Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 22 May 2015 (Friday) 07:47
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

I wonder if they had been watermarked...

 
digirebelva
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
May 22, 2015 07:47 |  #1

Artist Steals Instagram Photos & Sells Them For $100K At NYC Gallery

http://gothamist.com ...instagram_photos_se​ll.phpexternal link


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Astheros
Member
Astheros's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
USA
May 22, 2015 07:56 |  #2

i blame the purchaser as much as the seller. this is shameful. as someone who enjoys photography...i think the fair use has gone quite far with this dude.


Canon 6D *** Canon 24-70L f/2.8 II*** Canon 135mm f2 *** Canon 70-200 f4L IS
flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
May 22, 2015 08:00 as a reply to Astheros's post |  #3

What about the gallery willing to host the show...it all boils down to money....a gallery's cut of $90,000 isn't insignificant..


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
May 22, 2015 08:02 |  #4

I think whoever sued Richard Prince and lost should have gotten a more competent lawyer. It sure looks like theft of intellectual property to me.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Joined Oct 2013
London, Paris, NY
May 22, 2015 08:03 |  #5

When has art ever been about money?.....this is very sad indeed.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Joined Oct 2013
London, Paris, NY
May 22, 2015 08:03 |  #6

joedlh wrote in post #17566601external link
I think whoever sued Richard Prince and lost should have gotten a more competent lawyer. It sure looks like theft of intellectual property to me.

I fully agree.....




LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
May 22, 2015 08:18 |  #7

Seems that once an image hits "social media" all bets are off and it's free game (for the vultures). IP lawyers appear to show little desire to pursue an "actual damages" lawsuit regarding images post there (social media). I was told something along the lines of "once posted to social media the laws teeth have been pulled. Images stolen from a personal website are a different story, though.

After a recent personal situation, I no longer post photos (other than "snapshots") to facebook. I still post images to Flickr, which seems to be used by many, many great photographers...but, is Flickr safe? Hmm, I might have to query to the IP lawyer again...

Bottom line: Realize that if you post an image to social media that the value and possibility of receiving compensation for a copyright infringement just nosedived into the dirt.....beware of posting your images to social media.

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
May 22, 2015 08:22 as a reply to Intheswamp's post |  #8

Nothing I post to Flickr (or anywhere) is without a watermark...remove it, and you butt is mine under the DMCA....
Most folks don't care, even when something like this is brought to their attention, and it's their image...:-(


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
28,921 posts
Joined Dec 2006
May 22, 2015 08:23 |  #9

Social media doesnt strip away any on your rights so that argument is bogus. While IP attorneys may not be inclined to go after offenders because of the small liklihood of recovery, sales of 95K per print is a different matter.




LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
May 22, 2015 08:26 as a reply to gonzogolf's post |  #10

Well, apparently, because of the "changes" he has made to the images (in this case adding text), the courts consider it to be fair use...or at least the one(s) that have so far heard the lawsuits..

Maybe a more competent lawyer might make the difference...maybe


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Astheros
Member
Astheros's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
USA
May 22, 2015 09:34 as a reply to Intheswamp's post |  #11

flickr allows you to set different copyright setting per image depending on what you will and will not allow with your images.


Canon 6D *** Canon 24-70L f/2.8 II*** Canon 135mm f2 *** Canon 70-200 f4L IS
flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
May 22, 2015 09:47 |  #12

Yes, I understand the "options" on Flickr regarding copyrights. But, I believe this is more of a "you can give permission" rather than a "you better not mess with my stuff" type of options. My understanding (which could be bogus!! -? ) is that once you capture an image you instantly own the copyright to that image. It is wrong for someone to "steal" that image, but what we do with the image appears to affect greatly how well we can defend our copyright and be paid for it's use.

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
PhotosGuy's Avatar
74,877 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Joined Feb 2004
Middle of Michigan
May 22, 2015 09:48 |  #13

digirebelva wrote in post #17566626external link
Well, apparently, because of the "changes" he has made to the images (in this case adding text), the courts consider it to be fair use...or at least the one(s) that have so far heard the lawsuits..

Maybe a more competent lawyer might make the difference...maybe

I suspect that you're right. First, he's altered images of peoples faces that he has no right to use commercially. (Just my opinion.)
Second, he would have had to remove a watermark (if there was one there), which the quote below covers. I wonder how the DMCA vs. fair use would resolve in court.

digirebelva wrote in post #17566620external link
Nothing I post to Flickr (or anywhere) is without a watermark...remove it, and you butt is mine under the DMCA....
Most folks don't care, even when something like this is brought to their attention, and it's their image...:-(

More: From Carolyn E Wright's blog:external link Section 1202 of the U.S. Copyright Act makes it illegal for someone to remove the watermark from your photo so that it can disguise the infringement when used. The fines start at $2500 and go to $25,000 in addition to attorneys' fees and any damages for the infringement.
The pertinent part of the statute is included the link.


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1280 pixels on any side.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Intheswamp.
May 22, 2015 10:01 |  #14

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17566732external link
I suspect that you're right. First, he's altered images of peoples faces that he has no right to use commercially. (Just my opinion.)
Second, he would have had to remove a watermark (if there was one there), which the quote below covers. I wonder how the DMCA vs. fair use would resolve in court.

More: From Carolyn E Wright's blog:external link Section 1202 of the U.S. Copyright Act makes it illegal for someone to remove the watermark from your photo so that it can disguise the infringement when used. The fines start at $2500 and go to $25,000 in addition to attorneys' fees and any damages for the infringement.
The pertinent part of the statute is included the link.

I had an image that was "stolen" on Facebook. The watermarks/signature/e​tc was removed. Carolyn Wright's firm was not interested in the case due to only *actual* damages most likely being received for it. Due to it having been posted to Facebook (social media) I lost the "punitive" (or whatever it's called) damages. They said that I had a case...just not one that would pay much at all...really not worth their time (nor probably mine). Being as these "celebrities" posted their images to Instagram (social media) and made them freely available they too probably could only receive actual damages. Since they posted their images for free for their fans...it seems actual damages would be very little.

Now, if those images had been on the celebrities personal websites and he used and altered them...Prince could find himself on the paying side of things. But, it sounds like he knows better than that.

There again, I'm new to all of this, and maybe my shade-tree understanding of it all is way off-base. :)

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
PhotosGuy's Avatar
74,877 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Joined Feb 2004
Middle of Michigan
May 22, 2015 11:27 |  #15

Intheswamp wrote in post #17566745external link
They said that I had a case...just not one that would pay much at all...really not worth their time (nor probably mine).

I wonder if the problem was not being awarded damages, but in collecting them after the fact.


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1280 pixels on any side.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,147 views & 1 like for this thread
I wonder if they had been watermarked...
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00356 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is GHPub
880 guests, 460 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017