posted a link? go to jail!
Sep. 7th, 2005 05:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
109can people really be that stupid? this guy thinks that linking to his publicly available images is a violation of copyright. even worse actually, he decided not to use livejournal anymore because of that! which is sad, since his photos are really good.
see great photos at http://imageevent.com/edbook
see great photos at http://imageevent.com/edbook
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-08 03:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-08 03:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-08 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-10 06:42 pm (UTC)may you have peace in your heart
bye
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-11 03:51 am (UTC)please understand: these guys didn't steal your photographs as you claim in your posting and they didn't "post the actual photographs", they used a public link to the publicly available photographs located on the public server. they didn't make available something that you didn't want to make available. that of course would be wrong. they only have drawn attention of their friends to whatever you made publicly available yourself.
it was your decision - and yours alone, no matter how good was your understanding of what you were doing at the time. if you want to remove public access to these photographs, you should do just that, instead of going all american by blaming others for your own cluelessness.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-11 09:47 am (UTC)Peace
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-11 05:31 pm (UTC)Anybody interested in more images like this or in the authorship could look at image properties (two mouse clicks), and take "imageevent.com/edbook" part of it (two more mouse clicks). It is very simple and I am sure the vast majority of internet users can do it.
And if somebody wasn't interested, it doesn't matter if authorship was there or not.
Finally, one of two posts was a direct link to your livejournal, so you can't even say the maker was not identified.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-13 04:06 pm (UTC)If a magazine uses a photograph without giving the copyright owner credit it is because they have compensated the owner extra as a right they have purchased. There is a different price for publishing uncredited images vice credited images. It is something in every contract I make for publication and general practice in the publishing industry.
Having to make various mouse clicks to identify the source of an image is not an option for all browsers without having to look at the page source.
For the two images in question, the alt text for the images containing the copyright information which was obvious when the image hosting location was copied when looking at the image properties and in both cases it was stripped away.
When an image itself appears on a website it is not merely a link to the image but a copying of the image itself as evidenced by bandwidth use. The hosting location as well as the place the image was seen both have copyright information and use requirements. These two instances were clearly in violation of the image owners copyright. My copyright information was clearly indicated and was clearly violated. (so says my copyright advisor who has successfully represented me in other copyright disputes both internet and print)
source of my information: http://www.copyright.gov
My decision whether I delete my journal or stop posting images is not because of the copyright abuses because I am taking action on them but because of the unethical practices by some in this forum. I make my livelihood by my full-time photography business in which I do not have an internet presense. My work is distributed via stock agencies and by my direct contact with my customers by my own solicitation as it has been full-time for the past nine years and many years part time before that.
Because of a dyslexia and compensation by visual imageing in my mind, I communicate most effectively by use of pictural images and have chosen to do so in my personal journal. I use my own copyrighted work in my journal communications. As stated in my user information, my journal is not for my commercial use. LJers that buy my images do not pay my retail or wholesale prices but instead pay expenses without profit to me. My LJ exposure does not bring customers. I do however refer those that I personally contact to my journal and I cannot expect them to have to have an LJ account and be on my friends list to see my protected posts. That is the reason a large part of the visual posts in my journal are public.
Yes, it is easy to copy and repost images without permission and it may be a common practice in some circles, but that fact neither makes it ethical or legal.
Peace
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-13 08:33 pm (UTC)no, it's incorrect. it is so rare when the presenter and the maker is the same person, that nobody would assume it.
This in effect is copyright infringement which is stealing.
well, you repeated it many times. but yet you didn't present any proof of it. do you really think asserting something repeatedly replaces the need for proof?
the word "copyright" means a right to copy. there was no copying. end of story. how is it can be clearer than that?
When an image itself appears on a website it is not merely a link to the image but a copying of the image itself as evidenced by bandwidth use
no, it is not. your image wasn't copied to any other host. the bandwith was consumed because browsers of LJ users have requested it from your server where the image was made public, which means that you granted permission to everybody to request this image. abovementioned LJ users include both readers of your journal and readers of those people you unjustly accused. there is absolutely no difference between these two groups of users in their right to access the image on your server. both of them used bandwidth with your permission.
it seems like either you have no idea how world wide web works, or you intentionally making it look like it. in the first case, it's useless to continue this discussion until you understand the basics. in the second case, it's useless to continue this discussion at all. at least until you understand there were no copying involved.
Yes, it is easy to copy and repost images without permission and it may be a common practice in some circles, but that fact neither makes it ethical or legal.
some circles not only understand the difference between ethical and legal, but also understand the difference between copying digital copyrighted content and linking to the original.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-13 08:46 pm (UTC)Peace
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-13 09:30 pm (UTC)inline linking is a very controversial and hot topic, and I sorry to say that, but I don't think your understanding of internet is deep enough to allow you to make an informed decision.
anyway, it seems like american judicial system is slowly turning around now, and more and more cases, where plaintiff demanded retributions for linking to it's public resources, are getting dropped/dismissed. that's a good sign, I would definitely not want to live in the future where I can be prosecuted for making a link.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-14 08:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-14 02:56 pm (UTC)"Everyone is doing it"
"Its really common, thus I'll do it too"
Regardless of this, its common courtesy if one is posting someone else's pictures to give credit. Its trivially simple to do. Thats all there is to it, and whether or not you personally disagree with copyright law is irrelevant in the big picture (ha), it still applies at this point in time.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-14 04:12 pm (UTC)it not even close to my thinking and doing. and as I said before many times, I absolutely agree that not giving credit to the maker is wrong from the ethical perspective.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-14 04:32 pm (UTC)Nobody? I beg to differ...
Why do you think cam girl photos get stolen so often? ... because people present the photos hoping that people will mistake that photo/girl as their own/themself.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-14 04:48 pm (UTC)Peace
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-14 05:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-22 05:57 pm (UTC)