It is insane that it is easier to use someone's text, or a video, than a thumbnail of art on a blog post.
(Artist Chris Buzelli, in the center of this thumbnail, taken when he was judging an art competition in Houston, launched a jihad against me last week, calling me a thief. His friends did as well. They very nearly got me fired, although admittedly I did not handle myself well.)
Artists' bleating aside, I am no thief. Crediting and linking to the source of a thumbnail is just what Google does. It's legal. The "whole art" is not being "taken." A thumbnail is being displayed and linked-to. The artist is being credited. (I usually like to find a place where the art is being sold before using a thumbnail.)
Still, if an artist doesn't want their work to be circulated, if they don't really want to be part of the Web yet have a Web site at the same time, that should be their right.
I just want to know beforehand. I have a right to this. To say, "assume the answer is no" is not good enough. Because that not only censors writers regarding popular art, but art that wants to be publicized as well.
My biggest problem is this nonsense of requiring human interaction before another site owner can know what the deal is. The result is that known artists prevent the work of unknown artists from seeing the light of day, and determinations of artistic merit are made by agents, by elites, not by the people. In the end even good artists are victims in this system.
So how can we tell the status of a thumbnail, in such a way that those who think their thumbnails are art can "protect" them, while those who want their work publicized have a way to reach the market?
A Web permission engine is my modest proposal.
A permission engine (the concept comes from the database world) would consist of standard HTML meta tags, placed on a site's homepage, defining the status of all images within the site.
Any status could be defined by a simple code. Thumbnail with credit. An e-mail address through which to request permission. Even a price for reprint rights.
(Bizroof has a permission engine for user groups.)
A W3C committee would create, define, and maintain the codes. Site managers would get the codes through registrars. They wouldn't have to know how to code to get them. Just sign in to prove your identity as owner of the site, then answer a few questions on a standard Web form.
Do you want search engines to index your images?- Do you want your watermark on the resulting thumbnails? (Insert the text you want here.)
- What is the maximum size of your images you will allow to be displayed on another site, in pixels?
- Should visitors be allowed to download your images?
- Should links be allowed deep into your site or redirected to the home page?
- What credit line do you want placed when your images are used, and what address do you want that credit line to point to?
- Do you want to be notified if someone seeks to place a thumbnail of your images on their Web site? (Insert e-mail address.)
- Do you want to prevent screen grabs of your pages?
- Do you have a standard price for use of thumbnails?
If there are any other questions rights holders want to place in this script, we can have a process for that, and codes to match. When the script is done, the answers will be displayed, approval requested, and the code will be generated automatically on the site's entry page.
Since permissions will be HTML codes, search engines like Google will be able to respect them easily, with minimal overhead. Support for the code would also go into browsers, so users would not be able to override them. Screen capture programs would also have to use the codes, accessing Web pages before following user directions.
What artists have to do now is spend their own money on watermarking or copy prevention programs many say don't work. That is why so many reacted so violently to my use of Chris Buzelli's work last week. They feel they have no control.
A permission engine would give them control. Just as important, it would give those who want to have more permissive policies the same control. In time the market will determine what re-use policy is best.
HTML codes work well in helping content owners keep their videos off other Web sites, or in enabling it. A permission engine could also offer this power for text, so that if the AP did not want anyone quoting from or linking to their stories they could control that, while if blog authors wanted to encourage use of excerpts they could do that.
No one can control the Internet, relying mainly on human beings. Without computers, and computer coding that works without human intervention, the Internet could not be indexed, and little work could be found. (Image from Freespeech.org.)
The monopolies of Big Media would still exist if human intervention were needed for all re-use of all Web content. Artists are trying to maintain a monopoly for themselves that even the Associated Press can't. They want to keep writers from using their stuff, and more important keep them from using their competitors' stuff through a campaign of intimidation.
Again, I am not a thief. Any artist who claims I am is a liar. I am a writer, a blogger who has used this medium for a quarter century and understands something of its needs.
And what we both need, writers and artists and media companies, is the automation of permission. We all need a Web permission engine.
Isnt it more about ethics and respect for other artists work than about you and what you should be allowed to do for your own benefit?
How much of your text am I allowed to use without asking your permission by the way? What is the equivalent in words of 200 pixels?
Isnt it more about ethics and respect for other artists work than about you and what you should be allowed to do for your own benefit?
How much of your text am I allowed to use without asking your permission by the way? What is the equivalent in words of 200 pixels?
It’s incredible, Dana, to see someone slow-motion self destruct based on ignorance and a firm, yet misguided interpretation of very clear laws.
I believe that even when the law comes down on your head in this issue you will still be standing, shouting at the wind.
It’s incredible, Dana, to see someone slow-motion self destruct based on ignorance and a firm, yet misguided interpretation of very clear laws.
I believe that even when the law comes down on your head in this issue you will still be standing, shouting at the wind.
Brian:
This is not really a question the law can address.
This will happen again-and-again-and-again if you rely on either law or ethics.
The answer lies in technology.
If your mind is so closed in personal animosity to you that you can’t understand this point, then I am sorry. Because it will happen again — probably is happening right now.
And it is preventable only through technology.
Brian:
This is not really a question the law can address.
This will happen again-and-again-and-again if you rely on either law or ethics.
The answer lies in technology.
If your mind is so closed in personal animosity to you that you can’t understand this point, then I am sorry. Because it will happen again — probably is happening right now.
And it is preventable only through technology.
If your unethical behavior is any indication, than you may be right. I for one am not willing to abdicate ethics for technological enforcement, but I hear it works wonderfully in China.
If there’s anything we’ve learned from Internet technologies and attempts to police behaviors with them, is that there’s always a way around technological safeguards.
Like any other point in the development of modern society, people must be taught the consequences of their behaviors. Your hostility and complete lack of respect for other people’s intellectual property goes against this next step we need to make as a society.
Will there always be people who ignore social norms and ethics? Of course, just like any other criminal act. I’m not against technological advances in protecting intellectual property, but you didn’t need any technology to know whether you were breaking the law when you used Chris’s artwork. One only needs to read your litany of reasons, in previous posts to see that you knew exactly what you were doing. You blame everyone but the one person who knew better.
I do think that perhaps some technology that might be able to alert you, Dana, to the presence of your own foot in your mouth might be of great value to society. Sign me up for a donation toward it’s development.
If your unethical behavior is any indication, than you may be right. I for one am not willing to abdicate ethics for technological enforcement, but I hear it works wonderfully in China.
If there’s anything we’ve learned from Internet technologies and attempts to police behaviors with them, is that there’s always a way around technological safeguards.
Like any other point in the development of modern society, people must be taught the consequences of their behaviors. Your hostility and complete lack of respect for other people’s intellectual property goes against this next step we need to make as a society.
Will there always be people who ignore social norms and ethics? Of course, just like any other criminal act. I’m not against technological advances in protecting intellectual property, but you didn’t need any technology to know whether you were breaking the law when you used Chris’s artwork. One only needs to read your litany of reasons, in previous posts to see that you knew exactly what you were doing. You blame everyone but the one person who knew better.
I do think that perhaps some technology that might be able to alert you, Dana, to the presence of your own foot in your mouth might be of great value to society. Sign me up for a donation toward it’s development.
Dana, How about this for a Web Permission Engine? You see an image you’d like to use for your project, you e-mail the artist and ask permission. If you can’t locate the artist, or can’t get their permission, you don’t use the image. Professional illustrators are very easy to contact, we all have e-mail addresses and working telephones. We also are accustomed to getting paid for our work, but sometimes we allow our images to be used for a good purpose, in return for exposure. This type of “permission engine” has worked since the invention of the telephone. The internet did not eliminate the need for decent human understanding.
Dana, How about this for a Web Permission Engine? You see an image you’d like to use for your project, you e-mail the artist and ask permission. If you can’t locate the artist, or can’t get their permission, you don’t use the image. Professional illustrators are very easy to contact, we all have e-mail addresses and working telephones. We also are accustomed to getting paid for our work, but sometimes we allow our images to be used for a good purpose, in return for exposure. This type of “permission engine” has worked since the invention of the telephone. The internet did not eliminate the need for decent human understanding.
There are artists who want exposure outside their own sites. They should have rights, too.
I have admitted a mistake in the case at issue, and my employer has emphasized that I violated their policies. The relevant image was taken down as soon as I saw the request.
It is foolish to assume that people can enforce ethical rules on a technology that grows and changes as rapidly as the Internet does. The Great Firewall of China fails precisely because it relies so heavily on human intervention in deciding what should be prohibited.
If y’all would stop thinking about me for a moment and start thinking about the technology and prevention you may have hope for the future.
If not you don’t.
There are artists who want exposure outside their own sites. They should have rights, too.
I have admitted a mistake in the case at issue, and my employer has emphasized that I violated their policies. The relevant image was taken down as soon as I saw the request.
It is foolish to assume that people can enforce ethical rules on a technology that grows and changes as rapidly as the Internet does. The Great Firewall of China fails precisely because it relies so heavily on human intervention in deciding what should be prohibited.
If y’all would stop thinking about me for a moment and start thinking about the technology and prevention you may have hope for the future.
If not you don’t.
…have you ever heard of Creative Commons? (see: creativecommons.org) You’re basically just overdoing CC with your script idea.
I admit i wouldn’t mind CC being scripted into more search engines. I don’t think anyone would; artists who license under CC would get more exposure and those who need images could find them easier. The DRM approach you’re suggesting here, though… Yeah. Call up the music and DVD industries and see how well that’s working for them.
It’s like a challenge. ‘New DRM! Well, i don’t really need to pirate this, but what the heck.’ And DRM only needs to be broken and pirated once; then the pirated DRM-free copy is roaming the torrent sites, accessible to all. It’s about as effective as watermarks (which, despite what you imply here, are not ineffective solely due to cost. They either destroy the visual integrity of the work or are too easy to remove; either way, the whole point of watermarking is moot.)
Just © or CC. And it’d be nice if people start learning the difference between copyright, fair use, and creative commons.
As for this: ‘There are artists who want exposure outside their own sites. They should have rights, too.’
Yes. They have the right to license their stuff under Creative Commons – attribution/no derivatives/non-commercial would certainly allow thumbnail usage and not much else while requiring a link back. They also have the right to post, on their website, ‘I’ll allow you to use this however you want’ or ‘I’ll allow you to use thumbnails of my work.’ Look at XKCD.com or Explosm.net – links and embed codes right under the comics. I presume those artists don’t expect an email every time someone hotlinks their work.
And everyone else has the right to assume end users will follow copyright law without having to resort to rootkits.
…have you ever heard of Creative Commons? (see: creativecommons.org) You’re basically just overdoing CC with your script idea.
I admit i wouldn’t mind CC being scripted into more search engines. I don’t think anyone would; artists who license under CC would get more exposure and those who need images could find them easier. The DRM approach you’re suggesting here, though… Yeah. Call up the music and DVD industries and see how well that’s working for them.
It’s like a challenge. ‘New DRM! Well, i don’t really need to pirate this, but what the heck.’ And DRM only needs to be broken and pirated once; then the pirated DRM-free copy is roaming the torrent sites, accessible to all. It’s about as effective as watermarks (which, despite what you imply here, are not ineffective solely due to cost. They either destroy the visual integrity of the work or are too easy to remove; either way, the whole point of watermarking is moot.)
Just © or CC. And it’d be nice if people start learning the difference between copyright, fair use, and creative commons.
As for this: ‘There are artists who want exposure outside their own sites. They should have rights, too.’
Yes. They have the right to license their stuff under Creative Commons – attribution/no derivatives/non-commercial would certainly allow thumbnail usage and not much else while requiring a link back. They also have the right to post, on their website, ‘I’ll allow you to use this however you want’ or ‘I’ll allow you to use thumbnails of my work.’ Look at XKCD.com or Explosm.net – links and embed codes right under the comics. I presume those artists don’t expect an email every time someone hotlinks their work.
And everyone else has the right to assume end users will follow copyright law without having to resort to rootkits.
We have some toads in our yard here…
I am amazed how much you have with them in common and it is not just the look really.
They make this annoying sound and will not stop no matter how many times you ask or shout at them.
With mentally unchallenged looks in their eyes, they open their gaps wide and blooog… all night long, without making any sense, just like you.
So while hearing to the toads I kept thinking about you and the more I thought the more pity i start feeling for you.
In fact, I now believe that you are the victim in this affair.
Aside from a girl name there is nothing catchy about you, your writing is rather dull and empty, you are old and have no real job, so you sit at home at try to make some extra pocket money with blogs.
(No offense to other bloggers! By all means! )
There are great blogs with great stories and a very high traffic out there, unlike your blog of course…
No one was really reading it in fact so it took a whole while for people to find out that you are stealing other peoples work.
Not that anyone really cares if some home taught hobbyists decorate their little pages with stolen clipart but in your case it was your arrogance that made people angry.
All of sudden the traffic on your blog multiplied, all the people come to read and write angry comments, all picking on your sad existence. I understand that it must be very embarrassing!
One would expect more respect for the elderly n the internet and after all you did try to say sorry and you obviously were scared of the consequences so you took down the image right away.
It is your protect mechanism that kicked in and made you do all this embarrassing acts of hopeless damage control.
No one assumes that you are a stupid person. We all know it and you know it, the fact is that the majority of people who are generating the traffic on this blog here come from links the other artists post all over the net. It is a simple fact that pretty much most of the readers here now are angry artists and others who find your attempts amusing. Another fact is that you do not have any friends or people who sympathize with you. All but me … coz I do in fact have pity with you as I said.
You are cornered in public by a very large group of people and you panic.
There are just simply too many contras:
– Your name is too easy to remember and people tend never to forget the bad things.
– The only reason you are not being fired (yet) is because this whole conflict generates the traffic and not your unskilled writing
– Now that you are drawing so much attention you will be facing legal consequences
– You know that people are starting contacting your clients now too
– Irreparable image damage
– Having posted your real photos
Yes, ha, hell if I were in your shoes I would also shit myself. I feel for you.
I wish I could help you somehow, really but I don’t know how. I see you try it with some humor now,
because I take it as a joke, I mean you cannot be serious with what you write here now, can you?
I formed a group yesterday, I think you should join! This group is meant to distribute free information for people regarding copyrights, abuse, art theft, exposure, contracts, all the things you know little about. This would help you dealing with people in the future and apologize to the 2 thousand people who already have joined.
Here it is:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116235051725808&ref=mf
I was even thinking about the idea to sue you, just for kicks and to make an example, but that again would not be so funny, not for you at least.
Have a good day and best luck
PS: Maybe it is time to change the hobby?
We have some toads in our yard here…
I am amazed how much you have with them in common and it is not just the look really.
They make this annoying sound and will not stop no matter how many times you ask or shout at them.
With mentally unchallenged looks in their eyes, they open their gaps wide and blooog… all night long, without making any sense, just like you.
So while hearing to the toads I kept thinking about you and the more I thought the more pity i start feeling for you.
In fact, I now believe that you are the victim in this affair.
Aside from a girl name there is nothing catchy about you, your writing is rather dull and empty, you are old and have no real job, so you sit at home at try to make some extra pocket money with blogs.
(No offense to other bloggers! By all means! )
There are great blogs with great stories and a very high traffic out there, unlike your blog of course…
No one was really reading it in fact so it took a whole while for people to find out that you are stealing other peoples work.
Not that anyone really cares if some home taught hobbyists decorate their little pages with stolen clipart but in your case it was your arrogance that made people angry.
All of sudden the traffic on your blog multiplied, all the people come to read and write angry comments, all picking on your sad existence. I understand that it must be very embarrassing!
One would expect more respect for the elderly n the internet and after all you did try to say sorry and you obviously were scared of the consequences so you took down the image right away.
It is your protect mechanism that kicked in and made you do all this embarrassing acts of hopeless damage control.
No one assumes that you are a stupid person. We all know it and you know it, the fact is that the majority of people who are generating the traffic on this blog here come from links the other artists post all over the net. It is a simple fact that pretty much most of the readers here now are angry artists and others who find your attempts amusing. Another fact is that you do not have any friends or people who sympathize with you. All but me … coz I do in fact have pity with you as I said.
You are cornered in public by a very large group of people and you panic.
There are just simply too many contras:
– Your name is too easy to remember and people tend never to forget the bad things.
– The only reason you are not being fired (yet) is because this whole conflict generates the traffic and not your unskilled writing
– Now that you are drawing so much attention you will be facing legal consequences
– You know that people are starting contacting your clients now too
– Irreparable image damage
– Having posted your real photos
Yes, ha, hell if I were in your shoes I would also shit myself. I feel for you.
I wish I could help you somehow, really but I don’t know how. I see you try it with some humor now,
because I take it as a joke, I mean you cannot be serious with what you write here now, can you?
I formed a group yesterday, I think you should join! This group is meant to distribute free information for people regarding copyrights, abuse, art theft, exposure, contracts, all the things you know little about. This would help you dealing with people in the future and apologize to the 2 thousand people who already have joined.
Here it is:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116235051725808&ref=mf
I was even thinking about the idea to sue you, just for kicks and to make an example, but that again would not be so funny, not for you at least.
Have a good day and best luck
PS: Maybe it is time to change the hobby?
By the way, did you ask permission to use the photo above of Chris Buzelli and the two unidentified people? Photographs also fall into the “copyrighted” category that we artists are trying to explain to you.
Another artist
By the way, did you ask permission to use the photo above of Chris Buzelli and the two unidentified people? Photographs also fall into the “copyrighted” category that we artists are trying to explain to you.
Another artist
Sorry for my horrible writing btw…
Dana, btw.. I almost forgot it..
Seeing that you are new to the concept of the internet and all we can let it slide but you should know that what you have here is a BLOG, not a SEARCHENGINE.
Do not compare yourself with a search engine!
BLOG, remember.
Goggle does not display any thumbnails, do not lie to people
When you open google, the only image they show is their own logo, other than that they are not allowed to use any other unlicensed images.
Google does not provide us images, google provides us the service of searching images.
That means that every user first have to input keywords and google simply will link them to the desired content. Google does not host or use any of the mages or text.
Again: your BLOG is NOT a search engine!
BLOG BLOG BLOG, remember it! It’s a short name!
Sorry for my horrible writing btw…
Dana, btw.. I almost forgot it..
Seeing that you are new to the concept of the internet and all we can let it slide but you should know that what you have here is a BLOG, not a SEARCHENGINE.
Do not compare yourself with a search engine!
BLOG, remember.
Goggle does not display any thumbnails, do not lie to people
When you open google, the only image they show is their own logo, other than that they are not allowed to use any other unlicensed images.
Google does not provide us images, google provides us the service of searching images.
That means that every user first have to input keywords and google simply will link them to the desired content. Google does not host or use any of the mages or text.
Again: your BLOG is NOT a search engine!
BLOG BLOG BLOG, remember it! It’s a short name!
sorry… last one 😉
You contradict yourself a lot…
I get paid for what I write, not for the illustrations accompanying them. If I had to get permission for every illustration I used I wouldn’t have time to get any illustrations on my articles and would likely not make any money.
and again:
I have admitted a mistake in the case at issue, and my employer has emphasized that I violated their policies. The relevant image was taken down as soon as I saw the request.
And then you say:
Again, I am not a thief. Any artist who claims I am is a liar. I am a writer, a blogger who has used this medium for a quarter century and understands something of its needs.
LOLWUT?
sorry… last one 😉
You contradict yourself a lot…
I get paid for what I write, not for the illustrations accompanying them. If I had to get permission for every illustration I used I wouldn’t have time to get any illustrations on my articles and would likely not make any money.
and again:
I have admitted a mistake in the case at issue, and my employer has emphasized that I violated their policies. The relevant image was taken down as soon as I saw the request.
And then you say:
Again, I am not a thief. Any artist who claims I am is a liar. I am a writer, a blogger who has used this medium for a quarter century and understands something of its needs.
LOLWUT?
You are being paid to write. Your host is being paid to host. The web designer was paid to design the web-page. The illustrator had a link-back to illustrate the article…. HANG THE FUCK ON! Someone is loosing out there.
This is democratic capitalism and this is the way it works. Morally and legally.
People who are good get rewarded with money. Maybe they enjoy their work – it doesn’t matter. You get paid because you obviously get the punters in, the art helps you, so you help the artist.
Talk is cheap, put your money where your mouth is and reward the artists who helped get you the money in the first place.
You are being paid to write. Your host is being paid to host. The web designer was paid to design the web-page. The illustrator had a link-back to illustrate the article…. HANG THE FUCK ON! Someone is loosing out there.
This is democratic capitalism and this is the way it works. Morally and legally.
People who are good get rewarded with money. Maybe they enjoy their work – it doesn’t matter. You get paid because you obviously get the punters in, the art helps you, so you help the artist.
Talk is cheap, put your money where your mouth is and reward the artists who helped get you the money in the first place.
yes. sometimes you HAVE to wait for someone’s permission before you can take something. they teach you this in kindergarden.
if you don’t have permission. don’t use it. these days everyone has a hundred emails and facebook pages and what not it’s NOT that hard to find the artist. esp. if it’s a commercial artists who RELY on usage fees to make a living. They’re bound to have a web presence.
the permission engin is a good idea but until it’s popular and implemented in such a way it’s just one click in photoshop your average artist who in most cases are not tech savvy is not going to go thru all that for EVERY single image they have on the web. there’s a reason they’re an artist. if they can do all that with a blink of an eye they’d become programmers.. it’s common sense.
And why is it the artist’s responsibility to make YOUR life EASIER??
and you call yourself a journalist??
i thought journalists are supposed to research, vet the sources, and THEN report. in the old days it doesn’t take just 5 minute to do that. so shouldn’t you if you respect your craft.
at the same time artists take hours sometimes days or weeks to creat an art piece. The least you can do if you’re going to use it is to ask him/her for permission.
being a professional illustrator i know in most cases if you’re a small blog site most artist will be happy to let you use image for free in exchange for credit or charge only a fee token fee. the only time they’ll charge the big bucks is when you’re CNN or Times magazine or Apple.
so stop making the poor artists do ALL the work.
and stop blaming the artist and technology. It’s common courtesey.
yes. sometimes you HAVE to wait for someone’s permission before you can take something. they teach you this in kindergarden.
if you don’t have permission. don’t use it. these days everyone has a hundred emails and facebook pages and what not it’s NOT that hard to find the artist. esp. if it’s a commercial artists who RELY on usage fees to make a living. They’re bound to have a web presence.
the permission engin is a good idea but until it’s popular and implemented in such a way it’s just one click in photoshop your average artist who in most cases are not tech savvy is not going to go thru all that for EVERY single image they have on the web. there’s a reason they’re an artist. if they can do all that with a blink of an eye they’d become programmers.. it’s common sense.
And why is it the artist’s responsibility to make YOUR life EASIER??
and you call yourself a journalist??
i thought journalists are supposed to research, vet the sources, and THEN report. in the old days it doesn’t take just 5 minute to do that. so shouldn’t you if you respect your craft.
at the same time artists take hours sometimes days or weeks to creat an art piece. The least you can do if you’re going to use it is to ask him/her for permission.
being a professional illustrator i know in most cases if you’re a small blog site most artist will be happy to let you use image for free in exchange for credit or charge only a fee token fee. the only time they’ll charge the big bucks is when you’re CNN or Times magazine or Apple.
so stop making the poor artists do ALL the work.
and stop blaming the artist and technology. It’s common courtesey.
Your abuse at this point is so far out of proportion to the offense that it is hurting your cause.
I admitted I made a mistake. It is a very easy mistake to make. The technology makes it easy.
I know there are people who do things that aren’t just mistakes, but malicious in intent. There are thieves online, and technology needs to be deployed against them.
But none of the people offended in this case have responded to the idea of preventing deliberate, willful crimes. Instead you want to make this personal.
That is your right. But you merely set yourself up for further abuse that way, by people with far less conscience.
Is this what you want? I have admitted my error. I violated my company policy, which has been restated both to me and to everyone else working there. It won’t happen again.
Yet the crime will continue, and grow, unless you’re willing to address serious technology issues and stop moaning about the need for courtesy, and the need for me to abase myself further and stop talking about the issue.
At this point I am agreeing with you and trying to help you. But your attitude is becoming counter-productive to any effort at helping you.
Your abuse at this point is so far out of proportion to the offense that it is hurting your cause.
I admitted I made a mistake. It is a very easy mistake to make. The technology makes it easy.
I know there are people who do things that aren’t just mistakes, but malicious in intent. There are thieves online, and technology needs to be deployed against them.
But none of the people offended in this case have responded to the idea of preventing deliberate, willful crimes. Instead you want to make this personal.
That is your right. But you merely set yourself up for further abuse that way, by people with far less conscience.
Is this what you want? I have admitted my error. I violated my company policy, which has been restated both to me and to everyone else working there. It won’t happen again.
Yet the crime will continue, and grow, unless you’re willing to address serious technology issues and stop moaning about the need for courtesy, and the need for me to abase myself further and stop talking about the issue.
At this point I am agreeing with you and trying to help you. But your attitude is becoming counter-productive to any effort at helping you.
Dana, a permission meta data sounds like a good idea. It would definitely allow a content provider to state upfront their policy for sharing. But it cannot be enforced as you describe it. A screen capture utility would have to know that a web browser was being displayed, and it would have to somehow figure out the URL to the page or content. Even if this problem was solved, any software developer could write a utility that ignores the permission data. Also, command line utilities like wget would have to enforce the permissions. Browsers like Firefox (and wget) are open source, so if the Firefox developers did enforce the permissions, I could easily grab the Firefox source code, fork the project and rip out the permission code. I would not be restricted from distributing the forked code to other users. And yes, I am a software developer, and I’ve looked through the Firefox code myself.
BTW, you may remember me from a few years ago. I worked at Whitehat.
Dana, a permission meta data sounds like a good idea. It would definitely allow a content provider to state upfront their policy for sharing. But it cannot be enforced as you describe it. A screen capture utility would have to know that a web browser was being displayed, and it would have to somehow figure out the URL to the page or content. Even if this problem was solved, any software developer could write a utility that ignores the permission data. Also, command line utilities like wget would have to enforce the permissions. Browsers like Firefox (and wget) are open source, so if the Firefox developers did enforce the permissions, I could easily grab the Firefox source code, fork the project and rip out the permission code. I would not be restricted from distributing the forked code to other users. And yes, I am a software developer, and I’ve looked through the Firefox code myself.
BTW, you may remember me from a few years ago. I worked at Whitehat.
Glen: You offer some sound criticisms. But the system I propose is better than what we have now, where artists have no protection, where new artists can’t get circulation because it’s difficult to get, and where small violations (I pulled the image as soon as an objection came to my attention) become the focus of rage and bullying by people who honestly feel impotent.
What I have proposed is a system where the ethical can avoid mistakes, which should limit the number of violations to those committed by the unethical. Reducing the number of violations then makes other types of enforcement easier.
I happen to believe most people are ethical, and wish to be ethical. On both sides. I don’t think most people would rip out this code in Firefox. And I do think these codes can be made to work against screen capture programs, by requiring that they look at the permissions before doing a screen capture. Sure, those programs can be changed, but the change is then evidence of intent.
We need to make it easier for those who wish to obey the rules to obey them, where those who wish to allow reprints can do it, and those who don’t can have some protection. The best way to do that is by making it a default technology.
Even my worst critics in this case know they’re not accomplishing much by raging against me. But they have no one else to rage against. So I have taken it upon myself to propose a solution that will work against all but the most intentional violators.
Thanks for writing.
Glen: You offer some sound criticisms. But the system I propose is better than what we have now, where artists have no protection, where new artists can’t get circulation because it’s difficult to get, and where small violations (I pulled the image as soon as an objection came to my attention) become the focus of rage and bullying by people who honestly feel impotent.
What I have proposed is a system where the ethical can avoid mistakes, which should limit the number of violations to those committed by the unethical. Reducing the number of violations then makes other types of enforcement easier.
I happen to believe most people are ethical, and wish to be ethical. On both sides. I don’t think most people would rip out this code in Firefox. And I do think these codes can be made to work against screen capture programs, by requiring that they look at the permissions before doing a screen capture. Sure, those programs can be changed, but the change is then evidence of intent.
We need to make it easier for those who wish to obey the rules to obey them, where those who wish to allow reprints can do it, and those who don’t can have some protection. The best way to do that is by making it a default technology.
Even my worst critics in this case know they’re not accomplishing much by raging against me. But they have no one else to rage against. So I have taken it upon myself to propose a solution that will work against all but the most intentional violators.
Thanks for writing.
Wait, what? You need a database technical solution to prevent yourself and others from behaving like jerks?
Why bother when a simple DMCA takedown will nuke the image you’ve appropriated via your ISP?
Collect enough notices and your ISP will generally dump you as a customer, period.
Wait, what? You need a database technical solution to prevent yourself and others from behaving like jerks?
Why bother when a simple DMCA takedown will nuke the image you’ve appropriated via your ISP?
Collect enough notices and your ISP will generally dump you as a customer, period.
You are not trying to propose anything of use, you only try to put yourself in a better light, blaming technology for your mistakes. That is why you keep blogging about the same shit day after day now. You hope the readers are stupid enough to shift their focus eventually.
You contradict yourself and make up things.
What you do is trying to find your way in Tokyo with a London map.
As said 1000 times before, you do not have much insight in the entertainment industry and this is where you keep failing as a person and as a ‘journalist’
Apologize to the artistic community and stop blogging about your silly solutions, the artists could not care less about your approach of handling it.
Suck it up.
You are not trying to propose anything of use, you only try to put yourself in a better light, blaming technology for your mistakes. That is why you keep blogging about the same shit day after day now. You hope the readers are stupid enough to shift their focus eventually.
You contradict yourself and make up things.
What you do is trying to find your way in Tokyo with a London map.
As said 1000 times before, you do not have much insight in the entertainment industry and this is where you keep failing as a person and as a ‘journalist’
Apologize to the artistic community and stop blogging about your silly solutions, the artists could not care less about your approach of handling it.
Suck it up.
You wrote:
“become the focus of rage and bullying by people who honestly feel impotent”
I have to say, Dana. The rage you are receiving is a direct response to insulting and arrogant way you communicate. I’m amazed after all the feedback you’ve gotten, that you are still able to speak with both feet firmly in your mouth.
A man’s intellect is equal to his ability to admit his faults. That measure paints an unflattering picture of your capacity to bring any value, beyond your own sad defense, to this issue.
You wrote:
“become the focus of rage and bullying by people who honestly feel impotent”
I have to say, Dana. The rage you are receiving is a direct response to insulting and arrogant way you communicate. I’m amazed after all the feedback you’ve gotten, that you are still able to speak with both feet firmly in your mouth.
A man’s intellect is equal to his ability to admit his faults. That measure paints an unflattering picture of your capacity to bring any value, beyond your own sad defense, to this issue.
Google (along with other search engines) can legally link to images because they’re search engines. Their entire purpose is to index all the images they can; so unless you’re also running a search engine, you can’t get the exact same rights/access to images that search engines get. Using an image to enhance an article is different from including an image in a search index. The former (even when you include credit and a link to the artist) is done with the purpose of enhancing your own work; the image sits in your article among your personal touches, your creative content, and your thoughts and feelings. The latter is done with the sole intention of maintaining a record of the other person’s work. This is why the former action needs permission from the artist, and the latter one doesn’t.
Having an internet-wide permission engine won’t stop people who are truly determined to use images without consent; such people will read the permissions and then screen-capture the images anyway. (All a person needs to take a screen-capture is to press a button on the keyboard; a specific “screen capture program” isn’t needed unless the person wants to capture videos or animated .GIFs) And it will build a culture where it becomes an artist’s duty to jump through all these technical hoops, when copyright law says they don’t have to do any such thing. Artworks are copyright-protected by default, from the moment they’re made. “Protective” measures are purely optional. Implementing a permission engine would shift the duty to artists to “protect” their work which is actually already protected.
Taking the time to find artists and ask their permission isn’t as troublesome or inconvenient as you might think– just about all artists with a web presence have their contact details readily available, and are happy to respond promptly. If people are becoming too lazy to show proper courtesy to artists, why should the internet pander to that?
Also, as someone previously pointed out, there’s already a system for artists who are willing to have their work used publicly– it’s called Creative Commons licensing, and is an internationally-recognized, internet-wide standard.
Google (along with other search engines) can legally link to images because they’re search engines. Their entire purpose is to index all the images they can; so unless you’re also running a search engine, you can’t get the exact same rights/access to images that search engines get. Using an image to enhance an article is different from including an image in a search index. The former (even when you include credit and a link to the artist) is done with the purpose of enhancing your own work; the image sits in your article among your personal touches, your creative content, and your thoughts and feelings. The latter is done with the sole intention of maintaining a record of the other person’s work. This is why the former action needs permission from the artist, and the latter one doesn’t.
Having an internet-wide permission engine won’t stop people who are truly determined to use images without consent; such people will read the permissions and then screen-capture the images anyway. (All a person needs to take a screen-capture is to press a button on the keyboard; a specific “screen capture program” isn’t needed unless the person wants to capture videos or animated .GIFs) And it will build a culture where it becomes an artist’s duty to jump through all these technical hoops, when copyright law says they don’t have to do any such thing. Artworks are copyright-protected by default, from the moment they’re made. “Protective” measures are purely optional. Implementing a permission engine would shift the duty to artists to “protect” their work which is actually already protected.
Taking the time to find artists and ask their permission isn’t as troublesome or inconvenient as you might think– just about all artists with a web presence have their contact details readily available, and are happy to respond promptly. If people are becoming too lazy to show proper courtesy to artists, why should the internet pander to that?
Also, as someone previously pointed out, there’s already a system for artists who are willing to have their work used publicly– it’s called Creative Commons licensing, and is an internationally-recognized, internet-wide standard.
after acting like such an ignorant fool, NO artist in the world, would want their art next to your writing. It’s not good publicity for anyone.
So really, just don’t use art. Just take it as an automated response, that no artist would want anything to do with you after this. ever. You can see this point proven by the fact that not a single illustrator / artist came to your defense. Easy as that. No web permission engine needed.
after acting like such an ignorant fool, NO artist in the world, would want their art next to your writing. It’s not good publicity for anyone.
So really, just don’t use art. Just take it as an automated response, that no artist would want anything to do with you after this. ever. You can see this point proven by the fact that not a single illustrator / artist came to your defense. Easy as that. No web permission engine needed.
Artists use search engines and good-resolution unwatermarked images to show potential clients what they are capable of.
You needed an image so you searched for it and you found it.
You ARE the potential client – a commercial blogger who needs an image. Only you say you didn’t need to pay because the next potential client will.
Why are you different?
The alternative to an imperfect permissions engine (What if an artist wants people to use his work non-commercially?) is a default copyright position backed by international law that everyone can assume is correct unless the artist states otherwise. Nice and simple – fans and potential clients can still save the pictures for personal reference or use as a desktop wallpaper and the artist is still legally protected.
Simple.
Artists use search engines and good-resolution unwatermarked images to show potential clients what they are capable of.
You needed an image so you searched for it and you found it.
You ARE the potential client – a commercial blogger who needs an image. Only you say you didn’t need to pay because the next potential client will.
Why are you different?
The alternative to an imperfect permissions engine (What if an artist wants people to use his work non-commercially?) is a default copyright position backed by international law that everyone can assume is correct unless the artist states otherwise. Nice and simple – fans and potential clients can still save the pictures for personal reference or use as a desktop wallpaper and the artist is still legally protected.
Simple.
The more we continue to try to have technology substitute for our own common sense and ethics online, the more unable we will be to make sound decisions with face to face interactions in the everyday real world. This whole discussion has been a good example. I for one don’t agree with using automated processes for each and every problem that comes along. Sorry, Dana, but you can count my voice among those that think you should change your longstanding policy in how you appropriate images. It obviously is problematic for you, since this is what the result has been. You should possibly count yourself as lucky that you have been unaffected up until this point. Why would almost losing your job or alienating readers be worth conducting yourself the way you have? I think that is a very important point to consider.
I agree that images help an article and in a perfect world every author would want the best they could attain. But sometimes you can’t get what you want, and you have to live with the fact that a paying publication will be able to afford the images you cannot. I also think you should not be unappreciative of the many resources the internet HAS opened up to someone in your circumstance – you still do in fact have so many resources at your fingertips that are free and legal without being upset or finding a justification for getting specific work that is out of your reach. Let’s not be greedy.
I also do not agree with the 200 pixel rule; this does not make sense as a threshold for acceptability. I have a feeling that if one published tiny pictures in an actual book or magazine as an illustrative touch, there would still be consequences. And I do not see a 200 pixel thumbnail as the equivalent to a few short seconds of a song, which I think was one of the examples put out there, but rather a grainy bootleg copy of the entire song. Even at that tiny resolution you get the whole idea of the illustration and have used the artist’s work to get the point across. The impact is still there. Resolution is not the issue.
The more we continue to try to have technology substitute for our own common sense and ethics online, the more unable we will be to make sound decisions with face to face interactions in the everyday real world. This whole discussion has been a good example. I for one don’t agree with using automated processes for each and every problem that comes along. Sorry, Dana, but you can count my voice among those that think you should change your longstanding policy in how you appropriate images. It obviously is problematic for you, since this is what the result has been. You should possibly count yourself as lucky that you have been unaffected up until this point. Why would almost losing your job or alienating readers be worth conducting yourself the way you have? I think that is a very important point to consider.
I agree that images help an article and in a perfect world every author would want the best they could attain. But sometimes you can’t get what you want, and you have to live with the fact that a paying publication will be able to afford the images you cannot. I also think you should not be unappreciative of the many resources the internet HAS opened up to someone in your circumstance – you still do in fact have so many resources at your fingertips that are free and legal without being upset or finding a justification for getting specific work that is out of your reach. Let’s not be greedy.
I also do not agree with the 200 pixel rule; this does not make sense as a threshold for acceptability. I have a feeling that if one published tiny pictures in an actual book or magazine as an illustrative touch, there would still be consequences. And I do not see a 200 pixel thumbnail as the equivalent to a few short seconds of a song, which I think was one of the examples put out there, but rather a grainy bootleg copy of the entire song. Even at that tiny resolution you get the whole idea of the illustration and have used the artist’s work to get the point across. The impact is still there. Resolution is not the issue.
Mr. Blankenhorn,
If you go back to the original article and re-read everything that has happened here, it should be clear to you that all you’ve been doing since then has been throwing gas on a fire. Your original “apology” was so defensive and confrontational that I didn’t actually recognize it as the slightest bit apologetic. The next thing posted was a new article on how right you are no matter how many people tell you in reasonable or unreasonable terms why you’re wrong. Now you’re being unfairly persecuted despite all the apologies you’ve made. What? And at the same time, you’re still insisting that the problem here is that bad internet told you that it’s ok to use anything you find for profit even though it’s common sense (and honestly common knowledge for someone in your field) that this isn’t true. What should have been an “oops, sorry, let’s all move along” situation has flamed way out of proportion because all you seem to know is how to attack and not how to give an honest apology for something which you were entirely in the wrong and let it go. Even this article which I think is supposed to be some kind of conciliatory attempt at putting things right is full of defensive language and hostility.
Are we all the unknowing players in a performance art piece or something? Own up and let it drop, there’s no need to re-invent the search engine to understand that stealing the work of others in order to promote our own agendas is wrong. I park my car on the street every day, but that’s not an invitation for others to borrow it. Just because firearms exists does mean that it’s ok to harm and kill people you don’t like, and we don’t all have to walk around in bullet-proof vests just in case someone like you doesn’t understand how the simple rules of society work. But the technology exists, it must be ok, it’s so confusing!
It’s pretty clear at this point you’re fighting a pointless battle.
Mr. Blankenhorn,
If you go back to the original article and re-read everything that has happened here, it should be clear to you that all you’ve been doing since then has been throwing gas on a fire. Your original “apology” was so defensive and confrontational that I didn’t actually recognize it as the slightest bit apologetic. The next thing posted was a new article on how right you are no matter how many people tell you in reasonable or unreasonable terms why you’re wrong. Now you’re being unfairly persecuted despite all the apologies you’ve made. What? And at the same time, you’re still insisting that the problem here is that bad internet told you that it’s ok to use anything you find for profit even though it’s common sense (and honestly common knowledge for someone in your field) that this isn’t true. What should have been an “oops, sorry, let’s all move along” situation has flamed way out of proportion because all you seem to know is how to attack and not how to give an honest apology for something which you were entirely in the wrong and let it go. Even this article which I think is supposed to be some kind of conciliatory attempt at putting things right is full of defensive language and hostility.
Are we all the unknowing players in a performance art piece or something? Own up and let it drop, there’s no need to re-invent the search engine to understand that stealing the work of others in order to promote our own agendas is wrong. I park my car on the street every day, but that’s not an invitation for others to borrow it. Just because firearms exists does mean that it’s ok to harm and kill people you don’t like, and we don’t all have to walk around in bullet-proof vests just in case someone like you doesn’t understand how the simple rules of society work. But the technology exists, it must be ok, it’s so confusing!
It’s pretty clear at this point you’re fighting a pointless battle.
You are being paid to write and you were using someone’s art in the same blog that you get paid for making. Without their consent, I might add.
Instead of trying to make yourself look like the victim, you should just admit that you were wrong and apologize. Is it that hard to say, “I’m sorry that I used your art without your permission”?
Because the more you continue these blogs that are just being made to make yourself look like the victim, the more people will see for being a jerk and a coward.
You are being paid to write and you were using someone’s art in the same blog that you get paid for making. Without their consent, I might add.
Instead of trying to make yourself look like the victim, you should just admit that you were wrong and apologize. Is it that hard to say, “I’m sorry that I used your art without your permission”?
Because the more you continue these blogs that are just being made to make yourself look like the victim, the more people will see for being a jerk and a coward.
Your web permission engine is a backward idea.
Copyright law in over 160 countries is quite clear — As a an artist, I have the right to determine who publishes my work. That right belongs to me, the creator, and no one else.
The law in those same countries also says my copyright is automatic. I do not need to register it with any government agency or commercial enterprise to assert those rights.
You would save yourself a great deal of trouble if you assumed all work was copyrighted and off limits, unless it has a creative commons license or other notice declaring it part of the public domain.
Is it a perfect system?
No, but there are tools to deal with those who violate copyright laws.
In the future, you may find artists who want your exposure, just as you may find those who do not want to associate with you. At the end of the day, the right to decide belongs with the guy who created the art, not the guy who wants to post an image on his blog.
Next time, just ask permission.
Your web permission engine is a backward idea.
Copyright law in over 160 countries is quite clear — As a an artist, I have the right to determine who publishes my work. That right belongs to me, the creator, and no one else.
The law in those same countries also says my copyright is automatic. I do not need to register it with any government agency or commercial enterprise to assert those rights.
You would save yourself a great deal of trouble if you assumed all work was copyrighted and off limits, unless it has a creative commons license or other notice declaring it part of the public domain.
Is it a perfect system?
No, but there are tools to deal with those who violate copyright laws.
In the future, you may find artists who want your exposure, just as you may find those who do not want to associate with you. At the end of the day, the right to decide belongs with the guy who created the art, not the guy who wants to post an image on his blog.
Next time, just ask permission.
We have the tools to protect our art. Copyright laws. They work just fine. Why should we jump through hoops just to let you use our art? If you want to use it ask.
We don’t need you to promote us. We don’t want you to promote us. We can do it ourselves. We know how to reach our target audience. You do not. We know that that there are people out there that will pay for our hard work. We know that you are not one of them.
You keep mentioning Google. Google doesn’t use our art to illustrate an opinion or viewpoint. Google doesn’t use it to further an agenda. The art is just there.
I agree that art should be free. Free to view that is. Not free to use. That’s a right you have to pay for…
We have the tools to protect our art. Copyright laws. They work just fine. Why should we jump through hoops just to let you use our art? If you want to use it ask.
We don’t need you to promote us. We don’t want you to promote us. We can do it ourselves. We know how to reach our target audience. You do not. We know that that there are people out there that will pay for our hard work. We know that you are not one of them.
You keep mentioning Google. Google doesn’t use our art to illustrate an opinion or viewpoint. Google doesn’t use it to further an agenda. The art is just there.
I agree that art should be free. Free to view that is. Not free to use. That’s a right you have to pay for…
Mr. Blankenhorn,
If you are a professional journalist, it is your obligation to be familiar with and correctly understand the copyright laws of the US before using a third party image. And so, it would have been prudent if you would have checked with a lawyer before writing your replies.
There are a couple of points which you seem to have failed to grasp, even though many professionals have been explaining them very well. The most important is that the creation of a work (not created under “work for hire”) is automatically the sole possession of its creator. This means that when you see something you like and wish to use, you are obligated to acquire permission before the use. This is the DEFAULT condition.
When an artist presents artwork online it is like putting it in a store window where passers-by can see it. This is a form of advertising. You are no more entitled to take it from that digital window than a shopper may take a physical print from the store without paying for it, or being gifted with it. If you do take it, you are stealing. It doesn’t matter if you credit it. It is the artist’s choice where to advertise their work, not yours. Some artists might object to their work being promoted by dishonest people.
It is no more appropriate to require an artist to add protections to prevent dishonest people from taking their presented work than it is to require a store to add bars and armored glass over their store front window. You know you aren’t allowed to smash the window with a brick and just take things because you physically can. Likewise you should KNOW that you aren’t allowed to take art from the internet window either, because you didn’t create it.
In addition, sometimes art on an artist’s web site is only used with a license back for self promotion, the image itself being owned by a company that might very well sue you for serious damages, which they can do because they’ll have it Registered. Only a fool would risk that.
Here’s another point. Since the default ownership is with the creator, it is always assumed that unmarked images belong to someone who is NOT YOU. PERIOD. Putting the “©” or “®” symbol on an image is NOT a requirement for ownership of an image.
Clearly, when so many professionals in a field are telling you the same thing, and only you believe otherwise, that should be enough of a clue that it would be prudent to double check the legality before insisting you are right and that everybody else is wrong. Looking for ways to excuse your behavior shows a genuine lack of remorse, which is bad enough and totally destroys your credibility, but if you had been my employee, I would have absolutely fired you because you were also promoting a clearly illegal act, and that would make my company libel.
May I suggest that since you are culpable in this, you consider a meal of crow? If you humbly and openly state from now on that you have learned a lesson, and understand that all such uses should be paid for under license agreement, without any conditions such as those you previously suggested, and without excuses, it’s your only way out at this point. Otherwise, folks will be quite justified in writing to your boss and insisting vehemently that you be fired, and that ought to send a pretty clear message to any other potential employers.
Randy Asplund
http://www.RandyAsplund.com (where art is COPYRIGHTED)
Mr. Blankenhorn,
If you are a professional journalist, it is your obligation to be familiar with and correctly understand the copyright laws of the US before using a third party image. And so, it would have been prudent if you would have checked with a lawyer before writing your replies.
There are a couple of points which you seem to have failed to grasp, even though many professionals have been explaining them very well. The most important is that the creation of a work (not created under “work for hire”) is automatically the sole possession of its creator. This means that when you see something you like and wish to use, you are obligated to acquire permission before the use. This is the DEFAULT condition.
When an artist presents artwork online it is like putting it in a store window where passers-by can see it. This is a form of advertising. You are no more entitled to take it from that digital window than a shopper may take a physical print from the store without paying for it, or being gifted with it. If you do take it, you are stealing. It doesn’t matter if you credit it. It is the artist’s choice where to advertise their work, not yours. Some artists might object to their work being promoted by dishonest people.
It is no more appropriate to require an artist to add protections to prevent dishonest people from taking their presented work than it is to require a store to add bars and armored glass over their store front window. You know you aren’t allowed to smash the window with a brick and just take things because you physically can. Likewise you should KNOW that you aren’t allowed to take art from the internet window either, because you didn’t create it.
In addition, sometimes art on an artist’s web site is only used with a license back for self promotion, the image itself being owned by a company that might very well sue you for serious damages, which they can do because they’ll have it Registered. Only a fool would risk that.
Here’s another point. Since the default ownership is with the creator, it is always assumed that unmarked images belong to someone who is NOT YOU. PERIOD. Putting the “©” or “®” symbol on an image is NOT a requirement for ownership of an image.
Clearly, when so many professionals in a field are telling you the same thing, and only you believe otherwise, that should be enough of a clue that it would be prudent to double check the legality before insisting you are right and that everybody else is wrong. Looking for ways to excuse your behavior shows a genuine lack of remorse, which is bad enough and totally destroys your credibility, but if you had been my employee, I would have absolutely fired you because you were also promoting a clearly illegal act, and that would make my company libel.
May I suggest that since you are culpable in this, you consider a meal of crow? If you humbly and openly state from now on that you have learned a lesson, and understand that all such uses should be paid for under license agreement, without any conditions such as those you previously suggested, and without excuses, it’s your only way out at this point. Otherwise, folks will be quite justified in writing to your boss and insisting vehemently that you be fired, and that ought to send a pretty clear message to any other potential employers.
Randy Asplund
http://www.RandyAsplund.com (where art is COPYRIGHTED)
So Dana wants a Big Brother solution.
I say that the ‘solution’ is worse than the problem it solves.
Welcome to the Brave New World and its propoents. The 5th column is with us already with their totalitarian solutions.
So Dana wants a Big Brother solution.
I say that the ‘solution’ is worse than the problem it solves.
Welcome to the Brave New World and its propoents. The 5th column is with us already with their totalitarian solutions.
I’m rather astounded at the level of anger directed against you on this matter, Dana. Legally speaking, the artist was in the right. Of course, this calls into question how reasonable the law is, not whether you were being rude.
In printed works, if you quote someone and give attribution, this is fair use and you do not need their permission to do so. Now one might argue that you shouldn’t quote an entire work but there’s no ethical reason why you couldn’t. If partial “quoting” of an image is OK, then a thumbnail, with attribution, should be fine regardless of the artist’s permission.
This just goes to the heart of the issue. Intellectual “property” is not like other forms of property. It is a special privilege that restricts the use of other people’s physical property. I simply do not see how the artist was harmed by your use of the image. Moreover, this a clear indication of how copyright is not “promoting the arts” since the clear effect is that people avoid the use of copyrighted works. How exactly is art being promoted if people are discouraged from seeing it?
I’m rather astounded at the level of anger directed against you on this matter, Dana. Legally speaking, the artist was in the right. Of course, this calls into question how reasonable the law is, not whether you were being rude.
In printed works, if you quote someone and give attribution, this is fair use and you do not need their permission to do so. Now one might argue that you shouldn’t quote an entire work but there’s no ethical reason why you couldn’t. If partial “quoting” of an image is OK, then a thumbnail, with attribution, should be fine regardless of the artist’s permission.
This just goes to the heart of the issue. Intellectual “property” is not like other forms of property. It is a special privilege that restricts the use of other people’s physical property. I simply do not see how the artist was harmed by your use of the image. Moreover, this a clear indication of how copyright is not “promoting the arts” since the clear effect is that people avoid the use of copyrighted works. How exactly is art being promoted if people are discouraged from seeing it?
Kurt, I guess you haven’t heard how many people J K Rowlings dragged through the courts for plagarism, then.
By your way of thinking, she should have been glad of the “exposure” and not taken steps to protect her intellectual property.
Kurt, I guess you haven’t heard how many people J K Rowlings dragged through the courts for plagarism, then.
By your way of thinking, she should have been glad of the “exposure” and not taken steps to protect her intellectual property.
Who’s going to pay for this? Fee for service? Or again another Obama tax? What’s next?
Who’s going to pay for this? Fee for service? Or again another Obama tax? What’s next?
No, I’m not aware. I’m am however quite aware of the various dipshits who sued her. What was your point exactly?
No, I’m not aware. I’m am however quite aware of the various dipshits who sued her. What was your point exactly?
Hey man, you wouldn’t walk into someone’s studio and pysically (grab the paining) or electronically (take a photo) steal… Firstly you would probably get bashed up if the artist caught you and secondly you are STEALING. Studios and portfolios are there to display work to potential clients or to those who appreciate the medium. They are not free gifts to the www!
Electronic media DOES NOT make it right to steal art. Learn from your mistakes, abide by the law. You are not helping artists, you are hindering them. I don’t see one positive comment from an artist here, please stop being a douche.
Next you’ll be justifying stealing lawn decorations BECAUSE THEY’RE THERE.
Hey man, you wouldn’t walk into someone’s studio and pysically (grab the paining) or electronically (take a photo) steal… Firstly you would probably get bashed up if the artist caught you and secondly you are STEALING. Studios and portfolios are there to display work to potential clients or to those who appreciate the medium. They are not free gifts to the www!
Electronic media DOES NOT make it right to steal art. Learn from your mistakes, abide by the law. You are not helping artists, you are hindering them. I don’t see one positive comment from an artist here, please stop being a douche.
Next you’ll be justifying stealing lawn decorations BECAUSE THEY’RE THERE.
Illustrators get paid AND credited for their work. Copyright is not discouraging. Dana could have paid for the work and it would also have been promoted. Promotion is an illustrators inherent right when his/her work is published.
Moreover, promotion means nothing to an artist if it just means more people show their work without payment. If you like somebody’s work and think it enhances your writing, pay them. Show people the respect you wish to receive from others.
Fair use relates to articles which are ABOUT the artwork/artist!!
Illustrators get paid AND credited for their work. Copyright is not discouraging. Dana could have paid for the work and it would also have been promoted. Promotion is an illustrators inherent right when his/her work is published.
Moreover, promotion means nothing to an artist if it just means more people show their work without payment. If you like somebody’s work and think it enhances your writing, pay them. Show people the respect you wish to receive from others.
Fair use relates to articles which are ABOUT the artwork/artist!!
Gary Ness is the photographer of the image above – currently not cited.
the woman is Mary Fallon and the gent on the right is Chris Silas Neal. i have to assume they are unaware of their images are being used in Dana’s usage tiff.
lawyer up lately?
Gary Ness is the photographer of the image above – currently not cited.
the woman is Mary Fallon and the gent on the right is Chris Silas Neal. i have to assume they are unaware of their images are being used in Dana’s usage tiff.
lawyer up lately?
A web permission engine is an interesting thought. But it requires a massive top-down approach. Much in common with the way Obama is raping the American middle class.
No, thank you.
A web permission engine is an interesting thought. But it requires a massive top-down approach. Much in common with the way Obama is raping the American middle class.
No, thank you.
Yes, Obama is “raping the middle class” by giving them a tax cut. 95% of the population got a tax cut and paid less in taxes in 2009 than at any point in Bush’s presidency. Do you make less than $250K a year? Congrats! You got a tax cut.
You have your facts ass-backwards.
“Trickle-down economics” was the brainchild of the Bush administration, genius. That’s why he cut taxes for the wealthiest 2% of the population with the expectation of them using the extra money to open/expand businesses and hire middle class Americans, thus the term “trickle-down”. It didn’t happen, the wealthy held on to that extra money, and the middle class suffered because of it.
We’re talking about copyright law here, not ill-informed politics.
Yes, Obama is “raping the middle class” by giving them a tax cut. 95% of the population got a tax cut and paid less in taxes in 2009 than at any point in Bush’s presidency. Do you make less than $250K a year? Congrats! You got a tax cut.
You have your facts ass-backwards.
“Trickle-down economics” was the brainchild of the Bush administration, genius. That’s why he cut taxes for the wealthiest 2% of the population with the expectation of them using the extra money to open/expand businesses and hire middle class Americans, thus the term “trickle-down”. It didn’t happen, the wealthy held on to that extra money, and the middle class suffered because of it.
We’re talking about copyright law here, not ill-informed politics.
So dana, what you are saying, is that a magazine can use someones photos as much as they like for free as long as its small and credited? that is bullshit and you know it. There would be no such thing as professional photographers if that was the case, because all their work would be used for free.
pay up sucker, your lucky you have not been sued yet.
So dana, what you are saying, is that a magazine can use someones photos as much as they like for free as long as its small and credited? that is bullshit and you know it. There would be no such thing as professional photographers if that was the case, because all their work would be used for free.
pay up sucker, your lucky you have not been sued yet.
PS: your stupid permission engine has already been done, its called creative commons. So you can assume if its not creative commons you need permission, which would be the same case as your permission engine, because not everyone would opt into it.
PS: your stupid permission engine has already been done, its called creative commons. So you can assume if its not creative commons you need permission, which would be the same case as your permission engine, because not everyone would opt into it.
PPS: You are a thief.
PPS: You are a thief.
Hmmm. Lot’s of post deletions. Welcome to the liberal dogma of ‘shut up’….
Hmmm. Lot’s of post deletions. Welcome to the liberal dogma of ‘shut up’….
At what point does your continual bullying for something I've apologized and been punished for become illegal harassment? Is it at the point where you sent four comments in three minutes anonymously, each one making a personal insult, the last one calling me "a thief?"
I suspect that's why you cowardly hide behind a screen name. It's getting old.
Dana
At what point does your continual bullying for something I've apologized and been punished for become illegal harassment? Is it at the point where you sent four comments in three minutes anonymously, each one making a personal insult, the last one calling me "a thief?"
I suspect that's why you cowardly hide behind a screen name. It's getting old.
Dana
Nice! Thanks For the sharing this information.
Nice! Thanks For the sharing this information.