Should I be mad?

7D_Sniper wrote in post #11595656
Does it matter if some one takes your car?

it's a car...

If someone takes your car, you don't have a car anymore. Not really the same.

I always find these kind of discussions interesting. I can see both sides of the debate and they both have merit. For me if someone uses one of my images on a personal page, which could eventually bring me some business, then great. I'm not going to lose any sleep if I don't get credit for something like that though. Bottom line; the more people that see my work the better (even if they don't realize that it's my work, hopefully they will be interested enough to find out who took the shot).

tkbslc wrote in post #11596386
If someone takes your car, you don't have a car anymore. Not really the same.

Physically it is not the same, but principle wise it is the same.

I would not even say principle. Avg price of new car in the US is just north of $22k. Average annual auto policy $600-$800. Avg annual fuel $600-$700. Average annual maintenance just under $1k. So we will say $30k on the low side, not factoring interest for five years.

A car contributes to one's quality of life. Gets most to and from work. One loses a car, they are in trouble. They can lose a job, income, and livelihood. Most work their tale off to have one. $30k is a lot of money any way you cut it. That's why we pay insurance. If stolen we can get a replacement.

One has a picture they took used by someone on Facebook and they lose what? A potential sale of digital file? What was the true cost of shot? Reasonable price to sell said shot? That person was not likely buying it. They might, but likely not. Shooter still owns it, can still sell it. Difference being insurance. Protect, watermark, or don't post. Already done? Do as others said, ask to pull it down, but that might cost referrals, etc, not to mention time and effort. Unless, you are one of a few rare photographers who make a car's price per shoot, these one offs will not ruin one's livelihood.

The principal of the matter is simple they stole the image bottom line. Stealing is stealing no matter the value of an item yes stealing a car will land you much more jail time but the fact is both people would be taking something that is not theirs. I don't understand what so so hard to understand.

ImCBParker wrote in post #11596964
I would not even say principle. Avg price of new car in the US is just north of $22k. Average annual auto policy $600-$800. Avg annual fuel $600-$700. Average annual maintenance just under $1k. So we will say $30k on the low side, not factoring interest for five years.

A car contributes to one's quality of life. Gets most to and from work. One loses a car, they are in trouble. They can lose a job, income, and livelihood. Most work their tale off to have one. $30k is a lot of money any way you cut it. That's why we pay insurance. If stolen we can get a replacement.

One has a picture they took used by someone on Facebook and they lose what? A potential sale of digital file? What was the true cost of shot? Reasonable price to sell said shot? That person was not likely buying it. They might, but likely not. Shooter still owns it, can still sell it. Difference being insurance. Protect, watermark, or don't post. Already done? Do as others said, ask to pull it down, but that might cost referrals, etc, not to mention time and effort. Unless, you are one of a few rare photographers who make a car's price per shoot, these one offs will not ruin one's livelihood.

Ah, so you're saying that it's moral for you to evaluate the importance of my property to me, and if you decide I don't really need my property, then it's moral for you to take my property from me.

There are plenty of burglars, car thieves, and street thugs who practice that same moral principle. You live in a nice house, drive a nice car...they know you have insurance. They know you have good job. They know you can get your things replaced. They don't have those things, and they survive, therefore they know you can survive without them as well.

Same principle: You're arguing that it's socially moral to make your own judgment about what other people should own, and deprive them of their property when you decide they don't need it.

RDKirk wrote in post #11598343
Ah, so you're saying that it's moral for you to evaluate the importance of my property to me, and if you decide I don't really need my property, then it's moral for you to take my property from me.

There are plenty of burglars, car thieves, and street thugs who practice that same moral principle. You live in a nice house, drive a nice car...they know you have insurance. They know you have good job. They know you can get your things replaced. They don't have those things, and they survive, therefore they know you can survive without them as well.

Same principle: You're arguing that it's socially moral to make your own judgment about what other people should own, and deprive them of their property when you decide they don't need it.

well said

Principle: the method of formation, operation, or procedure, exhibited in a given case.

My argument was principle, as was being discussed. Refer to almost any class or book on ethics and you will know there is a difference. Principle, morals, and ethics are different. Everyone agrees that having your work copied is morally wrong, unethical, and there are infringement laws to protect the owner.

If someone steals you car you lose it, period. You likely never get that car back. Someone uses your picture, you do not lose possession of your picture. It is not comparable act, since the act itself did not result in the actual loss of property. Did one lose money? Yes. One is replacement value, the other potential sales. One is a real value the other is yet to be determined. Yes money is money, but for the sake of comparison, it is different money. So one cannot argue the principle when the operations and procedures are not the same. A better comparison would be counterfeit goods, but even that is a stretch, since in this act the person who copied the image is not profiting. The ramifications are far similar if the perpetrator sold the image without the creator's consent.

As far as morals and judgment, at no point did I mention it was right for infringing on digital property. Nor did I impose what the value of the shot should be. The market place determines what the value is and the reality is of all the pictures taken, less then a nominal fraction of a fraction of one percent are valued at that of a car, no matter how much you like your picture. In this case, one would have to decide is the value of their time is worth the effort to fight it. Is it worth losing money for the principle of the matter? That is principle. Sorry I was not more clear on the previous post.

I also have a lot of people using my Facebook photos for profile pictures. I don't mind that, it's one of the reasons they were posted. They all have captions that include my name and copyright info. What I DONT like are the few people who copy the picture to their computer and then re-post it as their own. None of my info shows when they do this. So, now I have to decide if I want to punish them for this or punish everyone else by putting a big watermark on photos I post. The only way to stop people from copying your photos is to not put them online.........

Someone takes a car without permission = stealing
Some takes your digital property = stealing

Looks the same to me

I encourage people to download the proofs and put them online. I do ask that they dont crop off my info and to tag me on my logo. Free advertising, plus they will probably do it anywase.

What I dont like is when they take a photo with a cheap camera of one of my prints and post that, glare and all.

In the sales session I do offer low res digital files with a basic logo watermark, and toss them in for free when they spend $xxx amount.

7D_Sniper wrote in post #11597642
The principal of the matter is simple they stole the image bottom line. Stealing is stealing no matter the value of an item yes stealing a car will land you much more jail time but the fact is both people would be taking something that is not theirs. I don't understand what so so hard to understand.

To me it is different. Assuming someone posted a picture of THEM that they paid you to take, what's the harm in sharing it on facebook as their profile picture? Do you want complete say in where they can display non-commercial photos you sold them? If they hung a print you sold them on their wall and then streamed a live video feed of that framed photo to the web, would that be OK? What if they take picture with their own camera of your picture. Is that legal? There is a lot of gray area here.

tkbslc wrote in post #11599301
To me it is different. Assuming someone posted a picture of THEM that they paid you to take, what's the harm in sharing it on facebook as their profile picture? Do you want complete say in where they can display non-commercial photos you sold them? If they hung a print you sold them on their wall and then streamed a live video feed of that framed photo to the web, would that be OK? What if they take picture with their own camera of your picture. Is that legal? There is a lot of gray area here.

Well OP never disclosed if he had sold them the pics, he only stated someone was using his pic as a profile pic and he regretted not water marking it so he could be recognized . I am only assuming they didn't pay for the pic the pic is probably not even of a person.

7D, refer to any DCMA related case regarding infringement. Infringement and theft are two distinct and separate acts. Refer to my embedded link regarding the definition of infringement, or any legal precedence brought against those accused of infringing, as is the OP's case. Regardless of your feelings, there is a clear distinction.

7D_Sniper wrote in post #11599341
Well OP never disclosed if he had sold them the pics, he only stated someone was using his pic as a profile pic and he regretted not water marking it so he could be recognized . I am only assuming they didn't pay for the pic the pic is probably not even of a person.

I don't use facebook, but why would someone use a profile picture that is not a picture of them? Add that to the many reasons I avoid facebook at all costs.

If we aren't talking about pictures of the actual person that they already legally obtained from you in other forms, than I agree with your previous statements.