Looking for design inspiration?   Browse our curated collections!

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Robert Kernodle

8 Years Ago

Copyritght Conundrum

You take a digital picture. The digital information required to produce the image is stored as a series of electronic signals on a storage device.

Where is the original image, then? Does the original image even exist, or is there ONLY digital information that enables the production of the image?

Philosophically, the original digital information DOES exist. But this original digital information can be copied with such precision in a noncompressable format that nobody can distinguish the original digital information from a saved (copied) version of it.

When you upload a digital image to FAA, many, many images derived from this digital information can exist on millions of computers all over the world. FAA, thus, enables copies of images on a mass scale.

Each person sitting in front of a computer screen is seeing a copy of an image. Each computer screen renders a copy. FAA enables this mass rendering of images on millions of computers around the world. Low pixel images, yes, but still potentially millions and millions of copies of an image can be broadcast around the world.

We allow this, when we upload images. The business of FAA depends upon us allowing this mass distribution of copies of our images. FAA has built a reputation on doing this, in order to exist as a business.

We allow FAA to use potentially millions and millions of our low-res images to define and sustain itself as the business of selling better-quality images. We allow potentially millions and millions of people to freely view our low-res images, used by FAA in its business to attract sales.

FAA uses our low-res images to make money, then. We allow this. The premise of the business could not exist without this.

And yet, when some blogger uses one of our low-res images in a post, some people are ready to enlist a legion of lawyers to address a copyright violation.

See the conundrum?

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Matt Hammerstein

8 Years Ago

Um, okay? We agree to let FAA use the images to promote sales, which benefit us. If "some blogger" used it without permission, it doesn't benefit us, and we obviously didn't agree to it. I see no conundrum here.

 

Bob Galka

8 Years Ago

The blogger use may benefit us. if the blogger provides a credit and/or a link back to our image on FAA. Of course most do not. But if one does and that that one blog is a popular one then there is the potential of otherwise unrealized sales. Not all are happy taking that gamble. I would welcome it.

Unless the blogger is associated with porn or ISIS.. what harm is it causing you?

 

Matt Hammerstein

8 Years Ago

Personally, as long as it is a low resolution preview with a link back to FAA, I would most likely let it stay. It all depends on the situation. And still, FAA is something we agreed to; whether a blogger gives credit or not, we probably didn't agree to the use

 

Robert Kernodle

8 Years Ago

... to promote sales of EVERYBODY's work, NOT just YOURS. I have no problem with this. I just find it interesting to reflect on.

How many potentially thousands of viewers will pass right by a given image without buying a print of it, ... on their ways to looking at another artist's image that they might then buy?

It's like YOUR image is a sort of diversion or warm up or entertainment to engage them, until they find what they REALLY want to buy, if anything. Or maybe, they find great entertainment in just flipping through images without ever buying ANYTHING. We give our permissions for this sort of entertainment, yet condemn the blogger for trying to entertain HIS/HER readers with some written content to accompany the image.

And who can really say with any certainty that the blogger's post might not benefit you?



 

Lisa Kaiser

8 Years Ago

For me, all of my digital images have a real physical painting that is tangible and can be matched up. If a blogger should use my images, I really don't mind too much. My larger sales come from people who want an original, not a digital photo.

 

Melissa Bittinger

8 Years Ago

We've agreed for FAA to have our image, not a blogger...unless they've asked permission. No conundrum really.

 

Joseph C Hinson

8 Years Ago

I almost never find an unauthorized use of any of my images with credit given, much less a link back here. I'd almost expect to see a little green man riding a unicorn first.

 

Joy McKenzie

8 Years Ago

There's nothing to reflect on. It's a matter of giving one's permission to have your images on a site that can be seen by anyone with internet access....vs someone taking a found image and doing whatever they want with it without being granted permission, or paying for usage rights.

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

"vs someone taking a found image and doing whatever they want with it without being granted permission, or paying for usage rights."

People create, swap, share and post images every day with no problems. Penalties are so rare as to be non-existent. If tons of people were being hassled about it, we would have heard something by now. To millions of web users it is a non-issue. Permission? Usage rights? They've never heard of such things.

Professional and commercial use are different. Low-rez images generally won't get the job done. Hi-rez images cost money, and people who need them know that. The system works fine.


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

 

Edward Fielding

8 Years Ago

Millions of low rez images are licensed every day for use on the Internet. Stock companies have tiered prices based on size and usage. The originator of the image owns the copyright and has the right to determine how its used.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

copy retite?

seeing the image on your screen isn't a breach of copyright.

taking that image and selling it for yourself, or taking credit for it, that's the breach


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

 

Chuck De La Rosa

8 Years Ago

Robert, now my brain hurts. And you clearly have too much time on your hands! :)

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

The first scenario is one that users of this site desire and intentionally subscribe to, the other is unauthorized use.

My stuff pops up all over the internet, and I never request it be taken down unless it's being sold without my approval, or if it's attached to something political or offensive in nature, and I reserve the right to make that determination. I frequently encourage people to use my Facebook headers or contact me to ask for web sized images to use in their online projects.

Not all artists are litigious, and many of us actually understand how the internet works. ;)

 

Joy McKenzie

8 Years Ago

People swapped music files and even joined websites that gave out copyrighted music for free. People did that all day , every day until musicians started fighting back and going to court to have these free-for-all music sites shut down. There was the Metallica vs. Napster lawsuit, which was followed by lawsuits from 18 major record companies citing copyright infringement and racketeering. Napster was shut down....because people took action and cared enough to protect their work. I remember reading in TIME magazine about several parents and their kids being "made an example of" and being slapped with very large fines.

What is my point? A great number of people will take anything they can if they think they can get away with it. We have to continue the fight to protect our work, plain and simple. If we don't care and do nothing when we see copyright infringement, then how can we ever expect anyone to respect the laws concerning infringement? The laws are there to protect us but we have no police force but ourselves. Dan, I know you know all this already so I don't understand your neverending posts about how no one knows about copyright laws so why bother? It will continue if no one "bothers". I will continue to bother anyone using my work without permission. Nothing changes if nothing changes.

Edited to add...if you ASK me, most of the time I allow bloggers and such to use my work with a credit. I don't like it when people don't ask first. Those are people I was speaking about that will take anything if they don't think they'll get caught.

 

Sarah Kersey

8 Years Ago

Rather shocked to see this on CraigsList: http://orlando.craigslist.org/med/5043327067.html

I flagged it, so if it doesn't appear, this is what it says:


"I am looking to commission someone to duplicate art work that I found on the web that is too small. I need them to be larger oil on canvas.

Please email me for details.


Full Sail Art Student
UCF Art Student"

 

Edward Fielding

8 Years Ago

I guess that's how cheating is done at an art school? Pitiful.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

makes me wonder if he's offering money for that... or if its a freebie. i think that one is stock, he could probably just get it.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

 

Edward Fielding

8 Years Ago

I think he wants an large oil on canvas to turn in as his final project so the parents keep sending checks.

 

Monsieur Danl

8 Years Ago

If someone lifts your image and sells it....they apparently have done their marketing. Perhaps they will give you some free marketing advice in exchange for selling more of your images.

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

"Dan, I know you know all this already so I don't understand your neverending posts about how no one knows about copyright laws so why bother? It will continue if no one "bothers"."

Joy, the music industry has changed (was forced to change!) it's entire business model because of the web. Suing their customers was the worst move they ever made, and they are still suffering the repercussions of that debacle.

Steve Jobs solved their problem for them...make music very easy to buy, offer reasonable prices, and don't force them to buy 10 songs to get the one they want.

The music publishers found out the hard way that they can't "guilt" people into not doing something. The answer was to build legitimate music delivery systems that are easier to work with than pirated music delivery systems. Incidentally, both systems coexist.

Music infringement and low-rez image infringement are not comparable. The music industry has massively expensive and massively publicized systems in place to herd people into well-designed buying channels. No such systems are in place for low-rez web images.

Low-rez images are currently delivered free of charge to EVERYONE'S computer, worldwide, 24/7, with no barriers at all. That's like throwing cookies in people's laps and saying "Don't touch those."

I constantly mention that people are not aware of copyright infringement laws because it's TRUE. How does that help? Simple: It makes artists aware that when they tear into someone about infringement they come off like a crazy person accusing someone of a crime and blabbing about things that make no sense. Are people paying attention? No.

In my view, educating people about completely outdated laws is futile. You're still just trying to legislate morality, which has never worked for anyone. Laws need to change OR systems need to be put in place that don't dump the cookies right in people's lap.

Wow, pretty good post :-)


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

 

Chuck De La Rosa

8 Years Ago

There is one other point that it took the music industry a long time to realize. Those who are downloading pirated music (and yes, TOR is alive and well) are not going to pay for it anyways. To Dan's point, making it easy to buy motivated honest people to actually do just that when they realized how easy it really is. And I believe Amazon had an easy way to do it before Steve Jobs did it.

The same point applies to infringement of our images. Those that do it weren't going to pay for it anyway.

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

The starter of this post can't even SPELL copyright. I don't think it's too much of a leap to understand that the general population couldn't care less about it.


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

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

"The same point applies to infringement of our images. Those that do it weren't going to pay for it anyway. "

Exactly.

 

Joseph C Hinson

8 Years Ago

It doesn't matter if the person was ever going to buy, it's that they used it without permission. Letting them use it because they were never going to pay is some silly screwed ip logic. We should try that at Outback and see how it flies

 

Cynthia Decker

8 Years Ago

Oh, I didn't mean to imply I thought it was all hunky dory. I simply think a stolen image is not a lost sale. It's absolutely stealing.

 

Joe Burgess

8 Years Ago

The funny thing about stealing, is that people only do it if they think they won't get caught.
The internet's a big place and I'm sure most are completely unaware of reverse image lookup.
I was, prior to joining this site.

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

 

Chuck De La Rosa

8 Years Ago

X2 what Cynthia said.

Joseph, this is not unlike shoplifting. They do things to try and curb it, the hard reality is that it continues and will continue. So they pass the cost along to consumers. That's how retailers deal with it.

With images, the hard reality is that no matter how hard we try, it will continue. And we're not talking about a tangible loss in the sense that you have less images because someone infringed. You still have all your images. So what are you/can you do? Not a whole lot. Send out take down notices, register your copyrights to give them a bit more backing. Should we lose sleep over it? Not for something we have almost no control over. And what do you do when it's someone from China who has your images? Fly there and sue them? The Chinese government doesn't care. So we do the best we can and that's all we can do.

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

Robert: "Where is the original image, then? Does the original image even exist, or is there ONLY digital information that enables the production of the image?"

My understanding is the digital information is sufficient to create copyright.

"A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." www.copyright.gov

Disclaimer: my opinion, not legal advice.

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

"Letting them use it because they were never going to pay is some silly screwed ip logic. We should try that at Outback and see how it flies"

Nope, that's a non-argument. That only works if people come into Outback, eat all they want, but nothing ever disappears from the kitchen and Outback never runs out of food.

3D theft and digital infringement are two very different things.

This is Art Theft
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2490242


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

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

Reverse look up works in my favor for "stolen" images. People who want to license or buy a print are 2 clicks away from search results for that image and can find me and buy from me. What Dan says is the reality of the situation.

In 20 years of having a high profile and heavy traffic on my images I really have not had too much issue with infringement. I am not too concerned about it really. And yes I do license small images. To people that need a license. For my clients the cost of the image is a tiny fraction of the budget. They are not going to commit to an ad campaign based on stolen images (or images licensed with no guarantee.) And I do value my digital images. A good image licenses many times and earns me hundreds or even thousand of dollars. The illegal uses are bread crumbs.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

the physical item doesn't have to leave in order to call it theft. we sell a virtual product. we get paid for that product and that's what they are stealing. they are taking a service.

its no different than stealing cable. they aren't hurt, nothing is missing, yet they want to get paid because your taking a service for free. counterfeiting money - no one loses right? because the money wasn't stolen, yet it wasn't real.

we don't have to talk about physical items missing. i did the work, they skipped out on the bill. and that's what they are taking. yeah, i have my physical work, just not the money that goes with it when they take a copy for themselves.

try squatting on land you don't own, taking power from a building and so on. all of these they would take care of you in one way or another.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

So Mike do you think I could write off the infringement losses on my taxes?

 

Sarah Kersey

8 Years Ago

The copyright issue always makes me wonder how many have wanted a particular original so bad that they had one of the many Chinese factories reproduce it.

http://paulchong.net/2012/03/03/dafen-oil-painting-paradise-to-the-world/

The Chinese factory painters are good...real good! Wonder what would happen to the art market if they were unleashed and painted their own original works?

I have no idea how their reproduction prices compare to FAA prints.

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

When someone steals an image off the internet, how do we know what they were thinking?

"Oops, I didn't know it was copyrighted, if I knew I
(a) would have bought it;
(b) would not have bought it but would not have used it either;
(c) would have asked permission and tried to work out an arrangement with the copyright holder.

" I thought everything on the internet was there for everyone to use" (not true, but a lot of people believe that.)

" I'm pretty sure this is a copyrighted image but
(a) I want it and I can't pay, so I'll take it and hope I don't get caught"
(b) I'm pretty sure my use of the image is a "fair use" so the copyright doesn't apply to my particular use of it" (use of the image in a school/educational project, or they're planning to parody it -- for example)
(c) I'm planning to use it as a reference, and I'm convinced my derivative work is different enough from the photo/art reference that the derivative work is my original work now" (not always a correct assessment)
(d) I'm not certain it's copyrighted and I'm too lazy and/or don't know how to check, so I'll take a shortcut and if it's copyrighted hope I don't get caught."

"I knew it was copyrighted, but I don't have a problem with breaking the law/taking other people's stuff... so...in the unlikely event I get caught... good luck in court."

" It may have been copyrighted, but for [fill in the blank] reason I think it's in the public domain now, so anyone can use it."

"I live in a country that doesn't honor copyrights from X other country, so where I live, it's legal for me to copy & do anything I want with it." (maybe true, maybe not)

I'm sure there are more motives out there than listed above... I just find it odd that people seem to think there's only one motive for taking stuff off the internet that's copyrighted, and then argue about which one is correct. I'm pretty sure it's [X] All Of The Above.

 

Liz Leyden

8 Years Ago

No conundrum. I have to give FAA permission to display my images or they couldn't sell them. My choice.

Bloggers do not have permission to use my images unless they have correctly licensed them for that use. I sell stock images.

If they do a critique of one of my works, and link back to it here, even if that critique is how dreadful they think my image is, that's fair use, at least here in the UK, which allows for 'criticism'. However, they'd have to be specific about what they don't like to count as a criticism. They couldn't just say, "Look how awful this is". Technically, they shouldn't just say, 'Look how good this is' either, but most of us would accept that. (is that a conundrum? ;-) I thnk we'd count it as 'free advertising'.)

For those who say, "What's lost? The image is still on FAA", try telling that to the court if you're caught watching the Beeb without a licence.

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

Sarah:
"The Chinese factory painters are good...real good! Wonder what would happen to the art market if they were unleashed and painted their own original works?"

They wouldn't have the sales & distribution infrastructure behind their paintings that the factory owners provide. They would have the same issues with selling their work as individual artists that we do.

 

Sarah Kersey

8 Years Ago

Cheryl, I agree. They would also have marketing/selling challenges.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

you can try writing them off, though you'll probably have an audit.

a while back i had a guy interested in a piece for his page. i told him i don't license things out that way. most people would say, oh that's too bad and move on. but instead this guy starts arguing with me that because i don't have a watermark on it, or a big C on it or something like that - its ok to take. more than that he went on to say that because its on the net even with a watermark if cloned out then it was to take... then he went on to say that if he asked a guy to take it, and he bought it from him - then that would be totally ok to do and totally legal.

i schooled him the best i could, then kept all the pages he's on.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

 

Marlene Burns

8 Years Ago

It's no conundrum.
If you choose to put yourself in the limelight on stage....you might be applauded or have tomatoes thrown at you. Be prepared for both.

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

"i did the work, they skipped out on the bill."

If you had an agreement, then yes. If you made the work on spec, with no client, no deposit and no agreement, then no. Doing work without a client guarantees nothing, especially payment.


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

 

CHERYL EMERSON ADAMS

8 Years Ago

Dan:

"Doing work without a client guarantees nothing, especially payment."

That's a true statement. Even doing work *with* a client doesn't guarantee payment... some people think paying people who do work for them is optional. That's why so many businesses require written contracts, down payments, and have collections departments.

That said, most of the people I've worked with who have asked me to do commissions (pottery mostly), have paid, no problem, even if the work was done on a handshake. I just never do work on a handshake that I can't afford to not get paid for.

Marlene:
Yum. Rotten tomatoes for dinner. Again.

 

John Walcott

8 Years Ago

Screen Printing. We've had a major problem with clients screen printing event photos on our watermarked galleries on ImageQuix. Then printing or placing them on their Facebook pages on buying nothing. I was shocked this morning when I found that the images on Fine Art America's sight are not watermarked and I was easily able to enlarge an image on my PC screen and press screen print. Please fix this. Thank you.

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Selling is a numbers game on many different levels. Putting your art up online is free broadcasting.

There are thousands of galleries in NYC. Some so small they are a corner in someone else's business.

Your art is as lost as you want it to be. Either you are glad you can broadcast your art, or you see people getting
something for nothing. Think rock and roll stations in the 1960s, the artists were making money hand over fist.
The broadcast was free, just a few ads per hour.

On one level each of us individually has a choice about how happy we want to be. Some people see their
paypal account and see the glass as half empty. Meanwhile billions of dollars of infrastructure that make
up the WWW is at their disposal. This is not a southern plantation, you are not slaves. The house on the hill
is not off limits to you. Meaning the assets of the WWW are yours for the taking for free.

We are showing our artworks in other folks' livingrooms. This is not hard to do.

Dave

 

This discussion is closed.