I have yet to see any insults or name calling in this entire comment section of this story. So not sure where that is coming from. And you have been getting real response.
Yes, Mike is ok with you copying his content, putting it on your own site and running ads next to it. He has said so on many different occassions.
And yes, it's about protecting culture, democracy, and liberty.
Culture, because by locking everything up with insane copyright levies and royalties will make sure that at some point no-one will want to use our current culture to build other stuff on (Yes, in the olden days, artists built upon works of others).
Democracy, ACTA is a highly undemocratic document. It's being forced from above to us, we, the people never got any say in it.
And liberty, if you can get booted of the internet from just 3 accusations (mind you, no convictions, nor any need for proof, just an accusation is enough), that's a violation of my basic right of liberty on the Internet.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, and has been all these years, and ACTA won't change that. But it will change the world in many unprecedented ways, that will harm YOUR basic rights. Whether you downloaded MP3s off of bittorrent or not. It just takes 1 a-hole with enough technical knowhow to get YOU booted of the web for good. (IP-addresses and MAC-addresses can be spoofed quiet easily)
Besides all that, ACTA is being written by a bunch of hypocrits. Because a lot of the people in the industry and those who support ACTA have infringed on copyrights themselves. There is proof about this on this very website and in other media.
If you say "No I don't want it" and you still get it... that would kinda defeat the purpose for me, and I won't trust the "turn me off" link in that case. They already disrespected my wishes, why would this link be any different?
I recently listened to a podcast from an author I thought 'got it' (Tracy Hickman in his podcast called The Dragonhearth), on this subject. But he started confusing the price of an e-book with the value of an e-book.
To which I'd like to say, if I pay 1$ for a digital copy of bible, does that mean that the value of that book is low?
As for the people over at Istockphoto calling us idiots. They still talk about copyright infringement as theft, when CLEARLY no property has been taken, and in fact it had added value to their pictures. So they must be very shortsighted.
The worst thing you, as an artist, can have, is obscurity.
If you don't want anyone to showcase your work, even if they do it for free, then what do you expect the end result is?
What is better little to no sales, or a few extra sales through added exposure?
I know what I'd choose.
I would be thrilled if they'd take my Flickr pictures and mocked them in similar fashion. I could learn from it.
"Isn't the point that the photograph is his property and it is his decision about rather to donate it or not."
It's free publicity. And if you read the article, he was in talks with Apple about them using his photograph. It hadn't been signed yet, but clearly he hadn't shown disinterest in Apple using his creative work on their Ipads. Otherwise there wouldn't have been talks in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: They signed with Atlantic last week.
"It isn't like record companies were plucking random people off the street to see if they had talent."
erm. What about XYZ Idol, XYZ got talent, Popstars, So you think you can dance, and all those other audition-type tv-shows?
Random people basically plucked from the street (because I can't believe that that many delusional people would sign up), to see which one's got 'talent' to offer them a contract...
"It was several more years before Amazon provided a DRM free reasonably priced alternative for everyone else."
Everyone else, except those outside the US borders.
Istockphoto adds a large watermark on their photos.
Partly to protect misuse of the photo and presumably also to advertise where the image came from, otherwise a white cross or some other watermark would be enough to prevent people from grabbing the image without paying, and they wouldn't need to add the advertisement "Istockphoto.com" on there.
So why do they object, when people use the watermarked image to drive customers their way? I simply don't get it, unless they just objected to the awkwardness of the photos in question. But then Istockphoto is acting in a childish way.
BTW, this bullish reaction from Istockphoto will make sure that I will never put my photos on their website ever, nor will I buy a photo from their website. Even if they'd offer it for free.
In that case, why did istockphoto threaten to sue the website in question, why not send them an email asking them if they'd kindly use a thumbnail instead?
It can be done civilly, without resorting to legal nastygrams and threats.
Incidentally without using the images, the site doesn't really have a point, now does it?
post 1: oh look at this funny picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 2: oh look at this embarrassing picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 3: oh look at this funny picture over at whateverelseforstockphotositesyouhave.something.
BTW, I'm almost 100% sure that this nastygram wasn't sent because of copyright violation, but because of the embarrassing nature of a number of those photos. Embarrassing to istockphoto.
The photos on the stock photo sites are there as advertisement for the sale of said photos...
The page is not a "work", that would be a perversion of the copyright law.
The photo is the work.
And if they didn't hotlink the picture, but instead host it themselves, the site'd cry foul as well, as that would be a copyright infringement.
This was CLEARLY fair use.
Otherwise even sites like Kelkoo would be illegal under current copyright laws. As they use pictures to show the products that are on sale on another site.
All this site did was point out awkward photos that can be found on stock photo sites. While keeping the pictures completely intact, including the original watermarks and giving links to the pictures on the original site.
You can try to pervert the copyright law all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true. If it was a TRUE copyright violation, Istockphoto would not have needed the DMCA to hit the site with.
So by your definition, if I talk about a product favourably to my friends, show it to them, show all its features and then encourage my friends to buy that product, I could get sued by the company that makes that product, for driving traffic to their products? WTF!
Remind me never again to write a review of a product on Amazon!
Have you ever heard of "word-of-mouth promotion"?
I consider this site to be large-scale word-of-mouth promotion of these photos, and I'm sure the photographers were glad for the extra money they received from this site.
Don't forget the worst kind of attention you can get is 'no attention'. The biggest problem for the photographers on iStockphoto is obscurity and not this free promotion.
On the post: Ubisoft DRM Gets Worse And Worse: Kicks You Out Of Game If You Have A Flakey WiFi Connection
Re: Re: Re:
You must be on crack if you buy any Ubisoft games.
On the post: Debunking Reasons For ACTA Secrecy: Just Enforcement Doesn't Tell The Whole Story
Re:
Yes, Mike is ok with you copying his content, putting it on your own site and running ads next to it. He has said so on many different occassions.
And yes, it's about protecting culture, democracy, and liberty.
Culture, because by locking everything up with insane copyright levies and royalties will make sure that at some point no-one will want to use our current culture to build other stuff on (Yes, in the olden days, artists built upon works of others).
Democracy, ACTA is a highly undemocratic document. It's being forced from above to us, we, the people never got any say in it.
And liberty, if you can get booted of the internet from just 3 accusations (mind you, no convictions, nor any need for proof, just an accusation is enough), that's a violation of my basic right of liberty on the Internet.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, and has been all these years, and ACTA won't change that. But it will change the world in many unprecedented ways, that will harm YOUR basic rights. Whether you downloaded MP3s off of bittorrent or not. It just takes 1 a-hole with enough technical knowhow to get YOU booted of the web for good. (IP-addresses and MAC-addresses can be spoofed quiet easily)
Besides all that, ACTA is being written by a bunch of hypocrits. Because a lot of the people in the industry and those who support ACTA have infringed on copyrights themselves. There is proof about this on this very website and in other media.
On the post: Missed Use Case? Google Buzz Reveals Who You Chat With The Most To Everyone
Re: Re:
On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books
To which I'd like to say, if I pay 1$ for a digital copy of bible, does that mean that the value of that book is low?
On the post: Blockbuster Blames 'Piracy' Rather Than Bad Strategy For Bankruptcy In Portugal
Re:
On the post: Missed Use Case? Google Buzz Reveals Who You Chat With The Most To Everyone
On the post: Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'
Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
On the post: NBC Continues To Do The Exact Wrong Thing When It Comes To The Olympics Online
Sigh, these suits will never get it. I hope the media industry dies off and quickly.
On the post: Photographer Thrilled That Apple Using His Photo As Default iPad Background, Despite No Official Agreement
The worst thing you, as an artist, can have, is obscurity.
If you don't want anyone to showcase your work, even if they do it for free, then what do you expect the end result is?
What is better little to no sales, or a few extra sales through added exposure?
I know what I'd choose.
I would be thrilled if they'd take my Flickr pictures and mocked them in similar fashion. I could learn from it.
On the post: Photographer Thrilled That Apple Using His Photo As Default iPad Background, Despite No Official Agreement
Re:
It's free publicity. And if you read the article, he was in talks with Apple about them using his photograph. It hadn't been signed yet, but clearly he hadn't shown disinterest in Apple using his creative work on their Ipads. Otherwise there wouldn't have been talks in the first place.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re: Re: Re: Re: They signed with Atlantic last week.
erm. What about XYZ Idol, XYZ got talent, Popstars, So you think you can dance, and all those other audition-type tv-shows?
Random people basically plucked from the street (because I can't believe that that many delusional people would sign up), to see which one's got 'talent' to offer them a contract...
On the post: PayPal Suspends Payments In India?
Re:
Well there is Moneybookers that's globally available, that might work as a competitor to Paypal. But that one isn't without scandal/problems either.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re:
Everyone else, except those outside the US borders.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
I just thought of something
Partly to protect misuse of the photo and presumably also to advertise where the image came from, otherwise a white cross or some other watermark would be enough to prevent people from grabbing the image without paying, and they wouldn't need to add the advertisement "Istockphoto.com" on there.
So why do they object, when people use the watermarked image to drive customers their way? I simply don't get it, unless they just objected to the awkwardness of the photos in question. But then Istockphoto is acting in a childish way.
BTW, this bullish reaction from Istockphoto will make sure that I will never put my photos on their website ever, nor will I buy a photo from their website. Even if they'd offer it for free.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Stealing or sharing?
Now if you put a photo up somewhere, with a watermark in it, and I show it with attribution to you. How is that any different?
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: it's getty images, what did you expect?
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re:
It can be done civilly, without resorting to legal nastygrams and threats.
Incidentally without using the images, the site doesn't really have a point, now does it?
post 1: oh look at this funny picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 2: oh look at this embarrassing picture over at istockphoto.com.
post 3: oh look at this funny picture over at whateverelseforstockphotositesyouhave.something.
BTW, I'm almost 100% sure that this nastygram wasn't sent because of copyright violation, but because of the embarrassing nature of a number of those photos. Embarrassing to istockphoto.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The page is not a "work", that would be a perversion of the copyright law.
The photo is the work.
And if they didn't hotlink the picture, but instead host it themselves, the site'd cry foul as well, as that would be a copyright infringement.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Otherwise even sites like Kelkoo would be illegal under current copyright laws. As they use pictures to show the products that are on sale on another site.
All this site did was point out awkward photos that can be found on stock photo sites. While keeping the pictures completely intact, including the original watermarks and giving links to the pictures on the original site.
You can try to pervert the copyright law all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true. If it was a TRUE copyright violation, Istockphoto would not have needed the DMCA to hit the site with.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re:
Remind me never again to write a review of a product on Amazon!
Have you ever heard of "word-of-mouth promotion"?
I consider this site to be large-scale word-of-mouth promotion of these photos, and I'm sure the photographers were glad for the extra money they received from this site.
Don't forget the worst kind of attention you can get is 'no attention'. The biggest problem for the photographers on iStockphoto is obscurity and not this free promotion.
Next >>