Using copyright images on CC

[mjr]

And it was always by companies who certainly had the cash to pay. But exposure doesn't buy my dinner.

Yes, this is a key rule: if it doesn't reward you personally somehow, don't do it unless you can afford to have done it for nothing. Too many people are too often conned into creating stuff for free or below-cost now in the vain hope that they will be rewarded later. Legal fictions like copyright are no substitute for three squares and a roof and law is generally stacked in favour of the richest.

 

[mjr]

Quote reproduced with many thanks and the kind permission of @mjr .

Ha! I have put a copyright licence statement in my sig on another forum because the site-owning company has been ripping off posts and printing them in magazines, claiming they've an implied copyright licence. Now if they do that to me, I'll claim their whole publication is in the Creative Commons

 

[jefmcg]

I gave up with the photography business several years ago now. But I can't stop hearing "It will be good exposure for you" when I go to sleep. And it was always by companies who certainly had the cash to pay. But exposure doesn't buy my dinner.

Yeah, that was the other thing that bothered me about my accuser in the other thread. Apparently he'd done so well in photography (in the late 20th, early 21st century) that he could retire early. Is that possible? I wouldn't have thought so, even in pornography.

 

[jefmcg]

Aren't you posting from a foreign country at the moment?

No. I usually post from a foreign country**, but now I am in Australia.

**The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Yeah, that was the other thing that bothered me about my accuser in the other thread. Apparently he'd done so well in photography (in the late 20th, early 21st century) that he could retire early. Is that possible? I wouldn't have thought so, even in pornography.

There are some seriously rich photographers out there, but like anything they are the select few that made it to the top. Probably more likely then, than now. Like all industries the middle ground is disappearing. It's going to the extremes in terms of earnings.

 

[AndyRM]

Yeah, that was the other thing that bothered me about my accuser in the other thread. Apparently he'd done so well in photography (in the late 20th, early 21st century) that he could retire early. Is that possible? I wouldn't have thought so, even in pornography.

It is. I know a couple of folks who could but keep going because they love it. Consequently their rates are way below average which has caused them some disagreements with other photographers.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Yes, this is a key rule: if it doesn't reward you personally somehow, don't do it unless you can afford to have done it for nothing. Too many people are too often conned into creating stuff for free or below-cost now in the vain hope that they will be rewarded later. Legal fictions like copyright are no substitute for three squares and a roof and law is generally stacked in favour of the richest.

Not directly related to photography. But very applicable to all creative professionals


View: https://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE

 

[mjr]

Not directly related to photography. But very applicable to all creative professionals

Quite a bit of truth there, but I say it's not the fault of amateurs. There are always amateurs, from writers to bike mechanics. If you aren't better than them in some way that gets you paid, even if it's just being willing to create works for money that no sane amateur would, then it's time to find a new profession. The clueless professionals working for nothing are more of a problem.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

To get some perspective, (and worthy discussions around copyright law aside), I think what we're really discussing here is the moral aspect of using an image from the internet to either (1) illustrate a quick point, (2) to help a discussion, or (3) to provide light relief, all of this on an internet chat forum. Nobody's looking to gain from it financially, no photographers are being done out of a living, there's no malice intended, and no intent to circumvent any royalties or crediting system. This isn't comparable to torrent filesharing of music, or the good example shown earlier of published use of an image by an author and a council for gain.

@jefmcg did nothing morally questionable in my view.

 

[mjr]

To get some perspective, (and worthy discussions around copyright law aside), I think what we're really discussing here is the moral aspect of using an image from the internet to either (1) illustrate a quick point, (2) to help a discussion, or (3) to provide light relief, all of this on an internet chat forum. Nobody's looking to gain from it financially, no photographers are being done out of a living, there's no malice intended, and no intent to circumvent any royalties or crediting system. This isn't comparable to torrent filesharing of music, or the good example shown earlier of published use of an image by an author and a council for gain.

Most of the early file sharers weren't intending to circumvent anything, but were trying to help each other get access to music and movies in formats that the copyright holders weren't providing and were trying their darkest to prevent existing. The early file sharers were the spiritual successors of the home tapers. The copyright holders didn't care that they weren't commercial and went after them anyway, using powers intended to deal with commercial bootleggers to go after teenagers and their parents. Linking to an attributed image to illustrate a point isn't morally much different, except for the small difference of actually being legal AFAICT. It shouldn't be a surprise that a copyright troll tries to scare people into stopping doing it. Why was the post deleted?

 

[Pale Rider]

Seems to me the use of photos is like a motorway speed limit - lots of people break the rules, very few get apprehended for it.

Before the internet, a courtesy credit usually did the job for non-commercial use.

Now everyone is a publisher, which was never envisaged when copyright laws were drafted.

I am aware of some commercial news outlets getting into bother for ripping images from social media.

The outlet doesn't really have a leg to stand on, other than to face down the photographer and copyright holder, who is usually a private citizen who posted a pic which then became newsworthy because the subject died, got arrested, or had some other newsworthy adventure.

Another complication is "publisher's copyright".

To use facebook as an example, I think somewhere in their terms and conditions it says everything you post, including photos, becomes facebook's copyright.

 

[Milkfloat]

About 8 years ago, I noticed a big rise in hits on some of my product photographs that were not even particularly good. I quickly discovered that a company I had never dealt with could not even be bothered to even copy my photos, they just linked to them. I sent them a bill, it got ignored, which was fairly normal. However, this time because they had linked to them I got the upper hand. I simply replaced the images with a very rude picture and a note explaining that what the company was doing. It took them almost a week to react and the hits went through the roof.

My photographs are not good at all and if someone asks they can always use them for free, but if you steal and ignore me then I try and get creative.

 

[mjr]

I am aware of some commercial news outlets getting into bother for ripping images from social media.

The outlet doesn't really have a leg to stand on, other than to face down the photographer and copyright holder, who is usually a private citizen who posted a pic which then became newsworthy because the subject died, got arrested, or had some other newsworthy adventure.

No leg to stand on except the blanket permission in the legislation at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30 you mean?

 

[Pale Rider]

No leg to stand on except the blanket permission in the legislation at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30 you mean?

'fraid not.

The section to which you refer relates to excerpts of written and performed work aimed at book, film, theatre reviews and the like.

Subsection 2 specifically excludes photographs for the purpose of news reporting.

Thus ripping a photo from social media for a news report is an infringement of copyright.

Plus any reproduction is under the legal concept of 'fair dealing', which is taken to mean a small proportion of the work can be used to illustrate the reviewer's/republisher's point.

So using the whole work - you can't properly fair deal with a single photo because you are using all of it - is a breach of copyright unless permission is obtained.

 

[coffeejo]

About 8 years ago, I noticed a big rise in hits on some of my product photographs that were not even particularly good. I quickly discovered that a company I had never dealt with could not even be bothered to even copy my photos, they just linked to them. I sent them a bill, it got ignored, which was fairly normal. However, this time because they had linked to them I got the upper hand. I simply replaced the images with a very rude picture and a note explaining that what the company was doing. It took them almost a week to react and the hits went through the roof.

My photographs are not good at all and if someone asks they can always use them for free, but if you steal and ignore me then I try and get creative.

I did that several times. Proved so popular that my website usually crashed.