Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I wonder if they had been watermarked...

 
digirebelva
Goldmember
Avatar
3,957 posts
Gallery: 353 photos
Likes: 1537
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Virginia
     
May 22, 2015 07:47 |  #1

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

http://gothamist.com …instagram_photo​s_sell.php (external 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 a registered member)
Astheros
Member
Avatar
178 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Dec 2008
Location: 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
Avatar
3,957 posts
Gallery: 353 photos
Likes: 1537
Joined Mar 2008
Location: 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
Avatar
5,242 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 386
Joined Dec 2007
Location: 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​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 104
Joined Oct 2013
Location: 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
Likes: 104
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
May 22, 2015 08:03 |  #6

joedlh wrote in post #17566601 (external 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
1,061 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 291
Joined Sep 2013
Location: 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.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,957 posts
Gallery: 353 photos
Likes: 1537
Joined Mar 2008
Location: 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
29,002 posts
Likes: 986
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
Avatar
3,957 posts
Gallery: 353 photos
Likes: 1537
Joined Mar 2008
Location: 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
Avatar
178 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Dec 2008
Location: 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
1,061 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 291
Joined Sep 2013
Location: 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.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,352 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2173
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
May 22, 2015 09:48 |  #13

digirebelva wrote in post #17566626 (external 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 #17566620 (external 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 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
1,061 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 291
Joined Sep 2013
Location: South Alabama
Post edited over 3 years ago by Intheswamp.
     
May 22, 2015 10:01 |  #14

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17566732 (external 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.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,352 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2173
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
May 22, 2015 11:27 |  #15

Intheswamp wrote in post #17566745 (external 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 1600 pixels on any side.

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

5,365 views & 1 like for this thread
I wonder if they had been watermarked...
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lolly boardie
499 guests, 355 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.