NY Times Advocates Theft

<p >Why bother to try and enforce the unenforceable? If we put an image on the internet and someone downloads it to use for their personal pleasure, what can be done and why should we do anything at all? Do we not display the images in the first place for the accolade of our peers and to have our artistic skills recognized and justified? To then cry foul because someone likes it enough to display in their home seems naive. If I thought an admirer had one of my pictures hanging on their wall across the world, I would be flattered. Yes, it is wrong to steal an image to either resell or use for commercial purposes and you have a means of redress for such occasions if you find out. But the digital age has given us all a chance to display our occasional achievements of excellence and there are now countless thousands of incredible online images that a decade ago would have sat fading and obscure in a dusty photo album. It is inevitable that these find their way into people’s homes. Anyone can print an archival image for pennies, anyone can load up a digital picture frame with works of art, anyone can make a screensaver slide show of photographs they admire. Isn’t this a good thing, to have our work alive and providing inspiration and pleasure to people around the world? Do we always have to assume that something we upload has an intrinsic monetary value?</p>

<p>'This one is, shall we say, beyond belief. An <em>NY Times</em> blogger openly advocates stealing protected images from the 'Net and using them to decorate your home.'</p>

<p>That's nothing. Here in the UK, newspapers such as <em>The Times</em> commonly advocate the despicable practice of<a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/test_bench/article3594525.ece"> 'ripping' CDs of copyrighted music </a> to portable music players for entertainment purposes. This is, of course, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532681/Why-you-are-breaking-the-law-every-time-you-copy-a-CD-to-your-iPod.html">completely illegal</a> under UK law. You might argue, of course, that this is an absurdly outdated law that should be adjusted to reflect the reality of how we use copyrighted material in the digital age (even the government <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm">now thinks so</a> ). Or you might live in a country that already applies 'fair use' exemptions to this sort of situation. But if I should be able to transfer copyrighted music to my iPod without fear of legal consequences, why not a photo I've downloaded from Flickr, perhaps for display on my TV screen? And if I can make a digital copy for personal use, why not an 'analogue' copy..?</p>

<p>If you don't want the kids to take the cookies without permission, then hide the cookie jar.</p>

<p>People do these things because they can. It has no bearing on moral or legal obligation. Use large watermarks or flash files to discorage the majority of greasy fingers. Limit the damage or don't bother posting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here in the UK, newspapers such as <em >The Times</em> commonly advocate the despicable practice of<a rel="nofollow" href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/test_bench/article3594525.ece" target="_blank"> 'ripping' CDs of copyrighted music </a>to portable music players for entertainment purposes. This is, of course, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532681/Why-you-are-breaking-the-law-every-time-you-copy-a-CD-to-your-iPod.html" target="_blank">completely illegal</a>under UK law.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's illegal?! For your own use, when you own the CD? Ridiculous.</p>

<p>Good thing we beat you guys in those wars.</p>

<p>I don't mind people printing and displaying images I post on the Net.</p>

<p>I do mind when people <a href="http://www.saugus.net/Photos/copyright_notice.shtml">infringe on my copyright</a> by reproducing my images for profit.</p>

<p>See my "Hall of Shame" there. I got the idea from Phil G.</p>

<p>Simple fix, really -- Just don't upload high-resolution pics. If they want a pixelated print to hang on their wall, well that's their poor taste. If you want to have a place for legitimate customers to download high-quality prints for sale, then there are many options out there on the Web, you probably are just going to have to pay for it.<br>

For the record, whether it is legal or not, I feel people shouldn't do this, at least to pro photogs who are trying to make a living. But the fact is there are ways to protect yourself.</p>

<p>Well if the photographer posted a full res image I could understand their annoyance, but surely that's unwise? To publish on a public site is surely going to result in some people printing off images for their own use. It is a shame that many photographers only publish rather small images to the web. I am prepared to publish larger images on my own websites but still not to their full resolution.<br>

Les could take up sculpture, but then a photographer could take photos of his sculpture and publish them as original works.</p>

<p>I always wanted an original Ansel Adams, who knew the $10,000 price tag was merely a suggestion.</p>

<p>If you don't want it printed, don't post it as a large file.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>[[No, I'm not, where did you get that???]]</p>

<p>In an argument such as this I think it is important to be specific. Your original statement was not. It was broad and did not differentiate between various types of photo licenses available on flickr (beyond CC and AAR there's also the public domain images). Hence my question.</p>

<p>First, calling it theft just sounds ignorant and weakens your arguement to most people, it is not theft in law and it is not morally theft. Theft deprives the owner of its use. When you get overly dramatic like this, the people who you want to "educate" will have tuned you out before you get to your point.</p>

<p>Second, printing for personal home use is fair use under copyright law. And it makes sense, you haven't lost a sale. Do you really believe every person who prints an image from the web would have paid you for that image otherwise?</p>

<p>Third, there seems to be a line of thought in this thread where everybody who posts to flickr should use safeguards to make sure their images are not used that way. There are many, many amatuers out there who post to flickr who would be flattered to know someone cared enough to print their images. These are people who take snapshots and get a lucky shot once in a while. Why should they act as professionals and try to prevent uncompensated use of their pictures? They'd rather get on with enjoying their lives. And since they see no problem with someone printing their pictures, they see no problem printing someone else's. As a professional photographer, you are in a very, very small minority on flickr.</p>

<p>So, they do have the law on their side, and the majority of flickr users would see no problem using pictures that way or having their pictures used that way.</p>

<p>John, even the two lawyers quoted in the follow-up article are not sure if it fits within fair use, so how come you <em>know </em>it does? Could you provide some references?<br /><br />One of the lawyers in the follow-up article says: <em>“The real core question is, is this a fair use or not?” said Corynne McSherry, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group. “Frankly the answer is, we don’t know.” Ms. McSherry suggests playing it safe and always asking. </em><br /><br />The other lawyer, from the Free Use Project at Stanford, says that there are a lot of parallels with the VCR case. But a VCR (at the time anyway) takes a crappy, rapidly deteriorating copy of the original broadcast and leaves the commercials in. The commericals are what pays for the material, so there is compensation just as much as when the viewer is watching the show live. Currently you can make a non-crappy copy of a non-HD broadcast on a digital hard drive but the ads are still in. Clearly this is not the case in the case of an unauthorized print of a copyrighted photo. No one gets compensation.<br /><br />However, I tend to agree that it's not possible to prevent this from happening and it's best not to upload high-resolution files. The main problem with the original article is that it is essentially the NY Times <em>advocating </em>decorating your house with prints made from other people's images without asking for permission or giving compensation. And that shows that the author and the newspaper do not care about the value of photography as a creative pursuit (as long as it's not theirs).</p>

<p><em>"</em> Second, printing for personal home use is fair use under copyright law."<br>

Could you please tell us where the Copyright law states this? I'm curious. Because from what I read on the <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html">US copyrights own website</a> "Fair Use" is defined as</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seams pretty clear to me that printing for home personal use and enjoyment does not fall under that category.</p>

<p>'That's illegal?! For your own use, when you own the CD? Ridiculous.'</p>

<p>Yes, of course it is (and never enforced). But why is this different to making copies of an image made freely available on the web, or of one you paid for (like a professional wedding photo), provided it's for personal use?</p>

<p>I thik Ilkka's right to remind us that the NYT blog article is insensitive to photographers' rights. If the article wasn't in a blog it would be outrageous for a newspaper journalist to suggest that people decorate their homes with copyright images.<br>

One would have thought that the writer could have at least suggested that buying prints from a photographer provides for archival quality full resolution prints.</p>

<p>By the way, what gives a wedding photographer the right to enter a venue, photographer people there dancing, etc, and then selling the images of those people (the guests) to a third party (the bridge and groom) for profit (a commercial use), without getting a model release from every guest?</p>

<p>What gives a photographer the right to use images of people and recognizable structures in their portfolio (which is a commercial use if you use the portfolio for commercial use, ie to attract new customers) without getting model and property releases?</p>

<p>@Geoff, just a quick comment, the people who would print from flickr don't care about archival full res prints. It's something quick and dirty and if it fades in a few years, they'll print something else to replace it. This is an example of knowing your market, and these people are not your market.</p>

<p><em>Second, printing for personal home use is fair use under copyright law. </em></p>

<p>Do you have a citation for the case law on this?</p>

<p>You mean I can download Steve McCurry's 'Afghan Girl' and put it on my wall? Ansel Adams? Irving Penn? Wow! No one will <em>ever</em> have to pay for photographs again! (Unless they make money from them, in which case they just need to steal from amateurs on Flickr who can't afford lawyers.)</p>

<p><em>First, calling it theft just sounds ignorant and weakens your arguement to most people, it is not theft in law and it is not morally theft. Theft deprives the owner of its use.</em></p>

<p>Awesome! Like, I can just download a cracked copy of Adobe Design Suite! Damn, I thought I'd have to <em>pay</em> for it. But Adobe isn't deprived of its use, so... Thanks, man, that's like totally rad!</p>

<p>'Good thing we beat you guys in those wars.'</p>

<p>Some of the more rabid elements of the US music industry would have you believe that CD ripping for personal use is equally illegal on your side of the pond:<br>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html?hpid=topnews<br>

and Dan's definition of 'Fair Use' doesn't seem to cover it either. But it's 'common sense' that this isn't really illegal or, if it is, it shouldn't be. I suspect that most of the people posting to this thread wouldn't think twice about loading a CD into iTunes. But is there any real legal or moral difference between copying images for personal use and copying music? A large proportion of my CDs and records were originally recorded before consumer mp3 players became available, and some pre-date cassette recorders. In other words, the original artists were releasing their material with no expectation that consumers would be able to run off a second high quality copy to play in the car or in a portable player. When the technology changed that's exactly what we all did, of course, and without compensating the artists in any way. Yet we get terribly upset when someone suggests doing something similar with photographs.</p>

<p><em>By the way, what gives a wedding photographer the right to enter a venue, photographer people there dancing, etc, and then selling the images of those people (the guests) to a third party (the bridge and groom) for profit (a commercial use), without getting a model release from every guest?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

When the bride and groom make an agreement to rent the venue, it is implied that they can invite whoever they want into the event, including the photographer. It is generally understood that weddings are events which are extensively photographed for the bride and groom & their families and friends. The guests understand this and by being present give their consent to the photography.</p>

<p><em>What gives a photographer the right to use images of people and recognizable structures in their portfolio (which is a commercial use if you use the portfolio for commercial use, ie to attract new customers) without getting model and property releases?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Either written or verbal consent. I don't think the "recognizable structures" and "property releases" part is particularly relevant in most parts of the world or most venues, otherwise there might need to be a contract between the photographer and the venue that takes care of such issues.</p>

 

<p>@Richard.<br>

"A large proportion of my Cd's and records were originally recorded before consumer mp3 players became available, and some pre-date cassette recorders. In other words, the original artists were releasing their material with no expectation that consumers would be able to run off a second high quality copy to play in the car or in a portable player. When the technology changed that's exactly what we all did, of course, and without compensating the artists in any way. Yet we get terribly upset when someone suggests doing something similar with photographs."<br>

We also didn't know that our LP's would become obsolete. I think that I am entitled to continue to use my musicical recordings by transferring them to a different medium. I wouldn't mind paying a small fee for doing so - preferably directly to the artist. I can't see how there is anything similar in the argument about copying music to another medium and printing photographs. Except that printing photos from a website is a change of medium. These people do not own a reproduction of the images like I own a CD or LP. At least one hopes that in the case of music it is owned by the person doing the copying to another medium. I haven't bought an itunes player yet.<br>

Personally, I can listen to music on the radio and can listen to a complete recording. I could record that music to my hard disk recorder but would prefer in the case of music I liked to buy a CD and that is exactly what I do. I also buy stock photos for use on my websites.</p>

<p >It's been an interesting discussion with lots of good points raised. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the photographer. I've been to websites with fabulous images that cannot be downloaded. Other websites have watermarks to dissuade potential use. If you upload a great high-resolution picture that is attractive and desirable then it's fair game for download. That's the nature of media today and whilst higher intellects spend the next decade arguing the ethics and morality, your work will grace walls and digital frames around the world. You can either, lie awake and count the dollars fluttering out the window or let it go and move on. We live in a world in which the image is everything. Since the day the Hindenburgh crashed we have been mesmerized by photographs of every subject ranging from the iconic to the everyday. We can't restrict the images in our homes to a collection that reflects life through our own narrow viewfinder. We need to flood our vision with works from other photographers and other cultures to inspire and remind us of our place in the world. How else can we grow?</p>

<p>'I can't see how there is anything similar in the argument about copying music to another medium and printing photographs. Except that printing photos from a website is a change of medium. These people do not own a reproduction of the images like I own a CD or LP.'</p>

<p>I'm really not sure I see the distinction. In the case of an online image, you could say there's implicit permission to make a personal copy of the image to your PC (in the web browser's cache), but the photographer usually doesn't intend the viewer to make any other use of it. For a CD or LP, we own the physical object, but not the music on it, and the only permission we really have is to play it from the original medium. In both cases, we're only supposed to use the copyrighted material in a limited way. I also feel 'entitled' to transfer the music I've bought to a different medium, but I don't think there's any particular legal basis for this belief (especially in the UK). It's just that a public consensus has developed that this is 'OK', which is ahead of the curve defined by the law. If a similar consensus is developing about the personal use of copyrighted images, perhaps it's a little hypocritical of us to get too upset about it. What about a reversal of the original example, where (e.g.) someone scans a pro print (perhaps a wedding or school photo) they've paid for but don't own the copyright of, and uses it as their PC desktop wallpaper, or prints out a second copy for their wallet or desk at work? I know there are photographers who'd be outraged by this sort of behaviour, but I wonder if they'd give a second thought to ripping the CDs they 'own'.</p>

<p>Copyright means you have the right to say who copies it. That said, (NSFW): <a href="

 

<p>Has anyone ever tried this bit of software?<br>

<strong>Secure Image Pro 5.0</strong> <br /> The most portable image protection solution supported in all web browsers.<br /> Copy Protect images displayed on web pages<br /> <br /> Secure Image Pro is the recommended image protection for when you don't want<br /> to restrict your visitors to plug-in downloads before being able to view. Browser<br /> and software support is available for all platforms including Windows, Mac and<br /> Linux.<br /> <br /> * Image watermarking option<br /> * Slideshow and swap image for image or text effects (print protection)<br /> * Configuration wizard for setting properties of individual images<br /> * Image encryption for JPG, GIF, PNG and TIFF images<br /> * Domain locking of images to a designated web site<br /> * Batch processing for 1,000's of images at a time<br /> * Command line options for single file or batch conversions<br /> * File names optimized for automatic image sizing<br /> * Elevated runtime privileges for Java 1.6 and later<br /> * Image encryption software is supported across all platforms<br /> * Web page image viewer is supported across all web browsers<br /> <br /> <strong>Grab and spider protection</strong> <br /> <br /> Search engine spiders and web grab applications such Xenu, Teleport Pro and<br /> others can locate any file linked to your web pages. Some applications like Adobe<br /> Acrobat can download your entire web site and publish it as a book. However<br /> ArtistScope encrypted images while they may be downloadable, cannot be viewed<br /> unless displayed from your web site.<br /> <br /> <strong>No right mouse click</strong> <br /> <br /> Mouse clicking offers several options for saving or copying the page or image.<br /> Secure Image prevents right mouse click operations in several ways, depending on<br /> which applet style is used. If the standard display is used then visitor trying to right<br /> click on your image will be transported to the hyperlink that you nominate. If swap<br /> image or show text display options are used then all the visitor can do with their<br /> mouse is display the alternate message/image. They will not be able to mouse save<br /> any of the images. If no link is on the image they will find that a mouse cannot<br /> activate a menu from an ArtistScope security applet.<br /> <br /> <strong>Domain Lock</strong> <br /> <br /> Each registered site uses a unique key based on an algorithm of the domain name<br /> for the password to decrypt the image. The ArtistScope security applet checks the<br /> host that is displaying the web page to see if it matches your key before displaying<br /> the image. Domain Lock codes are not stored on the web site and therefore not<br /> retrievable by any process except by using an ArtistScope security applet. Instead<br /> Domain Lock keys are embedded into the encrypted images.<br /> <br /> <strong>Encryption</strong> <br /> <br /> The most important reason for using encrypted images is because they are<br /> protected after download by being irretrievable from the web browser's cache.<br /> Secure Image Pro encrypted images are most secure on the server and protected<br /> from distribution by your employees, webmaster and staff employed by your web<br /> host.<br /> <strong><br /> Browser support</strong> <br /> <br /> Secure Image supports all commonly used browsers on Windows, Linux and Mac<br /> computers. The software for encryption is also available for use on all platforms<br /> <br /> More info here: <a href="http://www.artistscope.com/secure_image.asp">http://www.artistscope.com/secure_image.asp</a> <br /> <br /> A partially functional demo is available at the Artiscope site.<br>

Cheers!<br>

BTW, I am in no way associated with Artiscope, or any of its employees, or distributors (if any).</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p >"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."</p>

<p >It seams pretty clear to me that printing for home personal use and enjoyment does not fall under that category.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >"Such as" is a term that implies a non-comprehensive list. The fact that something is not in the written list may not be used as evidence that it is not part of the category.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Has anyone ever tried this bit of software?<br /><strong >Secure Image Pro 5.0</strong> </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >It does not work. I can't post it here because it's an image I don't own, but there is a photo of a model with ridiculous gold sequined eyebrows on the Secure Image Pro web site that is a demo of their technology. I now have my own copy in a JPG file. Also, if I view it in Firefox and don't disable Adblock Plus the image doesn't display. And it requires Java.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Some of the more rabid elements of the US music industry would have you believe that CD ripping for personal use is equally illegal on your side of the pond.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >They are, fortunately, incorrect.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >These people do not own a reproduction of the images like I own a CD or LP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Of course they do. You gave it to them. You uploaded it to Flickr, hoping for people to view it on their computers. You are not an idiot and therefore understand that viewing a copy on their computer requires a copy to exist on their computer. A reasonable person can interpret your putting the photo on a public site as intent to put copies on the computers of various members of the public.</p>