|
The upsetting thing about that case is that the victim lost money trying to stop her images being sold and the people selling them seem to have made around 2.5k GBP, which is still in their pockets.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If your image has been ripped off by these bastards, what size have you posted them on Flickr at ? Obviously large enough to enable someone to download and make a decent print of, I assume....then you should accept the possible consequences. I'm not saying that you are in the wrong by any stretch of the imagination. The law should be on your side. However, you have given them both the temptation and the opportunity.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Eric Hands edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
> seem to have made around 2.5k GBP,
I think the prices of the stolen works were added up. No mention of how many sales were made (could have been zero, or loads more).
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
from their ebay store the prints go for around £60-70 so that's quite a few.
eric you could argue to stop people stealing your work don't post it at all...
it's the whole watermark/security issue again... by making photos more secure it means that people that are there just to enjoy it have it spoiled by low res or watermarking etc...
suppose it is comparable to "strict national security" of a "free country" where do you draw the line?
it's always the few that spoil it for the rest of us...
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There's a bit of a lynch mob going here (not in this group, of course!). The company involved is a pretty small operation who claim that they have been scammed, having paid 3k for exclusive rights to a person they thought was the photographer (and who has now vanished). Could be bullshit, who knows.
I guess the best defences are to keep your public images either too small and/or too crap to be worth stealing :-)
Rebekka's mistake was to post large versions of superb photos, so she got stung. Hopefully her lawyer (or a new one paid for from the "fighting fund") will win her some money.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
surely even if that were true the company would have to pay her, then claim the money back off their insurance right?
the point is they didn't do the proper checks and got scammed... it's like a shop that accepts a dodgy credit card... it's still their fault even if they couldn't have known
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
..but they are still selling them even though they now know the truth.
Isn't there a trading standards issue here? - after all Trading Standards are quick enough to pick up on forged CDs etc - why not forged pictures?
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
ibanda edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
What is a forged photograph?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Frankly this kind of thing is the risk of the internet.
And the internet is a two edged blade in my opinion.
On one side it's vital for people to get out there and make a name for themselves.
On the other hand getting out there is risking getting your work stolen.
You can copyright it all you want, if someone wants to use it, they'll do so anyway. I've had to make legal threats towards people several times already, and thankfully they've always been enough to make them back off, but I know full well that one day I won't be as lucky :(
I just hope that this matter can be resolved, and that Rebecca can get money out of this, as she deserves.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Probably forgery is the wrong term - but there is misrepresentation here. If i take your photo and sell it as my own I am misrepresenting the true position.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If I get all my most treasured possessions and put them in the window of my house for all to see and admire, and if then my window is broken and my possessions stolen, then I will expect the law to act on my behalf to recover my property - as it would indeed have been taken without my consent. However, I should not expect to be surprised if my friends and neighbours were to turn to me and say ' You asked for that '.
I honestly don't see the difference. You have been ripped off. You made it possible. Of course the glib answer is ' then don't use the internet '. The realistic answer is to minimise the risk by not uploading large, reproducible files.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I hope you don't keep using the term "you" meaning me... it wasn't my photos that were taken...
but you've just proved my point their... you shouldn't have to worry about your stuff getting stolen if it's on show...
how about this senario, a girl is going to a party, on the way there she gets raped... is that her fault because instead of wearing a potato sack she wanted to wear something nice to go out in?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think it's important to keep a grip on reality and distinguish between "stealing" which removes a physical object from out of the hands of a rightful owner, and reproduction or copying which leaves the orginal intact and in most cases does no actual harm to the first owner, except in a perceived kind of way, and can often add value through wider exposure. It should also be remembered that photography itself is the copying of a found image which exists first in the outside world, often of man made objects which no doubt are believed to belong to somebody or other but have not by any means been stolen through the act of having their picture taken.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I was actually tempted to use the rape analogy myself but quickly realised that it would have been a potential mistake to have taken that route. However, you've raised it. There are fundamentalists who would immediately claim that 'it had been asked for'. The reality is that many girls will wear something stunning and potentially seductive to a party, but may well travel by car or taxi - or wear a coat on top until they get there. Except in Croydon, of course, but that's another matter ! The problem with analogies is that they are just that, and are always controversial in themselves. Andyrob raises an interesting point, although the definition of 'stealing' in this particular case applies solely to taking without consent of the owner. Whether or not any actual harm is done to the original item is irrelevant. Your claim that the act 'could add value' to the work is also flawed. It could equally devalue substantially as I'm sure many artists have found to their cost.
And the last point is pure rhubarb. Although, unlike some thick skinned photographers that I have known, I wouldn't dream of sticking a camera in someone's face without their permission.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Eric Hands edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
"the definition of 'stealing' in this particular case applies solely to taking without consent of the owner."
Again the language of "taking without consent" implies that something has been taken away or borrowed, removed from its owner rather than copied whilst leaving the original intact.
What you are really defending here is the concept of intellectual property, a construct which ultimately reduces down to a question of who has the most expensive lawyers, without any moral dimension whatsoever.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Of course there is a moral dimension involved - it is ethically wrong to take someone else's work and claim it as your own. And this may be the heart of the matter. By not saying that it is someone else's work, whether it is simply displayed or sold for a profit, the 'acquirer' is gulty of fraud, surely ? Of course, I originally came in to merely suggest that putting an easily 'borrowable' picture into the public arena, such as Flickr or 90% of the internet, is not really 'asking for trouble' as such, but one should not do so without contemplating the possible repercussions.
As for intellectual property law, I'm pretty sure that ownership of an original negative or digital file and the lack of any agreement for use by the accused would soon result in a settlement. The cases we mostly hear about are probably 'grey areas' where, although the law states that ownership of the original negative remains with the photographer, there are other factors which may affect a photographer's rights to sell or display the photographs without the consent of the client who commissioned the shoot.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I wonder why the original post, linked from the top message in this thread, has been deleted?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Andyrob; have a look at this. It explains all
rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression...
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
MSH* edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
Hurrah for installed blogs.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
have a look in the flickr forums...them fancy folk, be up in arms about it....
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I can't see it my firewall at work has blocked it
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
London /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to London discussion threads
