Artist United Against Theft

Tell me Tell me.

I'm interested in listening.

http://stopstealingphotos.com/

Thanks for joining in Conor... we really need to get at least a dozen or so people in here to have a good discussion. I don't want to get all wound up and then have some on come in and say I am trying to control the discussion. I would like to have a lot more people on board for the get go. Let's see if we can get a few more. Of course there just may not be that many people on line right now.

Okay we got a couple more, that is a good thing.

Okay, let's see if we can get the discussion going and maybe that will draw in a few more people. Hang on...

First off, turn off your spell checker the grammar cop in you... I am going to type this out poor typist dyslexic that I am and I am sure will get the just of it.

The link that Jeffery posted is an example of some of the things we can do.

We all have Facebook, twitter and other social medial accounts. To a great degree that is where we are seeing a lot of images taken from.

Most of us have our own websites and some do blogs that are well read. And like Jeffery some are already doing a campaign against theft...

Hang on before you jump in just yet.....

What I am suggesting is that we have a few boiler plate statements and article that are short and to point that are directed at educating people.

We would have to have a good copy writer to develop these articles. I think we have a couple of people in here that actually have those skills.

We would launch a campaign via the social media we all have access to.

There are any number of free news release outlets out there that will run these sort of stories.....

We would all put the shortened version on our AW and in the descriptions of every one of our uploads...

From time to time we would develop newer versions of the same thing. But the message would have to be on point.

This is how we run political campaigns... we hammer the one or two most important points over and over again. Same short message, over and over and over again.

We tell'em, then we tell'em what we told'em and then we tell'em against. That is the is the mantra of any good campaign.

The Fine Art American logo or name would be on everything. Of course that is assuming that FAA would allow it.


Okay.... that is the lose idea...

And Floyd you'd be our spokesperson? Sort of like when Charlton Heston was the spokesperson for the NRA?

For instance, here is an example of a shot one liner can see a very low key statement in the form of a question that may go something like:

Did you know that it was a violation of copyright law and just plain not nice to borrow any image from the Internet without the artist's permission? This message if brought to you by Floyd Snyder a member of Fine Art American

I would not want to come off heavy handed or threatening.

TBN, please do not take this wrong, but even thou forming a union of sorts is exactly what we would be doing. I would think that to get up and running we would be better off saying away form the term union. That is polarizing term and there are so many anti-union people out there.

Are these the people that were recently busted for stealing an image to use on their website?

Sorry, thought this was related to this story...

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/24/anti-piracy-group-accused-stealing-photo-used-anti-piracy-ad/

sounds lovely, except it has to be more than just a name.


---Mike Savad

My idea there would be no single spokesman. Each artist would be his own spokesperson.

There would have to be some guidelines drawn up and an action plan.

For instance. Each artist would make a commitment to do what they felt comfortable doing.

Guidelines would run something like:

Post the one line disclaimer on all of their listing.

Make x amount of postings to your Facebook page and twitter account.

Share the post every time you see one of the other members make a post.

Post the longer articles that would be developed in you blogs, on your own websites, anywhere anyone may see it.

There are free article sites out there like Rebubble, EzineArticles and others. I have not used them in years but some of the articles I posted on them are still getting hits.

If every time one of these article came up on your Facebook account and you shared it, thousands and thousands of people will at least be exposed to it.

I belong to several groups on Facebook. The total number of people in these groups is probably over 100k. I don't really know, I never added it up.

If we really wanted to get aggressive we could pay for copyright and placement.

We can make banner ads that look like public service announcements. We can do that for free actually and we can all post them on our private web pages.

How do you legally sell Ansel Adams images here, I wonder?

I agree mike... it has to be put together with an action plan and then carried out.

Plan your work and then work you plan.

I can mot make this work some one else would have to put it together. I have already pissed of 2/3 of the people in the FAA threads. Those are not exactly leadership qualities! lol

My problem is I have worked for myself for so long I don't know how to play well with others. However I am a great leader form a dictatorial position. But this is going to be organizing artist which is pretty much like heading cats! lol

here's the thing --- no one cares unless you threaten them and you need to have something to threaten them with.


---Mike Savad

Floyd once you are property vetted to make sure you are completely above board, then you'd be great in the position. You could speak at industry conferences, lead the parade, be in the TV commercials.

Okay... now hear is why I can not be the leader... I believe that tact is something you hit with a hammer! lol

Semmick Photo, that is NOT what this thread is about, taking cheap shots at things you don't understand or don't like If you have a problem with the dozens of galleries on FAA selling Ansell Adams image, you need to take it up with the proper authorities. But I suggest that you do some research before you embarrass yourself.

No. Concept generally around about there. Yet this does not appeal or feel right. However.... each and every one of you really need to pay attention to all that is being suggested and said.

I am a solely and wholly independent photographer and artist. That means, I spend my effort, creativity, time, and money for the equipment, to go out into the field, process with programs I bought for my creations of art photography, secure domains and websites in which I have designed and created and promoted and backup and keep current. That means that I am not interested in being headed up by anyone in any shape, form, or fashion that is not an independent artist with hard-knocks experience. I am interested in sharing and exchange of ideas and information with other solely and wholly independent artists. I will not fly any banner that is not my own.

it doesn't seem fruitive to me, if anything it seems like a good way to lose more art, just out of spite. i'd rather advertise that i sell it more than i should tell them not to do something. look at all the stop signs on roads - and yet people blast through those without a thought.

disney threatens to sue people all the time, getty, san diego zoo - the list goes on - and yet - with all of that people still infringe on those things anyway. a tiny person like the artist - no, that's something people can and will ignore. a hefty bill for images stolen and used on their money making blog - that will get attention.

---Mike Savad

"here's the thing --- no one cares unless you threaten them and you need to have something to threaten them with."

I sort of agree but I think that there are thousands and thousands of people out there that really don't know it is illegal. I coved this issue just the other day with my neighbor that posted an image on my Facebook page. I ran into him out in the front yard and he seriously didn't know he did wrong. He took the image off someone else Facebook page. Here's the kicker. He is a Sheriff's Deputy. lol

My thinking was to get phase one, the education phase, up and running and then look at stricter enforcement. But with enforcement that that manpower and/or money. Would you contribute to a fund to chase these people down?

Out there or in here?

I would not contribute to a company that I know nothing about to "chase these people down." I do my own reverse image searches, etc. and when I find my own images, I do my own chasng. When I find someone's work stolen that I know, I send them an e-mail with the screen capture and let them do their own chasing. Other than that, I feel like Anna Surface feels.

The idea here is that people are posting their images in a limited number of places. Facebook, Twitter, FAA, their own websites etc, etc.. If they are being stolen, one of those sites is probably where they are being stolen from.

Mostly I have seen complaints, legitimate complaints, that a church or a blogger or some other small time user has taken their images. I am suggesting that some of these people are just ignorant.

But another idea just popped into my mind.

Let's that you see your image on some bloggers site and he refused to take it down. We as members maybe bombard this guy with request on your behalf to remove the images.

May be have who ever, first write a an email to the guy and on behalf of Artist Against Theft, we are requesting that you remove the unauthorized use one of our member's image. We can send a carbon copy to the trade make and copyright police, whoever they are. We can suggest further consequences if the fail to comply.

most people don't care that its illegal. they drink and drive, they speed, they jay walk - these things they know about and still don't care. even if you had millions of people flooding the net with do not steal - you know what will happen - you'll become a meme, it will be stolen out of irony, and the cause will be lost before it was started.

and did i miss a reply, you replied to TBN, but he's not in this thread. yet.


---Mike Savad

And I wouldn't ask you to Joseph. Not unless there was a tried and tested tack record.

Floyd -"Let's that you see your image on some bloggers site and he refused to take it down. We as members maybe bombard this guy with request on your behalf to remove the images."

Hello? Hello! ....bombard....

Tell me, really, shut the door, is this the way to go as artists?

I am not enabling this ....

Peace out.

Well Anna then maybe this is just simple not for you.

I doubt "bombarding" a guy to take an image down is going to work. One ting to consider is how it would make you look to go after a guy who won't take t down. Could be bad press or, just as likely, a waste of time. I mean, I'm dealing with a company right now that is treating me like I'm the one with the problem when they stole three of my photos. There's a part of me that wants to blow them up in social media, but it's a small part because I know most people won't care, some people will defend the company because they only see me going after them and it'd be a waste of time anyway.

I just find this thread the definition of irony.

Anna, I understand, you are not interested. I have no problem with that.

But you are reacting as if these ideas are set in stone. Nothing is set in stone. We are brainstorming. Not that I don't appreciate the impute, but I do question why, if you have already made up mind you are reacting the way you are?

I have already said I have no interest in being part of this beyond getting the discussion going and supporting what ever the group, if a group is formed, decides to do.

I would ask you that instead of telling us everything that is wrong with the idea, which I want to hear, to please tell us what you may see is positive or give us some ideas of how to proceed.

"I just find this thread the definition of irony."

If you have something to say, just say it. If you are afraid to say it and you need to talk in riddles, I assume that you have noting worthwhile to say. lol

for years we have anti smoking commercials, took ad's out of magazines, forced cigarette companies to pay for these ads. many ads are really gross, graphic, way over the top. and yet - people still smoke. they know there are issues. and either think it won't happen to them, or they don't care if it does.

in the case of images, they take it because sites like google images gives them a nice large image and they make it hard for a person to find the original image location (if you click it from the search it stays in the search). many assume that because google has it - it's free to use now. how you plan to educate 10 billion people in different languages and such not to take things, would be an impossible and almost pointless exercise. often you have to look at an idea from different angles and if it looks like it's not going to help, and it will take a lot of time or money then the plan simply won't be. or shouldn't be.

---Mike Savad

the irony is, you have many images that belong to other artists. now you may have purchased the rights to use these and sell these on a site like this, but the irony is - many those images aren't created by you, yet you still want to fight this thing that doesn't really apply to you. unless it's a different irony.


---Mike Savad

"and did i miss a reply, you replied to TBN, but he's not in this thread'

I did, I don't see that. And yes,, his is conspicuously missing.

Floyd;

You might be missing Anna's point entirely. Mike seems to see it, too. I won't speak for them, but I'll speak for me. I don't think it's a good idea that could work. It should be up to the photographer to decide how to proceed. I'm still not sure what you mean by "bombard" the blogger who is using someone's image. I appreciate you wanting to do something, but what you're suggesting isn't it, in my opinion.

Mike and Semmick are right. You haven't addressed what they said other than...

"that is NOT what this thread is about, taking cheap shots at things you don't understand or don't like If you have a problem with the dozens of galleries on FAA selling Ansell Adams image, you need to take it up with the proper authorities. But I suggest that you do some research before you embarrass yourself. "


Lots of words but you didn't say you were authorized to sell reproductions of his photographs. You could have simply said you were authorized to sell them, but you didn't. You talked about the dozens of galleries doing so but never talked about your own right to sell them. It really is a simple question to answer.

Finding the Adams estate on-line is not hard. Are you saying you have no problem if someone sent them a link to your galleries of Ansel's work?

Would that be something "Artist united against theft" would do?

"the irony is, you have many images that belong to other artists. now you may have purchased the rights to use these and sell these on a site like this, but the irony is - many those images aren't created by you, yet you still want to fight this thing that doesn't really apply to you. unless it's a different irony. "

So once again you totally disregard the 560 images that are my own. Why would you totally misrepresent my presence here?

People here seem to be really hung up on the idea of gallery membership on FAA. You folks need to get over that.

And just maybe it is because I have a totally different perspective as both a selling photographer and as gallery owner that I am not nearly as closed mined as some of you seem to be.

But once again, I have said that I did not want to paly a role beyond supporting what ever the majority decides.

To suggest that me or any gallery owner had not interest or even no right, to be concerned about copyright is totally insane!!

Lets' face the real truth here.

I started the ball rolling and not one person was able to stay on point or positive. Not one person had anything to offer that was not some kind of bitch.

I love it!

Well guess what, I know that before I made the fist post.

On my personal website I have the ability to block any IP I choose. I have blocked many content scrapers and spammers from Ukraine, Russia, China and other places. Also people trying to hack my wordpress login. I wish I had that kind of control on my FAA portal.

Floyd,

Being a "gallery owner" doesn't mean you have the rights to sell the images. You still haven't simply answered the question.

Do you have PERMISSION from the Adam's estate to sell his images?

Yes or no.

What? Wait. I asked a genuine question and you call it a cheap shot? Assuming you have something to hide?

Second, having 560 of your own images on sales justifies selling 2600 images not created by you?

Honest question, how do you legally sell images of Ansel Adams here? You either need to have a licence to resell or you need to have a PR, or you need to own copyright. Which one of the 3 do you have?

Furthermore, the quality of the images at 100% is appalling, it will never print. Blowing up screengrabs doesnt work apparently. But why do you need screengrabs if you have the authority to sell originals?

Its confusing, thats all.

This question is valid, and I can appreciate it's scope. I also know that it goes back to the ethereal beginning of internet time and beyond, and has been a point of discussion and action as long as anyone interested can remember. The question really becomes for art producers, one of time management. How much of your time do you want to expend tracking, chasing and haunting thefts unless they are a cause for litigation?

Consider the policies of some retailers out there who have decided that the cost of prosecuting shoplifters is far too great. Prevention is where they may draw that line. If you are going to allocate a portion of your business life to go after image pirates, then at what cost to your own business or creative endeavors? I liken it to being an avenger of crime. Not many of us can spend our evenings in capes fighting crime, because our days are spent growing and running a business. If this exercise could be made profitable, then there would be an explosion of action from starving lawyers. You would see ads on late night television promising how "You could receive THOUSANDS of DOLLARS from IMAGE PIRACY, give us a call and let our team of lawyers FIGHT FOR YOU!". I doubt operators are standing by.

This seems to be an issue your are passionate about, and you are willing to give it the time needed. The ideas for such a group seems noble, the debates will come ad infinitum.

the thing is - 560 are yours and the but the other 2500 are not. just like a blog, 2 are not, and the other 20 are. same ratio probably. but people will only focus on the thought that the images that are not yours - not the ones that are. this isn't an attack it's an observation that will be made by any person getting a - shame on you, don't take stuff message.

we aren't close minded, we are realistic. we know this won't work. and we know the power of the net and we know that if you attack a blog they will attack your character. i know of a thread where your being talked about right now actually. that's how the net works.

its like a thief telling someone not to take things from their house, but when pointed to the irony (not that i'm calling you a thief or anything), but when pointed out - the guy says - most of this stuff is mine, it's only all the other stuff that isn't. so it's ok.

but what role are you going to play? i think the person who thought of it, should be the person that leads it. why toss us out into the fire, while you sit and direct? it's one of those - don't do what your not willing to do yourself, kinds of things.

we know what the positive is - it's to stop people from stealing things. but its a totally impossible thing and it usually has to start at home first.


---Mike Savad

"So once again you totally disregard the 560 images that are my own. Why would you totally misrepresent my presence here?"

That is 18% of the images you have for sale.

I have a couple images where I used NASA shots (public domain) but ALL my images are images I created.

My guess is many people contributing to this thread have similar situations.

Actually this thread has turned into what the link I provided above was about.

A company fighting theft being caught stealing an image.

That company has some es'plaining to do. Like Mike said, anyone that promotes not stealing work had better not be doing what they are fighting against. I guess the word hypocrite comes to mind.

this thread is a good example of what will happen on a blog.

hi my name is floyd and i don't want you taking images. bye.

then 1000 loyal fans of that blog will come down over your gallery like bees and locusts and they will contact every single original owner of those things. because they can, and they probably would. that's why it's often best not to do anything, but to email them and say - take it down or leave me a link or even send them a bill.


---Mike Savad

hey we said it at the same time.


---Mike Savad

and keep in mind we aren't attacking you and it's not personal, but this is what will happen.

---Mike Savad

Not all exposure is a good thing. Especially in this context.

for example - the desiderata poem you have up there - it's copyrighted, and the guy that owns it, sues everyone he finds. did you license a copy to use? i was going to use it, but when we found out that trick, i stopped. it was totally ready to upload and everything. couldn't take the chance.

in fact bible quotes can't be used from just any bible because those are copyrighted too. king james is really the only place - the one with the thy and thou in them. any other kinds and your stealing. but you don't know that because it's the bible. but each version is a bit different and they copyright the content. this info might be around the net, but it would also be under the same learning campaign. thing is would you be willing to swap out lines like i did to replace it with the right versions?

---Mike Savad

It took less than an hour and a half for someone to point out your Ansel Adams work on here after your initial post.

An 8x10 matted print from the Ansel Adams museum is $65.00.

You are selling the same for $40.86.

Do you think they will be ok with that?


Like Mike said Floyd, this is not about you. We are doing what you advocated when you started this thread. We are artist united to (possibly) stop the theft of Ansel Adams images.

imagine it going viral? one 16 year old kid, telling his friends that tell their friends and so on, to alert other companies of your work. even if it's yours, the amount of calls and mail you'll get would be well, very stressful. its no different then getting cheated from a carnie ride, and it had donald duck or a very close version - and me contacting disney and showing them a photo and plate of that truck. then the lawyers contact them and they got their revenge or at least tried.

one of my last companies, i hated them so much i contacts OSHA, with like a dozen violations, the board of health, the fire marshall and a few other places. OSHA was the only one that wrote back, told me of all the other things i didn't even see. and they had a few weeks to fix it. but the thing is, it only takes one person to mess up someone's day.


a while back there was a lady who claimed to be an expert wedding photographer. thing is, she stole all her images from another photographer. she even took the web design and made it her own. overnight - that's how long it took, for her name to be rubbed into the ground, she was called a fraud, and people wrote to her, called her, her box was full, shame on you etc. and she had to write a public apology and i doubt very much she is doing what she is claiming she's doing because she messed up her own name by doing all that. - 24 hours, that's all it took.

---Mike Savad


EDITED because the thread was closed like all others that come out weak in the end. this was my reply to the last remark.


there is no jealousy here. we are actually showing you a truth of what could happen if you campaign against people in the way you suggest. people will always check the source before looking at the content. like if you claim your the very best artist in the world and create wow art for example, people will check your credentials first. this is the same thing.

thing is about those other galleries. if we asked them - did you purchase a license to resell these - they will show you that proof that they can sell it. where as you haven't answered the question yet. now you may own those or have the right to sell it in this manner, but the longer you delay it, the more guilty you appear.

thing is - unless you start at home first, where the problem actually lies - then saying anything outward is just a hypocritical solution. so what can we do right now to get you to erase those ansel adams things? because this is actually the set up. forget about blogs. this isn't a cheap shot. it was a direct questions - did you buy the rights to sell these images on a print on demand site? i think it's a good question, not an attack, not a cheap shot.

with all this discussion, we are telling other people not to take, and we have someone who may have taken.

that's what this is about.


---Mike Savad

Man this is hilarious!! You people are so blinded by your own, what, jealously, short sightedness? that you are making this whole issue about me!!

Man that is soooo cool! I am so honored to think my very presence here can piss so many people off without even trying.

I can't image how much you must hate those really large galleries selling the exact same images but only 10, 20, 30 times as many. That must really keep some of you up at night.

Heck I only have 2500 images. I just did a quick count of the few galleries I follow and they have over 150,000 images including the exact same images I am selling. .

Go ask them how they are selling Ansell Adams... or are we all just cooks?

How about the Louver, crooks also? The Smithsonian... the JP Getty Museum.. The Art Institute of Chicago... all crooks.... man this is funny stuff.. All these people are crooks I guess. Stealing sales from the poor artist that can't compete on FAA... Is that how you see it?

What frickin' joke...

I didn't misunderstand anything.

Let me see if I can explain this in really simple terms.

There has been any number of threads opened about infringement. Not one of them have ever offered up any real solutions to address the problem beyond watermarks and the occasional mention from an individual artist or two of what they are doing. And TBN's union idea I don't always agree with TBN but at least he put an idea out there.

So I had some ideas that I made perfectly clear were loosely formed and not set in stone and that I did not want to lead any effort that was the result of any discussions of the group.

Now to make it even simpler then that. If this was gym class and throw out basketball and the rest you wanted to paly baseball and you didn't want me to paly, I was perfectly happy with that.

So what did I get? Instead of an open minded honest discussion, I got a bunch of cheap shots form the same old cheap shot artists that have been challenging me and other gallery owners and my presence here for over a year.

And I think that speaks volume of just how closed minded some people can be. And because this is not my first time around with these same people I find hilarious that the same old people are still hung up on some issue that really is not an issue at all. Like I said, you need to take it up with the proper authorities.

Is that clear enough for you?

I challenge you guys and gals that have all the answers of "why not", to put forth your ideas of "how to" move forward. In other words put you your money where your mouth is! :-) And unless I again become the subject of the cheap shot experts I will stay totally out of the discussion.

So let's see what you got.