That famous space shuttle photo: When is sharing stealing?
redtape.msnbc.msn.com
redtape.msnbc.msn.com
It's just a photo. The photos that the article refers to are not works of art. They were not meticulously planned, they were not taken by experienced professionals using expensive professional equipment. They're just photos made by people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. They then decided out of their own volition to share their photo online, an act that takes less than 1 minute of their time. If commercial organizations start (ab)using the photos then I think it's good to point that out, as they are making money off of it. Otherwise I'd say: happy sharing.
Personally, I don't take photos for money. Every photo I publish on my blog I consider to be in the public domain, and I'd be glad if people use it. If I enjoyed making it or if it didn't take me any effort to make it, then I'm happy to share it for free.
If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.
It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Do...
And then after the fact, are reacting this way. They're not shooting for a project, to build their portfolio, etc. They simply took a picture of something they saw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Filo
Another example: the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination, shot by a private citizen on a spring-wound Bell & Howell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film
- He had been shot at once (by a representative of his own government), began running (for his life?), but had the presence of mind to return and take pictures.
- Being a photographer, he had useful equipment at the ready. Many other people were around, but they didn't have the equipment. This was 1970 -- not everyone had a camera in their pockets.
- Being a photojournalism student, he may have sought and framed pictures differently than the average person. He said he was running out of film, implying he had to choose wisely. An untrained person may have run out of film or taken images that wouldn't become iconic.
I'm not arguing for or against the main issues in this thread. I was just impressed by the photograph, what it took to take it, and wouldn't characterize it as the result of just being in the right place at the right time. Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.
Despite the disagreement on that characterization, thanks for sharing that link. I'm glad to have seen the photograph and learned the story.
>Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's not -necessairly - about the quality of equipment or technical training or 'meticulous' planning.
More than any other single factor, it's about the photographer's location. Photojournalists are trained and paid to actively seek out news and choose their locations so they -might- be there to capture that perfect moment, but if someone with an iPhone just happens to be in that ideal spot instead, it doesn't mean their photo is worth any less.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away your photo, but I think people should be aware that, if they happen to find themselves in a newsworthy situation, they could choose to get paid for what they record, sometimes quite a bit.
Those organisations are used to paying for content. They make money from its distribution. Often they charge for their own.
By taking the picture without paying they are essentially being hypocritical, and the lowest form of pirate, without even the "it might mean I buy some other pictures in the future" or "she needs a new business model, not my problem" defences.
It has nothing to do with the photo's intrinsic value, whatever that is.
The monetary value here is tied to the rarity of the picture. Sure, it sucks, and it was taken in 2s. But it's still unique. And interesting. So it's worth a lot.
Is the HN community split down the middle on copyright issues, or simply not clear in its thinking? Is the morality of copyright purely decided by which side of the coin a big corporation is sitting?
Or is one of these news posts meant to be interpreted ironically?
But no. John Barlow wasn't didn't seem to be suggesting flagrantly violating copyrights (at least, nothing I read suggested that). And this story is about people violating copyright. The difference is one has to do with copyright protection, the other with violating copyright.
Basically, don't violate copyright, but we don't want more copyright protection. Additional protection would come at a price.
The morality of copyright isn't at issue here on HN. Do not confuse the arguments as being one in the same. They aren't. Companies have the same rights as little people when it comes to copyrights. What we don't want happening is companies getting more rights, and being able to trounce all over due process.
Flickr's done that for years. The problem is with the social networks where photo-sharing is an incidental function.
>He thinks photo sharing services could offer users simple options like, "Would you be interested in selling images?" -- and could even act as agents for consumers.
Flickr does that, too.
The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here.
So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?
See http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_c... for more.
He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier.
"Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office."
The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside."
Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously).
"So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?"
Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.
No mail to ask her about it. Nothing.
When she asked to get it removed, they assured that they always take their photos from paid stocks, or free of rights, so that it's not their fault. They didn't give more details, but eventually removed the picture.
The problem is that we live in an age when most people just use Google image to illustrate their stories, and assume that they can use just anything, because they found it there.
If you see a publisher not give credit for article and/or media used then they are cheap. She should have sent them an invoice for using the picture. I heard it's the standard for photojournalists to do this, except charge 5x the rate (for publishers not initially asking).
Google Images gets a "free pass" because their use is a "fair use" as defined in US copyright law.
""" Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work """ http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Google Images uses the copied images to guide users to the original (#1), uses a reduced-resolution thumbnail (#3), and in general may have a neutral or even positive effect on the value of the work (#4).
Of course, a simpler answer is that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said Google gets a free pass because Google's use was highly transformative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10%2C_Inc._v._Amazon.co...
You can argue about what definition of "free" includes defending against a lawsuit carried through the US Court of Appeals...
<b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and interesting debate.
But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others.
Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.
Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due).
You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation.
> You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?
That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.
Yes.
> And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.
Sure, but the fact remains that, under french IP laws, it is legally impossible to put something in the public domain yourself, as the creator of that thing.
And checking SQLite's "copyright" page (which made me realize this nit of french IP law) there seem to be places where the very concept of "public domain" does not exist.
This image only became famous but virtue of the fact that it went viral on twitter and the wider web. If she'd not tweeted it - and as someone with no press contacts - had attempted to sell it directly to media organisations I'm betting she wouldn't have had much success.
I think it's pretty hypocritical to try and leverage free services like twitter for self-promotion and personal brand-building then completely back-track on that ideology and claim some kind of restriction on a particular post cos it suddenly has been delivered to a wider audience and may suddenly have value.
The issue here is separate, for-profit redistribution in other media, which definitely requires prior consent from the originator.
So you can make the argument that publishing the image forms part of a publisher's content proposition from which they benefit (more viewers, more magazine sales or whatever). But you can make the same argument for twitter itself: twitter's value and the wealth of it's owners is derived exclusively from content it's users post. So can a user claim compensation from twitter for the value it has derived from their posts?
The same argument applies to say StackOverflow. I've spent countless hours answering questions and helping people out. SO sell ads against this content, and my content drives search engine click-throughs. Do I have a claim against SO?
> But has anyone done that?
Good examples of paid-for TwitPic photos include pictures in the wake of the Haiti earthquake, or the pictures taken of the Boeing which emergency-landed in the Hudson.
> Whey would they pay, given that it's available anyway?
Because they have to—the user only relinquished part of her rights on the picture, namely distribution on the Twitter/TwitPic medium, not her entire rights. If you think that were the TOS to change, the users would still upload pictures, you're so very wrong—see the TwitPic debacle recently and how MobyPicture gained a few k users because they state in their TOS that they can't sell their users' pictures without prior agreement.
You seem to think that your analogy is good, but I don't think it is. Were a magazine to publish SO answers in a Q&A section in a paid magazine, I think SO would be subject to licensing fees. In that case, the relationship between SO and you is governed by their TOS. Check them out, you'll have your answer.
Gives them. If you're posting pictures on Twitter or putting comments on SO, you can hardly fault them for displaying those.
But when AP starts selling your twitter pictures or SO comments on its feed, it's a whole different bucket of filth, and a very, very different situation.
We're discussing the second case here, not "I put a comment on news.yc and news.yc displays it".
I hate being self-promotional, but this issue is exactly the reason we created Picuous, which is a Vimeo/SoundCloud/Scribd for pictures: pictures can be embedded legally, carry automatic attribution, and can be tracked by the picture owner. Using the pictures in the player is free, using them in other contexts is pay-for.
We want to change this traditionnal diffusion/monetization/ownership Bermuda Triangle… People interested in this problem should check it out: http://picuous.com. All feedback is welcome on martin@picuous.com.
Authors want their books distributed. Musicians want their music distributed, too. They just want to make money, as well.
Honestly, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, which is interesting. I just think we have to work on the terminology. Because anyone can see that there's a big difference between snapping a picture and putting it on Twitter, vs. writing a book and trying to sell it.
(+1, by the way. You made a good argument. You might want to remove the "<b>" though, that kind of formatting doesn't work here).
If you're downvoting please explain why.
Public domain means anyone can use the photo as they see fit, which is not why the photographer put it out there. She is exercising her copyrights by licensing the photo (royalty free) to whatever service she uploaded it to. (It's always in the ToS that by uploading, you give them some sort of license, but you usually do not give them the copyright.)
Now, it is possible that she uploaded to Twitpic, which specifies in its ToS that by uploading, you give them license to publish and relicense the photo. If that's the case, then it is possible the various news agencies went to Twitpic to get a license to use the photo (for free or for some fee paid to Twitpic), but my guess is that is not what happened.
Think of it this way: if you wrote a book and posted a link to it on twitter, would you be happy if someone else started selling it on Amazon?
When you post a picture to twitter you are essentially saying Hey everyone look at my photo!. In my view it is then impossible to justify later freaking out and saying Holy shit everyone is looking at my photo!
After reading the article, I think the "victim" here may even agree with me. Her quotes didn't give the impression that she felt particularly wronged in the whole affair.