copyright

And there is the problem, you have just made theft acceptable, so where does it stop?

As I said in a post above, the problem is that there is no physical item being stolen, something with an intrinsic value. Digital files are easily, remotely copied, effectively for free. Hard copies would have to be physically stolen.

You say that digital theft of your items is perfectly fine, but if that thief walked through your open back door and took your photographs is that OK? As you say, if someone steals your image, you still have it, so where would you draw the line?

It's a slippery slope, but it's clear that there are plenty of photographers who see no value in their images and as a consequence see nothing wrong with anyone else using them as they wish.

I don't know if this means that they themselves would happily use any image they could find without a worry about it, or whether they would pause and think it wasn't right.

This is probably a consequence of digital imaging being so widespread that it has devalued the single image. If everyone thinks an image has no value then it will have no value and it will become very difficult to make a living out of making images.

Fortunately the saving grace will be that some photographers truly have skills and can deliver the requirements of buyers who need high quality. These photographers will not want to have their images stolen without fees being paid, so they will protect them as well as they can.

This is not too much unlike having on the one hand a cheap piece of jewellery that you quite happily leave lying on the kitchen table with the back door unlocked. No-one will want it or steal it. If it's valuable, you put it out of sight and lock the door.

We can't put our images out of sight of course, but we can lock the door....

There seems to be a trend in various forums, for people to use famous portrait photographs, as their own avatar. Should the original photographer receive a fee for everytime their image is posted in this way?

Surely this forum should protect the rights of the original photographer.

A question to address in a Report if you're worried about that Graham. What you highlight of course is that as soon as anyone makes an argument or makes a rule, there is huge potential for "rules lawyers" to pick at it and find any loophole or inconsistency that they can. This often leads to bickering unfortunately.

We have had some AD&D players who were dreadful in that respect - a nightmare that would reduce a playing session to chaos if the DM was not firm enough to contain it.

The point I was trying to make was that some posters on this forum may be using avatars that are stolen. I know that it is only meant for fun, but as keen photographers we should not do this.

I would suggest that the Forum rules should stop the use of possible copyright infringement avatars. If indeed they already don't.

Anything that anyone posts on here (as opposed to providing a link) they should have permission to use. Nobody approves of copyright infringement.

It's up to the individuals to make sure that they do indeed have copyright or permission and I've no doubt it is covered in the Terms of Use that we all agreed to when we signed up to the forum.

Whilst I agree that theft is always unacceptable, I would argue that using a publicity shot which is in the public domain is not theft so long as it is not used for commercial gain.

Well, perhaps you should read it again, and not impute meanings to it that are not there.

I don't condone theft for one moment, and your camera analogy is totally flawed, as another poster has already pointed out.

G

This thread has reminded me of the time I had the honour to meet and work with Grace Robertson link

She must haved been in her seventies and came out of Covent Garden tube station to see a poster seller on the pavement selling pirated copies of her work. She marched into an adjacent florists and asked for two buckets of water and destroyed the poster seller's stock. I wouldn't have been so subtle

No, I am not even close of feeling offended ! I do not see any reason for that

I just am not aware of how "sure" flickr is. I have no idea how easy it is to get the pics without permission. ( Never tried )
I understand, that for a proffessionals there are much more problems.
I think (hope) that my photos are not so outstanding to catch the eye of pirates. Just simple downloads are prevented and those who steal systematically and make money of it - maybe they find "better" objects.
Poor "better" photographers !

This forum is much more unsure - anyone can download from gallery or YourPhotos without any problem.
At the moment the fun and knowledge I get from here is greater than the fear of sb using my pics.

But I would be defenetly not in good mood, when I find sb making money with my photo !!! Or showing it as his/her own !

John

Just displaying my ignorance - AD&D ? DM?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Dungeon Master

I wondered who would be the first to ask!

John, I'm glad you told us. There was me thinking it was something to do with your activities at Atherton and District.

That comment bemused me for a moment Graham, because I had assumed your avatar was an old image of my favourite comedian, Vic Reeves!

Leaving aside the particular terms and conditions of Pentax User, I can't see how photographers could possibly demand a fee for the use of their images in this way, unless the avatar was somehow connected to a user who was involved in commercial activity which benefitted from the use of the image. Of course they might reasonably expect a request for permission, but I think they'd probably rather not be dealing with hundreds of such requests. This is an example of a very peripheral harmless activity which would come under 'fair use' in the USA's DMCA law:

It is not totally flawed. Theft is theft. My objection is to someone taking and using, without my permission, something that is mine. If they came back later and replaced my camera, I would feel the same.

But what about my Photoshop analogy? Is that OK? Adobe still have copies, after all.

I make cartoons in my spare time. They are hard work and I've won a few awards with them. Every now and again, I get an email pointing out that they are appearing on someone else's site. These people invariably pass them off as their own work - sometimes explicitly, sometime by lack of attribution.

I have lost no money and I still have my copy of the cartoon. But for some reason, I object, even if others would not..