"When is sharing stealing?"

[john_h.1]

<p>http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/23/6703177-that-famous-space-shuttle-photo-when-is-sharing-stealing</p>

[mbevel]

<p>In the oatmeal vs funyjunk case you posted, I'm not sure "sharing" is the proper word. If someone wanted to share what they think is a funny comic, the more proper way would be to include a small thumbnail and a link back to the original source. Funnyjunk is merely allowing their users to post other people's work and then sit back and make advertising revenue off of someone else's creativity. It's even worse when they don't even properly credit the original source.</p>

<p>More generally, I take a fairly conservative view of "sharing." If you take something that someone else creates and unilaterally decide to "share" it with the rest of the world, you have in fact stolen opportunities from it's creator. I'm listening to Moby's newest album right now - if I decided to upload it so other people can download it for free, I've taken control away from Moby and decreased his ability to recoup the cost of putting the record together - not that different from what funnyjunk is doing to the creators of the comics it posts.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Do you mean "sharing" like what happened with the owners of Facebook ?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>"When is sharing stealing?"</p>

<p>Apparently when the image is casually uploaded to a server without the snap-shooter fully reading, remembering and/or being aware of TwitPik's terms of use agreement stated in that article.</p>

<p>That concerns me more than anything. Here's the quote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Meanwhile, retaining copyright doesn't mean retaining all rights. A particularly vexing problem facing users of services like Twitpic involves the ever-changing fine print in the sites' terms of service agreements. Both Gordon and Krum used Twitpic to share their photos. Currently, Twitpics' terms of service informs users that the firm has the right to resell any images loaded by original rights holders onto its servers. In other words, Gordon has the right to sell her Space Shuttle picture, but TwitPic does now, too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very good find, John. Thanks very much for that interesting article. I've saved it to PDF.</p>

<p>The internet is growing and creating the potential for more and more interesting opportunities suggested in that article. Depending on the impact and importance of any situation that is disseminated and orchestrated throughout the internet and gains enough momentum-"Going Viral" anyone has the opportunity of becoming a consultant on any given topic.</p>

<p>You may start out as an amateur photographer taking a quick snap of an event and suddenly make life changing contacts with others who would've never have given you the time of day before.</p>

<p>An interesting, unintentional dynamic. I'm sure lawyers and other smarter and more well connected folks are drooling over its potential.</p>

[richardsperry]

"I'm sure lawyers and other smarter and more well connected folks are drooling over its potential"

 

The potential to make a buck off someone else's work.

 

"I'm listening to Moby's newest album right now - if I decided to upload it so other people can download it for free, I've

taken control away from Moby and decreased his ability to recoup the cost of putting the record together"

 

It would be analogous if Moby shared his album to the world, to everyone. Then got bent when you shared it with

someone else.

Additionally, the cost of putting together an album is inconsequential compared with the artificial, unneeded, and

obsolete distribution costs. Copyright law is founded on the ideal that the artist and inventor be paid for their work.

Middlemen and salesmen are merely unnecessary trolls collecting tolls at an unnecessary bridge, in this Internet age.

 

An image today does not need AP, Time, or Newsweek to distribute it to the masses, at relative exorbitant cost. It can

be distributed virtually free. As this case shows. She shared the image with thousands of people in a very short time,

with no publication or distribution cost.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Yeah, but what about compensation with respect to intellectual property concerns aside from creation, processing and distribution costs?</p>

<p>I do think the woman or anyone taking a snap shot of an important event or subject should be compensated for having the intelligence for deciding to take the shot at the right time. That's worth something.</p>

<p>Another aspect of this viral dynamic trumping copyright concerns is these "Wacked Out" or "World's Most Daring" type videos on TruTV showing a lot of amateurs participating and/or taking footage or snap shots of some dangerous behavior.</p>

<p>The person shooting the guy who wipes out on his motorcycle or skateboard trying to jump over dangerous obstacles is the owner of such content with copyright protection, but what does that say about the rights of the guy who wiped out? Quite a few of these videos I'm sure are found by media content purchasers scouring the web and paying good money for licensing and usage rights.</p>

<p>My concern about this type of exploitation (and I believe this woman shooting the shuttle sort of fits into this), is that it makes more and more folks adjusting behavior and/or making decisions, creating or searching out situations they wouldn't have before knowing now when they see or "create" one of these types of important/entertaining societal type events, they know some media content buyer and/or lawyer is going to be seeking them out. </p>

<p>For instance anybody minding their own business walking down the street could be let's say punched in the head by some dude who does it in a way that makes it look like an accident where the folks setting up the video along with the dude doing the punching thinks the act is worth more for its viral aspect over going to jail and having civil charges brought against them. </p>

<p>IOW everyone is becoming more self aware that any aspect of their life like a simple confrontation out in public can be induced into turning bad when it wouldn't have before because of the potential for it going viral. The "stealing" or passing around of such content without copyright infringement concerns takes a back seat in all this because of this. They want it stolen so it gets attention and fast distribution that wouldn't have due to its tasteless content until the media content buyers find out through public buzz on the web.</p>

<p>This seems to need a whole other copyright law category devoted to this as well as a law category for content created by criminal mischief and the price that needs to paid for that.</p>