Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


A different slant on the photo-theft issue


User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 8:08AM

Quote:I've produced a few prints from 72ppi 1000px. images


You're right to correct dpi to ppi but I feel you miss the bigger point. It doesn't matter what ppi those images are, 72, 300 or 3000 it's meaningless. It's irrelevant. Don't even mention it as it has zero effect on the quality. The only thing that matters is the resolution in pixels

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 8:14AM

Quote: should be very happy if others assist in that process by copying it on to other sites. But, as I say, not everyone agrees with that.

Left Forum, I've copied one of your photos to my website . You'll be as happy as a dog with two tails now?
Jestertheclown 6 6.4k 241 England
20 Nov 2012 8:14AM

Quote:The only thing that matters is the resolution in pixels

Yes. You're right , I was forgetting myself.
User_Removed 4 4.6k 1 Scotland
20 Nov 2012 11:25AM

Quote:should be very happy if others assist in that process by copying it on to other sites. But, as I say, not everyone agrees with that.
Left Forum, I've copied one of your photos to my website. You'll be as happy as a dog with two tails now?



Thanks Chris.

Absolutely delighted. Previously folk would have had to look on ePz, Flickr or Facebook to have seen that one. However, viewers might find it more useful if you provide a caption so that they know what they are looking at.

What is interesting is that, as you know, like most forumites, I post my images to the ePz galleries under a forum name. So there never was any intention to get any personal kudos from their publication. They are purely there for the pleasure of anyone who cares to look at them. And you have helpfully extended that range.


.
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 12:19PM

Quote:Thanks Chris. Absolutely delighted

You're welcome.

Quote:viewers might find it more useful if you provide a caption so that they know what they are looking at

Nah cba. Have had a couple of mates email me some nice comments on the picture.

I might turn it into a wallpaper. I'll keep you posted Smile
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
20 Nov 2012 12:39PM
If your motives were that selfless LF it'd be an easy thing for you to distribute your photos liberally across the internet yourself, and indeed you'd probably allow Creative Commons use of them on Flickr?
theorderingone 10 2.4k United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 2:25PM
Hmmm. Does the same apply if someone parks a car in the street? It's in the public domain after all. I believe that even if it's left unlocked, if it is taken without the owners consent, then it's theft.

The same should apply to images, or any other intellectual property, such as music, books and films.

Surely if you like something enough to use it, it shouldn't be too much to ask for you/them to pay for it's use? By all means give images away if you want to, which is fine if permission is sought from the copyright owner in the first place.
mikehit e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 2:45PM

Quote:then it's theft


Only if there is intent to deprive (the definition of theft). If they take the car and return it, they can only be prosecuted for driving without consent of the owner.
That is important because using an image is not depriving the owner because the owner still has the original. 'Theft' is therefore an incorrect term and it is why people often do not see a parallel such as you have made: as far as they are concerned they are 'borrowing' it.
theorderingone 10 2.4k United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 2:51PM

Quote:Only if there is intent to deprive (the definition of theft). If they take the car and return it, they can only be prosecuted for driving without consent of the owner.


Taking an image and using it without their consent does deprive the copyright owner though. I know of such a case which went to court (and stood up in court) where the photographer had licensed the images on an exclusive basis. Someone else taking the image without consent meant that the image was no longer exclusive and the contract the photographer had with their client was effectively breached.

Just because something CAN be taken, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be. If everything in society was treated in this way, then the outlook would be very grim indeed.

On the subject of whether theft is the correct word, how would you consider identity theft? They've not deprived you of your identity, they're just borrowing it.
mikehit e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 3:20PM
It's not identity 'theft', it is fraud or intent to deceive Wink and the 'theft' part comes from stealing money (which is usually the incentive). I have never seen a case where the perpetrator was convicted of theft simply by using someone else's identity. Similarly, are you sure that in the case you quoted the charge was actually 'theft' or was it some other charge - it would certainly be interesting to know and how it was framed with the charge of theft.

My point was simply that the 'car left in public space' was an incorrect analogy - emotive yes, but incorrrect - and it is that difference between the two acts that enables people to blind themselves to the idea that they are depriving someone of an income.


Quote:Just because something CAN be taken, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be.

I totally agree. And that is where there is a breach ofwhat I would consider to be 'etiquette' as so often happens on the internet: people do and say things they would never let happen if they were face to face with the other person.
Unfortunately it seems the people have 2 types of moral stanards: how they behave in open society and how they behave on the internet and when they liken the internet at the moment to the wild west the analogy is not too far wrong.
thewilliam 6 4.7k
20 Nov 2012 6:14PM

Quote:
Unfortunately it seems the people have 2 types of moral stanards: how they behave in open society and how they behave on the internet and when they liken the internet at the moment to the wild west the analogy is not too far wrong.



Many folk also have two standards of behaviour towards others: outside and inside their cars.

The internet is different from "reality" because we can invent an identity that has nothing to do with our real-life persona. It could be as innocent as using a user-name on a forum or nefarious as a middle-aged man pretending to be a teenager to groom victims for abuse. It could be a complete novice pretending to be an experienced wedding photographer by showing images that he/she didn't take in an effort to fill the diary with bookings.

It's very tempting to exploit the cloak of anonymity and insult people as we would never do in real life. I suspect that Lord McAlpine's announcement of action in response to the offensive tweets will act as a wake-up call. And not before time!
theorderingone 10 2.4k United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 6:36PM

Quote:I totally agree. And that is where there is a breach ofwhat I would consider to be 'etiquette' as so often happens on the internet: people do and say things they would never let happen if they were face to face with the other person.
Unfortunately it seems the people have 2 types of moral stanards: how they behave in open society and how they behave on the internet and when they liken the internet at the moment to the wild west the analogy is not too far wrong.



Haha. At least we agree on something.

My point (which you're pedantry keeps pulling apart Wink) is that the original copyright holder is deprived of their right to choose how the image is licensed, if it is taken without their consent... whether that be freely through Creative Commons, or exclusively in a rights managed way. If someone takes a copy of your work, it can no longer be licensed as exclusive, which in turn will harm the earning potential of the photographer, ultimately depriving them of a potential source of income. The same debate has been going on for years in the music and film industries with pretty much the same outcome.

I'm not saying photographers are owed a living, just that they should have a right to be compensated for their work, if that's what they choose. That is ultimately what copyright law is designed to protect. Saying something is 'fair game' because it's in the public domain shows a lack of consideration for folk's wishes and rights.
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
21 Nov 2012 8:29AM
LF you're of the opinion that if you put your stuff on the internet then it's fair game. Anyone can steal it. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with you thinking that's okay and that it should be encouraged rather than discouraged. It's harder to chase criminals on the net. Doesn't mean we should give up and tell people to steal with impunity.
User_Removed 4 4.6k 1 Scotland
21 Nov 2012 5:12PM

Quote:
I'm not saying photographers are owed a living, just that they should have a right to be compensated for their work, if that's what they choose. .



I have absolutely no problem with that provided that there is a real market for that work. What I do object to are the morons who - for whatever reason - fail as professionals and then whinge about genuine amateur photographers like us happily allowing our images to be used for free. Maybe they just lack talent or maybe they lack business acumen or maybe there simply is not a market for their work. But, regrettably, there are a few on here (and, I suspect, on other online fora) who don't accept responsibility for their own success or failure and want to shift the blame on to amateurs who, they astutely observe, may have caused a shift in the market.

For 30 years - between 1960 and 1990, I earned enough from freelance writing and photography to pay for my hobbies which, at that time, were costing me about 6-7,000 a year that I could not have possibly paid from my household budget. That market has changed dramatically and I have had to move with the times to financing my hobbies from POD-publishing. But you don't hear me girning about it.
779HOB 2 1.0k United Kingdom
21 Nov 2012 5:17PM

Quote:about genuine amateur photographers like us happily allowing our images to be used for free


You can't see that that is one of the reasons it's very hard to make money from photography today. People giving their images away to the press or for use on websites etc.....


Quote:Maybe they just lack talent or maybe they lack business acumen or maybe there simply is not a market for their work


It's not about talent or business acumen. It is about their not being a market. Because people give their photos away.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.