The Fear of Plagiarizing - Is Someone Copying Your Work?

[Wazza]

After just reading an article about copying of photographs, and using for paintings, it comes to my attention, that we live in a world of untrustworthy people. (of course I've known this all along)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10127368

I hope the person in breach of copyright, gets the full penalties from people making cases against him.

Possibly there could even be some of my work in there. Not that I'm famous, but my images do appear in a lot searches, such as "Piha", and sunsets etc.

It does make me stop and think about posting freely all my images. Of course, I don't make a cent off them. (just yet), and someone could be taking that away.

What are your thoughts on situations like this?

I've read recently a few of the pros here say they never post their images, simply for the fact people will steal.

That's why I don't post pics more than 1000x667 (and possibly coz I'm on 56K, and have upload speed issues :p). It will only be good enough to print clearly at 6x4, and have no worries of someone trying to print that at 20x24", coz it simply won't work. ;)

[Jesper]

In my opinion, the guy who makes the paintings of other people's photographs is a thief. There's nothing artistic in simply copying someone else's image and the painting is certainly not an original work of art.

In an email sent to the Herald on Vink’s behalf, his sister Yvette said:

"Painting from photographs is acceptable practice - as soon as you paint from a photo [it] is your own interpretation therefore [there is] no copyright infringement."

She did not respond to a question asking if the buyers knew his work was actually a painting of someone else’s photograph.

Instead she said: "Peter takes many of the photos himself and sources others on the internet."I think this is nonsense, it's the same as when a writer copies text from another book and just changes the words slightly. You can't say "well, it's my own interpretation".

What makes it even worse is that Peter Vink just steals those photos, he doesn't even politely ask the photographer if he can use his/her work. He pretends it's his own original work of art, which it is very obviously not, and sells it for big money.

[JZaun]

I have a friend who is a painter. She is really good but does not make a living doing it. She asked what I would charge her to paint some of my photos. I gave her permission to paint any I had posted online. I am not making anything off them, I am not going to try to make anything off them. She could go out and take pictures on her own to paint. It made me feel good that she thought some of my pics were worth painting. There are millions of pictures on the I-net so mine are just a drop in the bucket and just like thousands of others. If I had a picture that I thought was really special and saleable I would never post it on the I-net !! I would be more insulted if someone took my pic and put their name on it. Painting my pics on-line is not a problem with me.

Just me 2C's

JZ

[skade]

Well this just sucks! It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

[Wazza]

Yeah, I'll keep my eye out for a court appearance.

[Digital Prophet]

Maybe copyright law in NZ is different. But I think that if that case were here in the states that you would have a pretty hard time pressing it.

First of all there is the registration issue. It is common knowledge that a photographer owns the copyright of a photo from the instant it is taken (barring work for hire scenarios). But if that image is not registered with Copyright office then this case is a no go. The photographer can only sue the infringer for the lost revenue of the sale of that photo. If the photographer hasn't sold other copies of that image, doesn't have a history of sale of similar images or (even worse) doesn't have a history of any sale then the assumed value of the image would be very low. And even if you did win your case you would only recover damages from a single instance sale of the image's license.

I suppose you could argue to recover the licensing fee equivalent to cover the infringed use of the image. But that is all. And that is a stretch. However, if the image is registered you could sue for lost licensing fees, attorney fees and punitive damages. But still you aren't going to cash in because just in the past year the courts have determined that copyright infringement does not make a original work more valuable. In other words the value retrieved is based on what YOU would have or are capable of doing with the image. Not what the guy that infringed on you HAS done with it.

But even beyond that, in the case of useful items, landscapes (and other naturally occurring, gereally static) subjects it is very easy to claim that the infringer visited the same locale or had contact with the same items. So if you take a picture of the Grand Canyon it is foolish to assume that another person couldn't claim his painting was based on his own visit. Unless of course he painted it from a photo of your mom and included her in the painting (or something equally obvious and retarded).

Copyright is by no means cut and dry. You can sit and invent an entirely new way to photograph fire, make a million dollars off your unique work and open a Time magazine only see some other guy has stolen your idea. Guess what, there is no infringement. Even if he recreates one of your photos exactly, there is no infringement. Maybe you can argue a trademark case, but that is another post.

I guess the point is that we deal in a visual medium. And as such we leave impressions that are bound to influence the work of others. Does that make theft right? No. But aside from direct theft of an exact image there are so many obstacles to remediation that it boils down to a scenario of "I will take the steps I can by registering my images, controling thier licensing and not posting 300dpi proofs online and go on with my career. Or I can be paranoid, hide all my best work and basically turn my passion into a chore."

One way is going to make you a happy photographer and the other way is going make you nuts.

- Digital Prophet -

[arpi]

Wouldn't a painting of a photograph be considered a derivative work?

For example, if you translate a book to another language you need the OK from the author otherwise you can get in serious trouble. If you translate a picture to a painting, you are doing a derivative work.

[Digital Prophet]

I had a little problem a few years ago in which someone copied some of my print- published fiction onto a bulletin board without my permission. The work is copyrighted and has an ISBN Library of Congress number. I could collect no damages, but I did get the work removed from the bulletin board.

I think that the courts (and maybe even the statute itself) have definately ruled that in the case of writings (i.e. text) that this definately infringment. The rationale being that there are no artistic or skilled worker decisions involved with copy exactly what another person has written.

And that is where the problem here lies. Once a work has been translated there is the argument for original creation and interpetation. And copying an image from one medium to another constitutes translation. And in artistic realms (paintings, sculpture, photography etc.) there are decisions that have to be made by what are considered skilled workers. That is us. We have artistic and technical decisions to make when we create the image. And even if two photographers stand side by side and take photos of the exact same scene there are any number of factors that can differ that make each image unique. And that is the argument that a painter can make for non-infringement. He had to make skilled decisions to make the translation possible, thus making an argument for original copyright versus infringement.

And you know, there is always the case for affirmitive defense: "innocenet infringement".

- Digital Prophet -