Image Copyright Question

SD1990

Hi all,

Sorry if this is in the wrong section.

Question on obtaining images from a google image search and using them on a website?

For example business people having a meeting. I have seen this image on loads of sites and it seemed suitable to use on a site i was doing recently. But was speaking to someone yesterday about image copyright and apparently this is a dangerous game to play?

Any one have any advice or previous experiences with this?

Pixelcraft

You don't have permission to use any photo you find on the internet. Either buy some from stock sites, or contact the photographer and ask about usage rights.

SD1990

Right. But surely every image on the internet isnt under copyright.
I know you dont have permission but is it frowned upon or is legal action often taken?

aidan_walsh

But surely every image on the internet isnt under copyright.

By and large they are under local copyright laws, but sometimes the owner of the copyright chooses to relinquish that. You need to check with the owner for how the image is licensed.

Pixelcraft

SD1990 wrote: »

I know you dont have permission but is it frowned upon or is legal action often taken?

Yes and yes.

daymobrew

iStockPhoto says they have over 5 million royalty free images for purchase.
This image of a business meeting could cost as little as $3 (cost is based on image size).

bigbadcon

I bought a tiny image the other day for €59 but it means I can use it to sell a product and print it as much as I want.

Better to be safe then sorry.

If its just for a website and not for print you can get free ones from this site.

http://www.sxc.hu/

p

SD1990 wrote: »

Right. But surely every image on the internet isnt under copyright.

Things on the internet are under copyright as much as anything in the newspaper, in the cinema or on the TV.

Unless it is explicitly stated that things are copyright-free or they allow use, then don't take them. It is illegal, immoral and unprofessional and there is no excuse.

smemon

check out this site; http://search.creativecommons.org/

you can use images for free depending on the license attached. Most will require some sort of attribution though.

in general, don't grab images from google search - certainly not off the first page for your term ;-)

most people won't have a problem with you using their images so long as you give them credit. I just couldn't be bothered updating licenses on any of my images, so they're technically all copyright by default but i couldn't care less who uses them provided i get credit.

hellbent

The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

Axwell

hellbent wrote: »

The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

This is utter nonesense, so a photographer whos job it is to take photos and then puts them up on the web on sites such as istock shouldnt be paid or should just not put images up in the first place? They are providing a service, for graphic and web designers to be able to go and source images is vital and to have such a choice to be able to find exactly what they want, and not have to go and organise to take a picture to suit is priceless. At the prices you pay on istock its ridiculous that people complain about copyright and not being able to download images where and when they want. Im sure whatever you work at you wouldnt do it for free, so why should a photographer or anyone else who puts their material up on the web for sale and use via copyright and license??

kjt

hellbent wrote: »

The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

That is one of the daftest things I've ever heard!!!


"The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used."
Hi, the frontdoor of my house is open. This clearly means anybody can come in and take what they like....


Clever guy!

Liam Byrne

hellbent wrote: »

Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

No-one's "appalled" that someone would download their content. Technically, every time you view a website you "download" the content.

It's the unauthorised re-use of the content that's the problem.

Say you pay a photographer and 3 models for a cool photo for your website; that, the studio time, and the license to use the image costs you about €600.

Then someone uses that image for free on their website.

OF COURSE you're going to be pissed off.

hellbent wrote: »

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

Phew! Does that mean that that's the last post from you, so ? :rolleyes:

OP, with iStockPhoto selling website-usage images from €1, there's no excuse to break the law and/or risk being seen as a thief and/or sued.

Orcue

All images are copyright protected. It is up to you to establish who owns the copyright and get permission to use. It is illegal to use an image just because you are able to "grab" it.
Using am image without permission is theft, plain and simple.

kevteljeur

hellbent wrote: »

The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

LOL. I agree. I do all my work for free, and live in a field, just taking what I want from the land and from free stuff that people bring me. It's great. Apart from the cruel pixie overlords who exact tax from me in buttercup-based micro-payments.


To the OP: I had a photo taken from my site and used in a newspaper in Romania, I was plenty mad about it. Almost sued, in fact, but ended up not doing so (long story). Came close though and next time I'd definitely sort it out.



.

lucideer

hellbent wrote: »

The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

I agree. You're right that it must stop, but simply throwing legal copyrights to the wind ain't gonna do it. If you want it to stop, go vote for someone to legislate. Otherwise stop complaining.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Say you pay a photographer and 3 models for a cool photo for your website; that, the studio time, and the license to use the image costs you about €600.

Then someone uses that image for free on their website.

OF COURSE you're going to be pissed off.

Yeah, pissed off by the fact they got royally ripped off by a photographer, who in turn probably got royally ripped off by a studio and 3 models.

kjt wrote: »

"The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used."
Hi, the frontdoor of my house is open. This clearly means anybody can come in and take what they like....

A silly analogy - if someone takes your telly from your house, you no longer have a telly. Telly's aren't instantaneously reproducible at zero cost.

An actually relevant analogy:
"Hi, my mouth was open when I was speaking in public, should anybody be allowed to repeat anything I said? Or do I own the copyright on quoting me?"

kevteljeur wrote: »

LOL. I agree. I do all my work for free

Really? That's awfully generous. I personally prefer to get paid for most work I do. Once. When I do it. For physically doing the work. If someone takes my work and reproduces it, that's them doing the reproducing work, not me. It's got nothing to do with me, why should I be paid for it? I've already been paid for producing it in the first place. That's just f'ing greedy!

SD1990 wrote: »

Question on obtaining images from a google image search and using them on a website?

Don't reproduce anything you find on Google without explicitly finding out from the site you got it on that their licence allows you to reproduce it. Doing otherwise is illegal and you may be prosecuted. I don't personally believe it should be illegal but that's opinion, not law, and it is in every country and jurisdiction I'm aware of so just don't do it.

GaelicWebDesign

hellbent wrote: »

The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.

It's time for the nonsense to stop.

This comment from “hellbent” sounds like the way the defence in "The Pirate Bay" trial tried to justify their client involvement in illegal activity (http://blog.securityitrust.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-had-come-to-an-end/).
Copyright is very simple all images are copyright protected; some have very strict copyright protection and some use open copyright protection like royalty free. If you do not own the image then you need permission to use it regardless of where you get the image. Taking an image from the internet or any other source with out permission is stealing, and using an image you stole on your website or other public material can end up in a lawsuit.
The theft of images on the internet is high, many people copy images and text from other website to use when creating their own website, and many website owners get taken to court around the world for this activity. So don’t use an image you don’t have the right to on your website, because it’s cheaper to purchase an image compared to the cost of a lawsuit.
From searching the internet I found there 2 articles on copyright.
http://www.gaelicimages.com/2009/06/copyright-duration/
http://www.gaelicimages.com/2009/06/ireland-photography-rights/

Niall
www.gaelicwebdesign.com

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

I agree. You're right that it must stop

How is that "right" ? If someone does work - e.g. unique work for a client - then they get paid for it. ONCE COPY = ONE PAYMENT.

lucideer wrote: »

Yeah, pissed off by the fact they got royally ripped off by a photographer, who in turn probably got royally ripped off by a studio and 3 models.

Hmmmm...maybe by a photographer whose photos were previously stolen and who has decided to charge in advance for the copies that he's now sure someone will make of HIS work ?

lucideer wrote: »

A silly analogy - if someone takes your telly from your house, you no longer have a telly. Telly's aren't instantaneously reproducible at zero cost.

But the investment in creating the telly is reliant on selling a couple of hundred thousand of them.

Otherwise the initial cost of the telly would be a couple of million quid. The research and design has to be paid for somehow.

Likewise, if a photographer or website designer was only paid one amount of €200, with everyone else stealing / copying their stuff, how the hell would they pay for cameras, studio space, office space, etc ? The first photo would cost the €4,000 price of the camera, or the web designer's computer !

lucideer wrote: »

An actually relevant analogy:
"Hi, my mouth was open when I was speaking in public, should anybody be allowed to repeat anything I said? Or do I own the copyright on quoting me?"

Not a relevant analogy UNLESS you were being paid to speak at a conference or something. If you were, then those who paid you - as well as yourself - are entitled to be reimbursed.

Someone in the audience is NOT entitled to copy everything word-for-word; they're entitled to your expertise, because they paid to hear it, but they are NOT entitled to repeat it.

lucideer wrote: »

Really? That's awfully generous. I personally prefer to get paid for most work I do. Once. When I do it. For physically doing the work. If someone takes my work and reproduces it, that's them doing the reproducing work, not me. It's got nothing to do with me, why should I be paid for it? I've already been paid for producing it in the first place. That's just f'ing greedy!

Firstly, the poster was being sarcastic.

But otherwise, let me see. I build a website for one person, and ten thousand people copy it, thereby ensuring I can't make a living ?

I record a song, and sell one copy, but ten thousand people copy it ?

Can you not see how the above is actually related to your supposed "complaint" above about the "rip-off" photographer ?

lucideer wrote: »

Don't reproduce anything you find on Google without explicitly finding out from the site you got it on that their licence allows you to reproduce it. Doing otherwise is illegal and you may be prosecuted. I don't personally believe it should be illegal but that's opinion, not law, and it is in every country and jurisdiction I'm aware of so just don't do it.

And rightly so. Otherwise either whoever (a) did the job or (b) paid for the job is perfectly entitled to feel VERY hard done by.

I - personally - would be a LITTLE more lenient on stuff that's COMPLETELY for personal use, but if you've got a website that's being designed to promote YOUR business and allow YOU make more money, then whoever designed or put that together is perfectly entitled to get paid.

If someone took a day, with models and studio lighting, to get a unique shot for a website, then it's gonna cost, and no-one should be entitled to steal that. And whether it's viewed as stealing from the photographer or from the company whose website it is, it's stealing. Period.

If a company makes a copy of something and in doing so disrespects / impacts on another company's method of making a living, then that company deserved to get named and shamed.

Bottom line is, of course, that you ASK, and abide by the reply.

Just like "borrowing" a book or a tv; if the answer's yes then you're OK.

If the answer's no, then that's the law.

Just because what someone produces is "copyable", doesn't mean that you should.

If a table was "copyable" as easily as a digital file, should a carpenter only be paid once ? With 100,000 people "copying" it to get a table for free ?

How does that carpenter pay for his carpentry course, rent, or food ? By charging €250,000 for the first table ?

kjt

Well said Liam. I don't know why we're even having this little debate, it's purely ignorance from the likes of lucideer & hellbent.

I don't even know how somebody would think they should get images for free. I guess if the photo wasn't on the Internet and was instead, a photo printed and mounted in a museum they might have a different view on it....

<sarcasm>Then again, I think people should be aloud to go into galleries and just take the pictures they like!</sarcasm>

lucideer

GaelicWebDesign wrote: »

This comment from “hellbent” sounds like the way the defence in "The Pirate Bay" trial tried to justify their client involvement in "illegal" activity

(quotes added for truthery)
Given that you're the first person I've seen mention this case and take the side of the judge, I would guess that hellbent's comments about "the majority of internet users" is correct. I added the quotes above because despite the ridiculous verdict, it's fairly common knowledge the entire case was bunk. No I'm not a lawyer, yes I'm aware the verdict was given by someone with significantly more knowledge of Swedish law than I possess, but having read the verdict, the charge was very specifically directed at a commercial operation, which the PB most certainly was not.
The fact that the site is still operational, has not paid a penny and that the publicity from that court case lead to the Swedish freedom of information party (Piratpartiet) becoming the 3rd largest political party in Sweden and winning European Parliament seats in their first election, I would gather the population of Sweden are well aware that the verdict was bunk - and I seriously doubt the appeal will meet much resistance.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But the investment in creating the telly is reliant on selling a couple of hundred thousand of them.

Otherwise the initial cost of the telly would be a couple of million quid. The research and design has to be paid for somehow.

Did I say it was ok to steal a telly? No. What relevance has this?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Likewise, if a photographer or website designer was only paid one amount of €200, with everyone else stealing / copying their stuff, how the hell would they pay for cameras, studio space, office space, etc ? The first photo would cost the €4,000 price of the camera, or the web designer's computer !

Ha! 'Cos a €4000 camera can only take one photo.. Ya.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not a relevant analogy UNLESS you were being paid to speak at a conference or something. If you were, then those who paid you - as well as yourself - are entitled to be reimbursed.

Someone in the audience is NOT entitled to copy everything word-for-word; they're entitled to your expertise, because they paid to hear it, but they are NOT entitled to repeat it.

Now that is factually false, and ridiculous. And your logic is laughable - if you say something in public without charging for your knowledge, people can "take it", yet if you charge for first hearing, you're entitled to charge AGAIN for reproduction. How on earth is this entitlement granted only to people who decide to charge people to listen to their voice - is that the actual criteria in this grossly inequitable and thankfully imaginary legal system of yours?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But otherwise, let me see. I build a website for one person, and ten thousand people copy it, thereby ensuring I can't make a living ?

How? Why does their copying it ensure you can't make a living? Stating it does not make it so.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I record a song, and sell one copy, but ten thousand people copy it ?

Yup.. your point?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can you not see how the above is actually related to your supposed "complaint" above about the "rip-off" photographer ?

Yes, I can see how it's related. But I don't see any problem with either statement. You evidently do, but you're not elaborating.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bottom line is, of course, that you ASK, and abide by the reply.

Of course, attribution is a must. Common courtesy at the very least.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just like "borrowing" a book or a tv; if the answer's yes then you're OK.

Ever tried copying a tv you borrowed onto your hard-drive, then giving it back?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just because what someone produces is "copyable", doesn't mean that you should.

Why not?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If a table was "copyable" as easily as a digital file, should a carpenter only be paid once ?

Yes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

With 100,000 people "copying" it to get a table for free ?

Yes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How does that carpenter pay for his carpentry course, rent, or food ? By charging €250,000 for the first table ?

He diversifies.

kjt wrote: »

it's purely ignorance from the likes of lucideer & hellbent.

I don't think I've demonstrated ignorance of anything - I am aware of current law and abide by it. Because I hold a different opinion on an issue to you does not automatically make me ignorant.

kjt wrote: »

I don't even know how somebody would think they should get images for free. I guess if the photo wasn't on the Internet and was instead, a photo printed and mounted in a museum they might have a different view on it....

Yes, I would. Canvas, frame, ink. Matter.

sheesh

let me make a point.

A couple of years ago one of the major image libraries started going after individual sites that had images that they had not paid for. up to 1000s of dollars were being demanded.

in my book that is a pretty good reason not to take images off the internet with out finding out who owns them.


also your a troll

Pixelcraft

Is this a new movement of internet communism starting here? what a ridiculous thread, can't even understand why it's being debated.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

Did I say it was ok to steal a telly? No. What relevance has this?

No. But you're the one who mentioned the telly. And your view is that the only reason that it's not "ok" to steal it is because it isn't digital/ instantly copy-able. If it were, you'd apparently be fine with it.

But then we wouldn't have telly's because no-one would spend millions to design and create the first one, knowing they'd sell only one.

So we'd all be worse off.

lucideer wrote: »

Ha! 'Cos a €4000 camera can only take one photo.. Ya.

No, but if everyone copies that one photo, then there's a far less market for others. If everyone decided - that photo's nice; I like the other but this one's "free", so I'll use that instead, then you could well end up with a €4,000 camera only taking the one photo!

If the photo was a fantastic landscape print that everyone wanted, who would you propose that we charge for the "first copy" ? And how much should we charge ?

And how, exactly, should everyone else go about getting their "free" copy ? Would the first person not feel hard done by ?

Your argument is ridiculous.

If we all had Star-Trek style replicator machines so that EVERYTHING was "duplicatable" and no-one was at a disadvantage, then fair enough, but like I said, why target those whose output is digital just because you can.

lucideer wrote: »

How on earth is this entitlement granted only to people who decide to charge people to listen to their voice - is that the actual criteria in this grossly inequitable and thankfully imaginary legal system of yours?

As opposed to your one, where everyone whose output is digital has no livelihood protection, and everyone whose output isn't, does ? :rolleyes:

lucideer wrote: »

How? Why does their copying it ensure you can't make a living? Stating it does not make it so.

Another laughable comment, considering your glib "he diversifies" comment below. As I said above, the logical conclusion of someone not earning from copies of their work is that they (a) don't bother going into that line of work, and (b) charge a small fortune for the first copy, because of the time and effort that went into it. Unfortunately, no-one will BUY that first copy, because they'd know that everyone else would get it for free. So the whole "career" (and art-form) goes down the tubes.

Do you think that only one copy of a newspaper should be charged for ? If so, how much ? And who pays for the reporters, writers, etc ? Should the first copy of the newspaper be €5,000 to pay for this ? And who should pay that, knowing the freeloaders would then demand their copies ?

The entire system would collapse, because of the reasons mentioned above.

lucideer wrote: »

Yes, I can see how it's related. But I don't see any problem with either statement. You evidently do, but you're not elaborating.

I have elaborated above.

lucideer wrote: »

I don't think I've demonstrated ignorance of anything - I am aware of current law and abide by it. Because I hold a different opinion on an issue to you does not automatically make me ignorant.

The law is there to protect the owner of a copyright and give them a right to a livelihood. The law isn't just "there".

Out of interest, what's your chosen career ? Not being personal, but I just want check if there's an equivalent parallel......and if anything - even that replicator - would change your mind on the difference between "digital" producers and those who produce your "matter".

An artist is an artist, whether it's canvas, web, computer-based art, photography, carpentry, sculpture, etc.

EVERY career has an investment, both education-wise beforehand or technology-wise since.

And while I detest blatant rip-offs, at least you can - to some extent - shop around and get the best deal; but those who steal impose on society even more, with increased charges, security, policing, insurance, etc.

yeraulone

sheesh wrote: »

let me make a point.

A couple of years ago one of the major image libraries started going after individual sites that had images that they had not paid for. up to 1000s of dollars were being demanded.

in my book that is a pretty good reason not to take images off the internet with out finding out who owns them.


also your a troll

You are dead right there. Corbis and Getty have software that crawls websites looking for images, and compares them against their own collections. Once they find a match, they start legal proceedings and claim for damages. They are even using sites like WayBack machine, to look for sites that may have used a copyright image in the past.

I know this is an English Law site, but there is more information here…

http://www.fsb.org.uk/discuss/forum_posts.asp?TID=1106

MOH

lucideer wrote: »

Really? That's awfully generous. I personally prefer to get paid for most work I do. Once. When I do it. For physically doing the work. If someone takes my work and reproduces it, that's them doing the reproducing work, not me. It's got nothing to do with me, why should I be paid for it? I've already been paid for producing it in the first place. That's just f'ing greedy!

By that logic, I can bring out a new best seller, the VaDinci Code.
All I need to do is scan in the existing book and re-publish it un the name Ban Drown. And I'll be immune to any claims of breach of copyright.

Although that might be too much trouble. Maybe I'll just pick a few random singles out of the top ten and release them on a CD.

Or hey, why don't I take OpenOffice and flog it to people who don't know any better as the new Windows 7 version of MS Office?

Cos, y'know, no one has rights to anything they create.

Liam Byrne

MOH wrote: »

By that logic, I can bring out a new best seller, the VaDinci Code.
All I need to do is scan in the existing book and re-publish it un the name Ban Drown. And I'll be immune to any claims of breach of copyright.

Interesting thought....I'm not sure whether our anarchistic digital communist would see it that way....since there's a "physical/matter" book.

If, however, you somehow got hold of Dan's laptop and copied the digital manuscript file, it certainly appears to be the case that he'd see that as being perfectly OK....

And since you'd be doing the printing of the physical copy YOU should get paid and Dan shouldn't.

Guess the moral of that story is that all authors should just use old-fashioned typewriters! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Scotty #

lucideer wrote: »

Don't reproduce anything you find on Google without explicitly finding out from the site you got it on that their licence allows you to reproduce it. Doing otherwise is illegal and you may be prosecuted. I don't personally believe it should be illegal but that's opinion, not law, and it is in every country and jurisdiction I'm aware of so just don't do it.

And it's exactly because of this ridiculous opinion that the laws are in place.

It makes no difference if the subject is physical or in a digital format. If you take what is not yours to take it's stealing... plain and simple.

lucideer

MOH wrote: »

Or hey, why don't I take OpenOffice and flog it to people who don't know any better as the new Windows 7 version of MS Office?

Cos, y'know, no one has rights to anything they create.

I had to quote this one as it's absolutely hilarious. Honestly, could you have chosen a better example than OpenOffice - I don't think so. I guess someone has never heard of something called the GPL? (I'll give you a clue, its author is mentioned in my sig)

Liam Byrne wrote: »

anarchistic digital communist

An anarchist communist eh? Hrmm... sounds like someone has a great grasp on political terminology there. May I recommend a visit to Wikipedia (although whatever you do, don't repeat what you read there to anyone - that would be stealing right?)

Scotty # wrote: »

If you take what is not yours to take it's stealing... plain and simple.

True. But that's based on the assumption that one can "own" the ethereal.

aidan_walsh

I guess someone has never heard of something called the GPL? (I'll give you a clue, its author is mentioned in my sig)

I knew Stallman was a little touched, but I didn't think he also thought he was Torvalds.

But that's based on the assumption that one can "own" the ethereal.

The law says yes, so thats good enough for me. Stealing may not be the right word, but certainly infringing on rights.

lucideer

aidan_walsh wrote: »

I knew Stallman was a little touched, but I didn't think he also thought he was Torvalds.

Richard Matthew Stallman (affectionately known to the open-source community as RMS) is referred to by Linus Torvalds as he invites you to "go suck on" the original author of the GPL (in the nicest possible way I'm sure)

aidan_walsh wrote: »

The law says yes, so thats good enough for me. Stealing may not be the right word, but certainly infringing on rights.

Oh stealing is absolutely the right word. The law defines this ethereal "product" as "property", so taking it is legally stealing, which I've acknowledged at least twice above. What I'm trying to get across is my right to have a dissenting opinion on that law, which defends people's apparent right to "own" ether.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

An anarchist communist eh? Hrmm... sounds like someone has a great grasp on political terminology there. May I recommend a visit to Wikipedia (although whatever you do, don't repeat what you read there to anyone - that would be stealing right?)

You question someone else's post, using the the GPL / Creative Commons license as the reason, and yet you quote Wikipedia and suggest that quoting it might be stealing, despite it (a) being largely unsubstantiated, user-contributed content and (b) contains the following "copyright" footer:

Wikipedia wrote:

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"

:rolleyes:

lucideer wrote: »

What I'm trying to get across is my right to have a dissenting opinion on that law, which defends people's apparent right to "own" ether.

You can have all the dissenting opinion that you like, but in doing so you've refused point-blank to indicate why there should be a distinction between those whose livelihood involves putting time, expertise and effort into a digital product as distinct from a physical one.

Yes, it's "easier" to copy something, but then it's "easier" to walk into a house and steal something than go to the bank, get a loan, pay for something and pay back the loan.

It's "easier" to pick up someone's unattended phone from a pub counter than go out and buy one.

Why should something be legal just because it's easier to do ?

Plus - as you've also ignored - what's the impact of your opinon ? I've stated clearly why the first "copy" would never be created, because it wouldn't be worth the cost. So the end result would be no websites, no photographs, no music, etc. All because people want to steal them.

You're going on the incorrect assumption that because someone can click "file - copy" or "file - save as" that there's no work or product involved, without acknowledging that the work is gone into it BEFORE that.

Your analogy is about REPRODUCTION AND DELIVERY, and contains no understanding of intellectual or creative copyright, and no understanding of the economics or the impact of what you are proposing.

And you've also refused to indicate what your own chosen career is; that's your right, but until you do you - so that we can draw or dismiss potential parallels - you cannot stand over glib comments that people should "diversify".

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

you quote Wikipedia and suggest that quoting it might be stealing

The reference to stealing from Wikipedia was making a parallel to YOUR views on intellectual property, not mine. I don't think it's stealing, I was implying that you would (or at least should based on your principles). :rolleyes:

Also, your claim that most Wikipedia content is unsubstantiated is unsubstantiated. There are exceptions but for the most part the site is painstakingly referenced (they're at the bottom of each page btw, linked to by little numbers in square brackets)

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can have all the dissenting opinion that you like, but in doing so you've refused point-blank to indicate why there should be a distinction between those whose livelihood involves putting time, expertise and effort into a digital product as distinct from a physical one.

There shouldn't be. Where did I say there should. There is not distinction between the creators of the respective products. If I buy a table from a carpenter, I take it home, examine the work closely, learn how it's put together, buy some wood and make another table - am I breaking the law? There is no distinction. That's MY point. You're the one arguing there should be a distinction.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Plus - as you've also ignored - what's the impact of your opinon? I've stated clearly why the first "copy" would never be created, because it wouldn't be worth the cost. So the end result would be no websites, no photographs, no music, etc. All because people want to steal them.

This supposed theoretical "end result" has been demonstrated to be a myth countless times. The removal of intellectual property restrictions stimulates innovation in practice, regardless of what you might hypothesise in theoretical discussion.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

The reference to stealing from Wikipedia was making a parallel to YOUR views on intellectual property, not mine. I don't think it's stealing, I was implying that you would (or at least should based on your principles). :rolleyes:

You can imply all you like, but I don't, because they've said so themselves. If I decide to release something under the Creative Commons or GPL License, then I've decided that. So "imply" all you like, but you're completely wrong in "implying" that I would, based on my principles :rolleyes:

lucideer wrote: »

There shouldn't be. Where did I say there should.

:rolleyes: In numerous posts you made the distinction between copying something physical and copying a digital file :

kjt wrote: »

I don't even know how somebody would think they should get images for free. I guess if the photo wasn't on the Internet and was instead, a photo printed and mounted in a museum they might have a different view on it....

Your response :

lucideer wrote: »

Yes, I would. Canvas, frame, ink. Matter.

Basically, you show ZERO respect for ideas, creativity and expertise. If it isn't solid and touchable, it isn't worth anything (according to you).

lucideer wrote: »

If I buy a table from a carpenter, I take it home, examine the work closely, learn how it's put together, buy some wood and make another table - am I breaking the law? There is no distinction. That's MY point. You're the one arguing there should be a distinction.

Wrong distinction (or deliberate misdirection). If you put an EFFORT into RECREATING, then that's slightly different; your reference to examining the table equates to this : if you like the look of a photo, its lighting and its pose, and go out and buy / rent a camera and lighting and recreate that from scratch.

That's a million miles away from taking the existing photo or file and running off a "copy" on your printer, or hitting "Save As" to steal the original work.

You can go study and try to recreate Michaelangelo's David, or Cistine Chapel, if you like, for all I care....if you're capable of it, then fair play.

But you are not allowed to copy it.

So quit muddying the water with idiotic examples that involve examining things and putting the effort into recreating them from scratch using tools (saws and cameras). That is NOT the context of the word "copying" that you were earlier implying.

lucideer wrote: »

This supposed theoretical "end result" has been demonstrated to be a myth countless times. The removal of intellectual property restrictions stimulates innovation in practice, regardless of what you might hypothesise in theoretical discussion.

Once again, what line of work are you in, so that we can show how it might apply to affecting your livelihood ?

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: In numerous posts you made the distinction between copying something physical and copying a digital file

No, I didn't. I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file - alluding to the fact that in the latter case the original holder of the digital file is left with the orginal file, intact, while in the former it is taken and nothing left behind. The former is stealing, the latter is not. This is why "stealing a physical item" does not hold up. If you were to copy a physical item it would be a better analogy, and perfectly legal.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can go study and try to recreate Michaelangelo's David, or Cistine Chapel, if you like, for all I care....if you're capable of it, then fair play.

But you are not allowed to copy it.

And it is the same law prohibiting doing so.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Once again, what line of work are you in, so that we can show how it might apply to affecting your livelihood ?

Web design. But there's no need to show me anything, as I've already commented on it if you read my second post in this thread.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

No, I didn't. I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file - alluding to the fact that in the latter case the original holder of the digital file is left with the orginal file, intact, while in the former it is taken and nothing left behind. The former is stealing, the latter is not. This is why "stealing a physical item" does not hold up. If you were to copy a physical item it would be a better analogy, and perfectly legal.

And again, where do you copy this fictional digital file from ? How did it get created, considering nobody wanted to pay for the time and expertise required ?

And how do you "copy" the physical item ? Your analogy says that you recreate all of the work that went into it, using time and materials of your own. I have absolutely no problem with that scenario, which is the only one that is completely parallel.

I have a SERIOUS problem with clicking a button to take a copy, having had someone else do all the work.

lucideer wrote: »

Web design. But there's no need to show me anything, as I've already commented on it if you read my second post in this thread.

I am absolutely and utterly stunned now!

So you build one website and 50,000 people copy it for free, and then the first person doesn't pay for it because they don't think it fair that they had to pay for something everyone else got for free....and you still reckon you could magically "diversify" ?

Or does this fantasy world of yours involve copying everyone else's photographs for these websites to make them cheaper, while you win the lotto (btw, be careful not to let anyone photocopy that winning ticket).

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And how do you "copy" the physical item ? Your analogy says that you recreate all of the work that went into it, using time and materials of your own. I have absolutely no problem with that scenario, which is the only one that is completely parallel.

I have a SERIOUS problem with clicking a button to take a copy, having had someone else do all the work.

Aha! Ok, I'm starting to grasp your point of view now. Back to analogies (aren't analogies fun!):

To copy the table you must (a) have or buy wood and (b) possess the skill to build a table.
To copy a digital file you must (a) have or buy a computer and (b) possess the proficiency to use the computer.

The level of effort is also irrelevant - think of two people trying to figure out how to complete one task. If the first person figures out a quicker, cheaper, better, easier way requiring less effort, should the second person be compensated for the extra time and effort they took to complete the task?

Your logic is a communist/marxist one - where people should be rewarded for working, regardless of the value of their work.
Mine is a capitalist one as it is based on simple supply-demand economics.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I am absolutely and utterly stunned now!

So you build one website and 50,000 people copy it for free, and then the first person doesn't pay for it because they don't think it fair that they had to pay for something everyone else got for free....and you still reckon you could magically "diversify" ?

Who are the people copying it for free off? Off the 1st person who, presumably, has already paid me for the delivery of the site? Or am I misinterpreting you?
FYI, in the REAL world (no analogies here) a vast amount of web design work is open source and can be freely distributed, even charged for when it was attained without charge. Yet all those millions (yes millions) of web designers openly licencing their work aren't suddenly all going out of business.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Or does this fantasy world of yours

Well I don't know what world you're living in, but it is no fantasy. From your posts above you seemed familiar with the Creative Commons and RMS - perhaps you aren't after all. I would highly recommend you read up on this "fantasy world" that actually operates just fine for creative professionals thank you very much.

kjt

Fairplay for all the time you've put into this thread Liam, but, to be honest it looks to me like you're just pissing into the wind :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

Your logic is a communist/marxist one - where people should be rewarded for working, regardless of the value of their work.

Where, exactly did I say that ? :rolleyes: All I'm saying is that the initial value is based on selling more than one, so that it's not too expensive, and the cost of remaining copies is based on the value to the receiver, not some supposed "cost to produce" or "File - Save As".

If the receiver doesn't value it, then they don't need to buy it, but it doesn't excuse them from making an illegal copy.

Like I said, the R&D for that telly cost €1,000,000 - should the first one cost that, with the rest of the copies charged at €50 because the factory is now set up to make them for that ? Or do you charge them all at an average of €500 ?

And you are confusing the "value" of the work with the "cost to produce" and NOTHING ELSE, which simply doesn't work. I'd hate to see the value that you'd put on a judge or marraige councellor or radio presenter - after all, there's no "cost" to sitting in chair and just talking, is there ?

lucideer wrote: »

Who are the people copying it for free off? Off the 1st person who, presumably, has already paid me for the delivery of the site? Or am I misinterpreting you?

No, but you're ignoring two important facts:

1) That "1st person" would simply NOT pay you for the delivery of the site, knowing that someone else would get an equal site for "free". They'd hang back in the hope that some other idiot would pay for it and they could hit the "copy" button.

2) Even if they did, you (and every other designer) would then - in theory develop ONE site for [insert chosen business type], and everyone else would copy it, rather than pay for their own. How long before your "diversification" into another business type means there's no more sites to develop ? How many contracts would you manage in order to pay for your university course, upskilling courses, computer, broadband, office space, etc ?

lucideer wrote: »

FYI, in the REAL world (no analogies here) a vast amount of web design work is open source and can be freely distributed, even charged for when it was attained without charge. Yet all those millions (yes millions) of web designers openly licencing their work aren't suddenly all going out of business.

They are supplemented by paid-for work and contracts. Everyone needs to pay for their rent/mortgage, food, etc. Remove those paid-for work and contracts, and the system that you view as working in isolation is unsustainable and collapses.

Ideally, we'd ALL work for free, for the good of each other and the community. Unfortunately, until such time comes, we all need to earn in order to survive, even those of us whose output is "only :rolleyes: " digital.

Our time and expertise is worth something too, y'know.

Speaking of which, I've better things to do than keep this going.

Come back to me when everyone wins the lotto, all output is digital or via a Star-Trek replicator, and that utopia where no-one needs money exists.

I'll agree 100% with you then.

lucideer

kjt wrote: »

Fairplay for all the time you've put into this thread Liam, but, to be honest it looks to me like you're just pissing into the wind :rolleyes:

Not too sure what exactly pissing in the wind refers to (is it pointless for Liam to continue pushing a unreasonable line, or pointless for him to keep trying to convince an unreasonable person?), but I'm going to go with the latter seeing as you started the comment with "Fairplay". (I'm perceptive me )

You seem like a photographer and web designer Kyle, by the looks of your website. While I'm not sure how big the open source photography movement has become, you're using the GPL/MIT dual-licenced jQuery in your site. Don't you feel you are wronging John Resig by copying and reusing his work by paying him (if you've donated, fair play, but that's optional)?
Do you genuinely believe your business as a photographer would suffer if people could freely redistribute your work? That your expertise would have no value in itself?

My point is, it already works perfectly. It's been demonstrated to do so, just as IP law has been demostrated to strangle competition, market equilibrium and consumer interest.

Scotty #

lucideer wrote: »

I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file - alluding to the fact that in the latter case the original holder of the digital file is left with the orginal file, intact, while in the former it is taken and nothing left behind. The former is stealing, the latter is not.

So I should be allowed copy the latest version of Photoshop and redistribute it to all my friends for free? This isn't stealing? Or I should be allowed bring my camcorder to the movies and post it on piratebay? This isn't stealing either? Adobe are now down $50,000 because instead of all my graphic designer friends actually going and buying the software I have sent them all a copy for free and they in turn have sent a copy to all their friends but we're not doing anything wrong, we haven't stolen anything. Are you for real?

Of course it's stealing. What on earth ever gave you the idea that it wasn't!

lucideer

Scotty # wrote: »

So I should be allowed copy the latest version of Photoshop and redistribute it to all my friends for free? This isn't stealing? Or I should be allowed bring my camcorder to the movies and post it on piratebay? This isn't stealing either? Adobe are now down $50,000 because instead of all my graphic designer friends actually going and buying the software I have sent them all a copy for free and they in turn have sent a copy to all their friends but we're not doing anything wrong, we haven't stolen anything. Are you for real?

Of course it's stealing. What on earth ever gave you the idea that it wasn't!

I never said it wasn't. Try reading my posts. I've stated at twice or three times that I fully understand and adhere to the law. I even told the OP not to use images off the web as it IS STEALING!!!!

As for the idea of copying a piece of software and redistributing it to all your friends for free - you're saying noone should ever be allowed to do this no?

charybdis

Copyright, contrary to what some of you seem to think, isn't about "getting paid". Copyright is a right granted by intellectual property law that gives the author of an original work exclusive control over the use of that work for a limited period of time. It's not about economics, it's about being able to decide how your work is used. If the author so chooses, they can license use of their work for a fee or otherwise.

Despite the tone of the thread, I don't believe lucideer has said anything incorrect or offensive and I'm surprised by the histrionics he's been greeted with.

The arguments against what he's said on the grounds that it would damage some entities' business models are nonsense. We could invent (and have invented) many laws that would support a huge variety of businesses and business models, it doesn't mean they'd be correct or sensible.

Also, one does not lend credibility to their argument when they suggest selling software licensed under the GPL is somehow wrong.

lucideer

Wow, a voice of reason.

I've actually been extremely surprised at the reaction I've got here as this topic has come up for discussion in other areas of the internet and I've never met such blanket opposition to the concept of unilateral free (libre) distribution (as opposed to the current restricted system of selective free/libre distribution) of digital media.

I was beginning to think it was some kind of an Irish thing, but I know a fair few people in person (not via the internet) who'd agree with me so it can't just be that... hopefully not anyway.

Scotty #

lucideer wrote: »

I never said it wasn't. Try reading my posts.

Err you did...

lucideer wrote: »

I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file...

.... The former is stealing, the latter is not.

I know you said you don't do it but that's not the point. The point is you believe you should be allowed to. Specifically, copy and re-use other peoples images that you find on google.

lucideer wrote: »

As for the idea of copying a piece of software and redistributing it to all your friends for free - you're saying noone should ever be allowed to do this no?

That depends on the copyright restrictions (if any) on re-distribution of the particular piece of software. I don't believe that commercial software should be allowed to be freely re-distributed though and the law agrees with me. These laws are in place for a good reason.

Just because it is costless to reproduce something, an image, an MP3, or an AVI, does not make it worthless. These items have a value and the owners are entitled to be paid for them. You or I should have, and indeed do have, no right to just take them.

charybdis

Scotty # wrote: »

Err you did...
I know you said you don't do it but that's not the point. The point is you believe you should be allowed to. Specifically, copy and re-use other peoples images that you find on google.

You're upset that someone capable of distinguishing between what is legal and what is his opinion holds a different viewpoint to yours?

Also, I'd like to ask Liam_Byrne how he acquired all the great music on his computer and mp3 player? Did you download it from the internet? Did you rip music from CDs that you'd legally bought and owned?

Scotty #

charybdis wrote: »

Despite the tone of the thread, I don't believe lucideer has said anything incorrect or offensive and I'm surprised by the histrionics he's been greeted with.

I don't think he has said anything offensive. I think people are just baffled that he feels he should be legally allowed to reproduce other peoples work.

charybdis wrote: »

The arguments against what he's said on the grounds that it would damage some entities' business models are nonsense.

So if I copy Getty's images and make them freely available on my site it won't damage their business? The music and film industry have not been damaged by copying?

charybdis wrote: »

It's not about economics, it's about being able to decide how your work is used.

And if people can legally take and distribute copies, as Lucidder feels they should, the Author will have zero control.

Scotty #

charybdis wrote: »

You're upset that someone capable of distinguishing between what is legal and what is his opinion holds a different viewpoint to yours?

No. I'm upset that if I spend my time and money getting the right image and I post that image online that he feels he should have every right to just come along and take it and use it for his own needs.

lucideer

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't believe that commercial software should be allowed to be freely re-distributed though and the law agrees with me. These laws are in place for a good reason.

These laws are in place in order for commercial software companies to profit.

I believe the purpose of creating software is for user-benefit. Profit is a side-effect that has until quite recently been assumed to be necessary for quality, useful software - one cannot get good software without paying for it. Recently this necessity has been disproven by the advent of the open-source movement.

You on the other hand believe the purpose of creating software is to profit, user benefit is an incidental side effect. Money has ceased to become a means to an end and has become that "end".

charybdis

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't think he has said anything offensive. I think people are just baffled that he feels he should be legally allowed to reproduce other peoples work.

His argument, while you may not agree with it, is certainly tenable and legitimate. It's not as if he's suggesting something irrational.

Scotty # wrote: »

So if I copy Getty's images and make them freely available on my site it won't damage their business? The music and film industry have not been damaged by copying?

Any number of actions can "damage a business", it doesn't make them wrong. How do you think the horse business fared after Henry Ford hit his stride? How do you think the slave trade fared after slavery was outlawed?

Scotty # wrote: »

And if people can legally take and distribute copies, as Lucidder feels they should, the Author will have zero control.

The author will have zero control after a period of time anyway, this is one of the pillars of copyright law.

Scotty # wrote: »

No. I'm upset that if I spend my time and money getting the right image and I post that image online that he feels he should have every right to just come along and take it and use it for his own needs.

A fair point, but he's made very clear that he wouldn't and has advised others similarly.

kjt

charybdis wrote: »

The author will have zero control after a period of time anyway, this is one of the pillars of copyright law.

I'm sure most people know that copyright law only covers a product/design/image for so long but there's a big difference in somebody uploading this and it being ripped within seconds, opposed to 70years...

I can't really see exactly where your point comes into play for this.

charybdis wrote: »

A fair point, but he's made very clear that he wouldn't and has advised others similarly.

And fair play to lucideer for not doing this most of the time and also advising the OP to go about it the right way. I think the main reaction is because lucideer feels it should be OK to go ahead in this manner..

charybdis

kjt wrote: »

I'm sure most people know that copyright law only covers a product/design/image for so long but there's a big difference in somebody uploading this and it being ripped within seconds, opposed to 70years...

I can't really see exactly where your point comes into play for this.

While I recognise the difference between an author losing control over their work after 70 years and "within seconds", I think it is important to understand that the time limit involved is arbitrary and subject to change and the eventuality of "zero control" is certain. If someone is worried about having "zero control" over their work they have just as much to fear from copyright law as they do anything else.

kjt wrote: »

And fair play to lucideer for not doing this most of the time and also advising the OP to go about it the right way. I think the main reaction is because lucideer feels it should be OK to go ahead in this manner..

Yeah, he does. It's an opinion, a legitimate one based in rational thought. You can try and convince him that he's wrong through argument, but repeatedly telling him that he's wrong and using your feelings to back up your statement isn't much of an argument.