NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess when you're a skilled photographer, major ad campaigns are a huge deal to be part of.

http://news.deviantart.com/article/46350/

.. in multiple ways.

This happens all the time, and now they're trying to make it legal by screwing up copyright laws.

Good thing she's suing.

yea, I hope she gets every cent they owe her.

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605

I'd pick other for using a pillow to strangle those damned bastards while they sleep.

This happens all the time, and now they're trying to make it legal by screwing up copyright laws.

Explain please

Explain pleaseI posted a link to an article about it. Sites like deviantart are in danger of becoming obsolete for people who want credit for their work.

*wonders how many people are outraged over this but at the same time believe downloading music without the artists consent is perfectly fine*

*agrees*

However, this is a David Vs Goliath and people care more about the "little guy".

Most people don't have a problem ripping of Warner Bros, Sony, et cetera et cetera.

The art was already available for free downloading on deviantart. Using the art IN AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN isn't the same as downloading it. Nobody downloads metallica illegally and uses it for a car commercial without getting permission. And if they did, nobody except metallica would care, because they're already filthy rich.

*wonders how many people are outraged over this but at the same time believe downloading music without the artists consent is perfectly fine*

So using someone's work and claiming that it's your own is the same as downloading music?

I don't think so.

So using someone's work and claiming that it's your own is the same as downloading music?

I don't think so.

But distributing an image without the artists consent is quite similar to distributing a song without the artists consent.

The artist put their work on deviantart, and so they already consented to have it distributed to anyone they wanted. The problem is that somebody used their art as part of a major advertising campaign. Nobody EVER does that with music. People steal art and use it to their own ends a lot.

Deviantartists don't put their art on cds and sell them. If they did, nobody would buy it. People simply don't respect art as much as they respect music.

But distributing an image without the artists consent is quite similar to distributing a song without the artists consent.

Winning a major ad campaign contest, that will be reproduced and published internationally, with a stolen photo, is nothing like downloading your favourite Beatles mp3. Now, if you illegally downloaded that mp3, put it on your band's cd as your own work, and publicised it as your own work, then you might have a point.

But you clearly aren't arguing that, now are you?

Winning a major ad campaign contest, that will be reproduced and published internationally, with a stolen photo, is nothing like downloading your favourite Beatles mp3. Now, if you illegally downloaded that mp3, put it on your band's cd as your own work, and publicised it as your own work, then you might have a point.

But you clearly aren't arguing that, now are you?

Nope. I am arguing the *other* part. There are three issues here:
1. Passing off someone elses work as your own
2. Using someones work without their permission
3. Distributing someones work without their permission

You focus on 1 and 2. I focus on 2 and 3.

I imagine a potential way of knocking out most of the possible market in legally pirated pictures would be for each image sharing site to create its own registry, in which all uploaded pictures would be registered free of charge.

One could also set up a system in which the binary of each picture is analysed as it's uploaded - if it matches any other image, the image is deleted when the upload concludes and the user is given a warning.

its odd how far pictures of young boys will spread :p

that's particularly shitty. i've had photos stolen (as in not been paid or given credit) by other organisations, magazines, newspapers and websites (edit: and books, grr), but nobody's ever pretended it was their own/signed it :eek:

though i'm really surprised a 800x600 image was used by the mag. works fine on a low dpi newspaper, but on a gloss magazine, over two pages, surely it would look pretty shite? unless it was 800x600 @ >300 ppi maybe?

Wow. That sucks incredibly much. Imagine you're a "hobby" photographer and your pic actually gets picked up by a global advertising campaign, printed in magazines, put on billboards all over the world - and all under someone else's name.


though i'm really surprised a 800x600 image was used by the mag. works fine on a low dpi newspaper, but on a gloss magazine, over two pages, surely it would look pretty shite? unless it was 800x600 @ >300 ppi maybe?
I was wondering about that - but in the links in the story the pics look good, even the ones on giant posters.

I hope esens sues the hell out of faust.

That's awful.

Nope. I am arguing the *other* part.

You argue something nobody is talking about. I wouldn't give a damn if Lee employees "stole" this picture by printing it and putting it on the walls of their cubicles. Neither would anyone else in this thread, and most likely not the photographer either.

What angers people is that it was used commercially. Nothing else. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find music downloaders who feel it's OK to burn CDs and sell them. There is no inconsistency to find here.

You argue something nobody is talking about. I wouldn't give a damn if Lee employees "stole" this picture by printing it and putting it on the walls of their cubicles. Neither would anyone else in this thread, and most likely not the photographer either.

What angers people is that it was used commercially. Nothing else. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find music downloaders who feel it's OK to burn CDs and sell them. There is no inconsistency to find here.

I agree entirely. I'd be thrilled if people ever used my photos as wallpaper on their computers, printed it out and hung it up, or whatever. I'd be enraged to have someone claim one of my photos was theirs and then make money off it.

Nope. I am arguing the *other* part. There are three issues here:
1. Passing off someone elses work as your own
2. Using someones work without their permission
3. Distributing someones work without their permission
And it is number 1 that we find objectionable. Considering that the author had uploaded it to dA, I take it that she knows that 2&3 will happen. Hell, I'd be happy if 2&3 happens to my pix, as long as they give me the appropriate credit, y'know

The art was already available for free downloading on deviantart. Using the art IN AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN isn't the same as downloading it. Nobody downloads metallica illegally and uses it for a car commercial without getting permission. And if they did, nobody except metallica would care, because they're already filthy rich.

No, it was on DA, but not necessarily available for free downloading and use. Besides, due to this wonderful thing called Creative Commons, I can say "This is mine. You can use it non-commercially without asking, as long as whatever you produce with it is also non-commercial, and you attribute me. All else is forbidden." That's the rules for the stuff I have on DA.

So if you want to download it, go for it. If you want to do a bunch of image transforms on it and load it up yourself, go for it, as long as you don't sell it and remember to credit me for the base image. But if you take it and use it commercially, you've broken the rules.

And no, I don't pirate music. Nor do I buy it. I listen to independent stuff, avoid the big labels, etc. I don't see how listening to the same crap for free is any better, so I listen to good stuff that the artists give away, and work out something else to do for them.