I ended up in rather a heated debate on another blog recently. Here’s part of the post that caused me to lose my rag:
“I haven’t had the chance to go out taking photos today, but I found a great picture on the Internet (which I stole from Getty Images).”
It was such a brazen admission of theft! Link to the blog post. (scroll down to see the comments)
Anyway, the blog owner replied to my ill-tempered comment with a carefully reasoned argument that anything on the internet is there for the taking. I gave it a little consideration, and perhaps its not quite as clear-cut as I first thought. What do other bloggers and photographers think?
I’m interested to hear other people’s opinion. I put lots of watermarked stuff up on the internet in the knowledge that people might take it. It’s free publicity as far as I am concerned. Even better if people link to my site. I wouldn’t be so happy if someone pinched a photo without even a credit though.
Red card to photo theft!
Hello again…
I’m glad you’ve thrown this debate open to the public (I’ll admit I was thinking of doing the same thing, but you’ve done a good job so I’ll leave it with you!).
Words are much more more important to me than photos (just my personal take on things), so I’ll talk about words too. If I wrote a poem, or even just a piece of text, and someone stole it with no credit or link, I wouldn’t be happy. Most likely I would contact that person and ask them to take it down. That is, if I ever found out about it… The internet is such a vast creature… How can we possibly know who is taking what from where or who?
I’m not saying that makes it ok. Not at all. But I think we agree on one point: if you put something on the internet, you have to expect that it might be stolen.
What an interesting world we live in today! ;)
Hiya Tony–
I think that she did what was required when using photos that were not her own– she gave a photo credit for the source. The internet is a fluid place, and like you watermark your photos, and others block photos from being downloaded, there are ways to limit others’ uses of your photos.
Otherwise, when one can just right-click and download an image, it’s naive to think that one won’t. (You aren’t naive, so you watermark.) Placing images on the web without setting limits on their distribution is tacit agreement for the images’ distribution.
That said, what IS wrong is to claim another’s work– photos, words, or otherwise– as your own. That’s plagiarism, which is another word for theft.
An acknowledgment of source is required, which is what haikugirl did, if in an overly casual way.
Haikugirl writes: “if you put something on the internet, you have to expect that it might be stolen.” But that is like saying that if you have a big-screen TV in your house, you should expect it to be stolen, since someone could see it through your window. Just because I can see your work, does that give me the right to take it? No. Copyright law is just that — a law, and it is legally enforced.
If you want free images there are plenty of places on the net that you can get free images. Images under creative commons license for example. There are free stock photo sites. Getty is certainly NOT one of those. The reason people use images from agencies like Getty, to use the present example, is because their photographers produce high-quality work. They get compensated accordingly. That is why there are professional photographer who can feed themselves by selling their work.
I don’t see how one can even attempt to convincingly justify using copyright imagery without the consent of the artist. At the end of the day it is theft. When is stealing photos OK? Never.
There’s obviously a stark divergence of opinion between the producers and consumers of copyright material. As Michael points out, the internet is a threat to photographers. If people don’t pay for their product, at some point they wont be able to afford to produce it.
Having said that, the actual value of a photo on the internet is so small that the situation is a quite different to say music. Some agencies like Getty sell photos for web use but the payment is absolutely miniscule. The “problem” photographers have with the internet isn’t really people pinching their photos, it is vast internet stock sites causing photo stock prices to plummet.
As far as I’m concerned the marketing advantages of the internet far outway the copyright problems. I don’t mind people using the photos I put online as long as they credit me and hopefully link to my blog. There’s a quid pro quo there. But I think there’s a difference between that and what haiku girl did. In this case I doubt that the photographer, or Getty, wanted their photos to be stolen – or got anything in return when she did.
Anyway, I really have to put something on my site explaining exactly how people can use my photos.
Interesting topic! I agree that if you put an image online, you have to accept the fact that it might be stolen, but that reasoning does not give anyone the right to steal the image. In the US there are pretty set rules about this, but then again, most Americans have no clue what those rules are. (http://copyright.gov/)
I do digital work and most of the designs are custom ordered for tattoos. Unfortunately almost all tattoos are done from images stolen online without a second thought. Disabling right-clicking and adding watermarks changes nothing, they will work around it. I still add watermarks to my designs though, because I have had people print & sell my work before, claiming they didn’t know where the design came from (which is no excuse).
Of course, I am only talking about someone taking your work and trying to sell it as their own. I don’t care if people want to use my image in their blog, as long as I get credit, that is just free advertising in my eyes. Using an image for something personal can be a gray area, but is generally fine with artists since the person is not making money off of it (though I think taking a custom ordered tattoo and using the design yourself is basically taking money from the artist and therefore crossing the line).
The famous photographer Scott Bourne says he makes more money from suing peoples who steal his images than from the ones he sells it . And the dude is rich !
He has a made in a house software that finds a copyright infringement in minutes after the photo is online .Then he sends an e-mail asking for the fair payment in 48 hours . If Scott’s lawyers doesn’t get a answer in the 48 hrs . All communications are cut and next step is court . Btw he registers ALL his images .
He also says ” if someone uses my photo without asking i take as the person broke in my house or my front yard and stole something”. He gives a lot stuff for free as well .
Use a photo of mine without asking is theft . You my be caught or not but still theft .
And isn’t just because the money ! Is the lack of respect for my time , work and art .
If you leave you car door open and leave your wallet full of money on a dashboard , if someone takes it , It still a crime ?
Yes !!!!!!!!!
The same rule is for photos on the internet !
Just because is easier to steal it ! Doesn’t make it legal .
Just my 2 cents .