PlayingCardForum.com - A Discourse For Playing Cards
Off Topic Chat => The Conversation Parlor => Topic started by: Rob Wright on June 14, 2015, 01:28:48 PM
-
To me this may be the most important post I've made. This is not just about one picture being stolen. this is about every card designer who has had there decks counterfeited, every magician who's tricks have been exposed on You Tube, and whether your a professional photographer or just a fan that takes pictures. If someone uses your photo to make money, and doesn't have your permission. That's stealing.
Tony is one of the best at photographing cards, and he should be compensated.
As fans, collectors, magicians, and artist. How do we stop this from happening? How about our wallets!
(https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/11049665_1428746167428117_626637253435521250_n.jpg?oh=f230227dc8e6fe68599f33bb079e9930&oe=55EBCF86&__gda__=1441831600_637b11257470b24799dc3e1147b5fcac) Tony Sparkz
So about a week ago The Blue Crown used one of my images on their RARE sale without, at the very least, asking if they could. This is a constant issue with my images and I'm getting a little tired of it. So I sent Alex Pandrea an email with an invoice for one time use of my image. It read as follows:
"Hello Mr. Pandrea,
On 06/07/2015 your company The Blue Crown launched a sales promotion which included an image of the Branded Obsidian Playing cards. The image was used without permission or compensation.
The original image was photographed by myself and is located on my website at www.sparkzcollector.com as well as my Social Media outlets such as Facebook.
This image is protected under the US Code: Title 17 – COPYRIGHT LAW Link: http://copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
Attached is a statement for the one time use of this image to be paid in full upon receipt.
Thank you,"
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/09/2f/1e/092f1e6107feb4d6a7bcca18bd765bd7.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/11049665_1428746167428117_626637253435521250_n.jpg?oh=f230227dc8e6fe68599f33bb079e9930&oe=55EBCF86&__gda__=1441831600_637b11257470b24799dc3e1147b5fcac) Tony Sparkz
Alex Pandrea and The Blue Crown Part Two, the response. There were a million ways Mr. Pandrea could have responded to my email that could have ended with me saying "Please take the proper actions next time" but his opinion on using others material, along with the emails entirety itself, made me decide to draw a bit of a line in the sand. Once again, I encourage people to share this with others.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/96/9e/17/969e179756ba983e9f2203adbf1217a5.jpg)
-
That response stinks!
-
Quite an unprofessional response in my opinion...I don't think that Sparkz was being condescending, but definitely feel Alex was...definitely leaves a impression and I will need to re-consider supporting BC in the future
-
Does anybody with any legal background (or legal knowledge on the matter) know whether Pandrea has any high ground on this issue?
If a person sends a response like the one he did, it usually means one of two things (1) they've spoken to their lawyer and got it confirmed that they're 100% safe, or (2) they're overconfident, and they think that even if their is some sort of violation, nobody will take the time and effort to escelate the matter.
-
Does anybody with any legal background (or legal knowledge on the matter) know whether Pandrea has any high ground on this issue?
If a person sends a response like the one he did, it usually means one of two things (1) they've spoken to their lawyer and got it confirmed that they're 100% safe, or (2) they're overconfident, and they think that even if their is some sort of violation, nobody will take the time and effort to escelate the matter.
It makes no difference what legal advice Pandrea has received, what he did is copywrite infringement plain and simple. Even if he kept Sparkz watermark on it. Do you think getty or corvus would mind someone running an add with a watermarked image?
-
Thanks for sharing Rob and your support, the most meaningless part of this situation is money, this isn't about money really, this is about 1. The Law, and 2. Common courtesy to an artist and his work, regardless of the type of artist you are. I've given permission to so many to use my images for just a photo credit, but you need to step up and ask first. This was kind of the straw that broke the camels back, and now it's time to take some kind of action.
-
I'm going to add a phone call to Alex to my list of things to do this morning after I get home from work. Perhaps I can help clear this up to everyone's satisfaction. Cross your fingers for me, folks - Alex can be a difficult man to get a hold of.
-
LOL, it will get cleared up a whole lot faster when he receives his letter.
-
I was the editor in chief of a big photography web site for a few years, and this is a fairly common situation. It was not unusual for people posting photographs on our site to have them appropriated by other websites.
Many people either do not understand that photographs are copyrighted, or what that means; or they willfully choose to ignore these laws, thinking that the chances of there being any consequences are most likely remote. It makes no difference whether you call a photograph a "fan photo", and think you are doing the photographer a favor by giving him free advertising -- you simply cannot legally use a photograph which you do not own without the permission of the photographer. Any more than you can just appropriate deck designs from artists without paying them for permission.
There is no doubt that what bluecrown.com did was a copyright violation, and if they were sued, they would not have a proverbial leg to stand on. The obnoxious response from Alex doesn't make it any more illegal, but it also makes plain that he is far more clueless or negilgent about his legal obligations than anybody doing business ought to be. I would not trust such a person in anything more than a routine business transaction. Since Blue Crown just appropriated the photogaph in this case, you have to wonder how many of the photographs on their website were appropriated without permission, justified in Alex's mind by the curious notion that he is giving "free advertising" to "fans".
All that said, unfortunately it is rather difficult for photographers whose copyrights have been violated to do much about it in most cases. In the United States, unless the copyright is registered, the courts will award you only "actual damages", as opposed to the far more substantial "statutory damages". It is is doubtful that the photographer registered the copyright in this case, so he would have to prove the extent to which he was actually damaged. Actual damages in this case would probably equate to the fee that the copyright holder could reasonably have charged for the use of the photograph. This would almost certainly not be sufficient to cover attorney's fees in a copyright suit. Even though it would be an easy case for an attorney, the fees would still be more than the damages recovered. Many sharp operators count on this when they appropriate photographs which they don't own.
Incidentally, at this point, it seems that the photo has been taken down. If it weren't, the photographer could use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to force it to be taken down.
Since Alex's response was arrogant and obnoxious, probably the best course is the one suggested by others in this thread: to stop doing business with Blue Crown.
-
Thanks for all the info Brian,
I'm curious though, with the sale that The Blue Crown used my image in being a 24 hour sale only sent to subscribed members, it went down because of the sale and not because of my actions. So once again it falls on the image owner to police and go the extreme extra mile, when TBC can play the odds and walk away clean. My invoice to Mr. Pandrea is in line with what registration would have cost, so it's not like I'm trying to extort large sums from him. Governing laws aside and with the laws of common sense and respect from one person to another prevailing, Mr. Pandrea could have replied in so many different ways that would have not only avoided all of this, but we could have come to an agreement. It's important that people not just brush things like this aside, it's not about the money, it's about common courtesy and respect.
-
Anthony, I agree and sympathize with you. How somebody in the business of publishing the expressive creations of other people can be so ignorant and/or cavalier on the subject of copyrights is hard to understand. How he could be so tone-deaf in responding when challenged is even harder to understand. A simple apology, or even a small payment, would surely have been preferable to the loss of goodwill that Blue Crown will likely now experience. Playing card collecting is a very small world.
-
Just for informational purposes, I wasn't able to reach Alex Pandrea. I left him a voicemail but no reply yet. I do know another person who tried contacting him as well with the same intent I had, but to no avail.
-
In regards to this situation, Alex and I have come to an agreement over the issue at hand
-
That's good to hear Tony. Sometimes the social media does good!
-
Tony
First, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on television. :))
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/ (http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/)
At the end of the day, your not a stock photographer. If my source is correct, this issue falls under the "Fair Use Doctrine". It allows for limited and reasonable uses as long as the use does not interfere with owners’ rights or impede their right to do with the work as they wish. However, I'm not sure if this applies to commercial use of the photo?
I think we had this discussion once before on the "post your collection thread". We were discussing the use of watermarks on photos, one they are ugly and two It does not stop people from using them. What your doing by adding your copyright/name on the bottom right looks fine and your getting credit for your work. Stock photographers use watermarks because they are selling those images and if stolen impedes on their right to do with the work as they wish.
What I don't understand is that Alex is known in the industry for taking his own photos. Why would Alex want or need to use someone else's photos? If it were me, I'm not using anything on a website I own that was not shot by me or licence purchased by me, let alone give anyone credit for something I can do myself.
Consider it a compliment, Alex used your photo. He should not have. Not because he's not allowed but because its in poor taste as a producer.
-
Tony
First, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on television. :))
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/ (http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/)
At the end of the day, your not a stock photographer. If my source is correct, this issue falls under the "Fair Use Doctrine". It allows for limited and reasonable uses as long as the use does not interfere with owners’ rights or impede their right to do with the work as they wish. Since your not selling stock photography and your copyright is on the work, Alex can use it. Alex is not selling your photo as his own.
I think we had this discussion once before on post your collection. Most don't use big watermarks on photos because, one they are ugly and two It does not stop people from using them. What your doing by adding your copyright/name on the bottom right looks fine and your getting credit for your work. Stock photographers use big watermarks because they are selling those images and if stolen impedes on their right to do with the work as they wish.
What I don't understand is that Alex is known in the industry for taking his own photos. Why would Alex want or need to use someone else's photos? If it were me, I'm not using anything on a website I own that was not shot by me or licence purchased by me, let alone give anyone credit for something I can do myself.
Consider it a compliment, Alex used your photo. He should not have. Not because he's not allowed but because its in poor taste as a producer.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a little while...
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The very article you quoted has a series of questions to ask, in order to determine if one's use of an image falls under fair use.
#2: Why are you using the image? If it is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” you’re on the right track.
If you’re just using the image to pretty up a post, then think twice; or better yet, get permission or buy a stock image.
I don't think an advertisement for products for sale would qualify as a fair use case for appropriating the photo.
Another question from the same article:
#4: How much of the image are you using? If you’re using a thumbnail and linking to the original location, there is greater likelihood of finding fair use than if you just post the original image. If you’re doing a post about facial features and are just using a portion of the face from an image, you stand a better chance of arguing fair use than if you used the entire image.
I got a fair look at the page - it looked to me like the entire photo, right down to the watermark, was in use in the Blue Crown's advertisement.
Fair use will protect the user in certain limited cases - but using the full image for the purposes of making money by placing it in an advertisement, even if it is a photo of one of your own products, really wouldn't qualify, as far as I can tell. There's no greater public good that's being served, it's not "news" in the sense of a report on a current event, scholarship and research were the furthest things from the company owner's mind when he used the photo, etc. It's not even like it was being appropriated for inclusion into an artistic work of some kind, like audio samples used in a song or the image of a Campbell's Soup can in an Andy Warhol painting.
Even in such cases, there are limits as to how far one can go - for example, when one adds an audio sample from another work to a song, you're limited to a certain number of seconds for it to be considered fair use - past that, and you owe the copyright holder some cash. Just ask the band Pop Will Eat Itself - they went past the length defined when they used a sample from the opening sequence of the TV show, "The Twilight Zone," and it cost them a pretty penny or two.
Anyway, at this point, this entire thing is a moot point. Tony came to an agreement with Alex - the details of which haven't been revealed, but it's in place nonetheless. Fair use doctrine is an important part of our culture, allowing people to use a work for a specific purpose in their own generation, while it still retains some degree of relevance, instead of having to wait several generations for copyright to expire. But its use is really quite limited, especially when it comes to commercial use of a copyrighted work - and a copyright need not be registered to be enforceable, though it certainly helps. Copyright attaches to a work the moment it is created, not the moment some government clerk stamps "Rec'd" on it.
-
You quoted me before my edit. :))
« Last Edit: Today at 06:37:21 PM by Card Player »
I updated, I was not sure it applies to commercial use.
Anyone that's read Tony here, knows Tony is all about not having his photos taken without permission. Of all the people to take a photo from. Lol
Personally, I think we all have to figure out why we are doing what we are doing. Is it worth the time and effort knowing this can happen. Tony knows who Alex is and it was posted on TBC website with Tony's copyright. In many cases it's not so cut and dry. Alex could have cropped the copyright off but he didn't.
-
For the record Alex did pay the invoice sent to him and did apologize, I'm not going to publish the last conversation we had because there is no point to it now. But I really want to stress that this was not about money, Alex just happen to be the proverbial "Straw" that broke the Camels back. That being said, all of this could have gone a completely different way from the 1st response. I've since added a new page to my site explaining "Image Usage" for those who aren't sure.
Common courtesy goes a long way.
-
I'm glad to hear there was a mutual agreement. Was it worth making Alex pay though? Why do you do what you do? Is it for your love of playing cards, to get people to read your blog or both? It's a two way street. Alex gives you some exposure outside of the forums and you pull out your copyright card and want compensation. I would of simply explained to Alex (in private) no permissions were given but still allowed Alex to use it with a promise that Alex asks next time. Now you've built a business relationship. I doubt Alex would ever consider throwing you a bone in the future.
-
Some principles are worth standing up for.
-
Some principles are worth standing up for.
Well said! I can't disagree.
-
Anthony, is this applies to imaged used on eBay?
I mean I found this on eBay and it has your watermark on the photo.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sharps-Playing-Cards-Green-RARE-/231588392353?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35ebbe6da1
-
Anthony, is this applies to imaged used on eBay?
I mean I found this on eBay and it has your watermark on the photo.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sharps-Playing-Cards-Green-RARE-/231588392353?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35ebbe6da1
Anthony can contact eBay with the listing #. eBay usually complies within 3 days. I doubt eBay will provide personal info on the seller, they just end the listing early.
-
Card Player I do what I do for myself and for other card fans, to give them a better look at a deck before they buy it, and give "MY" opinion of what I thought of the deck. I don't consider myself a reviewer, I don't go out of my way to "Build" a following, I don't care how many people visit my site, it's there for those who do. But, as with anything, there are those who want to bend the rules when they can, and some feel the rules don't apply to them. I've said on numerous occasions...........Just ask, and I'm sure we'll figure something out.
You mentioned it's a two way street, yes it is, but not on my end only. Alex could have just as easily taken an alternate "Street", but he chose not to. What's done is done, I believe I acted professionally in my communication and the direction of this situation wasn't dictated by me. With that being said, everyone is going to have their own opinion of how this was handled and that's perfectly OK, but I would always urge to base your opinions on facts and not assumptions. But I'm glad that since this has happened more people are contacting me and "asking" if they can use an image, or have been "Bartered" for my services and I don't think that's too much to ask, and I'm positive those who have dealt with me are more than happy with the arrangements offered. You should have pride in what you do and stand up for what you believe is right.
@Hank.....eBay is the same thing, and I can't begin to tell you how many messages I send out to pull down my images. I don't know when people started thinking that as long as the watermark is there it's OK. The simple rule to my images is not to use them for monetary gain without permission or some sort of arrangement. The sad part is that it falls on the artist to police his work, and nobody can be everywhere. Just because you get away with it doesn't make it right.
-
You quoted me before my edit. :))
« Last Edit: Today at 06:37:21 PM by Card Player »
I updated, I was not sure it applies to commercial use.
Anyone that's read Tony here, knows Tony is all about not having his photos taken without permission. Of all the people to take a photo from. Lol
Personally, I think we all have to figure out why we are doing what we are doing. Is it worth the time and effort knowing this can happen. Tony knows who Alex is and it was posted on TBC website with Tony's copyright. In many cases it's not so cut and dry. Alex could have cropped the copyright off but he didn't.
You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice. You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.
Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped. The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place. The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing. Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings. It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.
I'm glad to hear there was a mutual agreement. Was it worth making Alex pay though? Why do you do what you do? Is it for your love of playing cards, to get people to read your blog or both? It's a two way street. Alex gives you some exposure outside of the forums and you pull out your copyright card and want compensation. I would of simply explained to Alex (in private) no permissions were given but still allowed Alex to use it with a promise that Alex asks next time. Now you've built a business relationship. I doubt Alex would ever consider throwing you a bone in the future.
So, if I shoot you walking on the street and include you in my motion picture without obtaining a model release from you, I can simply say, "oh, but I gave you exposure."? No. What if such exposure isn't desired? What if I used that footage of you in a porn film? What if I used it in a commercially-sold religious video and you don't believe in that religion, or worse, its beliefs are antithetical to your own?
As owner of the copyright, Anthony has the right to determine how and in what context his work can or can't be used for any purpose not covered by Fair Use Doctrine.
The image was used briefly in a message about a limited-time offer - it's unlikely that the image owned by Tony would have been used again, nor is there any guarantee that Alex would have "thrown him a bone." BTW: as far as your livelihood goes, do you prefer getting fair and just legal compensation for your work, or do you prefer that you occasionally get thrown a bone?
Card Player I do what I do for myself and for other card fans, to give them a better look at a deck before they buy it, and give "MY" opinion of what I thought of the deck. I don't consider myself a reviewer, I don't go out of my way to "Build" a following, I don't care how many people visit my site, it's there for those who do. But, as with anything, there are those who want to bend the rules when they can, and some feel the rules don't apply to them. I've said on numerous occasions...........Just ask, and I'm sure we'll figure something out.
You mentioned it's a two way street, yes it is, but not on my end only. Alex could have just as easily taken an alternate "Street", but he chose not to. What's done is done, I believe I acted professionally in my communication and the direction of this situation wasn't dictated by me. With that being said, everyone is going to have their own opinion of how this was handled and that's perfectly OK, but I would always urge to base your opinions on facts and not assumptions. But I'm glad that since this has happened more people are contacting me and "asking" if they can use an image, or have been "Bartered" for my services and I don't think that's too much to ask, and I'm positive those who have dealt with me are more than happy with the arrangements offered. You should have pride in what you do and stand up for what you believe is right.
@Hank.....eBay is the same thing, and I can't begin to tell you how many messages I send out to pull down my images. I don't know when people started thinking that as long as the watermark is there it's OK. The simple rule to my images is not to use them for monetary gain without permission or some sort of arrangement. The sad part is that it falls on the artist to police his work, and nobody can be everywhere. Just because you get away with it doesn't make it right.
There's a business opportunity in there somewhere. And it is possible to be "everywhere at once" through the use of the right software and hardware! Companies do this all the time for celebrities - searching media for mentions of their clients, be they good or bad. The digital age makes the job that much easier - but someone's still gotta do it (and get paid for it).
-
One of the positives that has come from this is education. The truth is, a lot of people just don't know what is right, and what is wrong. I'll admit that I have added KS photos to a few eBay sales in the past. I never thought of it as being a copyright issue. Now I do.
As far as Alex not throwing any bones Tony's way. If he was smart, he would send a bunch of work to him. For one, Tony takes excellent pictures. Second, it could go a long way to him repairing his reputation with a lot of collectors. Even though things are settled between Alex and Tony, there is still a bad taste in the mouths of many collectors.
-
You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice. You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.
Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped. The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place. The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing. Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings. It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.
I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen. At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same. I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality. They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright.
Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.
Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.
I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)
I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.
So, if I shoot you walking on the street and include you in my motion picture without obtaining a model release from you, I can simply say, "oh, but I gave you exposure."? No. What if such exposure isn't desired? What if I used that footage of you in a porn film? What if I used it in a commercially-sold religious video and you don't believe in that religion, or worse, its beliefs are antithetical to your own?
As owner of the copyright, Anthony has the right to determine how and in what context his work can or can't be used for any purpose not covered by Fair Use Doctrine.
The image was used briefly in a message about a limited-time offer - it's unlikely that the image owned by Tony would have been used again, nor is there any guarantee that Alex would have "thrown him a bone." BTW: as far as your livelihood goes, do you prefer getting fair and just legal compensation for your work, or do you prefer that you occasionally get thrown a bone?
I never said he does not have the right. I'm saying the value of getting exposure from the right people is worth more "to me" then the cost of one image. Anthony is in the business of reporting playing card news. Someone (Alex) who's website and company are well known by all in this industry makes a mistake and uses a photo that has Anthony's watermark on it. I'm not going to nail Alex to the wall or post private emails. Especially if the subject of the photo is a product of that company.
There are other examples that I would inforce copyright, which I will not explain here.
-
You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice. You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.
Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped. The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place. The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing. Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings. It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.
I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen. At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same. I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality. They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright.
Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.
Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.
I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)
I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.
You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright." One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.
I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere. Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.
If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything. Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.
-
There's also a similar theft that happens on a daily basis - eBay sellers using Renders, Photos or Presentation Graphics created by the designer of the Deck. I remember how PO'ed I was the first time I saw a bunch of my Renders on a few eBay listings for some original ORNATES (back in 2012). 3d Renders take a LOT of time to setup, Render and cleanup. I didn't send any e-mails to the eBay sellers, but I definitely wasn't happy about it. Over the years I've gotten a lot more blasé about it.
You could eBay almost any modern Deck and find the original images from the designers Kickstarter project or online store, including Product Photos from Theory 11, Ellusionist, Dan & Dave, Blue Crown, Kings Wild, Encarded..... It's such a common occurence, I think most designers have also given in to the blasé attitude that I have about it.
I did a test before writing this, and searched eBay for "Artisans Playing Cards". There's so many professional Product Shots in sellers' listings that it almost looks like Ellusionist has dozens of eBay accounts!
What do some of you other designers on here think about the eBay sellers using their Renders, Photos or Presentation Graphics?
thanks, Randy
-
You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice. You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.
Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped. The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place. The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing. Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings. It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.
I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen. At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same. I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality. They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright.
Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.
Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.
I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)
I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.
You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright." One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.
I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere. Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.
If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything. Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.
I'm not confusing anything. I fully understand. Your not reading it correctly.
Removing metadata is not difficult. People do it everyday and don't realize it. I'm not going to explain it here.
Corporations (not in stock photography) aren't in business to sell photo's, they're selling the objects in the photos. The user agreement is understood by most corporations who use social networks. Ownership of the image still exists but your giving social networks a license "basically" do what they want with your photo.
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
-
You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice. You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.
Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped. The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place. The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing. Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings. It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.
I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen. At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same. I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality. They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright.
Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.
Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.
I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)
I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.
You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright." One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.
I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere. Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.
If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything. Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.
I'm not confusing anything. I fully understand. Your not reading it correctly.
Removing metadata is not difficult. People do it everyday and don't realize it. I'm not going to explain it here.
Corporations (not in stock photography) aren't in business to sell photo's, they're selling the objects in the photos. The user agreement is understood by most corporations who use social networks. Ownership of the image still exists but your giving social networks a license "basically" do what they want with your photo.
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
Quoting from your post:
At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.
They are not. THAT'S why I stated you were still confusing "copyright mark" with "copyright." A copyright mark is a symbol that can be incorporated into a watermark, but a copyright is not.
I never said removing metadata was impossible or difficult! Just that most people don't bother to do it. You are understanding the difference, I hope.
I'm not going to dig into the article you linked - it's the opinion of one law firm, and it's out of date, having been posted over two-and-a-half years ago (an eternity in Internet time). There have certainly been many changes in the TOS for the social networking services listed in that time, rendering what was written questionable if not moot.
But, to play devil's advocate again, if Facebook received a complaint from the USPC and parent company Jarden that I was using their FB-posted images and altering them to show their products in a bad light, I would find it hard to imagine that Facebook wouldn't remove the content. Similarly, if Facebook themselves created the offending images, basing them off of USPC's own FB-posted work, I could easily see a lawsuit stemming from it, one that could potentially challenge the constitutionality of such blanket rights statements found in TOS agreements that, in reality, few people truly "agree" to but accept because they want to use the service. Either way, the first time a major company gripes about their content being abused and FB says the digital equivalent of "screw you, you gave us permission when you signed up," companies will be abandoning that ship and watching it burn from the water...
-
You mean cropping the watermark, which contains a copyright notice. You can no more crop the copyright than you can breathe with no lungs.
Cut and dried is actually easier to prove than you think, even when a photo's been cropped. The pixels in the image that correspond to the original will be identical in the copy, unless some modification took place. The metadata is another place that some people are sloppy about editing. Most smartphones and some dSLRs will leave a GPS location/time stamp in the metadata, as well as including info about the camera hardware and its settings. It's easy enough to identify the owner in cases where the metadata wasn't edited.
I don't see a watermark and copyright mark necessarily as the same thing. A watermark to me is any type of transparent mark on an image or design that attempts to discourage theft or make the image or design unusable if stolen. At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same. I know many editing tools that call the fuction of applying a mark, a watermark. A copyright mark is simply "©". Most times accompanied by year and name, putting the public on notice usually found in a corner of an image or more commonly the bottom of a website. The way "I would us" a copyright mark is not to prevent use by others but to credit the creator/owner. One is more effective at discouraging image theft while at the same time sacrificing image quality. They are not necessary the same thing, although they can be. I understand you don't need to put a copyright on an image for it to have copyright.
Legally you can't crop the mark but It happens. If your going to steal such a photo your already in the wrong, cropping it off is foregone conclusion at that point. The legal threshold has been crossed, not much stopping someone ethically from cropping it also. My point was more about what Alex's intention for using the photo was. As explained in Alex's email, I believe Alex thought he was helping Anthony (free advertisement), at the same time satisfying his need. Had it been intentional theft, Alex might have attempted to crop it instead of leaving the mark on for the whole world to see. Making the theft obvious to all, not just its creator.
Metadata can be removed a few ways, which I will not explain here.
I also think Alex did not understand the difference between use on a website and use on social media. I believe (you can look this up, I don't have time) because of the user agreement on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the creator of a photo gives up copyright by posting it there. Allowing followers to re-pin-post-tweet the image. If it was on social media before Alex took it, does that release copyright for use on one's own website (commercial or otherwise)? I don't know. (you can look that up for me)
I prefer we not use specific jargon regarding editing and photography. I'm not here to educate anyone or provide information to those reading that didn't require any discipline to attain it. There are many resourses people can use before we get too technical moving forward.
You're still confusing the terms "copyright mark" and "copyright." One can remove a copyright mark easily enough by cropping, but removing the copyright itself is a totally different matter.
I acknowledged that editing of metadata is possible - I simply said that many if not most people are sloppy about it and don't bother to edit them from images they've swiped from elsewhere. Many barely edit the images themselves, in most cases doing little more than cropping off a watermark or doing some resizing.
If the posting of an image to Facebook or any other social media site constituted placing the image in the public domain (because that's what "giving up" a copyright really is), there wouldn't be a single major corporation using social media to promote anything. Retweeting, linking, etc., depending on how it's used, may very well fall into Fair Use Doctrine, but you are most certainly not giving up your copyright, thus placing your work in the public domain, merely by posting your own images.
I'm not confusing anything. I fully understand. Your not reading it correctly.
Removing metadata is not difficult. People do it everyday and don't realize it. I'm not going to explain it here.
Corporations (not in stock photography) aren't in business to sell photo's, they're selling the objects in the photos. The user agreement is understood by most corporations who use social networks. Ownership of the image still exists but your giving social networks a license "basically" do what they want with your photo.
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
Quoting from your post:
At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.
They are not. THAT'S why I stated you were still confusing "copyright mark" with "copyright." A copyright mark is a symbol that can be incorporated into a watermark, but a copyright is not.
I never said removing metadata was impossible or difficult! Just that most people don't bother to do it. You are understanding the difference, I hope.
I'm not going to dig into the article you linked - it's the opinion of one law firm, and it's out of date, having been posted over two-and-a-half years ago (an eternity in Internet time). There have certainly been many changes in the TOS for the social networking services listed in that time, rendering what was written questionable if not moot.
But, to play devil's advocate again, if Facebook received a complaint from the USPC and parent company Jarden that I was using their FB-posted images and altering them to show their products in a bad light, I would find it hard to imagine that Facebook wouldn't remove the content. Similarly, if Facebook themselves created the offending images, basing them off of USPC's own FB-posted work, I could easily see a lawsuit stemming from it, one that could potentially challenge the constitutionality of such blanket rights statements found in TOS agreements that, in reality, few people truly "agree" to but accept because they want to use the service. Either way, the first time a major company gripes about their content being abused and FB says the digital equivalent of "screw you, you gave us permission when you signed up," companies will be abandoning that ship and watching it burn from the water...
And I explained In my first paragraph, I understand you don't need the copyright (mark) on the image to be a copyright. The act of placing text (c) on the image is a mark, not the implementation of copyright. Your going to argue that you did not know what I meant. What else could I have meant that would have made sense? Typical Boyer :))
I don't see the non removal of metadata as being sloppy. Most people that use it, want it and grant permissions for its use. That also depends on the device your using and how your using it.
Corporations have many protection options that don't all fall under copyright. There's a difference.
Not very much has changed with regard to Facebook image use. Its fine if you want to avoid the content of the link I provide prior. Here is the official TOS per Facebook #2(1): https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
-
Quoting from your post:
At times the watermark and copyright are one in the same.
They are not. THAT'S why I stated you were still confusing "copyright mark" with "copyright." A copyright mark is a symbol that can be incorporated into a watermark, but a copyright is not.
I never said removing metadata was impossible or difficult! Just that most people don't bother to do it. You are understanding the difference, I hope.
And I explained In my first paragraph, I understand you don't need the copyright (mark) on the image to be a copyright. The act of placing text (c) on the image is a mark, not the implementation of copyright. Your going to argue that you did not know what I meant. What else could I have meant that would have made sense? Typical Boyer :))
I don't see the non removal of metadata as being sloppy. Most people that use it, want it and grant permissions for its use. That also depends on the device your using and how your using it.
Your sentence made perfect sense - it's just not the sense you thought it made because you left out a word that altered its meaning. I'm terribly sorry, but I left my crystal ball in my other pair of pants, my Ouija board is at the shop for an overhaul and my telephone psychic is on vacation, so I'm not able to read your mind and know what you mean, especially when you're writing one thing but mean something else. Typical Card Player...
You appear to be talking about the copyright owner removing metadata from his/her own photo - meanwhile, the issue was the presence or removal of metadata by the person "pirating" the photograph for their own purposes, not its IP owner. Yes, it's easy to remove or alter metadata in order to cover your digital tracks if you swipe someone's photo for your own use - but many people simply don't bother, making even a slightly-altered version of someone's photograph easier to identify as belonging to that copyright holder. It's a simple matter for them - copy, paste, and (maybe) resize/crop before saving, done; metadata left unaltered, still intact; the equivalent of stealing someone's car and repainting it but not removing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), making it exceptionally easy for the police to track the car to the original owner. Please, if you're going to continue the discussion, remember what it is we're talking about, because otherwise it's too tedious to bother.
Frankly, I'm amazed that you're this strongly opposed to a creator/owner of a piece of intellectual property having the right to determine how that work gets used. At the very least, it's what you're making it sound like. You mentioned Facebook and Twitter - are you certain that's where the photo was borrowed from? What if it was borrowed instead from this forum, United Cardists, Kardify or any of the other places Anthony might have displayed his photo? Doesn't he still have the right to say, "I want my photo used in this way and not in that way."? Posting it on Facebook gives Facebook the right to re-use it many different ways according to their TOS agreement - but did Alex approach Facebook about using that image for his own commercial purposes, and if so, did Facebook grant him any rights to do so? I'd consider it very unlikely. If one could grab and use any photos on Facebook simply because they're on Facebook, what would legally stop me from grabbing photos and other images created by Facebook to use on my own website?
You mentioned corporations having protection options other than copyright. Well, what protections, aside from trademark? Can one trademark a photograph? Trademarks don't extend to property rights - they exist as a form of consumer protection for letting the public know that a given product or service comes from a specific company. One example would be taking a photo of a branded motorcycle and making it into a poster for sale. The poster itself is perfectly fine and violates no trademark laws - but if you added the logo of the manufacturer to the poster, one could be led to believe that the poster was an official product of that manufacturer, in which case it would be a violation. So, since it's not copyright and it's not trademark, what are these protections you're talking about?
And also of great importance - has anyone ever challenged the legality of the TOS as written? Because one can put all kinds of things in a contract - that doesn't automatically make them legal and binding. In New York City, it's a common practice for parking garages to post signs disclaiming any responsibility for the loss of any possessions you leave in your vehicle when you park it at their facility - but New York City law doesn't automatically absolve them of theft in a manner as described by their sign. In New York State, many auto parts stores sell clear plastic covers for license plates - but the use of such covers violates the state vehicle code, despite the fact that there are no laws restricting their sale.
Your argument about being recognized and "thrown a bone" are immaterial - taken just a little further, it could be used to justify outright theft. Say you own a car dealership selling "Players" automobiles, your own exclusive brand. I'm Joe FamousCarDriver, I walk into your shop and I take your car and use it without bothering to ask you. Am I to be lauded by you for recognizing the value of your car by wanting one badly enough to steal it from you? If I later, after the fact, promise to buy a few cars from you at some later time, does that somehow justify the theft?
-
You appear to be talking about the copyright owner removing metadata from his/her own photo - meanwhile, the issue was the presence or removal of metadata by the person "pirating" the photograph for their own purposes, not its IP owner. Yes, it's easy to remove or alter metadata in order to cover your digital tracks if you swipe someone's photo for your own use - but many people simply don't bother, making even a slightly-altered version of someone's photograph easier to identify as belonging to that copyright holder. It's a simple matter for them - copy, paste, and (maybe) resize/crop before saving, done; metadata left unaltered, still intact; the equivalent of stealing someone's car and repainting it but not removing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), making it exceptionally easy for the police to track the car to the original owner. Please, if you're going to continue the discussion, remember what it is we're talking about, because otherwise it's too tedious to bother.
Nope that's not what I was talking about. As I mentioned I was not going to explain that here.
Frankly, I'm amazed that you're this strongly opposed to a creator/owner of a piece of intellectual property having the right to determine how that work gets used. At the very least, it's what you're making it sound like. You mentioned Facebook and Twitter - are you certain that's where the photo was borrowed from? What if it was borrowed instead from this forum, United Cardists, Kardify or any of the other places Anthony might have displayed his photo? Doesn't he still have the right to say, "I want my photo used in this way and not in that way."? Posting it on Facebook gives Facebook the right to re-use it many different ways according to their TOS agreement - but did Alex approach Facebook about using that image for his own commercial purposes, and if so, did Facebook grant him any rights to do so? I'd consider it very unlikely. If one could grab and use any photos on Facebook simply because they're on Facebook, what would legally stop me from grabbing photos and other images created by Facebook to use on my own website?
Your making accusations. That's what it sounds like to you. I'm not strongly opposed to a creator/owner of a piece of intellectual property having the right to determine how that work gets used. I'm opposed to people taking "voluntary" photo's of another companies products thinking they deserve compensation for work they were never commissioned for. I would never ask for compensation in this case. As I mentioned, I would enforce copyright in other situations. This situation would be a waste of my time.
I never said the photo was borrowed from Facebook or Twitter. I was questioning Alex's understanding between social network sharing and using on his own website.
You mentioned corporations having protection options other than copyright. Well, what protections, aside from trademark? Can one trademark a photograph? Trademarks don't extend to property rights - they exist as a form of consumer protection for letting the public know that a given product or service comes from a specific company. One example would be taking a photo of a branded motorcycle and making it into a poster for sale. The poster itself is perfectly fine and violates no trademark laws - but if you added the logo of the manufacturer to the poster, one could be led to believe that the poster was an official product of that manufacturer, in which case it would be a violation. So, since it's not copyright and it's not trademark, what are these protections you're talking about?
OMG with your devils advocate examples. (If Mr.X wanted to make a jelly doughnut and someone took a picture of it...) LOL
Your original example was "if Facebook received a complaint from the USPC and parent company Jarden that I was using their FB-posted images and altering them to show their products in a bad light, I would find it hard to imagine that Facebook wouldn't remove the content."
My response was not everything falls under copyright. If their was a complaint in the example that you used, would it get taken down? I'm sure it would. I doubt their would be a complaint, except for the fact you altered it and then re-posted it as your own content.
I'm not disagreeing that Alex violated Anthony's copyright. I would have handled it differently given the cercomstance and the way in which the photo was used. That's all.
And also of great importance - has anyone ever challenged the legality of the TOS as written?
I don't know the answer to that. From what your writing it does not seem as if you know the answer either? I think its funny your using a question you don't have an answer for against me. Until you prove someone has challenged this in a court of law and won, I stand by the terms of service which I have provided to you.
Your argument about being recognized and "thrown a bone" are immaterial - taken just a little further, it could be used to justify outright theft. Say you own a car dealership selling "Players" automobiles, your own exclusive brand. I'm Joe FamousCarDriver, I walk into your shop and I take your car and use it without bothering to ask you. Am I to be lauded by you for recognizing the value of your car by wanting one badly enough to steal it from you? If I later, after the fact, promise to buy a few cars from you at some later time, does that somehow justify the theft?
Your example is immaterial. We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost. I don't see Anthony losing his next meal over one digital photo. I do see Alex Pandrea never doing an interview for Kardify. I do see Alex Pandrea never sending free samples for review. I do see friends of Alex Pandrea following suit. Ain't that a bitch.
-
We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.
Interesting
One last comment, this situation is based on what I believe to be right or wrong, now you may not agree with me on it, but that's what makes us who we are. We all have opinions. I equate it to the moral question "If a man steals to feed his children, is it stealing?" Yes, an extreme example, but you get my point. There is no overwhelming right answer to this question. Your last comment on what Alex may or may not do, and what Alex's friends may or may not do is your opinion. The last conversation I had with Alex we were both in a good place of mutual respect and , in Alex's words.....
"......I believe any bad situation can be turned into a good one! We can make the best of this by teaming up on something! Contests, prizes, whatever. I am always up to work on great things with awesome people who further the community. Together, everyone achieves more :)"
You may think my work is "Just a picture" and again, your entitled to your opinion, but you also don't know everything that was said and your making assumptions. Maybe your assumptions are right, and that's just fine. If I had to do it all again would I have done things differently? No. Would Alex have done things differently? ...........you would have to ask him.
-
We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.
Interesting
I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well?
-
this situation is based on what I believe to be right or wrong.
Your absolutely right.
My opinion has nothing to do with the quality of your work. I hope you don't feel that way. It's been slow on the forum as of late. This was the most interesting thread I've seen in 2-3 months.
We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.
Interesting
I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well?
I understand this as much as anybody. I still would not have asked for compensation under these "specific" circumstances. Thats just me I guess.
-
Your example is immaterial. We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make. I don't see Anthony losing his next meal over one digital photo. I do see Alex Pandrea never doing an interview for Kardify. I do see Alex Pandrea never sending free samples for review. I do see friends of Alex Pandrea following suit. Ain't that a bitch.
Well, it doesn't appear that Alex took it hard, based on what Anthony's telling us.
Just because the product is digital, doesn't make it any less of a product. It costs money to produce a photo, just as it would cost money to produce a car, a bag of potato chips, your sneakers, whatever. If you're an author and you write a book, you'd get good bucks for a hardcover first edition, not as much for a paperback but still a respectable amount - but are you saying that just because it's digital, an e-book edition should be free? No, it shouldn't, because the author spent as much time and effort. Perhaps it should be priced lower, since there's no delivery fees, no paper used, etc., but the author works just as hard creating an e-book as he does creating the hardcover.
And I think that right there is the key - that you don't place a real value on his work because of its intangible nature, thus don't consider it a big deal that someone else used it without permission. I don't even produce a "product" - I provide my intellect and experience to my clients as a service. Is my work worthless because, as erroneous as this statement is, it doesn't have "an associated cost to make?" It would be more accurate to say it doesn't have an apparent cost to make - to you, and to you alone. But Anthony's photo and my consulting services do indeed have an associated cost to make - the accumulation of skills, knowledge, the purchase of a collection's worth of playing cards from which to glean the experience, time spent in places like this online discussing cards with people who know what they're talking about, etc. In your example, NO digital photo has a value attached to it. I know there are countless photographers who would vehemently disagree with you, especially since the age of the "pre-digital" photo is pretty much over.
-
We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.
Interesting
I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well?
I understand this as much as anybody. I still would not have asked for compensation under these "specific" circumstances. Thats just me I guess.
I know you and Don have been going back and fourth on this, so I thought I would throw a little fuel on the fire. ;)
I see what you are saying. I don't disagree with what Tony did, but if it was me. I may have handled it different. I may have just sent an email to Alex asking him to take it down. That's easy for me to say, because it hasn't happened to me. When people take and take from you, eventually you have to do something about it.
In Alex's defense, maybe he didn't know better. The thing that really got me was the "FU" style response he sent Tony. Very unprofessional to me.
The good news is, it sounds like it may become a positive for both Alex and Tony. Good to hear.
-
Your example is immaterial. We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make. I don't see Anthony losing his next meal over one digital photo. I do see Alex Pandrea never doing an interview for Kardify. I do see Alex Pandrea never sending free samples for review. I do see friends of Alex Pandrea following suit. Ain't that a bitch.
Well, it doesn't appear that Alex took it hard, based on what Anthony's telling us.
Just because the product is digital, doesn't make it any less of a product. It costs money to produce a photo, just as it would cost money to produce a car, a bag of potato chips, your sneakers, whatever. If you're an author and you write a book, you'd get good bucks for a hardcover first edition, not as much for a paperback but still a respectable amount - but are you saying that just because it's digital, an e-book edition should be free? No, it shouldn't, because the author spent as much time and effort. Perhaps it should be priced lower, since there's no delivery fees, no paper used, etc., but the author works just as hard creating an e-book as he does creating the hardcover.
And I think that right there is the key - that you don't place a real value on his work because of its intangible nature, thus don't consider it a big deal that someone else used it without permission. I don't even produce a "product" - I provide my intellect and experience to my clients as a service. Is my work worthless because, as erroneous as this statement is, it doesn't have "an associated cost to make?" It would be more accurate to say it doesn't have an apparent cost to make - to you, and to you alone. But Anthony's photo and my consulting services do indeed have an associated cost to make - the accumulation of skills, knowledge, the purchase of a collection's worth of playing cards from which to glean the experience, time spent in places like this online discussing cards with people who know what they're talking about, etc. In your example, NO digital photo has a value attached to it. I know there are countless photographers who would vehemently disagree with you, especially since the age of the "pre-digital" photo is pretty much over.
Not what I'm saying though. I'm not saying there's no value in the digital photo. I'm saying there's no associated cost. There's an associated cost to the camera, but the cost of the photo created by the camera is determined by it's copyright owner. As Anthony stated, its up to him to determine right and wrong, just like its up to Anthony to determine the cost. To my knowledge, Anthony does not sell photos. We don't know the cost.
Your example: You lose a car, the car cost is $35,000. You no longer have that car. Real example: You lose a photo, you still have your $3000 camera. Your comparing a stolen car to stolen copyright (infringement). They are different.
Edited:
What your saying is widely understood. However, let's not confuse cost and expense. I was not implying Anthony's expense.
Cost vs Expense (example):
Nikon spends 50 million to produce D810's. Nikon determines based on their expense, a D810 will cost $3000. Anthony buys a D810. Anthony now has a $3000 expense. Anthony produces a photo with the D810. Anthony determines based on his expense, a photo will cost $100. Alex buys a photo from Anthony. Alex now has a $100 expense.
We are talking about digital photo's of product that Anthony does not design, sell or manufacture. We are NOT talking about cars, which have an associated cost to make.
Interesting
I wonder how much a good camera, lighting, and display cost these days? I've got a camera on my phone that take okay pictures, and that was $600.
Oh, and how about some labor cost as well?
I understand this as much as anybody. I still would not have asked for compensation under these "specific" circumstances. Thats just me I guess.
I know you and Don have been going back and fourth on this, so I thought I would throw a little fuel on the fire. ;)
I see what you are saying. I don't disagree with what Tony did, but if it was me. I may have handled it different. I may have just sent an email to Alex asking him to take it down. That's easy for me to say, because it hasn't happened to me. When people take and take from you, eventually you have to do something about it.
In Alex's defense, maybe he didn't know better. The thing that really got me was the "FU" style response he sent Tony. Very unprofessional to me.
The good news is, it sounds like it may become a positive for both Alex and Tony. Good to hear.
We also don't see Anthony's letter to Alex. We only saw Alex's response.
-
............We also don't see Anthony's letter to Alex. We only saw Alex's response.
It's in the first post.
-
To my knowledge, Anthony does not sell photos. We don't know the cost.
It doesn't matter. It's still his work, and still protected by copyright, even if the cost to him was nearly zero - it can't be zero unless he places absolutely no value on his time.
As far as cost - if he spent time and effort, expending man-hours, then yes, there's a value in it. If I wanted a photo of something and didn't want to take it myself, I'd have to pay someone or find a volunteer to take it, with payment being the much more easy of the two tasks. The hardware costs also come into play as well - the $3,000 spent on the camera is indeed spent on the camera and not the photos it takes - but without a camera, there are no photos...
The car is property. The photo is property. I take property without permission of the owner, that's theft. In your example, it's like I'm saying that I stole your car, but you still have the factory that you used to make the car... That doesn't really replace the car or change the fact that I took it from you without permission, does it?
The only difference one could draw that would be of any meaning is that, as a digital artifact, the photo can be replicated at no cost beyond the cost of the memory needed to store the data file. But again, you still run headlong into the fact that the creation of the photo in the first place has a cost, and the photo itself has a value. By taking Anthony's photo and posting it into his corporate email, Alex didn't have to hire a photographer to take a photo for him, nor did he have to use his own time, effort and talents to take a photo of his own. Without the photo, Alex would have had to expend resources in the form of time, money or a bit of both - thus, there's a value to it.
-
To my knowledge, Anthony does not sell photos. We don't know the cost.
It doesn't matter. It's still his work, and still protected by copyright, even if the cost to him was nearly zero - it can't be zero unless he places absolutely no value on his time.
As far as cost - if he spent time and effort, expending man-hours, then yes, there's a value in it. If I wanted a photo of something and didn't want to take it myself, I'd have to pay someone or find a volunteer to take it, with payment being the much more easy of the two tasks. The hardware costs also come into play as well - the $3,000 spent on the camera is indeed spent on the camera and not the photos it takes - but without a camera, there are no photos...
The car is property. The photo is property. I take property without permission of the owner, that's theft. In your example, it's like I'm saying that I stole your car, but you still have the factory that you used to make the car... That doesn't really replace the car or change the fact that I took it from you without permission, does it?
The only difference one could draw that would be of any meaning is that, as a digital artifact, the photo can be replicated at no cost beyond the cost of the memory needed to store the data file. But again, you still run headlong into the fact that the creation of the photo in the first place has a cost, and the photo itself has a value. By taking Anthony's photo and posting it into his corporate email, Alex didn't have to hire a photographer to take a photo for him, nor did he have to use his own time, effort and talents to take a photo of his own. Without the photo, Alex would have had to expend resources in the form of time, money or a bit of both - thus, there's a value to it.
None of this actually matters, as far as you and I are concerned. The issue has been resolved. You can write until the cows come home, that's not going to change my opinion about not asking for compensation. Moving forward from my first post regarding "Fair Use", I'm not disagreeing with anyone about copyright infringement. No need to repeat ourselves and keep saying the same things over and over again.
In the interest of keeping communication channels open between you and I... Rather than write what I'm thinking which could irritate the powers that be (as I'm now reading the EPCC terms for the PCF deck design competition) we should end this copyright discussion.
-
In the interest of keeping communication channels open between you and I... Rather than write what I'm thinking which could irritate the powers that be (as I'm now reading the EPCC terms for the PCF deck design competition) we should end this copyright discussion.
The contest should have no bearing, really - and the last thing you need to fear is "the powers that be." I encourage open discussion, and I never deny someone the freedom to disagree with me personally as they see fit, as long as they're not spewing hate speech, making personal attacks or breaking any laws. I welcome disagreement if for no other reason then the fact that it leads to open discussion such as the two of us have been engaging in! I might or might not agree with your point of view or your arguments, but I have respect for you and all the other members here as a person. If I met you in a bar, I would probably have bought you a drink by now!
Please, if you have a question or an issue regarding the 2DCC rules, I encourage and invite you to speak up and be heard.
-
The contest should have no bearing, really
Ironically, this topic and its contents will have no bearing on the competition or its terms. I agree. :))
the last thing you need to fear is "the powers that be."
Fear is not the word I used. I don't fear anyone.
All actions have consequences. I'm not willing to accepted those consequences.
Please, if you have a question or an issue regarding the 2DCC rules, I encourage and invite you to speak up and be heard.
The questions should be asked by those whom the competition terms pertain. It does not affect me.