# Can I steal your image?



## jlykins (Feb 25, 2009)

I thought someone else might find the humor in this. I got an email from my "contact us" on my website this morning. This person says, "hi, I tried to right click and save the image of the Cincinnati Skyline from your site tonight, but when I blow the photo up it gets all grainy. Can you send me a large size to my email? Oh and can you take off that JLykins Photography? It's kind of annoying right in the middle of the picture. Thanks!" I haven't responded yet, but I'm thinking I'm just going to say, yeah sure no problem, for $50... Do you guys think this person is really that nieve that they don't know you have to pay for images? I mean come on, you can't really be that dumb can you? :er:


----------



## rufus5150 (Feb 25, 2009)

jlykins said:


> Do you guys think this person is really that nieve that they don't know you have to pay for images?



Yes.



jlykins said:


> I mean come on, you can't really be that dumb can you? :er:



Yes. Welcome to the internet.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

chances are they are only 12 years old too.........

its not that foolish = its how a majority of the internet functions and is percived by people - information on it is seen as free property to be taken and used for any means. Heck just look at avatars on forums most are of images people do not legally own or have any right to use.


Welcome to the internet - may I take your coat and your bank account details please


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 25, 2009)

lol... They are not that stupid... they are hoping that YOU are that stupid.


----------



## jlykins (Feb 25, 2009)

people do steal a lot of images off of the internet. I always get permisson from the person before I use an image for anything on my blog. Just thought it was funny that they actually emailed me with that request.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 25, 2009)

> I haven't responded yet, but I'm thinking I'm just going to say, yeah sure no problem, for $50...


Change that to $300-$500


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> Change that to $300-$500





:thumbup:


----------



## rufus5150 (Feb 25, 2009)

The thing is, they probably don't understand about copyright (and they don't have to be 12 to do that). But beyond the fact that image (or any IP) theft is rampant, there are millions upon millions of images out there free for the taking either because they've been released into the public domain or they're released via a license that allows them to be freely reused (though most probably don't abide by the 'attribution' clauses in some of the licenses).

If it were me, I'd be polite but I'd explain to them via email, and briefly, that those images are yours and you retain the copyright and would be willing to negotiate a license fee if they want use those images. I wouldn't put a dollar value on it because, let's face it, you're basically telling them, 'uh, no?' and shooing them away, but on the off chance they're an add agency that might offer you $1000 per image, don't put the price out front.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

if they were and ad agency they would have been upfront to start with - I would not feel comfortable dealing with one that had tried to start contact with an email as described above.
However I would still send the polite email and also send a price (your normal rate) for the shot along with a copy of a usage licence.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 25, 2009)

That's good advice from rufus, and probably what I would do in that situation.


----------



## rufus5150 (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> if they were and ad agency they would have been upfront to start with



That's why I said 'off chance'


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

Must have been this guy... 







Also, let's get some terminology straight, here: copying photos is not "theft".  You can call it whatever BS you want, but, in the end, the law defines it as "copyright infringement", nothing more.  I'm tired of seeing copyright infringement trumped up as "theft" in an attempt to make it seem more important than rape and murder.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand... I'd say reply to him and offer to sell him a copy (assuming that's what you do), but don't spend too much time wording the email, because it'll likely be wasted.


----------



## Flower Child (Feb 25, 2009)

what if they say they printed off one of your photos?


----------



## rufus5150 (Feb 25, 2009)

I certainly don't think theft in any sense is on par with rape or murder, but I'm not opposed to referring to infringement as 'theft' colloquially either. I would guess that outside of a discussion of 'theft vs copyright', the majority audience on these boards understands the distinction and knows that 'theft' within this context doesn't actually constitute material conversion (which would be the more accurate legal term, anyway).


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Must have been this guy...



Holy crap you have to kidding me..... this can't be real....


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

Now that guy really does have some cheek!

Thing is that an email like that could be taken as legitimate by many people who are not "in the know" - I mean its well written, sounds formal and they have used a spellchecker and even put an end part like on a letter.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> I certainly don't think theft in any sense is on par with rape or murder, but I'm not opposed to referring to infringement as 'theft' colloquially either.



Neither am I.  It's intellectual property that's being taken.


An easy analogy to help understand this:  Take out your wallet, remove a $20 bill, crumble it up and toss it on the ground.  Man, that feels bad!

And THATS what people expect you do when they take your image without paying.  Their "needs" change anyway when the cash starts coming out of thier own wallet.


----------



## Antarctican (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Must have been this guy...



Oh.....my......goodness!! That is the funniest thing I have seen for a long time!!!! :lmao:


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

Antarctican said:


> Oh.....my......goodness!! That is the funniest thing I have seen for a long time!!!! :lmao:



Hey, Jeanne....  you're a lawyer.  What do you say?  Is it theft?


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

what I want to see is the responce to that email!


----------



## SrBiscuit (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Must have been this guy...


 
*WOW!*
whaddadouche


----------



## Antarctican (Feb 25, 2009)

In Canada, I believe the matter is governed by the Copyright Act (rather than the Criminal Code). The Copyright Act contains both civil _and criminal_ remedies for 'infringement' of someone's copyright....in egregious cases where a person knowingly sells or rents a copyrighted work etc., the criminal remedy available (in the case of an indictable offence) may involve a fine of up to $1 million and _imprisonment_ for a maximum of five years. So I guess everyone can say they're right...the word used is 'infringement' rather than 'theft', but the fact there are criminal remedies available that include a term of imprisonment make the matter one of semantics, really.

Any Canadians who might want a quick review of Copyright laws here can go to this site


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

Antarctican said:


> In Canada, I believe the matter is...



Thanks!  That's very helpful.

I won't get a bill, will I?


----------



## Antarctican (Feb 25, 2009)

A penguin bill perhaps....


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 25, 2009)

Antarctican said:


> In Canada, I believe the matter is governed by the Copyright Act (rather than the Criminal Code). That Act creates criminal offences and imposes penalties which include, for indictable offences, fines of up to $1 million and imprisonment for a maximum of five years.
> 
> Any Canadians who might want a quick review of Copyright laws here can go to this site


 
In the U.S. there's a civil tort of "conversion," which is distinguishable from criminal theft (or, in many jurisdictions, "larceny") in a couple of ways.  So "conversion" is probably the right word.

But, in common parlance...I'd probably say "he stole my ____."  I mean, when I was a kid, if my little brother took my baseball cards, I wouldn't have said "David converted my rookie Cal Ripkin!"  I'd have said he stole it, the little thief.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> Neither am I.  It's intellectual property that's being taken.


a) "Intellectual Property" is a disingenuous and insulting euphemism.  You can't "own" an "idea", no matter what the law says.

b) If I copy an image, I'm not "taking" anything from you ... you still have it!



> An easy analogy to help understand this: Take out your wallet, remove a $20 bill, crumble it up and toss it on the ground. Man, that feels bad!


Hmm, let me try that.... nope, it's still worth $20.



> what if they say they printed off one of your photos?


What about it?  It's a form of copying, and therefore, "copyright infringement", but not theft.



> I certainly don't think theft in any sense is on par with rape or murder, but I'm not opposed to referring to infringement as 'theft' colloquially either. I would guess that outside of a discussion of 'theft vs copyright', the majority audience on these boards understands the distinction and knows that 'theft' within this context doesn't actually constitute material conversion (which would be the more accurate legal term, anyway).


What I meant is that people have trumped up "copyright infringement" to the point where they want law enforcement to take it more seriously than real crime that affects real people.

We need to put things into perspective: to say, "thar stealing mah stuff!" is a whole lot more convincing and heart-wrenching than what it really means, which is, "they're infringing on my statutory monopoly!"

The Internet is a machine made for copying and you are not ever going to find a way to successfully work against it.  If you can't find a way to work with it, then you weren't cut out for the business you're in.  Tough luck.



> what I want to see is the responce to that email!


Yeah, so do I, but it wasn't in _my_ inbox, I just found the screenshot on a on another forum


----------



## jlykins (Feb 25, 2009)

Ok so here's what I sent him back:

"I'm sorry, but I'm a professional working photographer that makes his living off of selling his images. I cannot blow that up and give it to you for free. I retain the copyright to that image and am willing to negotiate if you would like a print made. Jason"  

What do you guys think? Strait to the point but not to harsh...


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

Eh... sounds harsh to me.

I would have simply thanked him for the interest and directed him to where he can buy prints or copies and spared the lecture.

If he's someone who knows better and thought he could get a free lunch, then no harm done, but if he's simply uninformed, you probably scared him off.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 25, 2009)

Sorry -- but I think I disagree with everything you just said.



epp_b said:


> a) "Intellectual Property" is a disingenuous and insulting euphemism. You can't "own" an "idea", no matter what the law says.


 
Sure you can -- as surely as you can own a tree. Oh, some might quibble and say that it's "God's" tree or "nature's" tree. But I'm pretty sure it's my tree.



epp_b said:


> b) If I copy an image, I'm not "taking" anything from you ... you still have it!


 
I still have it...but now, since it can be freely taken and reused, it's worthless. You've therefore deprived me of the value of the item, even if I continue to hold a copy of it.



epp_b said:


> What I meant is that people have trumped up "copyright infringement" to the point where they want law enforcement to take it more seriously than real crime that affects real people.


 
If I make my money writing software, or taking pictures, or painting paintings, I don't use that money in some theoretical way -- I use it to buy groceries, and pay a mortgage, and put gas in the car. Taking that money deprives me of those things in a real way -- I don't get paid, so I really can't drive to the store and really can't buy milk. 

Or, alternatively, I have to stop writing software, taking pictures, or painting paintings (or developing that cure for cancer I've been working on) -- since doing so is considered a "free gift" to the world -- and have to sell hamburgers instead to make the money I need to live. 

If it's done on a small scale, I have a right to recoup that loss. If done on a large scale, the taking could be criminal. I see nothing wrong with that.



epp_b said:


> We need to put things into perspective: to say, "thar stealing mah stuff!" is a whole lot more convincing and heart-wrenching than what it really means, which is, "they're infringing on my statutory monopoly!"


 
A statutory monopoly that's been recognized as necessary to the development of art and science. So much so, in fact, that it's written into the U.S. Constitution. 



epp_b said:


> The Internet is a machine made for copying and you are not ever going to find a way to successfully work against it. If you can't find a way to work with it, then you weren't cut out for the business you're in. Tough luck.


 
I strongly disagree with the idea that we should be defeatist about property rights, just because the internet makes it easier to copy IP. :er:


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Must have been this guy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am at a loss for words... I wouldn't even know how to react to something like that. Unfortunately I would end up suing the balls of his small business for his arrogance.


----------



## KvnO (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> Now that guy really does have some cheek!



Definitely.  I'd have responded with something like:

_I_ must say, _I'm_ quite upset.  You've used _my_ images with out _my _permission.  I use _my_ images to promote _my_ business (which is not easy) and all the while, you've been using _my_ hard work to do the same for yourself.

_My_ concern is that if you continue to use _my_ images I will have to contact _my_ lawyer as I have never given you the rights to do so.  This sudden confession means I'll have to better protect _my_ images so this doesn't happen again (thank you for the heads-up). 

Why would you do such a thing?  I am an honest businessman and small businesses like _mine_ (and yours) don't get respect (especially when one steals from another).  I hope you realize it took _me_ a long time to create images that I liked.  Now I have to further protect them.  Please don't take them again.  I don't think you want me to call _my_ lawyer about this.

If you do wish to use my images, I've attached a spreadsheet of prices for your perusal.  Please make all checks payable to... 

Hopefully the emphasis on "my" would get the point across.  If not, I'd love to hear from his lawyer.



jlykins said:


> What do you guys think? Strait to the point but not to harsh...



I think it's fine.  You didn't make yourself look like a jerk or anything.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> a) "Intellectual Property" is a disingenuous and insulting euphemism.  You can't "own" an "idea", no matter what the law says.



Huh?  And you can't change a blue sky to green simply by declaring it so.

No insult.  And, I'm very sincere.

Are you saying there's no value to my work?  Do you believe a box of print paper right off the shelf has no additional worth with my images?

I'm certain you know it's wrong and immoral to take something that you have no right to.

It's silly to argue about it.

-Pete


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> Sure you can -- as surely as you can own a tree.


You're clearly not understanding the contrast between a physical object and an abstract idea.

A tree is a _physical_ thing.  I can plant it on my property and it belongs to me.  I own it.  If you take a chainsaw to it and remove it from my property, it's theft.  That's simple.

A photo is an _abstract_ concept.  I can put it on my hard drive.  If you copy it from my hard drive to a CD, it's copyright infringement, not theft.

You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it, hence the term "copyright".  If two people have a photo of the same subject and a similar or same composition, neither of them stole it from the other, but each own the copyright to their specific photo.

For example...

Here's a photo I took:
http://eppb.myphotos.cc/album/miscellaneous/do_not_enter.jpg

Here's a photo a guy I know took:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/2407943717_d6569691a5.jpg?v=0

They're of the same sign in the same location, but neither of us knew that the other had taken the photo at the time.  I don't own the idea, neither does he, but we each own the copyright to our own photo.



> I still have it...but now, since it can be freely taken and reused, it's worthless. You've therefore deprived me of the value of the item, even if I continue to hold a copy of it.


Whatever "value" you have placed on the photo is imaginary and abstract.  No idea has a concrete value that you can put a dollar amount on.

You can put a dollar amount on a tree based on size, weight, quality, age, health and many other concrete factors.  Nothing is concrete about artwork.



> If I make my money writing software, or taking pictures, or painting paintings, I don't use that money in some theoretical way -- I use it to buy groceries, and pay a mortgage, and put gas in the car. Taking that money deprives me of those things in a real way -- I don't get paid, so I really can't drive to the store and really can't buy milk.


My heart bleeds.  You can't base your business what people _should_ do, but what people _will_ do.  If it's easy to copy, people will copy it.  Live with it or go out of business.  If you can otherwise add value to it, people are usually willing to pay for that value.

Copyright is not a right to make money from your work, it's a right to _try_ to make money from your work as long as it progressive according to the constitution (in the US).



> Or, alternatively, I have to stop writing software, taking pictures, or painting paintings (or developing that cure for cancer I've been working on) -- since doing so is considered a "free gift" to the world -- and have to sell hamburgers instead to make the money I need to live.


Great, something I can relate to.  I am a web developer by trade, which includes writing website management software.  I charge a reasonable rate to get the job done for each customer and that's it.  If the customer decides to pickup and go, they're free to take the software with them.

Why should I care?  I already got paid for it.  Copyright may give me the right to charge for it in perpetuity, but that would be foolish and hurt business, so I don't.

Repeat after me: *copyright is not a retirement plan*.



> If it's done on a small scale, I have a right to recoup that loss. If done on a large scale, the taking could be criminal. I see nothing wrong with that.


Here's the problem with accusations and conviction of copyright infringement: if I download a crapload of commercial software using bittorrent, I'm doing it because:

1) I'm cheap, or
2) I'm poor, or
3) I'm lazy

If I'm cheap and the software is not available via warez channels, I won't buy it anyway.  If I'm poor and the software is not available via warez channels, I won't buy it anyway.  If I'm lazy and the software is not available via warez channels, I won't buy it anyway.

The end result is zero loss. You're going to get anyone in these categories to buy your software no matter how hard you fight it, so fighting it is just wasted energy.



> A statutory monopoly that's been recognized as necessary to the development of art and science. So much so, in fact, that it's written into the U.S. Constitution.


Yup, and written with explicit purpose *to promote the progress of useful arts and sciences*, not to pad your pocket book.  Go read it.

Copyright wasn't even conceived with the idea that you should have a right to make money creating art, it was conceived with the idea that the money aspect was merely an incentive to promote progress.  Progress first, money second.



> Huh?  And you can't change a blue sky to green simply by declaring it so.


See: LSD 

I think I phrased that incorrectly.  "Intellectual Property" is not part of law, it's a euphemism that was coined in the 70's so that big media could have a term to use instead of "monopoly".



> I'm certain you know it's wrong and immoral to take something that you have no right to.


Of course.  No argument there.  Just as long as you know that copying a photo is not "taking" anything.  Copyright is not a moral proposition, it's a utilitarian one.

I liken to traffic law: there's nothing inherently immoral about going 200 MPH on public roads, but it sure is illegal.  Traffic laws are a utility for safety, not moral guidance.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently immoral about hitting CTRL+C, CTRL+V, but it may be infringing copyright in some circumstances.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

"You can't own a _*specific photo*_, but you can own the"

Do you mean scene/subject?


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

A shopkeeper asks a regular teenage customer if they are any good with computers; to which the teenager replise that they are. The shopkeeper then goes on to talk with the kid about computers in general, and lets slip that he would really like photoshop CS3 - but its £100s - way too much money.
The teenager replise that they can get it for free (warze) of the net = to which the shopkeeper is very excited. So they go back to his house and the kid sets up the download for the man - the kid then asks if the man is alright with this (since its theft) to which the man replise that he was never would never have bought the software of the company anyway since it cost too much - and that the comany has millions whilst he has only his earnings from the shop.

The next day the kid walks into the shop again  - this time he selects a rather nice jacket from a stand and then walks out the door. The shopkeeper runs after him and stop the kid - he then asks why the kid was not paying for the jacket and stealing from him - to which the kid replise that the jacket cost way to much for him (only earning a few £s a month) so he was never going to buy the jacket so the sale is not lost - and besides the shopkeeper is so much richer than he that the cost of the jacket is nothing. 



Moral of the story - theft is theft - be it digital or physical


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

^ You can analogize with fault-ridden stories all you want, but copyright infringement still isn't theft.



> Do you mean scene/subject?


Sort of.  You don't own a photo, you own the copyright to it.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> ...
> Moral of the story - theft is theft - be it digital or physical



Definitions of infringement:

violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment" 
misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony 
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Use of an image without authorization is -- infringement.  Get over "theft."


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Here's the problem with accusations and conviction of copyright infringement: if I download a crapload of commercial software using bittorrent, I'm doing it because:
> 
> 1) I'm cheap, or
> 2) I'm poor, or
> 3) I'm lazy



Or because you are minimising running costs/maximising profit by taking a decision that you find the business risk (that you won't get found out) in doing so acceptable.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Sort of.  You don't own a photo, you own the copyright to it.



Interesting concept.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Or because you are minimising running costs/maximising profit by taking a decision that you find the business risk (that you won't get found out) in doing so acceptable.



This is why I think the 'violator' is probably just an idiot.  If they never said anything in the first place, who would know if there were an infringment?


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> Definitions of infringement:
> 
> violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"
> misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony
> ...


Good to see that someone else here seems to understand things.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pnjyrzkepo]YouTube - Illegal Downloading - Inappropriate for All Ages[/ame]


----------



## ThePhotoRebellion (Feb 25, 2009)

> Change that to $300-$500


 :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

I guess were getting mixed up between the understanding of theft to the general population and the understanding of the word in the legal sence. 

to most people stealing is theft - and theft is stealing. Whilst in a legal sence its not. Either way digital data still has copywrite on it so its still infringment to take it without permission - and to take without permission is stealing to most people.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> YouTube - Illegal Downloading - Inappropriate for All Ages


I'm amazed that ad wasn't banned.  There are so many bold-faced, outright lies, it's laughable.

Besides, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o"]this one's better[/ame] 



> and to take without permission is stealing to most people.


Only, "to take" implies depriving someone of exactly what you've taken.


----------



## ThePhotoRebellion (Feb 25, 2009)

Photographers should be familiar with legislation such as:*
The Copyright Act of 1976* and the *No Electronic Act of 1997

*They both "Protect" our rights to our work from people who want to steal our images and use them for financial gain or for personal use.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Besides, this one's better



It's hard to beat British humor!


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm short of time and have to run, but here's a link to dig in if you're interested;

U.S. Copyright Office

I think the section that pertains to didtal photos is title 18.

Gottago- have fun.


... It's all about what you can get away with.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> I'm amazed that ad wasn't banned.  There are so many bold-faced, outright lies, it's laughable.
> 
> Besides, this one's better
> 
> ...



True - but when I take your photo I have not deprived you of your face have I now? But I have still taken your photo.
It implies depriving - but implications are not the point - you have still taken (via the method of copying or saving the image) the image and are using it for your own desires. 
and yes I am aware that every image on the net is already saved to a computers harddrive upon viewing - and it makes things comfusing



Christie Photo said:


> It's hard to beat British humor!



the internets won't let me watch it - and I am in Britain too!


----------



## tsaraleksi (Feb 25, 2009)

It's not an issue of stealing the photo but depriving the photographer of the money that they should have earned from it. It seems a pointlessly pedantic exercise to argue about the use of the word 'theft' in this case.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> You're clearly not understanding the contrast between a physical object and an abstract idea.


 
Sure I do -- for some reason you've drawn a distinction between things you can touch and things you can't, and have decided to value only the former. The law (and the rest of society) values ideas the same way that it values the paper on which they're written. 



epp_b said:


> A photo is an _abstract_ concept. I can put it on my hard drive. If you copy it from my hard drive to a CD, it's copyright infringement, not theft.


 
It's conversion (a "taking") of the underlying rights, which in most situations is civil copyright infringement. You seem to be hung up on the word "theft" (for reasons that I suspect are explained further down in your post) -- so I'll certainly grant you that under U.S. law the tort (or criminal charge, if the conduct was severe enough) would not be "theft" in its technical sense.



epp_b said:


> You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it, hence the term "copyright". If two people have a photo of the same subject and a similar or same composition, neither of them stole it from the other, but each own the copyright to their specific photo.


 
Now you're very close to getting it. What you want to say is that an _idea_ _for _a picture cannot be copyrighted. And that's (partially) right -- everyone is entitled to take a picture of the Empire State Building or the Hoover Dam, and to do it from whatever angle they like. (Although explicitly copying another's shot can get you into a grey area.) Unfortunately, what you're also saying is that the photo itself enjoys no protection -- and while that may be your idea for what the law should be, it's certainly not the law.



epp_b said:


> Whatever "value" you have placed on the photo is imaginary and abstract. No idea has a concrete value that you can put a dollar amount on.
> 
> You can put a dollar amount on a tree based on size, weight, quality, age, health and many other concrete factors. Nothing is concrete about artwork.


 
How do you value a tree? (Or, for that matter, how do you value Citibank stock?) Assuming you're going to sell it, you value a tree by the going rate of wood in the lumber market. That's based only on peoples' demand for lumber -- and IP is no different. Someone will pay $5 -- or they won't. If no one will pay $5, someone will pay $4. Or they won't. IP is subject to economics in the same way as any other good or service. You're trying to assign abstractness to it -- but it's not an abstract concept.



epp_b said:


> My heart bleeds. You can't base your business what people _should_ do, but what people _will_ do. If it's easy to copy, people will copy it. Live with it or go out of business. If you can otherwise add value to it, people are usually willing to pay for that value.


 
Hmm.  So you're basically saying that if someone _can_ break through the locks and copy something, then they're legally entitled to it.  :er:  I hope you think the same applies to everything else you own, because if so I know some guys who would love to have your address. But, fortunately, you're wrong -- one of the ways we prevent someone from breaking into our houses and stealing our stuff is making it illegal to do so. The same is true with IP.



epp_b said:


> Copyright is not a right to make money from your work, it's a right to _try_ to make money from your work as long as it progressive according to the constitution (in the US).


 
...and destroying any possibility of making money from your work eliminates that right. :er:



epp_b said:


> Great, something I can relate to. I am a web developer by trade, which includes writing website management software. I charge a reasonable rate to get the job done for each customer and that's it. If the customer decides to pickup and go, they're free to take the software with them.
> 
> Why should I care? I already got paid for it. Copyright may give me the right to charge for it in perpetuity, but I'm not a greedy hog, so I don't.


 
If it turns out to be the next Windows, and they get filthy rich off it, and you're ok with only your upfront fee -- hey, that's your choice, man.  But the law would have granted you greater rights if you chose to exercise them. 



epp_b said:


> Repeat after me: *copyright is not a retirement plan*.


 
Ok, that's your view, and you're entitled to it. So what _do_ you want to retire on? You work hard -- you don't deserve to retire? 



epp_b said:


> Here's the problem with accusations and conviction of copyright infringement: if I download a crapload of commercial software using bittorrent, I'm doing it because:
> 
> 1) I'm cheap, or
> 2) I'm poor, or
> ...


 
So you value the software enough to want to use it, which means that absent any other way, you'd pony up some amount of money for it -- but you also know a way to just take it without paying, so you do that instead. (Because, let's face it, if the choices are "free" or "not free," and we're not constrained by morality or the law, everyone's going to choose free.) Ok, you're going to do it regardless -- but nothing you described above makes it right or legal. 

But you're too poor? Not really -- you just don't want to pay for something you want. But if you really are too poor, there are ways to make money to buy the things you want.  

You're too cheap? Zero sympathy -- taking what isn't yours simply because you don't _want_ to pay for it is repulsive.

You're too lazy? ... (really, does it take more time to learn how to take things than it does to buy them?) 

Nor can you justify it with the self-serving claim that you otherwise wouldn't have bought it, so "no harm, no foul." 

First, in many cases it's false -- you often would have found the money to pay for it, but didn't have to. 

Second, from the creator's point of view they would often rather you _not_ have the software if you aren't going to pay for it. You're not entitled to their creation -- it's their choice whether they sell it to you at any given price point or to give it away. Taking away that choice is wrong, even if you could (and you can't) construct an argument in which they didn't suffer economic harm. 



epp_b said:


> Yup, and written with explicit purpose *to promote the progress of useful arts and sciences*, not to pad your pocket book. Go read it.
> 
> Copyright wasn't even conceived with the idea that you should have a right to make money creating art, it was conceived with the idea that the money aspect was merely an incentive to promote progress. Progress first, money second.


 
Centuries of experience told the founders that letting inventors and artists "pad their pocket books" (also known as making a living) was the only way to encourage progress, because no one would bother to invent anything if their neighbor was going to reap all the rewards. You're not seriously disagreeing with that -- in fact, you're right: progress first, money second. Inventors have to know that their progress will lead to money, or they'll never do it.

In any event, I don't think I'll be able to convince you that taking things that don't belong to you is wrong if you don't already believe that it is...so back to the grind.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

Great thread!

and civil too...


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> the internets won't let me watch it - and I am in Britain too!


Oooh, the irony 



> Sure I do -- for some reason you've drawn a distinction between things you can touch and things you can't, and have decided to value only the former. The law (and the rest of society) values ideas the same way that it values the paper on which they're written.


No, it doesn't.  That's why "copyright infringement" and "theft" are defined separately in law.  That's why "copyright infringement" can sometimes be a civil dispute and why "theft" is always a criminal matter.





> So what _do_ you want to retire on?


An RRSP (401K in the US), like honest people.



> Centuries of experience told the founders that letting inventors and artists "pad their pocket books" (also known as making a living) was the only way to encourage progress, because no one would bother to invent anything if their neighbor was going to reap all the rewards. You're not seriously disagreeing with that -- in fact, you're right: progress first, money second. Inventors have to know that their progress will lead to money, or they'll never do it.


History proves you wrong: copyright has only existed for the last few hundred years and people still invented things and created plenty of art before the era of copyright.

How do we know that people were motivated to create art without copyright?  Because they created art.



> In any event, I don't think I'll be able to convince you that taking things that don't belong to you is wrong if you don't already believe that it is...so back to the grind.


Oh, no, stealing is certainly wrong.  Copying isn't stealing.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Copying isn't stealing.



I think your going to be on your own with this one!

I just can't see how you can't see that it is stealing in a form. Granted you still have the original, but in today's society it is possible to distribute copies of that original for financial (and other) gain. Thus we have copywrite to protect that content for yourself and thus allow only the original creator to (potentially) benefit from the creation.

I guess its only since we can recreate good or perfectly identical copies of things with little effort that we have to start protecting against it.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> History proves you wrong: copyright has only existed for the last few hundred years and people still invented things and created plenty of art before the era of copyright.


 
450-500 years, but "last few hundred" is close enough. Copyright's origins date from roughly the time it became possible to copy and steal written works (shortly after the invention of the printing press and the mercantile trade). Before that, people knew they would enjoy the fruits of their labors because, well, there wasn't any way for others to take them.



epp_b said:


> No, it doesn't. That's why "copyright infringement" and "theft" are defined separately in law. That's why "copyright infringement" can sometimes be a civil dispute and why "theft" is always a criminal matter.


 
You're wrong on both counts. "Taking a thing without authorization" has a different name in civil and criminal matters (conversion versus theft), and slightly different elements, but it's both a civil and criminal wrong. You can be prosecuted OR sued (or both). Same is true with copyright infringement. The law has penalties for either, both civil and criminal. So you're really just arguing a difference based on the name of the most applicable law -- if that's what you have, it's not much. 



epp_b said:


> Oh, no, stealing is certainly wrong. Copying isn't stealing.


 
Nope. With authorization, copying isn't stealing. 

Unauthorized copying without compensating the owner of the work, on the other hand... You don't want to call those actions "stealing" because you engage in them as well and don't want to be considered a thief -- and I won't call you one -- but regardless of what you call it, it's far short of moral and definitely illegal. :er:

If you're comfortable with that, then you are -- many people break the law or commit torts, and most of them sleep at night. But if your point is to say that copyright infringers should be safe from lawsuits or prosecution, or are in any way morally justified in taking other peoples' intellectual property...then you're simply wrong.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> I just can't see how you can't see that it is stealing in a form.


I didn't say that it isn't wrong or that it isn't copyright infringement, but it just isn't stealing.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> I think your going to be on your own with this one!
> 
> I just can't see how you can't see that it is stealing in a form. Granted you still have the original, but in today's society it is possible to distribute copies of that original for financial (and other) gain. Thus we have copywrite to protect that content for yourself and thus allow only the original creator to (potentially) benefit from the creation.
> 
> I guess its only since we can recreate good or perfectly identical copies of things with little effort that we have to start protecting against it.



Copying isn't stealing.  Copying and using beyond the limitations of 'fair use'  is unauthorized use, an infringement.

Read the definitions I posted earlier. Then, go to the link I posted earlier and read about your rights.

Say the OP has asked the "infringer" to remove the photo from their site (discontinue use).  *The "infringer says, "No. I like it just fine."  What are you goining to do?*

Hint: There are several options, but none of them have the word(s) steal or theft in them.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

like I said (somewhere up there) I think we are dealing with terms under a legal and a general understanding.
from the legal point of view there are differences in all the meanings - even (probably) between theft and stealing. However for the layman these terms (and the situation you are describing) are all lumped under a singular viewpoint
oh and those copywrite laws ain't my laws (though they are most likley very similar)


----------



## abraxas (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> like I said (somewhere up there) I think we are dealing with terms under a legal and a general understanding.
> from the legal point of view there are differences in all the meanings - even (probably) between theft and stealing. However for the layman these terms (and the situation you are describing) are all lumped under a singular viewpoint
> oh and those copywrite laws ain't my laws (though they are most likley very similar)



So what are you going to do in the stated scenario--according to your laws?

*The "infringer says, "No. I like it just fine." What are you goining to do?*


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

Contact a lawyer (a specialist in image copywrite cases preferably) and speak to them about it of course - probably post here to and vent/get advice - as well as a few other photography sites and see what the best advice given is from people = though I will still contact the proper lawyer.


----------



## dizzyg44 (Feb 25, 2009)

I still can't believe no one has mentioned the time/labor aspect of this.

Someone was rationalizing that taking some pics were ok because they were just taking (electronically) them, not taking a physical print.

Taking someone else's work (physically or electronically) is still IN SPIRIT stealing.  The victim's time and labor consumed to produce that work is what is actually being taken.

Do you provide free labor?  especially so someone else can profit/use for their benefit?

software for example (like photographs) don't magically appear, someone had to work to produce them the same as a working producing a physical good.

IMHO

Give me your .jpg!  What do you mean it's yours?  Ultimately you are just giving me a set of 1's and 0's in a pre arranged order.....says the guy to the other guy who spent 8hrs arranging those 1's/0's just right so to speak......


----------



## Big Bully (Feb 25, 2009)

jlykins said:


> people do steal a lot of images off of the internet. I always get permisson from the person before I use an image for anything on my blog. Just thought it was funny that they actually emailed me with that request.



I know what you mean. I found some of my images posted on another forum (granted not a photo forum), with no mention to the fact that they were my images. It seriously ticks me off when people take credit for my work, and I have the number sequence on my computer to confirm that they were from my camera.. *pricks*

I think more than anything, and I know we are arguing over the terminology of theft, and copyright here, but more than anything seeing your work posted somewhere, without mention of who took it is an ego/pride killer. That is someones work, something they worked hard on to "get the shot and make it great". 

Intellectual _*property*_ can be stolen.  Property is property.


----------



## Joves (Feb 25, 2009)

Well either way taking someones image wether you consider it stealing or infringement, is still dishonest. If it is done to you it would make you feel as though they stole from you. Maybe it is a matter of how you feel about it is what type of ethics you were taught as a child. I know in my old fashioned world it is stealing, wether it is an image or idea.


----------



## Phranquey (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> I think your going to be on your own with this one!
> 
> I just can't see how you can't see that it is stealing in a form.


 
I agree. epp b, allow me to pose a _hypothetical_ situation.......

There has been region wide search in the south-east for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, once thought to be extinct, but there have been some unsubstantiated sightings of this bird. You are out in the woods, on walkabout with your camera, and, what do you know....there's one hanging on a tree & you get a great picture of it.
National Geographic is offering you a cool half-mill for this pic to be on the cover, but all of a sudden, some birding magazine "infringes" on your photograph and prints it without your permission. WOW....it's just copying, you'll just let it slide????


Hmmmm....I think NOT.

And that birding magazine didn't just "steal" a half-million from your pocket?

Hmmmm....I think SO.


I don't care what the legal term is, if you "infringe" my copyright, you are "stealing" from my pocket.  It may not be theft in the criminal sense, but it still feels the same.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

> National Geographic is offering you a cool half-mill for this pic to be on the cover, but all of a sudden, some birding magazine "infringes" on your photograph and prints it without your permission. WOW....it's just copying, you'll just let it slide????


After NG has given me an amount of money I can live off for the rest of my life?  Why should I care then?



> I don't care what the legal term is, if you "infringe" my copyright, you are "stealing" from my pocket. It may not be theft in the criminal sense, but it still feels the same.


Wow, wouldn't it be nice if the law were based on how you feel about something?


----------



## Phranquey (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> After NG has given me an amount of money I can live off for the rest of my life? Why should I care then?


 
Because I still believe in something called "Principle". The arguement was implied to state that since the picture was published elsewhere first, you wouldn't get your money from NG.

Why do I feel like I am arguing with my teenage son......


----------



## Kegger (Feb 25, 2009)

Here's one that might actually hit home epp_b...

Say I were take an image, namely this one,

:Image removed. Think snow:

and print up a whole mess of 'em and sell them along with all my other photos that I sell. And at the same time, never tell anyone who actually took the shot, and never let the person who took the shot know I'm doing this. 

What if I sold so many of them, I make millions of dollars. Then told you I copied _your_ photo and did all this, and never handed you a red cent. 

I think that would piss you off. Which seems to be the whole argument here, that someone is using an image without permission for their own use, pleasure, or personal gain.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

^ Hum... go ahead, try and print off a 500px wide image any larger than two inches wide and see what sort of quality you get. It certainly won't be anything salable.

Additionally, thanks for helping publicize me!



> The arguement was implied to state that since the picture was published elsewhere first, you wouldn't get your money from NG.


That's a bit of a technical impossibility since I'm smart enough not to publish my images at any reasonably printable size.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

Kegger said:


> Here's one that might actually hit home epp_b...
> 
> Say I were take an image, namely this one,
> 
> ...




No... the purpose of the argument was to separate the criminal term of theft from the term of copyright infringement...

What you did to his photo is a copyright infringement... For which you still can be held financially accountable in civil court proceedings....


----------



## Kegger (Feb 25, 2009)

I know, that's the point. I illustrated both points, the copyright infringement, as well as the criminal aspect. 

But since it's just his copyright, who cares.... At least that's the vibe I'm getting from him.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

The point I'm trying to make is to tell it as it is and not trump it up by euphemising it as "theft".


----------



## Kegger (Feb 25, 2009)

And I understand that. I'm trying to point out the fact that even though it is not theft in the legal sense of the word, it goes against many people personal feelings on the matter. Most people aren't well versed in the law, and that's how they view it, as theft. 

But that's what lawyers are for, to unscrew the situation and put it in a way that legally defines what has happened. 

Just like me, you can say "infringement" all day long to me. I'm a 22 year old kid. It's theft to me. So I get a lawyer, he files the civil suit under the category of "copyright infringement." The legal terminology for this specific incident that I call in layman's terms, theft.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> That's a bit of a technical impossibility since I'm smart enough not to publish my images at any reasonably printable size.


 
You're dodging the hypothetical -- and that's understandable, because there's no good answer to it. How the birding magazine manages to get your image isn't important -- but since it seems important to you, let's say you had it on a CD, and someone pickpocketed you and sold the image to them. 

It seems to be your position that it's now theirs to do with as they wish -- that they can publish it, that you have no right to seek compensation, and that you're just SOL and out the half mil. If I understand correctly, it's your position, in fact, that your only cause of action would be against the pickpocket -- and only for the cost of the CD ($1.50?). If so, well, it's a position, certainly.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 25, 2009)

Antarctican said:


> A penguin bill perhaps....



Sombody gathering up the funds to pay anti's bill...


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 26, 2009)

epp_b said:


> ^ Hum... go ahead, try and print off a 500px wide image any larger than two inches wide and see what sort of quality you get. It certainly won't be anything salable.



Wow, that comment about arguing with a teenage boy really struck home with that reply.  

Instead of trying to see the facts of a situation, we get a "try and print off a 500px wide image any larger than two inches wide..." comment.

The concept is simple... if someone used a photo that YOU took and made millions of dollars from it, and you saw this... can we assume that you would remain passive and let this *theft* go?  Would you feel "infringed" or would you feel stolen from?  Hell, if that happened to me, I'd feel RAPED! 

Legally it may be called "infringement", but the facts of the matter is that someone other than you, has a huge wadded bankroll in their pocket becuase they used YOUR picture illegally without YOUR permission.  Call that what you want, *this* is what we are discussing... not excuses about small sizes.

Sheesh!


----------



## jlykins (Feb 26, 2009)

So the guy emailed me back and is coming by the studio Friday to pick up a 12X16 unmounted Print for $50...


----------



## Antarctican (Feb 26, 2009)

sabbath999 said:


> Sombody gathering up the funds to pay anti's bill...


:lmao::lmao::lmao:



jlykins said:


> So the guy emailed me back and is coming by the studio Friday to pick up a 12X16 unmounted Print for $50...


Really? Or are you being sarcastic?


----------



## epp_b (Feb 26, 2009)

Sarcasm, obviously.

Note that claiming attribution for someone else's photo is an entirely different proposition than copyright altogether.


----------



## Slaphead (Feb 26, 2009)

jlykins said:


> So the guy emailed me back and is coming by the studio Friday to pick up a 12X16 unmounted Print for $50...



So, result then. Always good


----------



## Big Bully (Feb 26, 2009)

epp_b said:


> ^ Hum... go ahead, try and print off a 500px wide image any larger than two inches wide and see what sort of quality you get. It certainly won't be anything salable.
> 
> Additionally, thanks for helping publicize me!
> 
> That's a bit of a technical impossibility since I'm smart enough not to publish my images at any reasonably printable size.




Wow.. You just don't get it do you?!:waiting:


----------



## jlykins (Feb 26, 2009)

No no. I'm serious. This guy is coming to the studio tomorrow to pick it up.


----------



## Overread (Feb 26, 2009)

what surprises me most is that he is local enough to do that!
great result!


----------



## Antarctican (Feb 26, 2009)

jlykins said:


> No no. I'm serious. This guy is coming to the studio tomorrow to pick it up.


That's great! [I really didn't see that as the likely outcome back when you started the thread!]


----------



## Joves (Feb 26, 2009)

jlykins said:


> No no. I'm serious. This guy is coming to the studio tomorrow to pick it up.


 Well congrats on the sale.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 26, 2009)

jlykins said:


> No no. I'm serious. This guy is coming to the studio tomorrow to pick it up.



Ok, I say kick him in the nuts and tell him you meant 50 THOUSAND, not 50 DOLLLARS... lol

Kidding aside, I'd say that was a nice end to a difficult situation.


----------



## PhilGarber (Feb 26, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> The thing is, they probably don't understand about copyright (and they don't have to be 12 to do that). But beyond the fact that image (or any IP) theft is rampant, there are millions upon millions of images out there free for the taking either because they've been released into the public domain or they're released via a license that allows them to be freely reused (though most probably don't abide by the 'attribution' clauses in some of the licenses).
> 
> If it were me, I'd be polite but I'd explain to them via email, and briefly, that those images are yours and you retain the copyright and would be willing to negotiate a license fee if they want use those images. I wouldn't put a dollar value on it because, let's face it, you're basically telling them, 'uh, no?' and shooing them away, but on the off chance they're an add agency that might offer you $1000 per image, don't put the price out front.



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## epp_b (Feb 26, 2009)

> No no. I'm serious. This guy is coming to the studio tomorrow to pick it up.


Heh, sorry, my bad.  I made the previous comment ("of course he's being sarcastic...") under the impression of a different reference.  I'm glad (and a bit surprised) that it came to a happy ending for you.

To any of you who are still convinced that copying an image equates to the theft of actual, tangible property, I suggest reading Content, by Cory Doctorow.  Heck, I suggest reading all his books, they're great.  And the best part? You can download his books for free, no strings attached, because he's smart enough to realize that obscurity is a far bigger problem than piracy for any artist and also that you can't own an idea or the pseudo-property swiss-cheese that is "IP".

I have a very deep technical understanding of the topic, but I think I have difficulty translating it from "geekese" to English.  He's much better at explaining it than I am.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> ...
> 
> ... To any of you who are still convinced that copying an image equates to the theft of actual, tangible property, I suggest reading Content, by Cory Doctorow.  Heck, I suggest reading all his books, they're great.  And the best part? You can download his books for free, no strings attached, because he's smart enough to realize that obscurity is a far bigger problem than piracy for any artist and also that you can't own an idea or the pseudo-property swiss-cheese that is "IP".
> 
> ...



Understood.  The point I was working toward (but I have some other matters that are taking up my time at the moment), is that _*there really is nothing you can do about it.*_


----------



## Big Bully (Feb 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Heh, sorry, my bad.  I made the previous comment ("of course he's being sarcastic...") under the impression of a different reference.  I'm glad (and a bit surprised) that it came to a happy ending for you.
> 
> To any of you who are still convinced that copying an image equates to the theft of actual, tangible property, I suggest reading Content, by Cory Doctorow.  Heck, I suggest reading all his books, they're great.  And the best part? You can download his books for free, no strings attached, because he's smart enough to realize that obscurity is a far bigger problem than piracy for any artist and also that you can't own an idea or the pseudo-property swiss-cheese that is "IP".
> 
> I have a very deep technical understanding of the topic, but I think I have difficulty translating it from "geekese" to English.  He's much better at explaining it than I am.




Or for a better reference you can look up Copyright Laws. Those might be closer to the point than a book by some guy.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 27, 2009)

He's "some guy" that has done his homework and makes a lot of sense.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> He's "some guy" that has done his homework and makes a lot of sense.


 
Yeah, generally speaking if you're going to make an argument to authority, you should go with authority that's not far out on the fringe.  :er:   In any event, everything this guy advocates is normative, not descriptive -- in other words, he has an idea of how he'd like the world to work, but it's out of step with both existing law and good sense (as I think our discussion above adequately demonstrated). 

If you want to wish for the world he envisions...feel free.  But in the real world, copyright laws apply, are beneficial, have a strong moral basis, and should be followed.  People view negatively those who take their works in violation of those laws.  That the infringer has a sincere wish that those people would just share their IP for free...well, it somehow doesn't seem to eliminate the view of the artists that their property has been stolen, does it?

(Or, to put it another way, if someone came into my house and took some of my stuff, and then told me that it was ok because they'd just finished reading Peter Kropotkin and no longer believed in "ownership," I'd still shoot them.  )


----------



## abraxas (Feb 27, 2009)

Again, for us in the US.

U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## epp_b (Feb 27, 2009)

So, TheOtherBob, you're of the belief that copyright law should take priority over freedom in general?  I certainly wouldn't be proud to admit that.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> So, TheOtherBob, you're of the belief that copyright law should take priority over freedom in general? I certainly wouldn't be proud to admit that.


 
Yep, that's exactly what I said... Oh, wait, that bears no resemblence to what I, or anyone else said... Don't worry, I always confuse strawmen with reality, too -- hard drugs will do that to you. 

Anywho, if by "freedom in general" you mean anarchism...then, yeah dude, that's what I'm saying. Copyright law and ownership should take priority over your desire to misappropriate other people's stuff without paying them. That's not a controversial concept for most people.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 27, 2009)

The absence of the absurd copyright laws of the western world is not anarchy.



> Copyright law and ownership should take priority over your desire to misappropriate


..."To misappropriate" or claim attribution, sure.  But that goes beyond copyright.  Claiming someone else's work as your own isn't just copyright infringement, it's fraud.

I'm talking about merely copying something and that's it.


----------



## Phranquey (Feb 27, 2009)

abraxas said:


> Again, for us in the US.
> 
> U.S. Copyright Office


 
Abraxas, thanks for that link.


epp_b, direct quote from the above link...



"Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?"
"A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit,* the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.*"

Guess what...it's not just civil.


----------



## Phranquey (Feb 27, 2009)

jlykins said:


> So the guy emailed me back and is coming by the studio Friday to pick up a 12X16 unmounted Print for $50...


 




Congrats on the sale.  I saw that pic in your other thread...very nice.

I always wondered where to go to get a shot like that everytime I come down the 75/71 hill and see the skyline on a nice day....now I know.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> The absence of the absurd copyright laws of the western world is not anarchy.


 
It's a very specific kind of anarchy -- loss of government recognition and protection of a form of property.  Oh, don't worry, people wouldn't end up fighting with Tina Turner in a dome if there were no copyright...but they would lose something necessary and valuable, as we've discussed.



epp_b said:


> ..."To misappropriate" or claim attribution, sure. But that goes beyond copyright. Claiming someone else's work as your own isn't just copyright infringement, it's fraud.
> 
> I'm talking about merely copying something and that's it.


 
"Copying" is no more problematic in the abstract than carrying a television would be problematic in the abstract.  The question is _why_ you're carrying the television.  If it's because you paid for or have been given the television and are carrying it home...fine.  But if you're carrying the television _because you're stealing it_...that's problematic.  

Similarly, you only want to talk about whether it's wrong to copy things...but that's entirely the wrong question.  "Copying" is morally neutral.  The right question is whether it's wrong to deprive an author of the value of his creation, or to take what doesn't belong to you simply because you want it and don't want to pay for it.


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 27, 2009)

TheOtherBob said:


> The right question is whether it's wrong to deprive an author of the value of his creation, or to take what doesn't belong to you simply because you want it and don't want to pay for it.



That is actaully two questions.   Separate the deprive author of value and the "take take take" and then you see why there is a need for both laws for physical stealing and copyright infringement. 

 The point is simply this.  The minute put your work on the net you are freely giving it away.  (there is a catch of course but still you have given it away like it or not.)  If someone strays from your allowed usage rules it is wrong but they have not stolen what you have already given them. 

I give your child a ball and say you can have the ball just don't throw it in the house.  Your child proceeds to throw the ball in the house anyway.  Hmm... has he now stolen the ball?  No, but there has been an infringement.  I will now ask for the ball back as he has lost his right to use the ball I gave to him freely.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 27, 2009)

LokiZ said:


> That is actaully two questions.


 
Picky, picky, picky. 



LokiZ said:


> The point is simply this. The minute put your work on the net you are freely giving it away. (there is a catch of course but still you have given it away like it or not.) If someone strays from your allowed usage rules it is wrong but they have not stolen what you have already given them.


 
Putting something on the internet grants others a right only to view it -- no other rights are granted unless you grant them. 



LokiZ said:


> I give your child a ball and say you can have the ball just don't throw it in the house. Your child proceeds to throw the ball in the house anyway. Hmm... has he now stolen the ball? No, but there has been an infringement. I will now ask for the ball back as he has lost his right to use the ball I gave to him freely.


 
You're talking about something else -- you're talking about violating a license.  The kid in your example hasn't committed copyright infringement, but rather has breached your contract.  You can still sue him, but it's an entirely different legal area. 

Now, you're right that some violations of licenses can also be copyright infringement, and vice versa -- for example, if you violate a one-user license by copying and distributing the software, you have both breached the agreement and infringed on the underlying copyright.  But that doesn't mean that the two concepts are interchangeable.


----------



## Big Bully (Feb 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> He's "some guy" that has done his homework and makes a lot of sense.


Oh lookie there.. "Some guy" on the net found some research to back his argument... How original. I could find research all day to back the statement "the world is flat", but that doesn't mean that it is true.



abraxas said:


> Again, for us in the US.
> 
> U.S. Copyright Office




Thank you for that link abraxas!


----------



## skieur (Feb 27, 2009)

Antarctican said:


> Any Canadians who might want a quick review of Copyright laws here can go to this site


 
The info. there is not totally correct, but generalizations are necessary, despite the fact that they are not completely accurate.

skieur


----------



## rufus5150 (Feb 27, 2009)

TheOtherBob said:


> Putting something on the internet grants others a right only to view it -- no other rights are granted unless you grant them.



The point where it gets sticky (and I'm completely on your side on the copyright argument, btw, so this is by no means an attack on that position) is that the only way _to view_ an image on a computer _is to make a copy of it._ It has to copy the bits to your computer and make an exact replica of what's placed up by the originator in order for you to view it. 

The 'everything should be free' crowd sometimes gets hung up on that point a little too much, but those on the pro-copyright side need to understand that nuance in order to counter.


----------



## Joves (Feb 28, 2009)

epp_b said:


> So, TheOtherBob, you're of the belief that copyright law should take priority over freedom in general? I certainly wouldn't be proud to admit that.


 If it means the absolute free use of someones work without compnesating them then yes. You are then infringing ontheir freedom to profit from their work. It is a double edged sword isnt it.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 28, 2009)

Big Bully said:


> ...
> 
> Thank you for that link abraxas!



It's only good if you read it.  If it's read, one may understand not only what their rights are, but what rights others have to use your work without your consent.

It explains what it is, not what you want it to be.

There are procedures that one must follow along with costs associated with enforcing your rights.

If one reads it and understands what it says, one may never post on the web again.

And in the end, no matter how much you grunt, groan, hold your breath, or clench your fists, the public owns your work anyhow.


----------



## EhJsNe (Mar 1, 2009)

Overread said:


> chances are they are only 12 years old too.........
> 
> its not that foolish = its how a majority of the internet functions and is percived by people - information on it is seen as free property to be taken and used for any means. Heck just look at avatars on forums most are of images people do not legally own or have any right to use.
> 
> ...


 
Thats great! :lmao:


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 2, 2009)

I can see that we are all living in the digital world now...
Epp_B, I understand some of your arguments over terminology, but do you really believe half of what you have said? 
"You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it"...
Really? So if I take a film photo of a unique subject matter, and I develop it and someone comes into my house and steals it, they have only infringed my photo, not stolen it?
 Theft is theft...regardless of whether it is "classified" as larceny, infringment, theft, embezzlement...etc, etc...it all means that someone took something that they had no right to. In the context of casual conversation on the subject the term theft is a general term used for just that. They didn't have the right to use my photo, so they stole it or commited theft.
 When I go to the store I get in the "car"...Not into the "Chrysler 300"
Your arguments while (some) technically correct, are invalid to the context of this post.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 2, 2009)

> Really? So if I take a film photo of a unique subject matter, and I develop it and someone comes into my house and steals it, they have only infringed my photo, not stolen it?


*Digital* photo.

If someone put your photo in a scanner, they didn't steal it.


----------



## Samriel (Mar 2, 2009)

I didn't read the whole thread in detail, but it seems interesting, so I'll join in.



DRoberts said:


> "You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it"...
> Really? So if I take a film photo of a unique subject matter, and I develop it and someone comes into my house and steals it, they have only infringed my photo, not stolen it?



Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)? Is that stealing? Because when people copy data on the internet, it amounts to the same thing - you do not lose property, at least not directly. You can only lose the _eventual _profits which it would bring you, although it is doubtful that a person who chooses to "steal" would be paying for it, unless he _really _wanted it. I'd call it an infringement, as it is called in most legal systems I know of. 

I originally come from a region where copyright and intellectual property laws were introduces very recently, and I'm still having problems accepting the concepts as something natural. I see and accept the necessity of the concepts, but property still needs to be something very touchable in my head. I guess I just need some more time to adjust...

The discussion here reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend from Iceland about a meeting of representatives from Europe and Africa about the fishing rights in the Atlantic. He said that more that half of the participants, most from Africa, didn't understand how one could discuss to whom the ocean belongs... it doesn't belong to anybody in their belief. Different backgrounds, different views... 

Good you got to sell the photo by the way. I've got a new respect for the guy now that he actually payed for your work.


----------



## jlykins (Mar 2, 2009)

I'm glad I could start a topic that inspires this much discussion.


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 2, 2009)

epp_b said:


> *Digital* photo.


 
But you didn't say a digital photo, you just said a photo. Remember we are being technical and literal here.



epp_b said:


> If someone put your photo in a scanner, they didn't steal it.


 
Sure they did. I didn't give them permission to take it and scan it.
The stealing was in the act of taking it, not what they did after the fact.
What your saying is, I could walk into a gallery and take any photo I wanted to off the wall and take with me, because it is not a tangable item, its just an idea. Of course, I would have to remove the frame or I could be charged with a criminal offense.

Why can't you just accept the generalization of the terminology used and what context its being used in, instead of making a big issue about it.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 2, 2009)

> Sure they did. I didn't give them permission to take it and scan it.
> The stealing was in the act of taking it, not what they did after the fact.
> What your saying is, I could walk into a gallery and take any photo I wanted to off the wall and take with me, because it is not a tangable item, its just an idea. Of course, I would have to remove the frame or I could be charged with a criminal offense.


I should clarify.  If you borrowed him a negative, he scanned it and returned it to you, he did not steal it.



> Heck just look at avatars on forums most are of images people do not legally own or have any right to use.


Oh noes!  Those people are strangling the 100 square pixel avatar market!  Give me a break.  Technically speaking, yes, they are committing copyright infringement, but that's going according to the letter and taking a power drill to spirit of the law.


----------



## Overread (Mar 2, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Oh noes!  Those people are strangling the 100 square pixel avatar market!  Give me a break.  Technically speaking, yes, they are committing copyright infringement, but that's going according to the letter and taking a power drill to spirit of the law.



Well the law typically takes things to the letter (odd that you take this position as its been the mainstay of your argument thus far - so your rather shooting yourself in the foot )

And yes most people would consider it taking things too far - which is why its allowed - were anyone - however - to take offence they would be within their rights to take legal action if they so desired.

also there is an avatar market (yes some people do pay for them) so there is even a financial interest to be protected by those companies.


----------



## Big Bully (Mar 2, 2009)

Samriel said:


> I didn't read the whole thread in detail, but it seems interesting, so I'll join in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




_
Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)?_

Honestly this is an invalid point because; a) not very many people have that sort of technology or equipment to pull that off, b) making a perfect photographic copy is almost impossible, due to the fact that there would be some differences and a photographic copy would not be as clear as the original, thus making it not a perfect copy. 

_*I originally come from a region where copyright and intellectual property laws were introduces very recently*, and I'm still having problems accepting the concepts as something natural. I see and accept the necessity of the concepts, but property still needs to be something very touchable in my head. I guess I just need some more time to adjust..._

There is the big difference right there... Different countries value intellectual property differently, and don't have as strict of laws as the US on protecting intellectual property.


----------



## Samriel (Mar 2, 2009)

Big Bully said:


> _
> Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)?_
> 
> Honestly this is an invalid point because; a) not very many people have that sort of technology or equipment to pull that off, b) making a perfect photographic copy is almost impossible, due to the fact that there would be some differences and a photographic copy would not be as clear as the original, thus making it not a perfect copy.



I agree that this situation is highly hypothetical, but the point was not how many people could actually do it or not, or how perfect the copy would be. The point was to represent the "digital problem" in an "analog" way, because with digital imaging a) many people have the technology and equipment (any computer should do), and b) making a perfect copy often requires only the click of a button.


----------



## Big Bully (Mar 3, 2009)

Samriel said:


> I agree that this situation is highly hypothetical, but the point was not how many people could actually do it or not, or how perfect the copy would be. The point was to represent the "digital problem" in an "analog" way, because with digital imaging a) many people have the technology and equipment (any computer should do), and b) making a perfect copy often requires only the click of a button.



Good point.


----------

