. Philip and the rest of you
that think that this is such a dastardly deed should go get one of those free consultations.

Not every violation of the law, even obvious ones, end up prosecuted or even adjudicated. Again, that is just not "practical". And
right or wrong that is the reality of life.

If you are Paul McCartney or Curtis Publishing (Norman Rockwell), the body or work has recognizable value and you probably have the
juice (money to pay high powered lawyers that are "connected') then you may stand a chance.


McCartney has an exact, established value of his music and the copyright of other people's music he owns. Curtis has years of records
establishing the value of the Rock Well name. And they have million of dollars they can afford to blow on lawyers.

If you are Joe or Jane Doaks or Pete Kiniple, selling on FAA or your own website, and you lose a fee jpegs of no set value, you got nothing.

Some one else stated with the mugging analogy so think of it this way. If you go the police station and file a complaint that some one stole your
iPad when you left on the table in Starbucks when you went up for your free refill, that is a legitimate complaint and with out a doubt against the law.

Now, if the guy behind you files a complaint that he was robbed a gun point, beat half to death and left for dead, and the gal behind him files an attempted
rape and the next person reports a hit and run that killed some one in a cross walk.... how much attention do you think they are going to give you iPod theft?

There is no need for artists to be fearful or upset when bloggers or pinners copy/paste your low-rez images.

Dan, this is simply your "opinion" and nothing more than that. You may not be fearful or upset at others doing this with your images, but how does that give you the authority to "claim" that all artists should feel the same way as you?

In the example that Donna gave earlier, does she not have a right to be upset over how her image was being used and associated?

As far as the low res image simply being "photos of products and not the actual products" and therefore open to be copied and pasted all over the web, try doing that with a product photo of a major brand and find out what happens. I don't mean a product photo sold as an art print, I am talking about taking a product photo of a major brand and attaching it to a blog where an idea and sometimes other products are being promoted where the blogger is making money from ads. The use of an image in a blog is commercial use, when being being used to promote a product, brand or idea. It does not matter whether a low res image is being used or not, the artist should have a right to compensation for their "copyrighted work" being used in that way.

For an artist, the images are a part of their brand and the same goes for the low res "product images".


EDIT - Just because people are copying/pasting "copyrighted images" now at their hearts content, does not make it right and it does not change the illegality of it.

If there was nothing wrong with it, then why would Google and Flickr go out of their way to warn surfers against it?

What is so hard for you to understand that when you put your work on the internet you too are partially to blame just buy putting it there.

You have choices, if you chose to do anything take any action at all, any reaction good, bad of indifferent to that action is in part your responsibility.
Obviously not in a criminal sense but if you had not acted there couldn't have bee a reaction.

"There doesn't need to be any economic value or motive in order for the images to be protected by copyright law. " Then what the hell are you protecting?
Phillip, Dan is correct. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. And the law never has nor will it ever enforce morality. That is just nonsense.

" it's about the open content "free" web and whether or not it is a valid and sustainable system from an economic and social point of view."

Again, more argument for sake of arguing. Either that or you have totally lost it. The web IS valid and it is sustainable regardless of how many jpegs are stolen
or any other crimes are committed.

Go back assault and mugging analogies. If guy gets mugged or murder in shopping mall, does that make the mal invalid or unsustainable?

Come on Philip, get real. No one is saying that staling low res or anything else is right. What we are saying is that until it becomes a big enough problem to be
seen as serious damage to an industry or an individual, no is going to do anything about because it is just not ... get ready.... here come that word again...

PRACTICAL!

It is what it is Philip... you have to come to terms with it like it or not because you really have no other "practical" alternative.

Almost everyone knows a lawyer or two well enough to have a off the books (unbillable hours) conversation. Ask them their opinion.

Rogers vs. Koons
Case
Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rodgers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.
Outcome
The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Roger’s work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers.

The $8,000 Mistake That All Bloggers Should Beware
http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary


Goodreads was just sued for $150,000 for a photo of an obscure boy band that a user uploaded to their site. $150k for one photo is unreasonable, unless it’s the first photo of a celebrity baby.

PRINCE IS SUING FACEBOOK USERS AND BLOGGERS FOR $22 MILLION FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

UPDATE (Jan. 29, 2014): Prince drops lawsuit after online videos are removed.

Charles, that's the kind of half-truths and hyperbole I'm talking about. How does that help us?

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

"What about loss of revenue? What about the music, software and film industries artists and their losses?"

Charles, you are no doubt referring to "copyright math" -- let's have a look at the inflated figures the music and film industries were throwing around until they became a laughing stock:



That's right: Using copyright math, EACH of our iPod classics can hold 75,000 jobs. Or $8 billion worth of songs!

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

Dan,

Are you ok with the sharing of movies and music (files) over the internet, within the same context as what you have discussed in this thread?

Mr. Turner; You said"UPDATE (Jan. 29, 2014): Prince drops lawsuit after online videos are removed.

Charles, that's the kind of half-truths and hyperbole I'm talking about. How does that help us?

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
How is Prince suing Facebook users a half truth? For Prince to drop the suit he had to file it first.
No I'm not referring to copyright math .I asked you as the author of "Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online", how much personel income you have netted(after taxes), from your sales of art online.
Never once did I mention copyright math. Try to stay focused,please.

Tiny, define "same context" with regard to movies and music. It may not exist.

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

Right now, there are three software companies developing image tracking software. Very soon this type of software will emerge and company's like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Leica.... will embed this technology in their products.It will also be embedded in smart phone technology and of course computer editing software. This software tracking technology will enable a photographer to track the location of his/ her images on the web, even if just a fragment of the image is copied and pasted-( you can bet big brother already has this technology).
So in time, less than a year this technology will be in use. It may be a good investment investing in these companies, I am not an investment expert just my opinion.
I am not a lawyer, and giving legal advice on the web without proper credentials can get one sued, but as an observation this type of tracking software will be an asset to copyright infringement legislation. Something to think about. The web is constantly changing. Be aware, don't get sued. I hope this helps us all.

Dear Mr Snyder.

I have no idea how on earth you concluded what you did about my remarks.

I really don't have much time right now so I will invite you to read my statement again.

Mr Turner I am still awaiting your response.

Dan,

You say that artists should not be concerned, afraid or upset with regards to their work (low res image) being used in blogs or shared/copied/pasted around the internet, without consent.

Do you think that the music and movie industry should adopt the same attitude with regards to file "sharing and/or copying"?

The movie/music industry will argue that sharing/copying cuts from profits and salaries to production staff. I know that artists also have expenses to cover when it comes to creating their work (physical and time)


EDIT - the low res image may be what you call a "product image", however it is still the artists work. If used by a blogger to bring in views, clicks or sell products, should the artist not want to (have right to) profit from that use, no different than the movie and music producers do?


**My post has nothing to do with whether either is right or wrong, but about when the creator can expect to profit from their creation**

"...as the author of "Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online", how much personel income you have netted(after taxes), from your sales of art online. ..."



@Charles,

I'd be interested in hearing about that also, just out of curiosity.

Walter, your comment was, "I would very much appreciate your adding evidence for your postulation as to what “The Courts” have “decided”.

My answer was, "Walter, you can not prove a negative. There is zero case law on the theft of low resolution images. If there was,
it would have been posted here a couple thousand times already! lol "

It appeared to me that you were asking for proof that "the courts have decided". And they have by virtue of the fact that no attorney that we
have seen has been able to get the issue into a courtroom. Proving that beyond the fact that no one has posted a example of a case law is trying
to prove a negative. You can not proof the lack of something happening or lack of an action. You can only prove what has happened.

Charles, the cases you are talking about are NOT about the low resolution jpegs we are talking about.

But you have sort of proven my point with the Prince lawsuit. Prince has the money and juice to get the attentions of some lawyer. But it goes beyond the low res
jpeg issue, way beyond. You are talking about music videos or images of an artist that have proven value.

Not to mention the fact that some lawyers will sue a yellow dog if someone will pay the filing fees. Getting a judge to agree to hear it is another thing all together.

"...as the author of "Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online", how much personel income you have netted(after taxes), from your sales of art online. ..."

That is certainly NOBODY 's business except for the tax collector ;O)

"That is certainly NOBODY 's business except for the tax collector ;O)"


Then let's rephrase the question:

Have the tips ("...Seven Keys...") actually helped the person who wrote it? Pretty much a "Yes", "No", or "To some degree", answer.

"Clearly *something* isn't working,"

That's your opinion and the vast majority of the people involved with the net, do not agree. I have been selling a hell of a lot of art on
the Internet for over 12 years. It has been working just fine for me.

How many dead broke college kids are now Internet millionaire and billionaires, damn sure worked for them. The Internet is working
for a lot of people. The internet is working for millions and millions of people that have the good sense to accept it for what it is, warts and all.
It may not be perfect but nothing is.

You remind me of the guy that joins a club or organization that is up and running and doing great and
has been for years and years and then as soon as you join, you want change everything to suite your own needs. When the majority
are not interested in change (if it works don't fix it), then you start yelling foul and throw a little hissy fit. lol

Philip, you have backed yourself into a corner and now you have no way out because no one is going to turn the FBI lose on arresting and
jailing people for stealing worthless (as determined by the system itself) jpegs. And no one is going to force anyone to pay you a fee for
something you can not prove value on. If you want those scofflaws punished, hire a lawyer and go after them. If you want money for those
low res jpegs, send them a bill. But don't expect anyone else to do it for you. That is not going to happen.

You know it but you have argued so vehemently that you can no longer adjust your position to reality. You know that reality as well as I do
but admitting to it now and you lose face.

Good luck with all those law suites! And collecting all those royalties.

Mr. Galka: You say: 'That is certainly NOBODY 's business except for the tax collector ;O)"
Consider the question of earned income through online sales of art a qualifier as to the validity of the authors work relating to selling art on line.
If the author of the book has made a substantial income from selling his art on line, then his keys would be something well worth investigating .
If the author has generated no sales or a modest income from the keys he promotes then the work is a waste of time.

Mr. Snyder: Hello, High or low resolution it's still theft. Courts make no distinction .
Take the illegal downloading of music in Mp3 format which is not wav or flac and is low resolution audio- it's still illegal.

Resolution is not the issue copyright infringement is.!
I can take raise or lower the resolution of any image jpeg posted on the web with a photo editor.
Low resolution jpeg images can be traced from bit map to vector easily.
What do you think your photoshop min/max filters are for?
What about photos lifted from magazines via scanners?

It is a free book. download it, thank the author, read it.. consider the information... accept it or reject it.

Is any of this going anywhere now?

no

yes

Let's refocus. Here is what the thread is about:

1) The internet was designed to function a certain way. It has always worked as designed.

2) Everyone connected to the web has a copy/paste machine. Copy/paste is ingrained in the culture, worldwide.

3) There is no way to prevent copy/paste (or screen grab, cache dive, etc)

4) Most things on the net, including images, can be copied and shared without consequence.

5) Full-rez images that artists upload to POD services are not on web display, but their low-rez images are.

6) There are no cases of artists being damaged from unauthorized copy/paste activity (real, provable damages, not imagined damages).

7) There is no need for artists to be fearful or upset when bloggers or pinners copy/paste your low-rez images.

Thanks,

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

I have never copy-pasted anything. It is because I never learned how to and now after your statements I'm glad I never learned it. Thanks!

Also every species is what it is as a result of it's size and how it can adapt to the pressure it has to deal with in it's immediate environment to survive. So an elephant and a mouse are quite naturally opposite.

I really don't have anything to add, but would like to leave a comment here, hoping Charles will address it, since I haven't been called Mr. Nezhoda in many years.

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

"It is a free book. download it, thank the author, read it.. consider the information... accept it or reject it. "


Bob,

Have you read the book, and if so, was it helpful or not helpful in your online selling endeavors?

Here's my philosophy about this:

There was a little boy who lived in a small apartment on the second floor. Underneath was a produce store that displayed fruits and vegetables on the curb.
The little boy loved to look down and watch people go in and out the store. One day, he saw somebody steeling some grapes, eat them and run.
He rushed down to tell the store owner to put his merchandise back in the store, because people are stealing.

The store owner refused and told him that the fresh fruit attracts many customers and his profits are much bigger than the damage from the theft.

Sorry, just made that up.

Did you guys know that all big retail grocery stores put a 10% markup on their merchandise just to cover theft.
Whatever you all think, there will always be people who find a way to steal from you, unless you hide.
The cheapest solution is to keep theft as small as possible, but focus on sales.


Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

Did you know that most retail theft is by the employees? ;)

Yes, I know that, and it might be the same on the Internet, sometimes I wonder how people can steal that huge load of data without having help from the inside.


Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

"...might be the same on the Internet, sometimes I wonder how people can steal that huge load of data without having help from the inside. "



I'm not sure. Way beyond my paygrade.

Mr. Nezhoda, I approve of your grape analogy and the store owner's conclusion.

And so it is on the web.

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

@Dan

That's my point, in the analog world, people go that far to even pass out free samples. But if you want the real thing, you'll have to pay.

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

I can see the point in Gunter's posted analogy....however, the store owner didn't create the fruit. Just sayin' ;)

Greg, that's far out, he paid for it ........... it is his property, IP or real estate, all of it is property, owned by somebody and therefore can be stolen.
Question is how much do you tolerate and are you sweating the little stuff?

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

"...Question is how much do you tolerate and are you sweating the little stuff? "


I'm not sweating any of it. Haven't found any of my stuff online anywhere unauthorized yet. (don't know if that's good or bad, lol)

Good points, Philip.

“Walter, your comment was, "I would very much appreciate your adding evidence for your postulation as to what “The Courts” have “decided”.

“My answer was, "Walter, you can not prove a negative. There is zero case law on the theft of low resolution images. If there was, 
it would have been posted here a couple thousand times already! Lol ". ---Floyd Snyder.

Mister Snyder it is important to keep the words you quote from my comments in context.

Here is my full comment made on 3/14/14 at 5:47 am.

“So, Dan, you take these words from a * single Judge * and infer, no...insist that it should apply to all cases? 

“Read this part of the judges quote again. 


"In the present case...” 

“You quote a single judge, in a specific case then say this? “And the court system, Tiny :-) 

“The proper term is infringement. Let's use it.” 


“What say we all engage in a game of semantics now? Thief. Pirate. Infringer! As I may assume you are a lawyer, perhaps you could extrapolate on the difference between the three terms? 

I look forward to your elucidation.” …......

Mr Snyder my comment had NOTHING At ALL to do with, (in your words) “...law on the theft of low resolution images.”

I was addressing, Mr Turners implication that “the courts” had decided that words like “theft”, and such, should not be used and that “the courts” have “decided” this.

By the way, District courts in this country make tens of thousands of decisions on a weekly basis. Some of them hold up, and some are overturned. Many are used as “case law” in other cases, which for one that has a basic knowledge in law, knows that while case law carries some weight, it is by far the final determining factor in any given trial.

Oh. And thanks so much for your mini tutorial regarding law.

Aside from a couple of traffic tickets, I once litigated a employment case, Pro-Se. Which was decided in my favor!

You wrote, “To get a case to court you have to have damages and be able to prove them”. While there is a great deal of truth in this statement, it is not always the case.

One need only the filing fee, and and an attorney (or your own knowledge on how to proceed) to file the suit.

I would ask you about this statement you made, Mr Snyder: “The courts have basically said they don't want hear these cases.”

I would ask, “which” courts, and where is this case law on which you have based this assumption.

I believe the Internet as an invention was as import for human kind as the invention of fire.
There will be always a black sheep in a herd, but on the bottom line it changed all lifes participating.

The music scene was mentioned, I happen to know a little about this. It is much more lucrative to sell 1 song on Itunes for 0.99 cents, than having to produce a whole album and manufacture a physical copy.
Once dialed in, and we are close, the recording industry will make more money than ever.

When recordable cassettes came out, people would say nobody will buy the record anymore, they'll just copy the song from the radio.
When video players came out, they said movie theaters are dead, none of that ever happened. Of course, there are always some weak links that are left behind, but they did not generate any revenues worth mentioning in the first place.

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

"Have you read the book, and if so, was it helpful or not helpful in your online selling endeavors?"

Greg, the ebook is free and only takes about 12 minutes to read. Comments are on the linked page. It is the most popular page on my site. I don't have a high-traffic site; I'm very targeted in my approach. Still, the ebook averages about 8 downloads per day and is approaching 7,000. That does not include downloads from other sites (like First Angel).

Most people here know how I make my living. I've worked as a freelance graphic designer for over 30 years, designing identity systems, ad campaigns, internet marketing and websites. I am a former advertising agency president, creative director and sales trainer. Fine art is in that mix. Fully 90% of my business is on the web.

My methods (which are rooted in solid sales techniques) work for me and they work for others. I have formally coached other graphic designers and fine artists, one-on-one, since 1998.

The ebook isn't about making me look good, it's about making my readers look good by helping them sell their art.

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

Good-to-go. Supposedly then, everyone here should download a copy and read it.

Mr. Sweeck

"And another store owner might come to another conclusion and not store his fruit outside or put and employee right by the door or take other measures to prevent any stealing and still sell just as much. Both store owners have the right to make different choices on what they want to do and on what importance or not they want to give to the stealing of grapes. Maybe for the other store owner it is more the principle that counts. Which doesn't mean that that storeowner has to therefore close his store as the only alternative to prevent stealing."

That's absolutely right, but which one is the wise business decision?

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

Here's a link to one of my best selling stock image in use.
Go ahead click and copy, it sells about 10 times a day for the last 2 years. It was used 100's of times, do a reverse search and see for yourself.

I am sure it was right clicked many times, still made me nice money and still does

http://philscars.com/bmw/oil-service/

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

I do understand Philip, I also do agree.
But I will make the decision that leads me to the biggest bottom line, otherwise I would have to become a Monk.

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

A word to Google, since I read statements here that are rather negative about that company.

Do you know how many good things they do, how much they make available for free to us. They photographed half of the planet already, every street, every house. I can look at the house I was born in, which is 10000 miles away, in almost real time, free, and about a 1000 other things they do.
All they take from you is collecting data and advertise to you. Sounds fair to me.
And of course they make cash with their data, otherwise we would not have the luxury to use their service, why would they produce if there is no reward.
A chicken will let you have a breakfast egg for free, but as soon as you put a human between you and the chicken, you will have to pay, that's how our society works, period.
Before the Internet, and still in the present, the U.S Postal Service would stuff the same advertising in my mailbox and I got nothing for it.
The government institutions, hospitals, doctors and direct marketing companies collect data for decades and sell and exchange them. Never a return from them either.
I'm also convinced that somehow analog photographs, art and IP were infringed (Campbell Soup, to mention the most widely known). Of course on a smaller scale, but everything is bigger now.

There are about a million other examples, just food for thought.

We are part of a society, there is always an exchange, not always will you come out on the top, but sometimes, with positive attitude as your tool, support and help for others, and pushing the EGO a little aside, you will get paid as well.

Gunter Nezhoda
CLICK for the most awesome place for artists on the Internet

There is no need for artists to be fearful or upset when bloggers or pinners copy/paste your low-rez images.

Dan,

You say that artists should not be concerned, afraid or upset with regards to their work (low res image) being used in blogs or shared/copied/pasted around the internet, without consent.

Do you think that the music and movie industry should adopt the same attitude with regards to file "sharing and/or copying"?

The movie/music industry will argue that sharing/copying cuts from profits and salaries to production staff. I know that artists also have expenses to cover when it comes to creating their work (physical and time)


Full-rez images that artists upload to POD services are not on web display, but their low-rez images are.

EDIT - the low res image may be what you call a "product image", however it is still the artists work. If it is copied without permission and used by a blogger to bring in views, clicks or sell products, should the artist not want to (have right to) profit from that use, no different than the movie and music producers do?

Another good post, Gunter.

One of my life philosophies, thanks to early exposure to Zig: "You will always get what you want, once you help enough other people get what they want."

@Tiny -- asked and answered, yesterday at 3:16PM.

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

So, in conclusion........



Once again, this thread (topic) has runs its course, and not needed again until its quarterly, maybe only semi-annual, requirement surfaces again. ;)

LOL DAN. You are a hoot!

How about giving YOUR answer to the question, instead of some video where someone else discusses the "mathematics of copyright".

My question has nothing to do with HOW MUCH is being lost or made due to copying. That video answers the comments posted by Craig.

I asked a straight up question, how about sharing YOUR opinion on it?

1. You say that artists should not be concerned, afraid or upset with regards to their work (low res image) being used in blogs or shared/copied/pasted around the internet, without consent.

Do you think that the music and movie industry should adopt the same attitude with regards to file "sharing and/or copying"?

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

2. Do you feel that artists should be paid when THEIR WORK is used in a blog where the author may be paid per click, promoting an idea and/or promoting a product? Does it really matter whether or not the image being copied is low res or high res? Is it not still the artists copyrighted WORK being used? The low res image may be what you call a "product image", however it is still the artists work. If it is copied without permission and used by a blogger to make revenue, should the artist not want to (have the right to) profit from that use?


YES or NO for each will do, but as an artist, it would be nice to see you explain your answer to each question.

Tiny,

Might as well go park a chair in front of a bare wall and talk to it (meaning you, or any of us, are not going to get anywhere). Everyone has expressed their opinion(s), and are not going to change what they believe or feel.



Note to myself: Next time this topic (and a few others) arise............................save wasted time that is not replaceable and participate in different more meaningful endeavors. :)

@ Greg,

It would at least be nice to see Dan actually ANSWER a question straight up, seeing as how he bothered to start the thread. Instead he meanders around them, avoiding any direct responses and sharing HIS own answers.

I am not trying to change his opinion.

Understood, Tiny, but you know it isn't going to happen.



Ever tried to talk to a politician? Ever get a straight answer?

"The most wise business decision is the one that does not turn the acceptance of stealing as being the prerequisite for making more sales."

That is insane! First off no one is doing that. The market place is forcing that on you.

William Randolph Hearst was once approached by his accountants and told that the publisher of his most profitable newspaper was stealing a million dollars a year.

Hearst looked at him them and said, ya, and if he continues steal a million a year, I will be broke in about 100 years.

The wise business decisions is the one that BEST DEFENDS THE BOTTOM LINE. Chasing down these scofflaws that are basically doing no real
tangible harm to that bottom line is not in the best interest of the bottom line.

No "person" is making "the acceptance of stealing as being the prerequisite for making more sales. The market place is forcing it on you rather you like it or not. There is nothing that you can do about it. And that is the big problem for some people. They can't accept that. Well guess what? You have no choice.

How much time do think you can spend tipping this windmill until your sales start suffering? But the first question should be, are your sales suffering because
you lose a jpeg once in a while and can you really verify that?

"I would ask, “which” courts, and where is this case law on which you have based this assumption. "

Walter... there is no case law!! That is exactly my point. You can't prove a negative. The fact that there is no case law
tells you that the courts have basically said, we don't hear it. Not on the theft (and I will use any word I want to) of low res
images.

I would love to see the cases if you know of any please put the link here for all of us to see.

" 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."

A Car is Stolen in the United States Every 26.4 Seconds

And that folks is the real issue here. Everyone agrees that it is wrong for these people to steal images. But the bottom line is, there is nothing that can
be done about it.

Like your car, assuming it is worth stealing, if you park in the street, it is likely to be stolen. And there is really nothing you can do about it beyond the normal
precautions. But a determined thief is going to do what he does to the rate of one car ever 26.4 seconds.

"Mr. Snyder: Hello, High or low resolution it's still theft. Courts make no distinction .
Take the illegal downloading of music in Mp3 format which is not wav or flac and is low resolution audio- it's still illegal."

I am sorry, but that is just not true. Damages and penalties are all based on value.

Go to your local police department and report the theft of tootsie roll and watch how fact you run out of there.

Now go report the theft you a Rolex.

I agree, something should probably be done. I am saying that we are a long way from something happening and it is going to get worse
before it gets better.

Again, you can not compare the music industry to the theft of low res images. We already covered that.

You people that are so worried about image theft should contact western artist Tim Cox.

It was my understanding that a few years back he was trying to get a group of artist together to form
some sort of organization to address this problem. I have no idea how far he got or if it is work in progress
or what.

It was also my understanding that Chris Owens was also part of this movement.

This information came to me from a third party and I never followed up on it so I have no idea how accurate it is.

To answer your question Abbie, no this is not going anywhere. And I am out of here.

Dan;
I do not want to put the net down but there are some downsides worth talking about I feel.

A lot of real current events in science(including medical), politics, criminal and military information is not available directly on the internet. The internet by acting as a sort of replacement for the encyclopedia is nice but the biggest things turning the wheels of the world are simply not available to the general public. One does not have to be a genius to know this. Any dummy knows this as secret codes are the way groups really communicate if they use the web at all. It's a great place for people to get a general education about how to change the oil in their car but that's about it. You cannot find stuff on it that is not old news. It can point to some specific books or events. It is a business tool for marketing yes but the best marketing does not come so free as the more detailed information about many subjects.

The internet itself is very overestimated in value I think. The fact that 12 year old hackers can break into the personal and business accounts of wall street proves the current state of weakness the internet. For example I know some things which cannot be learned of on the internet by anyone because it is information in history not installed anywhere on it. Really important stuff is not put on the internet for many reasons.

@ Flyod,

All very easily said by a gallery owner on FAA who sells Public Domain images. What do you care if a blogger uses one of your "low res" images, they are NOT YOURS to begin with.

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

As far as other artists on FAA, who are selling their OWN artwork, the "low res" image is just as much their work as the "high res" image. If a blogger uses either image without permission then it is reasonable for the artist to expect payment for that use. The price to use the image on the blog as say a 400x300 image is the same regardless of whether or not that small blog image originated from the "low res" FAA display image or from the original "high res" file.

This is especially the case if the blogger is profiting from the blog and/or use of that image. If the blog is promoting/advertising a product, then the use of the artists image becomes commercial. The only reason bloggers would copy/paste an image without permission is to avoid having to pay for it, or they would go to a stock site and pay there.

The same can be applied to a web developer.

Tiny, you need to go take another look.

I have over 550 of my own photographs for sale. There are probably another 500 or so that are not on FAA that are on one of my other
11 on line art galleries. You on the other hand have 18. I would say I have more to worry about and to protect then you do.

Maybe if you would spend less time worrying about something you can't do a damn thing about, you would have more artwork to protect.

I have been a selling photographer for over 40 years. I also owned and operated three brick and mortar art galleries in California
for years and years. I also owned a multi-media company that consisted of a publishing arm, a public relations firm, an ad agency
and graphic arts studio.

I have probably forgotten more about the business side of selling art then you will ever learn. You suffer from a lack of ability to see the
big picture or tunnel vision to put it in two words, otherwise you would have seen those 550 plus photographs in my gallery when you
checked it out. Or maybe you seen that and just chose to ignore it.

Now, as I said before I am out of here, unless some on else would like to take a cheap shot at me....

It wasn't a cheap shot at all Floyd. 85% of your gallery is made up of PD images and I do not see images on "other sites", because right now I am on FAA. I did see the 567 images/photos by a Barbara Snyder, so I am assuming this is a spouse or relative.

Your experience means nothing, when it comes to telling other artists that they should not care about the misuse of "their" images online.

You agree with Dan then, that the "low res" image means nothing and can be shared and copied all over the net with no permission from the artist. And you may be right, there may not be any case law regarding the misuse of "low res" images, but that does not make it right to do. It just means that the average artist for the most part can't afford to fight them.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

As far as other artists on FAA, who are selling their OWN artwork, the "low res" image is just as much their work as the "high res" image and both are covered by the same copyright protection. If a blogger uses either image without permission then it is reasonable for the artist to expect payment for that use. The price to use the image on the blog as say a 400x300 image is the same regardless of whether or not that small blog image originated from the "low res" FAA display image or from the original "high res" file.

To nobody in particular


STOP making these posts personal

Keep to facts and discussion about the topic

Tiny, it's absolutely okay with me if artists want to charge for their low-rez images. They need to have a payment gateway and they need to have their work watermarked to the max:

"This image is FOR SALE.
NO UNAUTHORIZED USE.
Click for pricing."

That won't totally get rid of the widespread practice of copyright entrapment, but it will certainly help keep innocent people from being nailed for infringement -- until someone copy/pastes the clean image from the new site. I trust you can see the problem :-)

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

Yes Dan, the problem is bloggers and other users want access to images without having to take any responsibility for where those images came from. I completely see the problem... laziness and an entitled group of people who think that everything is free for the taking and don't want to pay to use another persons work.

Why pay an artist to use an image, when I can just copy it for free.

If a blogger or web developer want to use an image, then it is the responsibility of the USER to ensure where the image comes from, who owns it and whether or not there is a license to pay for its use. Instead users like this copy/paste taking their chances that no one will ever find out. Then when they are caught by the image owner, it all of a sudden becomes entrapment.

Users call it entrapment because they do not want to take responsibility for their choices and actions.

What difference does it make if the watermark covers the entire image or not and why does there have to be a payment gateway right there with image? Not every image is for sale or available for licensing. An artist may post artwork to the internet for display only and this does not change the copyright status. Maybe that image is available as art-prints only and there is no option to license.

Are you suggesting that just because you want that particular image, then it better have a payment link or the artist should not have posted it in the first place?

Mr. Turner:
"One of my life philosophies, thanks to early exposure to Zig: "You will always get what you want, once you help enough other people get what they want."
Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online
Irronically , you and millions of others including Pablo Escobar, share the same Philosphy.I along with millions of others want to stop having to pay capital gains tax, but the IRS adopts the Mick Jaggar Rolling Stone philosophy:"You can't always get what you want.
Are you a practicing copyright lawyer?

Mr. Snyder: Hello again. So if two thieves break into a garage and one thief steals a Bugatti and the other a Ferrari does the thief stealing the Ferrari get less jail time based on the value of the cars? Say a thief steals a tootsie roll and scans the candy wrapper then uploads the scan onto a porn site. The candy maker immediately sends a C&D letter to the porn site demanding their product image be removed. Does the porn site let the candy wrapper image remain on the site, on grounds that the image is a low resolution image? Does the porn site's lawyer use the low res image factor as a legal defense? Do counterfeiters of currency get less jail time for printing 100 dollar bills on their inkjet printers as opposed to a printing press ? Res of an image does not matter in court proceedings regarding infringement- it is the image that matters. An artist using an electron microscope to capture images sued a company for using his SEM work. The stolen image was a lesser res than the original.Playboy sued over their centerfold images being on a file sharing site and won based on the images in the offenders computer many of which were not HD images.
Would you condone an individual downloading your images from this site and posting them on another POD site for sale under their name based on the fact the images downlloaded were low res?
Are we to assume that images displayed on POD sites in low res are misrepresentations of purchases based on web resolutions?

"laziness and an entitled group of people who think that everything is free for the taking and don't want to pay to use another persons work."

Tiny, I don't see it like that, and neither do you. You know, and I know you know, that the thought process that goes into copy/pasting from the web is exactly the same as cutting a photo out of a magazine and pasting it into a scrapbook or hanging it on a wall. Your mother/sister/brother/family has done exactly that. Does that make them lazy and entitled? Do they think everything is free? Do they refuse to pay to use other people's work?

Get real.

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

“Walter... there is no case law!! That is exactly my point. You can't prove a negative.”

Mr Synder, Once more I invite you to read my posts again. My claim is that Mr Turner has used an example from a single case---quoting a single judge---to say that the theft of these images does not constitute thievery. Only infringement.

I disagree.

Your postulation that “the courts” simply don't want to “hear it” is nothing more than an assumption.

“Go to your local police department and report the theft of (a) tootsie roll and watch how fact (sic) you run out of there.” ---Floyd Synder

I am reminded of the third comment made on this thread, by Justin Green:
“Yeah, lets roll over and give in”.

Stealing a tootsie roll is a crime. Yet it is such a small crime the theft is looked on with a great deal of apathy. No one does anything.

Yet when this kind of theft happens thousands and thousands of times I suggest it is time to at the very least discuss possible alternatives.

I can hear the cop saying now... “Move along folks. Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along”.

Thank you, Charles Cannone. Very well put.

"Are we to assume that images displayed on POD sites in low res are misrepresentations of purchases based on web resolutions?"

Charles, is a picture of a Bugatti a Bugatti? No.
Is a low-rez web image the same as a 40' x 30" gallery wrap? No.

One must come to terms with what one is selling.

What are you selling?

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

Dan, if you get any more honest, I'm gonna rename you Abe!

Mr.Turner; The Bugatti/Ferrarri analogy is in reference to the objects worth and legal consequences of those object's theft.
In the analogy the vehicles were stolen not sold.
It appears you have yet to come to terms with what is being sold. You mentioned a 40" x 30" gallery wrap ( photograph) of a Buggatti automobile. Lets work with this example. Can you show me a stipulation on the Photograph's copyright grant that excludes the copyright of the photograph in cases of low resolution reproduction?

"Dan, if you get any more honest, I'm gonna rename you Abe!"

Marlene, you can call me Abe :-)

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

Charles.... I do not see where Dan has said that it would not be infringement. If you find a case where your low rez image is being used with out our permission you have every right to try and get it taken down. And I suppose you have every right to attempt to sue for damages.

Not sure why you think that Dan thinks using someone's copyrighted image without their permission is legal.

Dave, I fully understand that you don't want your low-rez images used without permission. Lots of artists feel the same way.

But...what's to be done about it? Nothing. Every solution so far is prohibitively expensive or mars the photo beyond recognition. If that's the case, does it serve you and others to continue to be upset?

It seems the more balanced, relaxed, well-adjusted artists choose not to worry about it. Less stress. Longer life. More time to work on things that matter.

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

So, Mr Turner, still no thoughts as to how taking an image off the web and using it without remuneration of any kind for the artist is not theft? It is only “infringement”?

“Charles, is a picture of a Bugatti a Bugatti? No.”

Mr Turner it looks to me like you completely missed the purpose of the analogy. It is the theft that is question, not the value of what was stolen.

And you write, “It seems the more balanced, relaxed, well-adjusted artists choose not to worry about it.”

So you imply that if I don't like the idea that someone would steal one of my images, that if I would like to discuss with others what might be done about it I am “unbalanced”, or perhaps maladjusted?

I find your remarks offensive and uncalled for. As well, for you to continue to ignore my own request for you to speak to the issue of what terminology should be used, regarding these issues, I find puzzling.

So here; without naming anyone personally, it seems you have condemned an entire group of people that do not see things the way you see them. Wow!

Someone mentioned politicians earlier. I have had dealings with several of these people. I have learned that with many of them, when faced with a difficult question, or a question they simply have no answer for, they will diligently ignore the question. They usually side-step the issue, and/or bring up diversions.

They may try to “refocus” the discussions on a point, or points they would rather speak to.

Honest Abe? Why would anyone bring into question honesty on this thread? Marlene, Is it your intent here to imply there is someone here less than honest?

“It would at least be nice to see Dan actually ANSWER a question straight up, seeing as how he bothered to start the thread. Instead he meanders around them, avoiding any direct responses and sharing HIS own answers.” --- Tiny by Nature.

I agree, Tiny.


“Let's refocus. Here is what the thread is about...” --- Dan Turner.

Actually, that is what your OP was about, Mr Turner. I submit that despite your apparent efforts to control the discussion, as well as some of the terminology used, the thread is about much more than the talking points you insist on repeating.

And to address this statement, “One must come to terms with what one is selling. 

“What are you selling?” --- Dan Turner

I will answer with my own question to you, sir. What are * you * selling?

I find it interesting that someone that writes a e-Book regarding * Sales * would give the thing away. One might believe that someone that is an expert on * selling * would offer such a work at a specific price point.

Yet, it is not exactly without cost. In order for me to read his book, Mr Turner requires me to give him my email address.

I am going to have to think about that for a bit. Meanwhile, I searched Google, for how to sell art, and how to sell photography, and this online publication--by our apparent expert on the secrets of selling online--- appears nowhere on the first two pages of my search. Whereas there are several free sites devoted to free information regarding selling artwork/photography online. Sites that do not require me to provide them with my email address.

I am now sad that the thread, Bill Stevens started regarding * new * marketing ideas has now been closed. I have a great new idea as to how one may promote themselves.

A good watch/listen on this subject. Getting tired of Dave's insistence that we just roll over and die.

Copyright vs Universal Access. Describes how universal access is being pushed by parties whom it benifits, and guess what, it isn't individuals.

http://bigideas.tvo.org/episode/140041/cory-doctorow-on-copyright-vs-universal-access

The old joke of course is "We're losing but money by giving it away for free but we'll make it up in volume".

I used to work with salespeople and the easiest way to sell something, of course, is to give it away for nothing. And the worst possible salesperson is always coming to their manager with crummy deals with the excuse that it will lead to phantom future business. Sales people are hired to maximize profits, not give products away.

Free also pegs the product as something with little value. If its free its either has no value or there is some kind of catch.

yes dan, sorry, repeated posts always the same theme. you put your stuff out there it can/will be stolen too bad for you.

Charles, is a picture of a Bugatti a Bugatti? No.
Is a low-rez web image the same as a 40' x 30" gallery wrap? No.

One must come to terms with what one is selling.

Dan, gallery canvas might be what is being sold here on FAA, however the terms you are using are internet wide and not just related to "low res" images found on this site. You have been talking about bloggers copying images from the "internet" not just from FAA. If a blogger uses the image in a blog that promotes a product in any way, it becomes commercial use of the low res image.

If an artist puts low res files online with the intention of licensing them and the blogger copies the low res file with a screen grab and uses it without paying and/or getting permission, would this act now change your tune? If so, how is it any different than a blogger grabbing a 900pixel image from this site, to use on a blog without permission or paying for it?

Is copyright determined by how the image was being sold?

"Free also pegs the product as something with little value. If its free its either has no value or there is some kind of catch."

Ed, if you consider your product to be low-rez web images, then I'd say you are in deep trouble. It is, and has always been, difficult to get paid for those.

If, on the other hand, your products are fine art prints which you sell online, the low-rez images are a necessary stepping stone to that sale.

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

"Yet, it is not exactly without cost. In order for me to read his book, Mr Turner requires me to give him my email address."

Walter, my ebook is, and always has been, free. There are no strings, your email is not required, and the ebook contains no affiliate links. Enjoy.

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

Mr. Holland: You are welcome, sir!
Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

A tip o' the cap to you Dan on this fine St. Paddys. I never thought you could keep the ball in the air on this discussion for so long. With some people getting a simple idea across is like hammering a nail into a stone. You have done yeoman's work here.

Remember the web is not personal use.

Kevin,

Are you ok if a buddy of mine uses one of your 900pixel images on his blog? He just wants the image..... no credit or payment to the artist.

Thanks.

Thanks, Kevin. I like the cut of your jib!

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

Fender (legendary guitars and amps),and Lukas Films (Star Wars), had a POD site -( Red Bubble) ,remove their copyright low rez images. The Red Bubble site,( which is an Australian site , I believe), complied.
You can't legally sell a low/ high rez. Darth Vader,or Fender logo t shirt without licencing the image.
Coca Cola went after a Coca Cola fan based website that was praising their product . It was all low rez images on the site in question and all were used without Coca Cola's consent.
If what News reports today are true, regarding the US giving up its control of the web , well it certainly looks like the Web has changed right under or noses.

Charles,

Posted a link to that (U.S. Ceding control of web...) 3 days ago, but it seemed to be ignored, so here it is again:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/u-s-cede-control-internet-regulating-organization-n53306

Tiny! Nice to see you. Actually I get that request fairly often and yes, I give them permission. Recently a history student was doing his paper on revolutionary War America and asked to use one of my pistol drawings. I not only said yes but sent him another drawing to include in his paper.

i'm with Kevin Bloggers are welcome to mine...

Ed,

Would that depend on what the blog was about, or is that a blanket permission?

I can't speak for Ed but my work is being used on a site for Sheffield knives (they own Barlow) and a wild turkey hunting federation logo, among others. I find it flattering and don't really give a... about charging $50 or $100 for a blog site. I do like credit but if they "steal" it and I don't know... well shrug.

Mr. Jackson: Thanks for the link sir!

I think DT is growing up from gallery owner to the artist.
He is half way to accept artist exquisite right to sell.

I do like credit but if they "steal" it and I don't know... well shrug

LOL

What do you mean .... "don't know"? According to the premise of this thread, it doesn't matter if you know or not. Artists need to deal with the fact that low res images are going to be copied/pasted/lifted for blogs and other uses online.

What if someone copied one of your images and used it in a blog to promote something you did not agree with? Would you mind then?

EDIT - and what do you mean by "steal". Did you read the thread Kevin? No one has "stolen" anything if they cut/copy/past/lift/grab one of your images to use on a blog or website, whether you know about it or not.

"Ed, Would that depend on what the blog was about, or is that a blanket permission?" - TBN

LOL...
Tiny...trick question or a test of my morality?

It's a blanket permission, however i always have the right to try and remove an image on a blog promoting child abuse, physical, sexual or emotional maltreatment of children, etc ...

Not a test of your morals at all Ed. And like you, I would not want one of my images to appear on a blog like that whether I knew about it or not.

I am simply curious as to how far artists will go in support of the idea that an internet user can copy/paste any image on the web they desire, to be used for multiple purposes online, with no permission or payment made to the owner (artist).

Those sites you have listed are illegal.

What about a blog that was not illegal in nature, but just one that promoted something you did not agree with. Would you ask for it to be taken down, or would you chalk it up to it being your own fault for posting the image online in the first place.

If we are going to buy into this premise Dan is suggesting, then it is all or nothing. No?

For those who are still having trouble comprehending what this thread is about, once again, from my first post:

"Adjust your actions to take advantage of what the internet is and can do, rather than complaining that the internet needs to be redesigned to accommodate your control issues."

An incredibly simple premise!

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

i would have to wait and see the blog that i may disagree with before making that judgement, of course we all have our limit to where we will allow our name to be placed... that just seems to be a tactic to get me to agree on some level with the opposing view of Dan's premise... which i agree with.

Self-promotion can be self destructive. Always be sure to read and understand copyright and trademark laws regarding anything you publish.Seek the legal advice of an attorney .
Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

You have made it WAY more than that with other comments Dan. That might be all from your OP, but my word!

It is not as simple as "that".

1) The internet was designed to function a certain way. It has always worked as designed.

2) Everyone connected to the web has a copy/paste machine. Copy/paste is ingrained in the culture, worldwide.

3) There is no way to prevent copy/paste (or screen grab, cache dive, etc)

4) Most things on the net, including images, can be copied and shared without consequence.

5) Full-rez images that artists upload to POD services are not on web display, but their low-rez images are.

6) There are no cases of artists being damaged from unauthorized copy/paste activity (real, provable damages, not imagined damages).

7) There is no need for artists to be fearful or upset when bloggers or pinners copy/paste your low-rez images.


I have been talking lately about #7 and #4, unless you would somehow like to retract those ones?

Then there is even more you have hinted at in this thread, that would suggest there is nothing wrong with bloggers or surfers copying and pasting images they find online for many different uses.

It is not a "tactic" at all Ed.

If you agree with Dan's premise that There is no need for artists to be fearful or upset when bloggers or pinners copy/paste your low-rez images. and you agree with Dan that images can be copied and shared on the net with no consequence, then who are you as the artist to decide where your image can / can't be used?

EDIT - they will not be using your name, just your image (no credit given)

The internet was designed to function a certain way. It has always worked as designed.

Was the internet designed to share music and movie files? Was the internet designed to share/promote child abuse? Was the internet designed to share/promote hate? Has it really always worked as designed?


EDIT - these are not hypothetical questions.

There is no action without reaction.

http://akvis.com/en/magnifier/index.php

Resizing pictures with Magnifier yields a much higher quality than simple bicubic interpolation. Depending on particular needs, the software can be adjusted to produce images that look exactly as required for a given purpose. The program allows enlarging an image to a super-high resolution of up to 30,000 x 30,000 pixels, making a 100 x 100 inch (2.5 x 2.5 meter) poster easily printable at typographic quality of 300 dpi.

Tiny, were automobiles designed to run people over?

You are over-thinking and looking for arguments. It is your nature, but you must understand by now that not everyone shares your sense of obsessive over-thinking.

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

"who are you as the artist to decide where your image can / can't be used? "

Who am i am? i am the person that has the right to NOT BE CONCERNED if bloggers cut and paste my images... i am also the person who has the RIGHT to selectively pick and choose, if i want to, and try to have my images removed from sites that i do not want to be associated with... that's how it works...

It is only over thinking because you do not agree with my statements Dan.

Way to avoid another set of questions.

No, automobiles were not designed to run people over, but then I would not boldly state that "Automobiles have always worked as designed", the way you have made that claim about the internet.

As far as arguing goes.... I am debating this subject Dan. The entire thread from the beginning is highly debatable.

EDIT - the fact that neither JC or Abbie have handed me my butt on a platter in this thread, tells me that so far I am not off track.

Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

Well stated, Ed.

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

Give up Charles. He won't answer a pointed question that may lead to a hole in his "theory".

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

Who am i am? i am the person that has the right to NOT BE CONCERNED if bloggers cut and paste my images... i am also the person who has the RIGHT to selectively pick and choose, if i want to, and try to have my images removed from sites that i do not want to be associated with... that's how it works...

Ed, I actually agree with what you have stated here. The thing is though Ed, there are times where you may not be able to have your images removed. There are certain countries that won't give a second thought to your useless DMCA notice. So my point here is not so much to worry about bloggers using your images, but to not spread the idea that the use of images online copying/pasting/lifting, is simply OPEN SEASON and needs to be accepted as such.

Thanks Dan

Tiny, that's why is said, "and try to have my images removed..."

I understand "try" Ed.

But the more this idea of "free use online" is spread around, the more likely it may be that you are "trying" more often to have your images removed from sites you do not like.

EDIT - all depend on how popular your images are I guess. :)

Mr. Meredith: You wrote:"Who am i am? i am the person that has the right to NOT BE CONCERNED if bloggers cut and paste my images... i am also the person who has the RIGHT to selectively pick and choose, if i want to, and try to have my images removed from sites that i do not want to be associated with... that's how it works..."
The reason "it" works is because of copyright laws. Without copyright legislation you would not be able to effectively carry out your rights regarding your image use.
Permission to use another person's images , rather than simply taking the images without authorization and using them on the public web is a prerequisite that will help all artistic pursuits on the web without violating the law.

So sorry I used the word steal. I realize it was verboten from previous posts. Of course I meant copy and paste but my answer is still the same.

Tiny I wonder if you ever think about cars on the highway? We have big roads and small roads and enough different speed laws to give anyone dyspepsia. Yet we still have people driving over the speed limit, the vast majority are never caught and ticketed. In fact they are out there now driving down a road going faster than the posted limit. Would you have us get rid of all the roads because someone speeds on them?

The reason "it" works is because of copyright laws. Without copyright legislation you would not be able to effectively carry out your rights regarding your image use.

Excellent point Charles!!

If there was no "copyright" attached to the "low res" images, then Mr. Meredith would have zero right to request it removed from any site.

Then again, the "low res" image is merely a "product image" and not the real thing, so maybe copyright does not apply. ;)

Tiny I wonder if you ever think about cars on the highway? We have big roads and small roads and enough different speed laws to give anyone dyspepsia. Yet we still have people driving over the speed limit, the vast majority are never caught and ticketed. In fact they are out there now driving down a road going faster than the posted limit. Would you have us get rid of all the roads because someone speeds on them?

That analogy and question is not even worth debating................. but why not.

No one here has suggested shutting down or getting rid of the internet based on bloggers misusing images that are not theirs. In order for your analogy to make any sense, this is what someone in this thread would have to be suggesting.

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

The fact that some speeders are not caught, does not make speeding any less illegal.

The fact that some bloggers who misuse copyrighted images without permission or paying are not caught, does not make the act any less illegal.

In both cases some get away with it and some don't.

"Would you have us get rid of all the roads because someone speeds on them?"

Kevin, if I am reading the negative nellies correctly, the answer is -- get rid of all human beings.

Let's see someone split that hair. Watch.

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

No Dan. I would not suggest getting rid of all the roads, because the analogy makes no sense whatsoever and is not even related to the topic.(refer to post at 4:55)

No one in this thread has suggested either, that we get rid of the internet, only to control and enforce it, no different than the police control and enforce the roads we drive on (if you want to use that analogy).

When someone speeds and breaks the law they are fined.

When someone "infringes" copyright by using an image without permission or payment, they open themselves up to being sued. (in a way fined) or the hosting company may shut them down (fined).

So no Dan, I will not be the one to split hairs on yet another ridiculous suggestion that we "get rid of humans".

Tiny by Nature: Hello.
What about the notice :" this image may not be copied in whole or in part...", with regard to product image. And least we forget ," What if the product image contains a trademark?
Lets say I purchase an image from shutter stock and place that image in a blog. A blogger copies and pastes the image from my blog into their blog. This is unauthorized reproduction in the case of the blogger.Shutter stock has the licencing rights for the image which includes having that image removed from the offending site.
Just a note on the cost of a C&D letter. Some say it's between 2-3 hundred dollars. It actually depends on the lawyer and the situation. Yes there is a cost for this type of letter along with additional legal fees for research- it can get expensive.

Dan Turner: You wrote:"Kevin, if I am reading the negative nellies correctly, the answer is -- get rid of all human beings.".
Can you clearly identify the ,"Nellies", in that statement.
Oh and while your at it : I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

Tiny sez: No one in this thread has suggested either, that we get rid of the internet, only to control and enforce it, no different than the police control and enforce the roads we drive on (if you want to use that analogy).

Yes but we have laws on the books for speeding, stealing cars (referenced above) AND copyright enforcement. I think Dan's quite cogent point is that short of shutting it down it will be impossible to constantly and diligently enforce those laws. Unless of course you are Disney, Coke, etc. with an army of lawyers chasing your $100 fee for copyright use on an unauthorized blog.

LOL Charles,

I missed the "Nellies" part. I also missed the "negative" part. I suppose anyone who disagrees is simply being negative. :)

Dan is aging himself with the Nellies bit. What is a Nellie?

Nellie is (I believe) a reference to an old nag, a horse. Back in the day many work horses were named Nellie. So Whoa Nellie! was Hold yer horses, or stop.

Kevin,

Yes there are laws on the books for speeding. There are also laws regarding "copyright infringement". Just because a law is not easy to enforce, does not change the fact that it is a law.

I think Dan's quite cogent point is that short of shutting it down it will be impossible to constantly and diligently enforce those laws.

This may be Dan's point of view in order to justify the practice of copying/pasting copyrighted images. However I would suggest that rather than giving in and saying that shutting down is the only option, we find new ways to enforce and stop giving the public the idea that it is OK to copy/paste and use whatever image they find on the internet.

There is more than one solution when it comes to laws being blatantly disregarded. Yes, one option is to simply back off, another option as you make mention of here is to simply shut down the system, or another option is to come up with ways to enforce it better.

It is very similar to DUI. Years ago it was a massive problem here in Ontario. The police and lawmakers had many options. Simply give up and stop enforcing the law, shut the roads down as suggested here (similar to shutting down the internet - insane idea) or come up with ways to better enforce it. Guess what, the police chose the SMART option and came up with ways to better enforce it. Guess what again, instances of DUI are drastically down due to better enforcement and the fear of enforcement.

Same could apply to those who break the law online with copyright infringement. Thing is, those who break the law, do not want better enforcement and do not want to have to think abut fearing better enforcement. :)

Tiny by Nature: Hello, Dan may be referring to:Nellie Bly (May 5, 1864[1] – January 27, 1922) was the pen name of American journalist Elizabeth Jane Cochrane.[2] She was a ground-breaking reporter known for a record-breaking trip around the world in 72 days, in emulation of Jules Verne's fictional character Phileas Fogg, and an exposé in which she faked insanity to study a mental institution from within. She was a pioneer in her field, and launched a new kind of investigative journalism.[3] In addition to her writing, she was also an industrialist and charity worker.
Or maybe not, One would have to ask Dan Turner, however it has been my experience that Mr. Dan Turner is somewhat reticent in answering my questions.

Yes, I believe you have made your point of view over, and over, and over. It changes nothing. Where will the resources come from to do this massive enforcement? It would conceivably cost a VERY large sum of money to protect yours and my low res images. And then to what end? OK so (after enforcement) no one appropriated anything from you anymore. Did you realize any income from your images NOT being used sans permission?

Mr. Callahan: Happy Saint Patrick's day to you. You wrote:"Did you realize any income from your images NOT being used sans permission?".
Yes.

Once again Kevin, you continue to contrive justifications for not enforcing the law, rather than dealing with the law itself.

You are right, it may cost a lot to enforce the internet.

Let me ask you one thing though. Whatever happened to personal responsibility. If a blogger breaks the law by using a copyrighted image in his/her blog without permission or payment, should they expect personally to be held to account?

It does not cost anyone except the artist, to file suit or have a lawyer draft a letter to be sent to the blogger. Now Dan has suggested that this is somehow entrapment and the fault for the image being used illegally actually lies with the artist for having the nuts to upload the images to the internet in the first place.

Sales from the image are completely immaterial, as we are not just discussing images being sold as art prints here at FAA. If I have an image online that is offered for licensing and a blogger copies it, I (the artist) have lost potential revenue.

" If I have an image online that is offered for licensing and a blogger copies it, I (the artist) have lost potential revenue."

Not just doubtful, but impossible to prove. See "copyright math" to refresh your memory on that point.

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

Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

The thing is that there is usually no way to tell if an image on a blog has been licensed or not. So even we could get the courts to "punish" the offender it will still be up to the copyright owner to spend their days reverse image searching all of their images every week or month.

You may say... all image must have the licensing information posted with the image. Having that info posted does not mean that it is true.. again only the owner of the copyright would know. We have seen accusation on this forum before of members "seeing" another members image somewhere on the internet and accusing the person of "stealing" the image, only to find that it was being used with permission.

There regular posts here as well from new members upset with seeing members selling Disney, or Elvis, or Monroe pictures only to find out that those members are licensed to sell those images.

So.. yes it would be a deterrent if offenders were heavily fined for copyright infringement... but who but the owner's of the image know?

If the blogger does not go to the source of the image and pay for its licensed use it is copyright infringement. If the blogger is unable to provide proof of purchase to that license, how is it "impossible" to prove.

Would the burden of proof be on the blogger to provide proof of license purchase, or on the artist.

The blogger claiming that they did not know the image was copyrighted, does not hold water.

It may be difficult to prove, but not impossible to prove copyright infringement and a loss of revenue.

Either way, none of that changes the "law" as it stands.

Tiny.. I still don't see anyone arguing that that isn't true.

You are arguing that we need to do something about it. What are you proposing?

Again, from the very first post: "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."

For the few people who are still in deep denial about that, please present your plan for dealing with the millions of low-rez images shared daily on the web.

Is your plan cost prohibitive? Is is even possible?

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

please present your plan for dealing with the millions of low-rez images shared daily on the web.

What is wrong with the plan as is Dan?

Leaving it up to the image owner, as to whether or not they want to pursue enforcement. Artists suing people who infringe their copyright rights.

You call it entrapment, which means you do not even stand for the current enforcement practices. What makes anyone think you are seriously interested in hearing any other options for better enforcement?

http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation:


"Copyright concerns when creating a web site:

A party is guilty of copyright infringement if they violate one of the five exclusive rights given to copyright owners under the Copyright Act. Included in those rights are the right to prevent others from reproducing (or copying) a work, publicly displaying a work, or distributing a work. As a result, web page authors should take care not to copy the work of others. An Internet service provider can also be found liable for copyright infringement even when they are not directly engaged in the copying of protected materials, as is explained in more detail in the BitLaw section on ISP liability.

Obtaining images for a web page. One of the chief attractions of the World Wide Web is the ability to use graphics to convey information to users. A sophisticated and subtle graphical presentation is the hallmark of some of the Web's most popular sites. The following "rules of thumb" are meant to guide a web page creator when selecting images for incorporation into a page.
Creating original images from drawing and painting programs. The best way to obtain images is to create them in a drawing or other image creation program. In doing so, however, it is best to start from scratch rather than from someone else's creation. Even if an image is significantly altered, the new image may infringe upon the copyright in the first image by being a "derivative work."
Taking images from third-parties. The simple rule is, "Don't steal someone else's images." The moment an original image (or string of text) is fixed on a hard drive for the first time, it is protected by copyright. Any unauthorized copying of a protected image is an infringement of the creator's copyright, unless the use falls within one of the very limited exceptions to the copyright law, such as "fair use." In most cases, it is unlikely that the incorporation of an image into a commercial web-site would be considered a fair use.
Licensed images from the Internet. Some images, such as Microsoft's "Internet Explorer" logo, may be copied, but only if the would-be copier accepts the terms of a license defining the permissible uses of the image. Often such licenses provide that the copier cannot alter the appearance of the image in any way, and may use the image as a link only to certain designated sites. (An example of a logo license agreement can be found on MSNBC's web-site.)
Clip-art Libraries Provided with Software. Other sources of licensed images include clip-art files, such as those provided with Claris Home Page, Microsoft Front Page, and Adobe PageMill software. Incorporating clip-art from these libraries into a page does not violate copyright law, as these images are licensed to the purchaser of the software for this purpose. To avoid liability, however, a webmaster must be careful to obey the terms of all applicable license agreements. For instance, the license may not allow a user to alter the images in any significant way.
Free Images Off the Internet. Some web sites provide images that are for use by others. These images may be used in a web page, as long as the terms proposed by the image creator are followed. Typically, these sites only require that some type of credit is given to the author, including a link back to the author's site. However, there remains the possibility that the images were misappropriated at some point and were not original creations of the alleged author. In these cases, use of the images may infringe the copyright rights of the original author.
Developing text for a web page. The guidelines for text development are similar to those for obtaining images. Truly original text, developed by the creator of the web-site, may be used without copyright concerns. As with images, appropriating text from third-parties without permission is illegal, unless there is some substantial "fair use" justification for the taking. Use of third-party text pursuant to a license agreement should follow the terms of the license agreement. As for public domain works, one should never assume a work is in the "public domain" without independent investigation.
Developing Java Applets, JavaScripts, and ActiveX scripts. Like text and pictures, it is normally a violation of copyright law to appropriate scripting or programming from someone else without permission. Many parties have made their scripts and applets available for use by the public. In these cases, use is allowed as long as any requirements set forth by the programmer are followed."
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation.

" See 17 U.S.C. § 106(5). The concept of display is broad. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. It covers "the projection of an image on a screen or other surface by any method, the transmission of an image by electronic or other means, and the showing of an image on a cathode ray tube, or similar viewing apparatus connected with any sort of information storage and retrieval system." H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 64 (Sept. 3, 1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5659, 5677. The display right precludes unauthorized transmission of the display from one place to another, for example, by a computer system. See H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 80 (Sept. 3, 1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5659, 5694; JAY DRATLER, JR., Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property § 6.01[4], at 6-24 (1991)."

http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html

Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

Gentlemen,

In my opinion, it's time to quit feeding the beast (this endless thread) and let it die on it's own. The only thing being accomplished now is providing entertainment to a select few who are only replying (read: goad) others just for the sake of doing it. No worries, it will rise again. Always does. Have a good evening. :)

"What is wrong with the plan as is Dan?

Are you agreeing with me? All this time I thought you didn't. Is this a trap? I said:

"Adjust your actions to take advantage of what the internet is and can do, rather than complaining that the internet needs to be redesigned to accommodate your control issues."

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

Mr. Jackson: Hello.Information is being provided here that will protect individuals.

Greg, you must admit we haven't had a new "Someone Stole My Images!" thread in the last 48 hours. Coincidence?

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

Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

"You have yet to answer my questions?

What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, Charles? If any.

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

Marlene just realized ( when the word" gentlemen" was used ) that she's the only female present. she tiptoes out

Marlene, not all things are as they seem... this is the internet after all...

Very true

Anyone else want to vote for this nonsense to be made private? It is one thing to propagate it on FAA, quite another to make it searchable and give the OP what they wanted.

Click to the top right of the comment box. It only takes 3 votes to make it private.

One vote to Tiny by Nature.

Well that's not very democratic... there is no vote to keep it public, a minority vote of three may rule...

I didn't make the rules Ed. :) I believe two of my threads in the past have been voted private the same way, with members "conspiring" (lol) in the thread to count votes and for one of them the moderator confirmed in the thread that it only took three to make it so. After the first member posted to make it private, it went viral. It is supposed to happen automatically, but it did not work on my thread, which is why everyone started posting it. Once three were reached the thread was made private by the moderator (manually)

I suggested the same argument as you, but was told it did not matter. :)

EDIT - If I am not mistaken Ed, I believe you were amongst the voters. (I would have to go back and check though)

I don't really care if this goes private or not. Although it might make Dan think twice about raising the same topic again next quarter. The thread starter keeps going in circles bringing the same one sentence from the OP back every now and then. Meanwhile much more has been said since.

The whole thread is going in circles now.

I am done. Going to watch some Grimm with my amazing wife :)

oops.

" Although it might make Dan think twice about raising the same topic again next quarter."

How so?

I think extinguishing the fear surrounding low-rez images on the web is a good thing. Naturally, it may take more than one thread :-)

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

LOL. Believe it or not Dan, I like having discussions with you. You are great at this (have a way of getting under the skin without really trying) and you do not resort to name calling. I hate it when debaters resort to name calling.

Maybe some day your view of the internet will be reality. I think that would be bad for artists online as a whole though and I can see more artists choosing to work and promote locally.

I can see your view of the internet happening, heck it is slowly happening before our eyes.

Have a great night Dan. :)

Au revoir, Tiny, please come again.

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

Next time we can discuss the "ethics" of copying/pasting and using copyrighted images that do not belong to you. (and by you I do not mean you....but the corporate you.)

:)

EDIT - if law does not matter and "can't" be enforced, then maybe "ethics" count for something.

Hello, Dan Turner! I am thrilled you finally responded to one of my comments. How kind of you. This is indeed a first!

Now, if you would be so kind as to respond to the issues myself and others have raised?

Perhaps a summery is in order.

Issues not addressed by you:

One. Why you insist on determining what terminology is, and is not, acceptable.

Two. “Tiny, watermarks designed to prevent infringement are large and can't be defeated by content-aware software.” (Untrue)

Three. “High or low resolution it's still theft. Courts make no distinction . 
Take the illegal downloading of music in Mp3 format which is not wav or flac and is low resolution audio- it's still illegal”. --- Charles Cannone

“Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction? 

“You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here”. --- Charles Cannone



Note: This is just for starters. When you have discussed these issues, I will post others. Meanwhile, thank you for reading, Mr Turner.

“For those who are still having trouble comprehending what this thread is about, once again, from my first post....”---Dan Turner.

So; are we to understand that those that question your presumptions, and offer rebuttal, are not capable of comprehension, Mr Turner?

I happen to agree with, Tiny by Nature: “You have made it WAY more than that with other comments, Dan. That might be all from your OP, but my word! It is not as simple as 'that'.”

One may suggest you be more careful when opening a can of worms, Mr Turner.

Oh, and as to this? “You are over-thinking and looking for arguments. It is your nature, but you must understand by now that not everyone shares your sense of obsessive over-thinking.”

Is this not a personal attack? What exactly do you mean when you suggest you know so much about Tiny's “nature”.

Over-thinking?

“Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.” --- Bertrand Russell

It is my belief that you would fare much better, Mr Turner, if you would refrain from such “suggestions” you have made, and instead merely address the many points brought up that you have not addressed.

Here is a question that I have seen asked many times. I believe the question was addressed to you, sir.

“Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?”

So far, the only response I see from you is this: “What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, Charles? If any.”

Far be it from me to answer for, Mr Cannone. It is certainly not my place. I am confident that when he returns he will address that in his own way.

Yet, as this is a discussion among others, I must offer my own thoughts.

What conclusion(s) I may draw would be mere speculation. Sorry sir, but I am not here to speculate. I may only ask that you carefully elucidate for the other participants here what exactly you mean by this statement.

Why is it you seem to avoid the question? In your own words, please.

“I think extinguishing the fear surrounding low-rez images on the web is a good thing”. --- Dan Turner

Sir, I will refer you to the portion of the quote from Bertrand Russell I just posted regarding, “comfortable habit.”

You may be very comfortable (perhaps a bit too comfortable?) with the infringement (aka theft) of low resolution images on the internet, Mr Turner, but there are those here that are not.

What was it that Kevin Callahan said? Oh, yes. “With some people getting a simple idea across is like hammering a nail into a stone.”

In my youth I worked construction during summer vacations---except of course the summer I worked on a shrimp trawler---and I learned it was very easy to hammer cut nails into concrete. Never tried to hammer one into a natural stone, but one might assume this would be as easy.

Which of course give me a great idea for a short video. I will run down to Home Depot and pick up some cut nails and hammer them into some concrete, and a few different rocks/stones.

Thanks for the idea, Kevin.

It is actually legal to download music and images on your computer....for personal use only

Where is it legal to do that Abbie? (downloading music for personal use). According to this law, does it have to stay on the computer?

Dan, has not been talking about personal use though. A blogger using a copyrighted image to promote their blog and the content, is not personal use. A website using a copyrighted image is not personal use.

Abbie,

From everything I am reading right now regarding "downloading" music for personal use, it applies to digitally creating a copy of a CD YOU have purchased for yourself and not "downloading". It does not apply to downloading music from non-legal file sharing sites, where you have never paid for the music. Downloading music from a paid source that is approved by the artist/producer is a different story.

I will post some links later once I find more sources.

Now, as Dan and others have stated in this thread, will you be caught? Will it be enforced? Is it practical to enforce it? Maybe not and maybe not. However, that does not change the law. Same goes with the illegal copying and use of copyrighted images, where the artist has not given permission and/or has not received payment for its use.

EDIT - It is interesting that when I google this topic, most questions seem to be people asking, "Will I get in trouble for doing this?" or "What happens if I get caught?". This is SO typical of a society that is more concerned with what they might get caught doing, more than doing what is right in the first place. (and I include myself in that, as I find myself thinking very much the same from time to time).

You are allowed to make a copy for personal use of music that you have purchased.

An acquaintance of mine just posted this:

"This morning I woke up by getting an e-mail that one of my favorite photos of mine (which is, of course, a photo of myself pregnant), being used as propaganda on a neo nazi/racist/fascist facebook fanpage to promote their ideas... actually the worst thing my photos could ever be used for."

The "low rez" image is being used as an album cover for the band.

Sorry to hear that, Edward.

However, as I understand the stance, Dan Turner has taken, it is nothing to be upset about, fret over, or sweat. The internet is working as it should and we should all blindly accept that!

There is either * nothing * we are able to do about this “infringement” ---aka theft---or it is “cost prohibitive”!

There is a case where the "inernet" is harmful.

Mr. Turner : Good afternoon.
You wrote:""You have yet to answer my questions?

What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, Charles? If any.

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

I conclude via the definitions of copyright law that your information is not accurate in that low resolution or any resolution of a copyright image does not exclude the copyright of that image.
Stating there has never been a court case regarding low resolution images is misleading in that a court will only deal with the copyright image copied - the infringed resolution of the copied image does not matter
If resolution of an image were a concern, then one would have to file a separate copyright for the same image at different resolutions to protect it- this is not the case.

Ms. Shores: Good Afternoon. You wrote:"It is actually legal to download music and images on your computer....for personal use only".
And yet, downloading a torrent file of copyright infringed material is illegal even for personnel use in the USA.

Scenario 2A:
Dick copies and pastes an image from Jane's website without Jane's expressed permission to his own website design. Dick goes ahead and gets a copyright for his website design ,which includes Jane's already copyrighted image.
Question: Is Dick's copyright of his website valid ?
Please note that the copy/paste activity in scenario A2 is web to web based on web image configurations.

Who by now isn't familiar with this cliche, used at some point by every sitcom over the last 20 years: "Oh great! Now that photo of me is ALL OVER THE NET!"

It's a cliche because it's true. Even people with half a brain understand that if you don't want something all over the net, then don't upload it to the net.

That's the reality. Here's another reality: You don't ever hear "What about copyright enforcement? Did you track down every host and send them take down notices?"

Complain, complain, complain all you like. An elephant is not a mouse, and there ain't nothing you're gonna do about the weather. How can the perfectionists and hair-splitters possibly function in such an imperfect world?

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

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idUSBREA2H11220140318?feedType=RSS

Actually in the case of the stolen photo by the Nazi facebook site there was a few things that could be done rather than just throw ones hands up in defeat.

1. Send a takedown notice
2. Report the hate site to Facebook as it goes against their guidelines.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards

Excellent article, Greg, thanks for the link. Some highlights from the article:

"Viacom had originally filed a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube..."

In the settlement, "No money changed hands..."

The judge rejected what he called Viacom's "ingenious" yet "extravagant" argument that YouTube should monitor the content of videos being uploaded at a rate of more than 24 hours of viewing time per minute.

Way to go, Google! (I added that)

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

I don't think anyone, including myself, is saying nothing can be done about in every single case. There are flagrant
and maybe even vulgar cases that I am sure you can problem get law enforcement to deal with.

My point is that nothing practical can be done about it that makes sense except in those very rare occasions.

Therefore you have to be very careful which battles you chose to wage.

I personally don't have the time, nor the inclination to do all of those reverse searches to make sure someone is not
using one of my images. I have better things to do with my time that will result in making more money then wasting
it doing things that basically will not change my bottom line even if I am successful.

There are always going to be the Nazi examples or the case where someone was offended because someone
is using her photo of her while she was pregnant in a way that offends her sensibilities.

But the law is not about defending anyone's sensibilities. Hell, almost everything on TV offends my sensibilities these days.

You have to look at this in the most simplistic, pragmatic way you possibility can.

As it stands right now, it is not practical to run down every misuse of a low resolution image. Not the way the current laws
are NOT being enforced. It doesn't matter what the law is, it matters how it is being enforced.

Look at pot smoking. Years ago thousands of people were put in jail. Today, even with the same laws used to jail those people
still on the books, no one is even being arrested for smoking a joint.

If they were, they would have to arrest 2/3 of fans that show up a San Francisco Giants game.


The problem here is that to many people are trying to deal with the situation as they would like it to be
instead of the reality or how the rest the of the system see it really is. That does not make it right, but it does make it
reality. And somewhere you have to accept reality rather you like it or not.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Her artwork was infringed. She sells her artwork and it was taken and used. On top of it it was used by for an offensive purpose.

All I can see from Dan's viewpoint is that we should all be buying Google stock instead of producing artwork and then go Yippie! everytime they win a new case that allows them to profit off other peoples creative content - music, movies, TV shows, artwork. Everything that is created is created for the purpose of making money for Google.

Mr.Turner: You wrote:"Who by now isn't familiar with this cliche, used at some point by every sitcom over the last 20 years: "Oh great! Now that photo of me is ALL OVER THE NET!" ".
This is not true, in that the cliche you are referring to does not appear in every script of every sit com over the last 20 years. It's another vague assumption on your part and not at all an accurate statement.
You wrote: "It's a cliche because it's true. Even people with half a brain understand that if you don't want something all over the net, then don't upload it to the net."
Firstly you incorrectly assume that clichés are truth. Take the cliché," You are as free as a bird" as an example. No human being is as free as a bird because humans can't flap their wings and fly, believe it or not -human beings don't have wings.
You wrote: "Even people with half a brain understand that if you don't want something all over the net, then don't upload it to the net." "
Again this is a false statement by you as I with my entire brain have thousands of files on my Rapidshare account that only I have access to because of encryption. These files have not been shared with anyone, these files are on the web.
You. Mr. Turner, use vagaries specifically: “if, most “, in conjunction with what you have determined is “reality”. You seem to be confusing your ideologies of reality with facts.
You wrote: "Viacom had originally filed a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube..."

In the settlement, "No money changed hands..." “
My immediate reaction to this statement is:”Who paid the law firms for both parties? Surely, a great deal of money changed hands in this litigation proceeding, regardless of the settlement’s outcome- these were not pro bono lawyers mind you.
One thing not mentioned concerning copyright infringement is that removing the infringed image does not remove the act of infringement. Therefore it is entirely possible for the owner of the infringed image to send a bill to the infringer based on whatever the copyright owner deems the value of the infringed work to be . This bill to the infringer can then be paid or past on to a collection agency. This scenario is certainly something to be concerned with in a copy/paste environment.

I haven't read all 350+/- posts, but even though no one can keep work from being stolen, but the minute an image is created (either in the camera or on a canvas), it is copyrighted and owned by the creator and federal copyright law applies. There are fairly stiff penalties for infringement. If it's registered with the US Copyright office, the artist has a stronger case. But either registered or unregistered, the law is the law.

Whether the print is worth a lawsuit??? Individual decision. Oftentimes, a letter with an attached invoice gets the message across - and if you want to be nice about it, you can tell the infringer/thief that if the image is taken down from their site (of course, this applies only to electronic use) within 24 hours, you will not pursue collection of the invoice amount.

How curious that just before I saw this post, I posed a question about model releases and copyright....

The web is all interconnected. That's the idea. As the article states, "Content providers need a Google to filter material, and Google needs content to attract people to its websites."

This thread is not about the obscure exceptions that one can dig up (or imagine) in order to create friction and start arguments. It's about seeing the world for what it is, and using the tools available to all of us to grow, profit and be productive.

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

Google is a corporation. The actions of individuals and how they use Google content is what must be considered for the continued, growth , profit and productivity of the individual.

People sneak video camera into movie theaters and release the movies over the Internet on opening day. Why does the movie industry insist on those warnings that such a practice is illegal?

Can't they see that more people will see their movies this way? Don't they like all of the valuable "exposure" they get from this?

Mr. Turner: You wrote:"This thread is not about the obscure exceptions that one can dig up (or imagine) in order to create friction and start arguments. It's about seeing the world for what it is, and using the tools available to all of us to grow, profit and be productive."
Surely, copyright law is a major consideration every artist should be concerned with. Your discrepancy regarding low resolution images and advice that artists should not be concerned by their use , I find contradicting based on the dictates of copyright law. You say not to worry- I say this is irresponsible advice.

Querstion : Does saying people are welcome to low rez images of an artist work in a public forum ,such as this,by the artists/ copyright owner of the works, release the copyright on those works?
Now that we know that the resolution of an image has nothing to do with its copyright status.

Photographer Wins Big in Copyright Case, $1.6M Big
DL Cade · Nov 06, 2013

gavel

It’s always nice when we stumble across a copyright case that doesn’t lead to wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, rare as that might be. So when we ran across the news that a photographer pulled in $1.6 million in a copyright lawsuit, we just had to share it.

The photographer in question is Andrew Paul Leonard, and he specializes in photographing tiny things. No, not macro photography… think tinier. Leonard captures images using a scanning electron microscope (SEM), and he wasn’t too happy when he discovered that Stemtech Health Services, a supplement sales company, was “using, copying, and displaying” his work on its website and in publications.

Fungal spores photographed with a scanning electron microscope.
Fungal spores photographed with a scanning electron microscope.
That was back in 2008, which might seem like a long time ago unless you’re familiar with how long these lawsuits can go for. Regardless, the story has a happy ending for Leonard who was awarded $1.6M in actual damages on October 11th after five years of taking Stemtech to task in court.

And the kicker here? As we said, $1.6M was actual damages. Unfortunately, Leonard didn’t register his copyright until after the infringement took place, so he wasn’t eligible for any statutory damages at all. Can you imagine how much he would have made if he had registered ahead of time?

(via Photo Attorney)

Image credits: gavel by SalFalko and Fungal Spores by Philippa Uwins

Charles, my posts state very clearly what I think. If you're going to comment on them, please read them without your bias and without your libelous misinterpretations.

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

Mr. Turner: Please indicate precisely any libelous interpretations of which you speak!

Mr. Turner: Again no response. Please indicate precisely any libelous interpretations of which you speak!

Charles, seriously? You have this beautiful thread in which to express your thoughts on The Internet and Our Art. Why not use it for that purpose? Let us hear your thoughts.

Then, if you are still preoccupied with my views and what I think and how I choose to express myself, why not start a separate thread to address that fetish? Those have been very popular in the past, as long as you have something worthwhile to say.

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

I have had the good fortune of getting many many thousands of hits on my bronze sculpture "Infantry Cross Rifles". Thanks to the internet it is recognized on Wikipedia and Google.

Mr. Turner: Again no response. Please indicate precisely any libelous interpretations of which you speak!
"Charles, my posts state very clearly what I think. If you're going to comment on them, please read them without your bias and without your libelous misinterpretations.

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

Congratulations, Vincent. Well stated. Content providers (that's us) need a Google to filter material, and Google needs content to attract people to its websites (and ours).

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

Dan you have accused someone of making libellous comments. Please expand on which ones the comments are so we can lay this at rest.



Community Manager
TECH QUERIES OR BUG REPORTS | FORUM RULES | CONTACT US | GROUP ADMINS | TAKE A TOUR | MEMBER WRITTEN TUTORIALS
Members may use signatures on their posts using ONE link

Thank you Dan!

Ok everyone. Yet again this is too personal

Take it back a notch and JUST talk about the topic and NOT each other

Dan, please take note of my last post

Mr. Turner: Again no response. Please indicate precisely any libelous interpretations of which you speak!
"Charles, my posts state very clearly what I think. If you're going to comment on them, please read them without your bias and without your libelous misinterpretations.

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

Abbie,

3/14 7:08 -- "...rampant abuses and criminal behavior. Mr. Turner may turn a blind eye to this behavior...
Attempted libel.
Attempted misrepresentation of what I've stated.
Attempted character assassination.

3/15 12:16 -- "[Mr. Turner] Turning a blind eye to the problem of copyright infringement..."
Attempted libel.
Attempted misrepresentation of what I've stated.
Attempted character assassination.

3/18 12:20 -- "I conclude via the definitions of copyright law that your information is not accurate in that low resolution or any resolution of a copyright image does not exclude the copyright of that image."
Attempted libel.
Attempted misrepresentation of what I've stated.
Attempted character assassination.

"it has been my experience that Mr. Dan Turner is somewhat reticent in answering my questions."

Gee, what a mystery as to why that is, huh?

I keep bringing this thread back on topic, and have done a fairly decent job of ignoring the personal attacks.

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

Charles, if I am already asking Dan a question then I expect you to stop posting and wait for the answer

You have now been answered. If either of you wish to take this further contact me OFF the thread, in private

I want this laid to rest now here



All of you, off personal comments and JUST keep to the facts as you see them please. That does not mean the facts as you see them about another member

Philip, here we are in a moderated forum, so we play by the moderated forum rules.

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

and that means you also Philip!


Do not flame, abuse, or insult another user Arguments that go beyond reasonable debate will be removed from the forum and your membership could be be suspended or removed. This includes NAME AND SHAME for any reason
Please catch up by re-reading the rules http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080

Mr. Turner: Again , I present the question: Where in a copyright agreement is that agreement's exclusion in the case of low resolution reproduction?
You have yet to answer my questions? Please answer the one I have posted here.
Thank you.

It seems that everyone here has pretty much agreed to disagreed.

When any thread on the net ends up in that situation, it always turns personal.

At that point someone should stick a fork in it. That was about 250 posts back, imho.

Abbie is much more patient then I am.

However, I am going to ask a question that would be interesting to see if I can get a straight answer to.

How many people here have ever sold a low res image and if so how much did you get for it?

Funnily enough I have. I sold a 250px x 250px image a couple of years ago for a blog

I charged $10 and got it

I told them they had unlimited time on that image and could use on any blog or website they wished

The blog lasted about another year and I didnt see it again.

Thing is, someone knew it was my image and paid for it

No contract as I had the email correspondence as proof


EDIT Yes, I have a lot of patience. However it is not endless :)

Someone show me where someone in this thread has said that copyright infringement of a low res... or for that matter ANY res is legal. I haven't seen such a statement in this thread, but of course I could have missed it.

I have sold low res and hi res images on stock sites. Prices vary depending on the site, the site's plan, image resolution, volume, etc. The most commission I've gotten is around $50 and least around $0.21.

I sell low rez images daily along with thousands of other photographers

and illustrators.

I bought six low-rez images today. I could be one of your customers.

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

Mr Turner posted the following:

Lets just take the first one.

“3/14 7:08 -- "...rampant abuses and criminal behavior. Mr. Turner may turn a blind eye to this behavior... 
Attempted libel. 
Attempted misrepresentation of what I've stated. 
Attempted character assassination. 

First of all, this quote was taken out of context. If I were a member of the jury in the (hypothetically speaking) civil case?

I would first demand to see the entire statement made by Mr Connone.

Here it is!

“Mr. Turner states:” The strategy for artists is to understand the system and make it work for them. Being preoccupied with low-rez image infringement or changing the way the internet works takes away from productive time.

“Surely, understanding the system incorporates an understanding of copyright infringement at any image resolution. This is a main concern for any artist and their clients. Making a criminal act work in one’s favor makes one a criminal thus nonproductive and or preoccupied with crime. 

“Telling a judge in a court of law the infringed image was low resolution isn’t going to help one’s case. 
“People change how the internet works constantly. 

“Anyone can look at the court cases and settlements on copyright infringement- these are statistical facts that point out rampant abuses and criminal behavior. Mr. Turner may turn a blind eye to this behavior , but it does not make the practice of infringement right. What would Mr. Turner say to someone infringing his “Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online “? On the basis that’ it’s an electronic book not a real hard cover bound edition?” /// end quote.

As a hypothetical jury member I certainly would find that this statement made by Mr Connone, is anything BUT libelous. Especially when one considers the statement made by Mr Turner in his opening post...

“Adjust your actions to take advantage of what the internet is and can do, rather than complaining that the internet needs to be redesigned to accommodate your control issues.”

This statement, along with others,(see below) does indicate to this “jury member” that Mr Turner is indeed not only turning a blind eye to the crime, he is suggesting others do so as well.

“Dave, I fully understand that you don't want your low-rez images used without permission. Lots of artists feel the same way. 

“But...what's to be done about it? Nothing.” --- Dan Turner 3/16/14 11:48 pm.

Yes, indeed. It is evident that Mr Turner is advocating turning a blind eye to these crimes.

I've definitely got a few people thinking with this thread! Mostly about me, and some ending up with really erroneous conclusions, but still...kinda cool :-)

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

Legal and illegal are not synonymous with right and wrong. I find (what I read of) this conversation ridiculous. Taking somebody else's idea, tearing the corner off and selling it as your own is wrong, regardless of the legalities. I would imagine a person who does this as being very pretentious, vain, and shallow. They are fighting their own battles and most likely will not find the same level of satisfaction in life that the original idea-man will. He loses.

Oh and check out my latest piece...

"Taking somebody else's idea, tearing the corner off and selling it as your own is wrong, regardless of the legalities."

I'm not sure how that's a relevant or realistic example of what we are talking about here, Joe, but welcome to the discussion.

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

“I'm not sure how that's a relevant or realistic example of what we are talking about here, Joe, but welcome to the discussion.” --- Dan Turner.

What is it that you believe “we” are talking about, Dan?

Is one to surmise that it is you that determines what is, or is not, relevant?

“I've definitely got a few people thinking with this thread! Mostly about me, and some ending up with really erroneous conclusions, but still...kinda cool :-)”

Please tell us. Which of these conclusions you speak of are erroneous.


One might think when making such a claim one could take the time to be specific.

For your information, I am always thinking! Why keep dancing around with vague implications and instead show the courage to name these folks that you imply are lacking in comprehension?

As far as thinking about you? I am certainly not thinking about you so much as the vague and rather snarky comments you have made to those that disagree with your postulations.

I still feel that if one infringes on my copyrighted images that person is a thief! Yet you have continued to advise others that one should turn a blind eye to such thievery.

Will you continue to insist others accept your postulations?

“...but still...kinda cool :-)” Kinda cool? Really? What is cool about this, Dan?

One might conclude that the entire purpose of this thread is to draw attention to yourself. Which of course is nothing bad. I am confident that this was not the first time someone started a discussion thread here on FAA to do just that.

Enough. Now. The next person to point out another members opinions or reasons or anything else, will be removed.

This topic is about copyright.

Should we worry about low res copies of our work, or accept they are easily grabbable and only worry about the larger for sales ones

At least I THINK that is what the thread is about!




Do not disrespect forum moderators or administrators on the open board or in private messages. Your membership could be be suspended or removed
Please catch up by re-reading the rules http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080

That includes ignoring them.

Abbie, yes, that is exactly the topic. I am reminding people of that at regular intervals, thanks for helping me keep the train on the tracks.

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

Good afternoon Ms. Shores:
"Enough. Now. The next person to point out another members opinions or reasons or anything else, will be removed.

This topic is about copyright.

Should we worry about low res copies of our work, or accept they are easily grabbable and only worry about the larger for sales ones

At least I THINK that is what the thread is about! "
Isabella F Abbie Shores


Do not disrespect forum moderators or administrators on the open board or in private messages. Your membership could be be suspended or removed
Please catch up by re-reading the rules http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080

That includes ignoring them.

Isabella F Abbie Shores




"8. Members will respect the copyright of other users, sites, media, etc. Users should not link to or seek information on warez, crackz, or to reprint copyrighted material without permission. Any copyright issues should be brought to the attention of FAA staff in private and not in the public forum. In other words NO NAME AND SHAME on the boards
1 week - 1 year dependent on circumstances and at admins discretion "
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080

Yes

indeed

and as grown ups you then work the thread to talking about the issues as you see them without the insults yourself.

That is how debate works

Instead you are using excuses for insulting people and NOT talking about the issues and for ignoring my words. Again

So, you are all removed for a cooling off period and Charles, I am Miss not Ms and do NOT like to be called Ms Shores by anybody. That is just a heads up. You may call me Abbie

Thanks, Abbie.

To move back on topic, Ed Meredith made a beautiful comment that bears repeating: "i am the person that has the right to NOT BE CONCERNED if bloggers cut and paste my images... i am also the person who has the RIGHT to selectively pick and choose, if i want to, and try to have my images removed from sites that i do not want to be associated with... that's how it works..."

Donna Proctor summed it up similarly in her comment from 3/14.

I think artists need to understand what's happening with our images with regard to low-rez internet use, and also what we can realistically do about it.

This discussion is timely. Just two weeks ago Getty Images, the largest stock photo house, finally faced up to the reality that millions of its images are already illegally plastered all over the web, and announced it’s changing tactics in an attempt to deal with it.

In an interview with CNET Australia, Craig Peters, Getty's senior vice president of business development, said “What we’re trying to do is take a behavior that already exists and enable it legally." They have now made 35 million of their images free for anyone to use for non-commercial purposes.

Nearly all of the screams for justice I have read over the last few months from fellow FAA members are regarding low-rez images used in a non-commercial way. Each of us has the right to decide how -- or IF -- we will address after-the-fact use.

A final thought for this post. Copyright infringement is largely a civil matter, not criminal. In 1994 it was ruled by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

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

A blog is commercial use, whether it is promoting a product, idea or if the blogger is being paid for clicks, would you not agree?

Dan, I am not saying that things should not change. Everything changes.

All I am saying is with the law the way it currently stands, an artists low res version of an image is covered under the same copyright law as the original image. When I send a CD of images into the copyright office, I am copyrighting the "image", not the resolution of that image.

It is a civil matter, if it is NOT commercial. Like I mentioned above, I would challenge that many blogs would constitute commercial use. The neo-nazi band using the image of the pregnant woman on the CD cover would be commercial use and covered by copyright law no matter what resolution the image was when taken. Is this not correct?

TBN

Yes it is but, should we be as concerned if the blogger uses it? Is it worth being so stressed about it, or should we be more concerned with the larger picture?

Is it worth the time and effort spent seeking, contacting and getting upset?


Or, is it better to, as some have said, work out priorities and, if the blog is a simple person's web log, move on to those sites or things that ARE costing us money?

I agree with your last part btw

it's called pick your battles.
there is an upside and a downside to every choice we make.
to put one's work out into cyberspace is the first BIG choice that will lead to many others.
to then choose how to proceed when there are infringements, minor or major, are the next choices.
i've seen people go absolutely ballistic over finding a low rez image of theirs in a blog. it has happened to me several times, only i don't cop a 'tude...i merely decide if it's worth time taken from my work to follow it up.
rather than wasting time waxing poetic on this forum about the thieves, i simply contact the blogger in the spirit of educating. never once has it turned out ugly.
then again, i never see them as a battle...just usually a misunderstanding that can be remedied if i so choose to pursue it.

as i see it, the only real way to up your chances of not being victimized by those big, bad thieves, is to keep your art to yourself.
for me, the perks of being on the net FAR outweigh a low rez showing up on a blog than may be read by oh, maybe,14 people worldwide.

Thing is Marlene, if this thread was simply about "choosing battles", I do not think it would have lasted more than two days.

Some of the suggestions that have been made in this thread, go far beyond an artist picking and choosing when to get upset and/or pursue payment or take-down. If that was all, I would have agreed and moved on.

If you read between the lines in this thread (and even NOT, so between the lines in some cases), you will find a case being made for the disregard of copyright when it applies to a low res image, when in fact this is a challenge against the idea of copyright as a whole.

As I mentioned a few posts back, copyright does not just apply to the high res original, it applies to the IMAGE. (it does not matter the resolution).

Below is a question from the FAQ with regards to American Copyright Office:

Q: Now that I’ve begun shooting digitally, how do I submit my images for copyright registration?

A: If you use the online eCO process and are eligible to upload the images, you should prepare submission copies of your images as low-quality, low-resolution JPEGs. (The resolution should be sufficient that the copyright examiner can recognize the contents of the image. 600 x 600 pixels should be plenty.) If there are more than a few images, group them into batches of a couple hundred and compress each batch into a ZIP file. You can then upload the ZIP files as part of the eCO process.

If you cannot upload images, burn them onto a CD. The Copyright Office will accept CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs as deposits for registration. It is not necessary to submit prints of the images along with the files on disk. Some photographers suggest that you send along a “contact sheet” — a page of thumbnails (or multiple pages, if you’re registering a large group of images) to display the contents of the CD, with coordinated information (numbers, names, whatever) that links the thumbnails to the more substantial images on the disk. (Low-resolution JPEG is the preferred graphic format, as opposed to GIF or TIFF.) There are a number of free or cheap utilities that can batch-print images into a contact sheet format.


EDIT - In my opinion, any other suggestion to the contrary in this thread, does come dangerously close to violating rule #8 as Charles kind of cheekily pointed out. To even "suggest" (not state) that the low res image does not qualify under the same copyright protection and is therefore subject to the whim of browsers to copy and paste at will is wrong and promoting infringement of copyright law.

This has not been "stated outright", but the suggestion COULD be read there between the lines and could be easily construed that way.

EDIT 2 - I am not trying to backseat moderate, or suggest that anything should be done about it. Just agreeing with Charles.

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

Abbie,

I am glad we can agree on the last part of my previous post. It is absolutely horrible what that band did to the woman in question and is one of those instances where litigation should be pursued. Criminally and Civilly.

EDIT - This topic is about copyright.

Should we worry about low res copies of our work, or accept they are easily grabbable and only worry about the larger for sales ones

In response to the "topic of the thread", (to which the OP agreed), why go to the trouble of sending the images in and paying for copyright protection, if the IMAGE is not worth protecting online? It may not be AS important on a site like FAA where artists are selling large prints and not low res images, but for an artist who is licensing images to bloggers, the low res image becomes just as important to protect as the high res one. This thread has not just dealt with the low res images on FAA.

Do not carry on a conversation about what you believe COULD be, or MAY be. Thanks We have moved past that now

"Is it worth being so stressed about it, or should we be more concerned with the larger picture?" -- Abbie

Larger picture.. ;O) I know that was no pun intended, but it made me chuckle ;O) thanks

"A blog is commercial use, whether it is promoting a product, idea or if the blogger is being paid for clicks, would you not agree?"

"Non-commercial" is pretty broadly defined. Most personal blogs would be non-commercial, and Getty has stated that many business sites (real estate agents, doctors, churches, etc) would be classified, in their view, as non-commercial. Your blog could be monetized with Google ads from top to bottom, still non-commercial for our purposes.

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

LOL Bob

People keep going on and on and on about the copyright issues.

I just went back and read the OP a few times, again. And I will repeat it again. NO ONE has said it was legal or okay to steal, infringe, borrow, take,
or in any other way use anyone else's images, low resolution or high resolution.

Why has there been 300 or more posts discussing copyright at all?

What is being said is that because of both time and financial consideration, it is not practical to peruse those that are violating the
copyright laws on low resolution images, except in rare occasions.

Why are so many posters going on and on and on about the copyright issue?

If you are inclined to chase down everyone that misuses one of your low resolution images and you have the time and the financial
recourses to do so, by all means, go do it.

But to try to demonize, and that is what is going on here, those people that do not think it is wise, in my opinion, is worse behavior than
the guy that steals someone else's' images. That guy is basically a petty thief and not attempting character assassination just because
some one disagrees with them.

Exactly, and now it would be nice to see when those rare occasions are, if there are any

The case where the Neo-Nazi is using the pregnant woman's photo may very well be one of those exceptions that I would go after.
But first I would want to verify that the term Neo-Nazi is being used legitimately and not being used to sensational the issue. Let's face it, half this
country thinks the other have is Neo-Nazi just because of the way they vote. I know, no politics, just trying to make a point.

Second, If it was my image, unless someone else pointed it out to me, I would probably never know about it. I don't spend any time
at all looking for my images on the net.

When the issue first came up here on FAA I did do a couple dozen reverse searching just to see if it was a big problem, and it wasn't.

I did find one of my best selling original photographs listed as a public domain on Wiki Commons. It was posted by an individual
that has several dozen images on WC. It was a very low res image but it was attributed to my pseudonym, Barbara Snyder, which was/is correct.
I contacted the guy and I said I don't mind that he posted my image but I wanted a link back to my AW on FAA. He emailed back and said he
would be happy to that but someone else had claimed it as their original work and WC had already taken it down. I checked and sure enough
it was gone.

That one time that I tried to follow up on a low res theft was a total waste of time and a dead end. Not likely I will go down that rabbit hole
again.

Why are so many posters going on and on and on about the copyright issue?

No, the word "copyright" is not used directly, but the suggestion has been there.

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

Exactly, and now it would be nice to see when those rare occasions are, if there are any

If you read my post you will see that I use the word "suggested" and very clearly do not use the word "stated" with regards to comments about low resolution images being free to use around the internet and not subject to the same copyright protection. As far as character assassination is concerned, the only place I see that happening is when someone make specific comments regarding MY nature.

Here is one that "suggests" images can be copied and shared without consequence (The SUGGESTION that copyright is not valid). This comment was used earlier with regards to low res images and also in the many "summaries" throughout the thread.

Most things on the net, including images, can be copied and shared without consequence.

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

Here is another one that again suggests low res images can be freely shared. (That suggestion does not STATE that copyright does not apply, but my word... who is splitting hairs now.)

"However, I think the part that gets me most (and probably most other artists) is not the fact they (LOW RES IMAGES WERE BEING DISCUSSED HERE) are are being used, but that permission was not asked nor granted prior to use." - Tiny by Nature

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. (TO MAKE THIS COMMENT IS TO "SUGGEST" THAT COPYRIGHT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE LOW RES IMAGE - i am not yelling here, just making the font different from the rest of the comment)

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


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


I could on with more, but it is not necessary.

This thread has everything to do with copyright, even if not specifically stated.

Tiny, you're reading things into my statements that simply aren't there. Take them at face value. There are no hidden meanings or secret codes.

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

Tiny, you're reading things into my statements that simply aren't there. Take them at face value. There are no hidden meanings or secret codes.

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

OK Dan. And to set the record straight here, I have not been after YOUR character at all. In a lot of this we agree, but not on all of it.

Can you please answer these for me. If I and others are reading into your earlier statements "things that aren't there", can you set us straight and clarify what you ARE saying.

Do you believe that copyright applies to IMAGE and not just the high res original version of it?

Do you believe that copyright also applies to the low res IMAGE (no matter whether here on FAA or anywhere else)?

If you believe that copyright applies to the low res version of the IMAGE, is the artists copyright being infringed if the IMAGE is used without permission or payment?

If you believe all of this to be true, why would an artist not be concerned about the protection of any version of their image as stated in your thread?

WOW!!! So, you read things into the OP that was never said, assume it had a different meaning then was intended and then went on from there
arguing points that never existed except in your own mind, based on false assumptions? Does that about cover it? LMAO!!!

You are preaching at the choir here and not even realizing it.

The enemy is the people out there doing the stealing. Not those of us in here that don't care enough to do anything about it. You just can't accept that
fact so you have gone on the defensive for no reason at all. We are no the enemy. We are not misusing your images.

I fell your pain because I don't think it is right and neither does anyone else in here. I just don't care enough to do anything about it because that is not my job. And as it stands, that is not anyone else's job either.

Should there be simpler path to recourse for artist that have their images misused? Of course. Under the current system is likely to happen
any time soon? No. Until it does happens, it is up to you to defend yourself and your images the best you can and pursue
the thieves as you see fit. OR, stop posting your images on the net if it bothers you that much. But to challenge the rest of us because
you seem to be claiming the moral and legal higher ground is disingenuous and is not gong to happen.

You can read anything into others people's comments, anything you want, but you are not exactly objective, and that does not make
your assumptions right.

Floyd,

So when someone states the following about the misuse of artists low res images on the internet. Using them without prior permission, that there is absolutely nothing that can be read into this at all.

EDIT - I am also not reading anything personal from Dan. (bad from Dan) - people are misreading me.

I am explaining how I have gotten COPYRIGHT from the thread. Thats what was challenged a few posts ago. - Where did this start a conversation about copyright.


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

EDIT - this is the comment from me that Dan quoted, prior to the statement below ( the THEY in caps in my comment refers to low res image disccused in posts prior to this)

"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." - Tiny by Nature

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

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.

That statement is saying that it is happening online and it was how the internet was designed to work.

You can't just read the response in bold, you have to read the posts ahead of it.

How could the intent behind the design of the internet been to allow copyright infringement of artists work? (UNLESS you do not believe that copying and pasting an artist low res image and using is without permission is copyright infringement)

That is why this thread has to do with Copyright.


I truly give up this time and want absolutely nothing to do with this thread any further, as I see now exactly what is going on here.

No.. how I read the statement is that the internet was designed to share information quickly and easily. It was not designed to be a vehicle for commercial operations. It is in fact being used for commercial operations but that is not what it was designed for. Therefore if you post something on the internet there is nothing designed into the internet to protect it. The designer of the web site that you posted to could design certain protections such as disabling the function of the right click menu, but that can be subverted with a screen capture program built into your operating system. There is nothing in that statement that would make be think about there being situations where infringement would be legal.

how about the rest of us?

Bob,

You have to read my comment as well to get the context.

I said that artists low res images are being copied and used without permission and artists are not happy about this - That is copyright infringement

Dan quoted my comment

He then went on to say ..........that is precisely how it was designed to work..........


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

EDIT - read this post from Dan and get the context.

Posted by: Dan Turner on 03/13/2014 - 4:38 PM

TBN

In a way I see what you are saying but you are wrong in that Dan is correct that the web was not meant for copyright laws etc. It was meant to be a FREE vehicle for the sharing of information. That was its purpose

The fact the purpose has changed is neither here nor there. It was meant as a free vehicle for the exchange of information and ideas, the operative word here being FREE

Now however it is far more than that and is only just waking, so to speak

So, we have legalities and plagiarism and copyright issues that were never meant to be a worry on the web

That is where the free side of things has now ended and we have many people and companies trying to make a buck

This includes the laws that people ARE breaking, such as copyright infringement.

You then have to look at the implications of that v the original intent of the web

So, nobody is saying it is not illegal or wrong

It is and everyone has agreed to that

But, they are saying that the web is probably not going to do much about it for us. So we have to learn how to play the webs game and not try and make it conform to our standards as such

Use it. Make the thefts work for you where you can, ignore them when they are small and inconsequential and make them pay when large

That is how I see what is being said here

tiny I have read every word of every post in this thread.

again... how I read Dan's reply is he is telling you again that copying information is one of the backbone "features" of the internet. NOT that it was designed for stealing others images.

Bob,

The post was about images. The "THEY" was referring to low res images. (not INFORMATION)

read the post I pasted above. - Posted by: Dan Turner on 03/13/2014 - 4:38 PM

We were talking in the post about copying and pasting IMAGES without permission - Not Information.

That comment from Dan with regards to the intent of the internet, was referring to my comment (which he quoted) about the copying and pasting of artists images without permission.

It had nothing to do with copying information.

I am done and waiting for my vacation.

Good night.

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

"stuff" on the internet is just a bunch of bytes.. I call anything on the internet information or data.. images are just one form of data or information. copy / paste refers to ANYTHING you can click on or highlight. Makes no difference.

You got it (holiday)

That is the problem. It was meant for free information (inc images as part of that)

Not for commerce and trade to take over

who? me?

No Bob. TBN asked me to give him a break, so he got one :)

Walking on the shells of the eggs thrown about, I'm carefully entering this thread.

A couple of questions.

But first,..Abbie you wrote:.."Use it. Make the thefts work for you where you can, ignore them when they are small and inconsequential and make them pay when large."

In the most part, I'm honored when I find that an image of mine is being used by someone else, I consider it "Fair Use".(so far)...

But how do I know every time my images are being used?

Is there any info on the reliability of Tineye?

The one area that does concern me, as it has with others , (on other threads..and possibly in the bowels of this thread) is when an image is used for a cause I don't agree with.

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....