# I think this is stealing...what do you guys think?



## Cinka (May 5, 2010)

The other day a friend posted a link to an interview with "artist" Mavi Staiano who takes photos from Facebook and uses them to make t-shirts and posters, collages. I argued that the artist doesn't have permission to use the photos and that while I have nothing against using someone else's images for art, it's just good practice to ask permission first. My friend (and the artist as well) both argue that the images aren't works of someone's art - they're just snapshots. Furthermore, if they didn't want people to take them, they'd update their privacy settings on FB. 

STRANGER ON MY T-SHIRT - Viceland Today

I tend to think that if you use something without permission, it's stealing and that photographs are property - even the bad snapshots on Facebook. People like to call it "reappropriated" as if it was found in the dumpster and unwanted in someway. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## Arch (May 5, 2010)

i think your right and they are wrong... the T-Shirts don't look very good anyways.
BTW if they are selling the T-Shirts then it probably is copyright theft, regardless of what they consider 'art'.


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 5, 2010)

copyright violation?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (May 5, 2010)

Yes, agreed, it is a copyright violation but do the authors of the photos even know it? And suing for the small amount it represents is not worth it. But if this guy starts making some serious money with his shirts, watch out... someone will probably sue him.

You do mention collages, which I don't see in your link, and those are quite another story. The basic deal with collages is that no part of it can be so big as to represent a certain percentage of the total work. Frankly, from looking at the law a long time ago, I decided that in most cases of collages it would be a question of who has the best lawyer.


----------



## jeph (May 5, 2010)

I think that its stealing, I am also intrigued by the ad for "Hot Prison Pals".


----------



## Overread (May 5, 2010)

"reappropriation" is fancy word that some like to use to hide the fact that they are indeed stealing something that belongs to someone else. The argument that they would "update their privacy settings" is not valid at all - otherwise you could argue that you should never ever leave your home so as to avoid being mugged. 

It's theft of others peoples digital property pure and simple - chances are sueing the guy is not worth it but you could easily get a takedown order from his webservice provider for his site. I forget the specific term or how to go about it but it should be fairly simple to prove that he is performing copywrite theft and profiting from it - though it of course does not stop him from throwing the site up somewhere else. 

It might be worth flagging facebook with regard to the theft and profit aspects - otherwise unless he happens to use some richpersons image chances are the worth of enforving the law is not going to equal the comeback (and I mean that in more than just monitary terms(.


----------



## Dallmeyer (May 5, 2010)

Send the boys 'round: slit a few silkscreens, snap a few brushes ..scoff at their oeuvre. stuff like that. That shoulld learn 'em!


----------



## Josh220 (May 5, 2010)

Technically yes. But do people on FB have enough of a clue to pursue something like that? Probably not. 

People actually by that junk? I'd rather throw my money in the trash.


----------



## ghache (May 5, 2010)

LOL


----------



## Hooligan Dan (May 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> "reappropriation" is fancy word that some like to use to hide the fact that they are indeed stealing something that belongs to someone else. The argument that they would "update their privacy settings" is not valid at all - otherwise you could argue that you should never ever leave your home so as to avoid being mugged.
> 
> It's theft of others peoples digital property pure and simple - chances are sueing the guy is not worth it but you could easily get a takedown order from his webservice provider for his site. I forget the specific term or how to go about it but it should be fairly simple to prove that he is performing copywrite theft and profiting from it - though it of course does not stop him from throwing the site up somewhere else.
> 
> It might be worth flagging facebook with regard to the theft and profit aspects - otherwise unless he happens to use some richpersons image chances are the worth of enforving the law is not going to equal the comeback (and I mean that in more than just monitary terms(.



I think the term you're looking for is a Cease and Desist order. 

Overread is correct. That's pretty much all that's needed in this situation.


----------



## Overread (May 5, 2010)

Ahh thanks Dan - yes a Cease and Desist order was what I was thinking of


----------



## KmH (May 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> Ahh thanks Dan - yes a Cease and Desist order was what I was thinking of


I think it's actually called a DMCA takedown notice. (Digital Millenium Copyright Act).

The web site is only required to take it down, contact whoever put it up, and if that person says your DMCA notice is BS, the web site can then put the image right back up and lets the parties that are in dispute slug it out in court.

This from a link at www.photoattorney.com:
Using the DMCA Takedown Notice to Battle Copyright Infringement


----------



## Big_Pink_Snapper (May 5, 2010)

FWIW, Once you upload a picture to FB, it becomes their property! It's in the agreement you have to agree to in order to upload your photos in the first place. Basically, if you upload your photos to FB and someone uses them, you're SOL.


----------



## Josh220 (May 5, 2010)

Big_Pink_Snapper said:


> FWIW, Once you upload a picture to FB, it becomes their property! It's in the agreement you have to agree to in order to upload your photos in the first place. Basically, if you upload your photos to FB and someone uses them, you're SOL.



I would assume that loophole might give FB the right to use the photo's, but not all of the members.


----------



## Overread (May 5, 2010)

Exactly - I don't quite know the current stance of FB's legal rights regarding images - it used to be that they did get full *royalty free* usage rights to any uploaded image, but that the right would be lost if the owner of the image removed it from the FB website. They changed it at one point to remove the latter clause and it blew up in their face. As I understand it things went back to the original rule and as far as I know it is similar to that situation still..

So FB could directly profit, but take down the image and they lose the right - however it does not convey rights to independant 3rd parties to use the images without permission of the owner -so your rights are protected in that regard.


----------



## LokiZ (May 5, 2010)

Cinka said:


> My friend (and the artist as well) both argue that the images aren't works of someone's art - they're just snapshots. Furthermore, if they didn't want people to take them, they'd update their privacy settings on FB.
> 
> What do you guys think?



I think that easily comes from someone totally lacking in intellectual gray matter LOL.  It's no more ridiculous then me saying hey I am gonna walk up to his door when he is not home and finding that he left his door unlocked I then proceed to steal all of his worldly possessions...  Well if he REALLY didn't want me to steal his stuff he would not have forgot to lock his door.  ...Huh? What? 

Just because someone does not choose to use methods to deter theft does not mean the law does not exist with the absence of those methods. 

So yes, it is stealing, yes it is a crime,  Just not a crime that has yet went to trial.

Edit: But that their in is the problem with the world today.  It's not enough for it to be a crime.  In order for many of the worlds population to find something wrong enough not to engage in they first must find that the risk or conviction rate is high enough to cause them some discomfort. (myself include at times)   It's sad really.


----------



## magkelly (May 5, 2010)

This is why although I hate to use them I will usually watermark my photos of my friends online. I only refrain if they ask me to but I don't like to put any photo of mine online anymore sans one. I have sold two photos so far for print work, stock stuff. But I also have seen a couple of my photos used without my permission online as web backgrounds and once I had one photo come up tagged as someone else's work on a popular art site which completely burned me up. I sent them a copy of the original photo with my time stamp and they kindly pulled it, but it made me very angry to see someone else claiming my photo as theirs. 
I have allowed people to use my photos online and for personal use too. But I only let people who ask, and I do insist upon a photo credit usually. 

But yeah, that's why I mostly watermark these days. 

No one is going to use my images on a t-shirt to sell except for me if I can help it, not unless I authorize it.


----------



## Cinka (May 5, 2010)

Yeah, doesn't help that they're ugly t-shirts - which leads to an entirely different topic of why people who create ugly art are celebrated. 

Also, not sure about that prison ad. Is it an ad? 

I agree with everyone here. I'm sure my friend doesn't get it for several reasons: She's not a photographer and she's still young and hasn't been burned by art theives. Neither have I, but I don't want to be so I'm careful.  You have to protect your work. End of story. 

As for snapshots on Facebook, I didn't know Facebook owned them. That's annoying. I suppose, they haven't done anything about it, but they could like make a book or something. Obviously, they wouldn't share the proceeds. Thinking about removing my photos. Except, my mom likes them  I suppose I should start watermarking even the snapshots. I do watermark my pro work. 

Thanks guys!!


----------



## Dominantly (May 5, 2010)

Yup, that angers me.


----------



## eriqalan (May 5, 2010)

OK, if you do it to review the images this is called "fair use" and not stealing

Stealing is claiming they are yours or taking the whole article / gallery; not samples to demonstrate the review


----------



## c.cloudwalker (May 5, 2010)

eriqalan said:


> OK, if you do it to review the images this is called "fair use" and not stealing
> 
> Stealing is claiming they are yours or taking the whole article / gallery; not samples to demonstrate the review



You need to make a t-shirt to review an image?

You may want to read the copyright laws...


----------



## Dominantly (May 5, 2010)

Yeah, of course... He makes a T-shirt for review, and then sells it to other people for a profit so they can review it as well.

It's totally legit.


----------



## KmH (May 5, 2010)

eriqalan said:


> OK, if you do it to review the images this is called "fair use" and not stealing
> 
> Stealing is claiming they are yours or taking the whole article / gallery; not samples to demonstrate the review


Fair use is usually decided in the courts because it's anything but cut-and-dried, but it's also usually the first 2 words out of an infringers mouth, right before the next 6 words, "I didn't know it was copyrighted".

Oft times infringers convieniently confuse model release law with copyright law because a model release is not needed for editorial usage, satire, commentary, etc.

The bottom line is, copyright infringers really specialize in manufacturing spurious justifications for stealing copyrighted works.

The most recent, infamous case of infringement is the infringement perpetrated by Richard Fairy.


----------



## Derrel (May 5, 2010)

The guy's an image thief. He makes tacky T-shirts with stolen images. Kind of lame,really.


----------



## eriqalan (May 6, 2010)

I think you misread - I was stating the law; not this application. I kinda figured most would figure it out on their own .....

Maybe you should review copyright laws; what I said was correct. I never said that this was fair use (and in fact demonstrated what fair use was - which goes to the original comment)


----------



## eriqalan (May 6, 2010)

It is fairly clear when you are doing a review - which is the point of the law; generally using 20% or less of an article is obviously "fair use"

Pictures are a bit harder - if someone uses 1 of your pictures (in a review of 200 you posted on the internet) that would still be fair use

The original post referred to a specific situation and had an obvious NOT fair use - use for money

I was only trying to show the law - what is legitimate; some obviously tried to see in that comment what was not there


----------



## KmH (May 6, 2010)

eriqalan said:


> It is fairly clear when you are doing a review - which is the point of the law; *generally using 20% or less of an article is obviously "fair use"*


Regarding the "point of law".

Help me out here about where it says anything about 20% or less being "generally" or "obviously", fair use. Seems I'm missing something. 



> One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of &#8220;fair use.&#8221; The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
> 
> Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
> 
> ...


 
U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use


----------



## FrankLamont (May 7, 2010)

Which is the problem with fair use. Fair dealing is a far better, clearer and less problematic system/section of copyright law.

By the way, a cease and desist letter can be sent - just a basic notice (not order, mind, which is from the court) calling for a cease of any illegal activity, by anyone to anyone applicable. DCMA is a US thing, digitally centred.

RE the original post: it's just plainly... wrong in so many ways. And the fact that the t-shirts look terrible...


----------



## Vautrin (May 9, 2010)

The sad fact of the matter is without a lawyer you can't really force the guy to stop and irregardless of what you read into the US copyright code, if you're not a lawyer (or even if you're a lawyer but it hasn't gone before a judge) it's really just idle speculation.


----------



## tasman (May 9, 2010)

Big_Pink_Snapper said:


> FWIW, Once you upload a picture to FB, it becomes their property! It's in the agreement you have to agree to in order to upload your photos in the first place. Basically, if you upload your photos to FB and someone uses them, you're SOL.


 
If facebook owns the images or has has copy right then facebook should be the one to stop the guy from stealing the photos or sue him. And I agree that it is stealing.


----------



## JohnMF (May 9, 2010)

I remember a few years ago, a girl had her image stolen from Flickr and used in an advertising campaign by Virgin. The first thing she knew about it was when she saw her photo (of her) plastered all over bus shelters.

If i remember rightly (it was a while ago and i could be wrong), she tried to sue them (Virgin and Flickr) but her case was thrown out of court because of certain terms and conditions in place when you sign up to these type of sites.


----------



## Overread (May 9, 2010)

All I can think is that she had some creative commons licence active on her account - because as it stands flickr protects your rights and (as far as I know) has no 3rdparty sale features save for Ghetty images (where they have to ask you for permission first)

Sounds more like virgin had better lawyers than she.


----------



## Cedar (May 9, 2010)

Every time you submit a photo don't you need to agree to a disclosure?


----------



## FrankLamont (May 10, 2010)

Nope, the image was placed under a CC license (commercial, attributive), but they didn't have a model release.

But it was dropped because it's extremely difficult to carry it out internationally (murky areas when international copyright law is involved, even in developed countries).


----------



## Cedar (May 10, 2010)

FriedChicken said:


> Nope, the image was placed under a CC license (commercial, attributive), but they didn't have a model release.
> 
> But it was dropped because it's extremely difficult to carry it out internationally (murky areas when international copyright law is involved, even in developed countries).



So technically this is completely legal? :thumbdown:


----------



## Overread (May 10, 2010)

technically I suspect yes, but it sounds like Virgin were going to move toward a court lock (wereby they save money by locking the accuser in court until such a time as she is unable to pay to continue the process) a tactic that larger companies can use because of their larger base resources to draw from. 
Being international also probably brought in complications and might affect how much money the accuser could get out of the court as well - such as in the US I am aware that if an image is not copywrite registered you can only get so much back from illegal use as compared to the UK. It gets complicated and expenisve - which means a lot of money and a lot of time that many individuals can't afford


----------



## JohnMF (May 10, 2010)

Big corporations always get their way. Unfortunately, more money means you get more justice.


----------



## Cinka (May 10, 2010)

JohnMF said:


> I remember a few years ago, a girl had her image stolen from Flickr and used in an advertising campaign by Virgin. The first thing she knew about it was when she saw her photo (of her) plastered all over bus shelters.
> 
> If i remember rightly (it was a while ago and i could be wrong), she tried to sue them (Virgin and Flickr) but her case was thrown out of court because of certain terms and conditions in place when you sign up to these type of sites.



And that's the big reason I don't use Flickr. As a former web-designer, I know people scan the web for images to use without permission. It's easier and cheaper than iStock or Getty. I was even told to just grab images from the web and not worry about it. I don't like that anyone can just grab my images, use them for whatever, and not even bother to ask me. I prefer to host my own galleries - it means I don't get as much exposure on Flickr, but it gives me peace of mind.  I like the community aspect of it, but I can do that without hosting images.


----------



## LaFoto (May 10, 2010)

To my mind, if you upload images big enough to be used for advertising posters, it's your own fault if they get stolen and used for advertising in the end. 800 wide is the maximum, and with that potential picture robbers can print a postcard at the most... and if that should happen ... well. O-kay. But if you make your full-size images public ... :roll:


----------



## Overread (May 10, 2010)

Laphoto - you have to remember though - some companies will use a smaller image size than ideal for a poster - esp if it stick on the side of a plane and viewed a few miles away  

When it comes to quality only amateurs (on forums) demand the best


----------



## Sbuxo (May 10, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Yeah, of course... He makes a T-shirt for review, and then sells it to other people for a profit so they can review it as well.
> 
> It's totally legit.


:lmao:


----------



## Philip (May 13, 2010)

your right and they are wrong


----------



## epp_b (May 13, 2010)

Technically speaking, it _is_ copyright infringement, but, in practice, people who take crappy snaps like these probably don't care.


----------



## saints (May 16, 2010)

Cinka said:


> The other day a friend posted a link to an interview with "artist" Mavi Staiano who takes photos from Facebook and uses them to make t-shirts and posters, collages. I argued that the artist doesn't have permission to use the photos and that while I have nothing against using someone else's images for art, it's just good practice to ask permission first. My friend (and the artist as well) both argue that the images aren't works of someone's art - they're just snapshots. Furthermore, if they didn't want people to take them, they'd update their privacy settings on FB.
> 
> STRANGER ON MY T-SHIRT - Viceland Today
> 
> ...


I thinck that would be good to see your pics and let others see them .Would be nice to be asked.Allso i dont thinck its right to make money from the pics give all money to good causes.


----------



## Mbnmac (May 21, 2010)

If you put photos on facebook with the 'everybody' tag on then you have no right to complain about them being used in anyway after the fact.

Most people don't really care about this kind of thing


----------



## Arch (May 21, 2010)

Mbnmac said:


> If you put photos on facebook with the 'everybody' tag on then you have no right to complain about them being used in anyway after the fact.
> 
> Most people don't really care about this kind of thing



No!
The 'everybody' tag is so that people can view them, NOT steal them.
FB has the right to use photos if you upload to thier site but that doesn't give anyone else the right to.


----------

