So Your Company Has Been Found Using Alex’s Photographs Without Permission(myrmecos.net)
myrmecos.net
So Your Company Has Been Found Using Alex’s Photographs Without Permission
http://www.myrmecos.net/2015/03/28/faq-so-your-company-has-been-found-using-alexs-photographs-without-permission-what-next/
262 コメント
> "People have posted nasty stuff because I didn't provide them phone support at 3am for a GPL open source utility that I released."
I've found a way to mitigate this is to never release pre-built binaries. Just distribute a makefile and source. The kind of people who are not deterred by that will be less likely to expect that level of support from the developers.
This certainly limits your audience, but if the program is just something you made as a hobby and are releasing because "why not?", then I'd rather have a small low maintenance audience.
I've found a way to mitigate this is to never release pre-built binaries. Just distribute a makefile and source. The kind of people who are not deterred by that will be less likely to expect that level of support from the developers.
This certainly limits your audience, but if the program is just something you made as a hobby and are releasing because "why not?", then I'd rather have a small low maintenance audience.
Plus you'll in theory be more secure, depending on the type of dependency management in place. I think the same should be true even of interpreted language projects. Just ship it with a bower.json, etc. (For those who worry that future versions might break their project, that's an issue with your project, and you'd have the aforementioned support nightmare.)
In his case, it was with sqlite, which he would have encountered this problem in any case.
> People have posted nasty stuff because I didn't provide them phone support at 3am for a GPL open source utility that I released.
WHAT!?
WHAT!?
They were in another country where it presumably was business hours.
I had one guy literally stalk me until he found a DNS registration with my phone number (will never make that mistake again)
I had one guy literally stalk me until he found a DNS registration with my phone number (will never make that mistake again)
I do not have a phone any more, all phone calls go to voicemail and I will call you back if I want and when I want (over Voice-over-IP for free). Texts go through the two way email gateway at Anveo.
I just wanted to say thanks for this idea. I'm porting my old cell number to Twilio, sending all calls through Google Voice to get voicemail emails with transcription (Twilio charges extra for transcription), and getting a new number with no voice service through T-Mobile.
Go on...
[deleted]
Just spent 5 minutes wandering through the sqlite source remembering how pretty it is.
Wow.
Although that particular case is as much about misattribution and misunderstanding as entitlement.
You would be surprised. I was yelled at on the regular by folks using gaim because I didn't want to add whatever random feature they were asking for.
I also had some dude, some how, figure out my cell phone number. He started calling me at 3am. He would always say that he "wanted to talk to me about his ideas."
I had to change my number to get away from that one.
I also had some dude, some how, figure out my cell phone number. He started calling me at 3am. He would always say that he "wanted to talk to me about his ideas."
I had to change my number to get away from that one.
I set custom ring tone "none" and disable vibrate for any contact that annoys me.
I thought I was pretty clever when I figured out I could "block" calls to my dumbphone by adding a contact prefixed with "zzz" and setting their ringtone to a silent audio clip I recorded.
I wonder if there's an Android app that will let me intercept calls and immediately reply to them with a custom recording - something like "Calls from this number are blocked, direct further contact to [email protected]"
I wonder if there's an Android app that will let me intercept calls and immediately reply to them with a custom recording - something like "Calls from this number are blocked, direct further contact to [email protected]"
I've recent learned from a PM friend of mine that a good response to features you have no intention of implementing (better than a flat no) is: I'll take that into consideration and see where I can fit it into our development timeline.
The end is the same result (no feature) but with a bit more comfort for both parties.
The end is the same result (no feature) but with a bit more comfort for both parties.
> The end is the same result (no feature) but with a bit more comfort for both parties.
I don't think this is true.
Same result? Agreed. More comfortable for the developer? Okay, sure (if being dishonest/disingenuous is no discomfort). More comfortable for the requestor? It depends on the person. I would loathe this, for example, and it would evoke in me a far worse feeling than a flat out "no" would; these kinds of responses abound in plenty of other areas of life, and they're very much one of those things that contributes that kind-of-kills-me-a-little-on-the-inside feeling. I suspect that I'm not alone.
But then, I'm not the kind of person who's going to be harrassing anyone over feature requests. I also suspect, though, that the inference that lots of the intended targets will be placated by this kind of response is probably overstated.
EDIT:
To give an example, an acquaintance of mine listed a room for rent last year. He got about, I dunno, a little over a dozen responses of varying quality; some were from people who essentially put in the least effort possible, while others had both indicated that the author had actually put some thought into considering whether it would be a good match and provided relevant info about themselves for review. His response to almost all of them? To treat the best of them with the worst; they got no response. The result as I'm gazing over his inbox? That slightly-less-optimistic-about-humanity feeling.
I don't think this is true.
Same result? Agreed. More comfortable for the developer? Okay, sure (if being dishonest/disingenuous is no discomfort). More comfortable for the requestor? It depends on the person. I would loathe this, for example, and it would evoke in me a far worse feeling than a flat out "no" would; these kinds of responses abound in plenty of other areas of life, and they're very much one of those things that contributes that kind-of-kills-me-a-little-on-the-inside feeling. I suspect that I'm not alone.
But then, I'm not the kind of person who's going to be harrassing anyone over feature requests. I also suspect, though, that the inference that lots of the intended targets will be placated by this kind of response is probably overstated.
EDIT:
To give an example, an acquaintance of mine listed a room for rent last year. He got about, I dunno, a little over a dozen responses of varying quality; some were from people who essentially put in the least effort possible, while others had both indicated that the author had actually put some thought into considering whether it would be a good match and provided relevant info about themselves for review. His response to almost all of them? To treat the best of them with the worst; they got no response. The result as I'm gazing over his inbox? That slightly-less-optimistic-about-humanity feeling.
>More comfortable for the requestor? It depends on the person. I would loathe this, for example, and it would evoke in me a far worse feeling than a flat out "no" would;
The key here is that the requestor doesn't "deserve" anything, and the developer wants to be fucking left alone...
The key here is that the requestor doesn't "deserve" anything, and the developer wants to be fucking left alone...
Weird use of quotes here, considering I used the word "deserve" nowhere. But on that note, I think every person does deserve to be not automatically lied to because of cynicism. See my comment about treating the best with the worst and the multiple times I point out the diminished-enthusiasm-for-a-humanity-filled-with-humans-that-don't-see-the-humanity-of-other-humans feeling.
"No, leave me alone" is much a better response than, "Sure, I'll think about that!" when the latter isn't true, the recipient would've been okay with the former, and hasn't given reason for you to believe otherwise.
Note also that I didn't bring up the comfort of the requestor; I mentioned it only because iaw specifically brought it up and said that lying would comfort them...
I wouldn't have written my comment at all if iaw had said, "The end is the same result, but it's more comfortable for the developer, and it gets the requestor to fuck off." But that's not what (s)he wrote.
"No, leave me alone" is much a better response than, "Sure, I'll think about that!" when the latter isn't true, the recipient would've been okay with the former, and hasn't given reason for you to believe otherwise.
Note also that I didn't bring up the comfort of the requestor; I mentioned it only because iaw specifically brought it up and said that lying would comfort them...
I wouldn't have written my comment at all if iaw had said, "The end is the same result, but it's more comfortable for the developer, and it gets the requestor to fuck off." But that's not what (s)he wrote.
This reminded me of the oft-repeated quote from Alicia Florrick in last week's episode of The Good Wife.
"All options are open to me, and I plan to decide in the next 48 hours."
"All options are open to me, and I plan to decide in the next 48 hours."
LOL, I watched that episode. It is the exact same principal but seemingly easier to pull off because it is independent of any actual decision.
A nicer way to do that is quote a fee 50x more than you'd reasonably charge.
And the optimal way to do it? Just quote the actual figure that it would cost them for you to agree to it.
Which when taking into account the hassle, the risk of nonpayment, and the not wanting to do it in the first place, is going to be a very large multiple of your normal fee. So what hayksaakian said.
What happens if you quote a large figure and they take you up on it, despite the fact that you never intended to honor the offer? Congratulations, now you're a jerk.
When I wrote it, I had originally written "optimal" as "efficient", but "optimal" has multiple meanings here.
The point is, if you would arrive at a requirement of $x to implement the thing in an exercise where you decide to entertain all requests as a request for a legitimate bid, then don't quote an arbitrary figure of $y. Quoting $x works out the best for everyone in all possible cases, where the approach to quote an arbitrary figure falls down in more than one place.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313659
When I wrote it, I had originally written "optimal" as "efficient", but "optimal" has multiple meanings here.
The point is, if you would arrive at a requirement of $x to implement the thing in an exercise where you decide to entertain all requests as a request for a legitimate bid, then don't quote an arbitrary figure of $y. Quoting $x works out the best for everyone in all possible cases, where the approach to quote an arbitrary figure falls down in more than one place.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313659
>Congratulations, now you're a jerk.
What? Why am I a jerk for getting paid well? Or do you suggest that huge pile of money won't change my mind? If I still say no I think that means the quoting instructions were followed incorrectly.
> Quoting $x works out the best for everyone in all possible cases
Quoting $x is much more likely to result in resentment because it's the bare minimum to get me to agree. If I charge triple that or more I'm much less likely to be disappointed later.
And it's no big loss to me if I don't get paid to make this feature. That was my default state of being. So I aim high.
What? Why am I a jerk for getting paid well? Or do you suggest that huge pile of money won't change my mind? If I still say no I think that means the quoting instructions were followed incorrectly.
> Quoting $x works out the best for everyone in all possible cases
Quoting $x is much more likely to result in resentment because it's the bare minimum to get me to agree. If I charge triple that or more I'm much less likely to be disappointed later.
And it's no big loss to me if I don't get paid to make this feature. That was my default state of being. So I aim high.
I assume he means that one is a jerk if they quote high with absolutely no intention of doing it at any price. If the bluff is called then you have to go back on your word.
The main idea behind my thread was that everyone has a price.
Hell if you give me 10 million USD to build a random feature on an open source project, I would subcontract to someone happy to do it for 9 million.
Hell if you give me 10 million USD to build a random feature on an open source project, I would subcontract to someone happy to do it for 9 million.
> the risk of nonpayment
Charge upfront.
Charge upfront.
I've seen this happen on multiple projects. A few years ago on HN, I think, someone posted some research showing that getting rid of the free tier members from a service improves the service since customer service can focus on customers who are bringing value.
Our app was Free App of the Day on amazon four years ago, which was a horrible mistake for many reasons, but the people who received the app that day and have emailed us are just the worst set of people I have ever encountered.
Absolutely true in my experience. We had a service with free and paid tiers. The paid customers were uniformly respectful and even helpful. The free users were usually demanding, sometimes abusive, and would spend hours trying to convince you that they can't survive without your service but they also shouldn't have to pay for it.
We don't have a free tier, and we get a funny support request more often than I would have thought: people who don't want to cancel their account, but don't want to pay anymore. I wonder how often this actually works.
I would be terribly tempted to counteroffer with a special plan where we disable their account but keep billing them at twice the rate.
I called to cancel my cell phone service and the carrier offered me half off. I was cancelling because I found out a competitor was half the price. (This is in the US where cell phone bills are unreasonable even at half price) It was so infuriating to learn that I was overpaying for months and months. I still cancelled.
Every year when the previous year's promotions expire, I cancel my TV and lower my internet down to something cheaper. Every time, within 10 business days I'll get a call for a better offer.
That usually works with internet and probably cable TV as well. Really any of the "utilities" that aren't actually regulated by a PUC.
There's a guy on here bitter about a private, hidden, unpublished api being taken offline.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9312836
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9312836
There's no point in highlighting it, you already told that person. =/
Brian Fox used to reply to whiners, "Please return bash for a full refund."
Alex Wild's copyright infringement story on Ars Technica a few months ago provides some helpful context to the linked page.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/one-mans-endless-...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/one-mans-endless-...
This is the perspective you need to read that original post Thanks!
While his article talks about "commercial infringement", his FAQ doesn't say that he's restricting his suits to people who are using his work commercially, which is really interesting. In principle he could be suing a lot of people, which is great for him and a great way to subsidize an unusual and interesting creative endeavor.
I assume that Wild has registered copyright on all his works so that his firm can sue for statutory damages (easy) rather than actual damages (harder to prove).
Suppose Wild is reading Quora answers about insects and notices that someone has left a comment where they pasted in a photo from his Web site. Super easy to do. Also super easy for him to send an e-mail to his copyright contractor, and a free $750 (minimum) in statutory damages.
I have registered copyright on works before, very straightforward, opens some unusual opportunities. There's actually a great startup idea here:
(1) Create a large quantity of high-quality unwatermarked stock images. (2) Register copyright on each work. (3) Sell them on a web site and use search-engine marketing tactics to make it a really high ranking Web site. (4) Wait 2.9 years, then sue every Web site and user who picked up the images.
I assume that Wild has registered copyright on all his works so that his firm can sue for statutory damages (easy) rather than actual damages (harder to prove).
Suppose Wild is reading Quora answers about insects and notices that someone has left a comment where they pasted in a photo from his Web site. Super easy to do. Also super easy for him to send an e-mail to his copyright contractor, and a free $750 (minimum) in statutory damages.
I have registered copyright on works before, very straightforward, opens some unusual opportunities. There's actually a great startup idea here:
(1) Create a large quantity of high-quality unwatermarked stock images. (2) Register copyright on each work. (3) Sell them on a web site and use search-engine marketing tactics to make it a really high ranking Web site. (4) Wait 2.9 years, then sue every Web site and user who picked up the images.
The FAQ, in fact, says something very similar to what you claim it doesn't say:
> If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.
> If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.
Also, in the licensing section of his website
> Social Media - Personal People acting in a personal capacity are welcome to share my photographs on blogs, web pages, and social media accounts without prior permission, provided that all images are accompanied by a link back to www.alexanderwild.com. Failure to attribute an image properly may result in a takedown notice to the web host.
> Social Media - Personal People acting in a personal capacity are welcome to share my photographs on blogs, web pages, and social media accounts without prior permission, provided that all images are accompanied by a link back to www.alexanderwild.com. Failure to attribute an image properly may result in a takedown notice to the web host.
Attribution! A thousand times this. I wish twitter would enforce this policy or add a source field like tumblr on those various 1M+ reddit-scraping picture recycling accounts. @picpedant can't save the stories behind these images all by himself.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2014/02/_historyi...
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2014/02/_historyi...
That is really reasonable. Good for Wild; he seems like a great guy who has his stuff together.
Oh. So it does. Under "How do you decide to enforce a case?". Thanks, sorry, I missed that.
Q. How do you decide to enforce a case?
If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.
If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.
I am pretty sure if a user posts one of his photos to a forum (like Quora), he can only send a DMCA take down notice. Only if the website owner themselves post the image can they make the copyright claim with damages.
That's true of his relationship with Quora, because it's not their fault, but if he had some way to know who the account belonged to, he could also go after them independently.
If it were just like you described, then nobody would ever be liable for copyright damages, because they'd just say "oh, my brother owns the site, I just posted, so you can't sue either of us."
If it were just like you described, then nobody would ever be liable for copyright damages, because they'd just say "oh, my brother owns the site, I just posted, so you can't sue either of us."
It's hard to get damages when the infringement isn't commercial. If the violator isn't getting a profit from their use, then there's not much argument that you were going to get money from it - no 'damages', because you wouldn't have profited there anyway.
That's not true. Statutory damages can be calculated/estimated from the market price of the work, which the copyright holder is missing out on by not getting the sale. Torrenting movies doesn't generate profit for anyone, but you're still liable if the MPAA manages to track you down with enough evidence to bring a suit against an individual.
I guess I was thinking about using photos in things like forum posts. Movies is a different matter - members of the general public routinely pay for movies. Members of the general public don't routinely pay for photos in a forum post - this is not where photographers get their income stream from. Hence hard to prove damages.
And even then, the MPAA, despite it's considerable legal power and ability to get laws altered, still has a difficult time getting damages out of people. "In 2011, for example, the producers for Hurt Locker sued almost 25,000 BitTorrent users—and almost all the claims were voluntarily dismissed by the studio, because it was taking too long to track down all of the defendants via their IP addresses."[1]. That's not difficult for the reasons I said, but it's still difficult, and that's talking about a violently litigious entity with very deep pockets. A regular company or a freelancer is going to have an even more difficult time.
[1]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bittorrent-illeg...
And even then, the MPAA, despite it's considerable legal power and ability to get laws altered, still has a difficult time getting damages out of people. "In 2011, for example, the producers for Hurt Locker sued almost 25,000 BitTorrent users—and almost all the claims were voluntarily dismissed by the studio, because it was taking too long to track down all of the defendants via their IP addresses."[1]. That's not difficult for the reasons I said, but it's still difficult, and that's talking about a violently litigious entity with very deep pockets. A regular company or a freelancer is going to have an even more difficult time.
[1]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bittorrent-illeg...
Right, it depends on being able to reliably trace the violation to a particular individual. That's hard over bittorrent, not so hard when it's a company's website or a personal blog.
>Members of the general public don't routinely pay for photos in a forum post
Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it right. Rehosting someone else's photo is a violation of their copyright, and should require that you buy a license for the photo. If it's not for sale, then you can't do it, period.
>Members of the general public don't routinely pay for photos in a forum post
Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it right. Rehosting someone else's photo is a violation of their copyright, and should require that you buy a license for the photo. If it's not for sale, then you can't do it, period.
Don't statutory damages cover that?
Generally, the DMCA could limit a copyright holder's claims against a website for user generated content to the takedown notice. But the person who posted it can still be fully liable under copyright law. The DMCA does not provide protection for them.
Your "great startup idea" has been done. Google for "righthaven", "US copyright group" and "prenda law". There are a couple of other law firms doing the same thing. It seems to end badly, for some reason, which I suspect is "bad karma", but your mileage may vary.
The idea of lawsuit-as-a-service is terrible.
Last year I was accused of copyright infringement. I knew was completely in the clear - I hadn't ever heard of this person or seen their creation before. After dismissing some typo-riddled communication I though was bluffing I found myself named in a lawsuit. Turns out that knowing I was right was a whole world away from proving it in court. I was told it would cost me tens of thousands to defend myself. And the best possible outcome was for me to win my fees back. In the end I paid the other person to go away. The entire process was expensive, time consuming and incredibly stressful. I lost days of sleep worrying about what could happen.
My case could have been resolved so much more easily without lawyers. I was actually interesting in monetizing and this person needed eyeballs on their product. I would have gladly sent them traffic if they agreed to an affiliate set up. The problem was that once lawyers start getting involved then the bills start adding up quickly. From then on it was classic sunk cost fallacy. Backing off means paying thousands of dollars for the privilege of being sued. No one wins but the lawyers.
Sure, this company is going to be stopping some people from stealing images. But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft. This guy is an artist, yet he's so flippant about supporting an industry that profits by making the world a slightly worse place. He'd rather line the pockets of some lawyers than have to go through sending "dozens" of emails a month.
Last year I was accused of copyright infringement. I knew was completely in the clear - I hadn't ever heard of this person or seen their creation before. After dismissing some typo-riddled communication I though was bluffing I found myself named in a lawsuit. Turns out that knowing I was right was a whole world away from proving it in court. I was told it would cost me tens of thousands to defend myself. And the best possible outcome was for me to win my fees back. In the end I paid the other person to go away. The entire process was expensive, time consuming and incredibly stressful. I lost days of sleep worrying about what could happen.
My case could have been resolved so much more easily without lawyers. I was actually interesting in monetizing and this person needed eyeballs on their product. I would have gladly sent them traffic if they agreed to an affiliate set up. The problem was that once lawyers start getting involved then the bills start adding up quickly. From then on it was classic sunk cost fallacy. Backing off means paying thousands of dollars for the privilege of being sued. No one wins but the lawyers.
Sure, this company is going to be stopping some people from stealing images. But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft. This guy is an artist, yet he's so flippant about supporting an industry that profits by making the world a slightly worse place. He'd rather line the pockets of some lawyers than have to go through sending "dozens" of emails a month.
It seems pretty clear that Wild's lawyers are not originating the lawsuits on their own, without input from him. For example:
If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.
There's also this:
Considerably more effort and attention went into researching and vetting your case than went into Getty’s ham-handed, largely automated process.
And this:
Q. You are wrong, I did license that image, and I resent being accused of something I did not do.
Goodness! My heartfelt apologies for my mistake. If you forward the license agreement or receipt to my lawyers, we will drop the case and I will fully refund your original license payment, while you may continue to use the image(s). I have made an erroneous accusation before, and I felt terrible about it.
The impression I'm getting is that he's being very careful not to make erroneous accusations. I'm sorry for what happened to you, but this doesn't seem like the same kind of thing.
If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights.
There's also this:
Considerably more effort and attention went into researching and vetting your case than went into Getty’s ham-handed, largely automated process.
And this:
Q. You are wrong, I did license that image, and I resent being accused of something I did not do.
Goodness! My heartfelt apologies for my mistake. If you forward the license agreement or receipt to my lawyers, we will drop the case and I will fully refund your original license payment, while you may continue to use the image(s). I have made an erroneous accusation before, and I felt terrible about it.
The impression I'm getting is that he's being very careful not to make erroneous accusations. I'm sorry for what happened to you, but this doesn't seem like the same kind of thing.
This is a very tricky situation it seems. I've never been party to infringement (on either side), but he explained pretty clearly why he outsourced this role. He has people legitimately using his work without license, so what's the problem with outsourcing enforcement? That said, I hear a story like yours and it freaks me out; I could be you some day. Maybe a "non-lawyer" system could exist, but without the threat of lawsuits, I suspect legitimate infringement situations would go ignored.
There's nothing preventing him from going to the lawyer after they refuse a request to remove the image. He's using his nuclear option as a first resort and claiming moral high ground.
Well, no one forced you to use his image without license.
Except that the time and opportunity cost of requesting each case of infringement be removed before going to the lawyers is becoming onerous for him, which he explicitly states. His moral high ground is "He's not the one stealing an image and the people he's suing are".
Damn-near everything in our life is subject to copyright by default.
You've been party to infringement a million times over. We all have. Start on your first birthday. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
Move on to the derivative-work picture collages you made in preschool.
That copy of 'Peter Pan' that your parents made.
The songs you played when you were learning to play the tuba.
The first music your friends shared with you.
I could go on.
You've been party to infringement a million times over. We all have. Start on your first birthday. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
Move on to the derivative-work picture collages you made in preschool.
That copy of 'Peter Pan' that your parents made.
The songs you played when you were learning to play the tuba.
The first music your friends shared with you.
I could go on.
> "dozens" of emails a month
In his Ars Technica article he claims to have been sending 5 takedowns per day (that's more like hundreds a month). The dozens per month are just the minority he's deemed commercial. He's continuing to go with takedowns for all of the rest.
> But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft.
It seems clear that he's the one making accusations; he just hands it off to them. Its not some automated system or evil lawyer going after obvious innocents, unless you're accusing the artist himself of initiating malicious lawsuits.
In his Ars Technica article he claims to have been sending 5 takedowns per day (that's more like hundreds a month). The dozens per month are just the minority he's deemed commercial. He's continuing to go with takedowns for all of the rest.
> But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft.
It seems clear that he's the one making accusations; he just hands it off to them. Its not some automated system or evil lawyer going after obvious innocents, unless you're accusing the artist himself of initiating malicious lawsuits.
You could have not ignored the first notification, and then you would have been able to resolve things amicably.
I skipped that part. I emailed the person, but they were absolutely convinced that I'd ripped them off (they accused me of colluding with their publisher to steal, completely redesign and then share their work for free). My mistake was assuming this person would be rational.
Very reasonable all in all, and it's pretty clear that he's damn tired of people's antics with regards to using his work without license and then going on the defensive about it when caught.
Some people's sense of entitlement to creative, but easily replicated, works never ceases to amaze me. Whether you like Tidal and those involved or not, this week we saw its launch being met with backlash online that included comments that amounted to "Why would I pay $20 a month for this when I can torrent it free?". People acted indignant over being asked to maybe pay for some of the works they consume. As though they had a right to have a copy of the works simply because they were technologically capable of getting their hands on one without paying for it.
And then creators and artists are vilified for going after those who steal/distribute copies of their works.
I can't imagine how stressful it is for those who have to deal with these constants acts against them.
Some people's sense of entitlement to creative, but easily replicated, works never ceases to amaze me. Whether you like Tidal and those involved or not, this week we saw its launch being met with backlash online that included comments that amounted to "Why would I pay $20 a month for this when I can torrent it free?". People acted indignant over being asked to maybe pay for some of the works they consume. As though they had a right to have a copy of the works simply because they were technologically capable of getting their hands on one without paying for it.
And then creators and artists are vilified for going after those who steal/distribute copies of their works.
I can't imagine how stressful it is for those who have to deal with these constants acts against them.
I think a lot of the backlash against Tidal was the way it was presented.
Having all of these rich and famous musicians complaining about how they're not making enough money isn't going to go very well with the general population.
What does Tidal do to help unknown and struggling musicians? The whole thing seems to only really be about protecting the revenue streams of the musical elite.
Having all of these rich and famous musicians complaining about how they're not making enough money isn't going to go very well with the general population.
What does Tidal do to help unknown and struggling musicians? The whole thing seems to only really be about protecting the revenue streams of the musical elite.
I'm not defending Tidal, I personally think it's a cringe-worthy joke at best and I hope the worst for it.
It's the attitude that was on display regarding it though and it's the same attitude seen previously when Spotify was launched i.e. I want this for free, I believe I'm entitled to this for free and I will get it for free regardless of how you, the artist and distributor, feel about it.
Musicians, etc. produce products, as any other non-service based industry does, and nobody is entitled to those products for free...yet because these are digital products a large amount of people seem to think otherwise.
It's the attitude that was on display regarding it though and it's the same attitude seen previously when Spotify was launched i.e. I want this for free, I believe I'm entitled to this for free and I will get it for free regardless of how you, the artist and distributor, feel about it.
Musicians, etc. produce products, as any other non-service based industry does, and nobody is entitled to those products for free...yet because these are digital products a large amount of people seem to think otherwise.
I hear you and I'm fully in support of intellectual property and just compensation!
Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I seem to get the impression that most people want artists to get paid. If anything they don't want a bunch of middle-men making all the profits.
Of course some middle-men are important to the ecosystem. A publisher willing to speculate and give an advance in exchange for a future percentage of sales seems like the right kind of incentive structure to have for the industry.
Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I seem to get the impression that most people want artists to get paid. If anything they don't want a bunch of middle-men making all the profits.
Of course some middle-men are important to the ecosystem. A publisher willing to speculate and give an advance in exchange for a future percentage of sales seems like the right kind of incentive structure to have for the industry.
>Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest?
I think they're in the majority. They may not shout about it, but I think in terms of music consumption in this case they're a silent majority.
Only 25% of Spotify's 60m users pay for the service. People use YouTube for their music without having to pay. Others torrent. I would say that those paying for music in this day and age, whether it's streaming, vinyl enthusiasts or whatever are the minority.
I think they're in the majority. They may not shout about it, but I think in terms of music consumption in this case they're a silent majority.
Only 25% of Spotify's 60m users pay for the service. People use YouTube for their music without having to pay. Others torrent. I would say that those paying for music in this day and age, whether it's streaming, vinyl enthusiasts or whatever are the minority.
Well, youtube slaps a lot of ads on me. And esp. the american public is trained to get music for 'free', on the radio.
As though they had a right to have a copy of the works simply because they were technologically capable of getting their hands on one without paying for it.
Because that's how it works by default. I'm not saying it's right or that you should agree, but you should at least understand the perspective.
By default, we have the right to do anything that we have the ability to do. The exceptions are just that: exceptions, and which have to be justified.
Now, you could say, "that's the law, therefore it's obvious that it is an exception", but we don't really take the law as an ethical system. Or do you feel that it's perfectly OK to get works for free in places where that is not illegal, like Switzerland?
You have an intuition that copying works without paying is wrong. That's fine, but you shouldn't be amazed that people who don't have that intuition feel free to do so. Even if you still condemn them for it (which is fine).
Because that's how it works by default. I'm not saying it's right or that you should agree, but you should at least understand the perspective.
By default, we have the right to do anything that we have the ability to do. The exceptions are just that: exceptions, and which have to be justified.
Now, you could say, "that's the law, therefore it's obvious that it is an exception", but we don't really take the law as an ethical system. Or do you feel that it's perfectly OK to get works for free in places where that is not illegal, like Switzerland?
You have an intuition that copying works without paying is wrong. That's fine, but you shouldn't be amazed that people who don't have that intuition feel free to do so. Even if you still condemn them for it (which is fine).
"By default, we have the right to do anything that we have the ability to do."
So if you have the ability to break in somewhere and take something, you should have the right to do it?
So if you have the ability to break in somewhere and take something, you should have the right to do it?
No, that's one of the exceptions that both the law and most people agree with.
[deleted]
Not to mention they totally 'pirated' the UI of Spotify. Maybe someone should tell them interface designers are artists too?
Because copyright infringement has been linked to theft, which means people view it like they would view a theft, and it thus appears completely harmless because people place the entire negative of the theft on losing the item. Imagine I had a magic power to duplicate any items, went to a friends house, and duplicated his TV. No harm to him. If anything he benefits a bit because when he is at my house he now sees the bigger TV.
Most people don't realize there is a victim in my example. The person who I would've bought the TV from. Except they are far less a victim that someone who has their TV stolen. Because I may have instead just stuck with mine and never gotten a bigger one had I had to pay. The problem is that when aggregated accross the whole population, lots of people who would've bought one now don't, and that is where the damages come from. Of course, the big players in copytright claiming the extremely high numbers for their damaging only work to further get people to dismiss this line of thinking.
Most people don't realize there is a victim in my example. The person who I would've bought the TV from. Except they are far less a victim that someone who has their TV stolen. Because I may have instead just stuck with mine and never gotten a bigger one had I had to pay. The problem is that when aggregated accross the whole population, lots of people who would've bought one now don't, and that is where the damages come from. Of course, the big players in copytright claiming the extremely high numbers for their damaging only work to further get people to dismiss this line of thinking.
I think we can all agree though, holy shit this guy has some amazing photos. If ever photos deserved a license, this is it!
Another point of view: the more amazing they are, the more important it is that they are in the public domain, as it would be a valuable asset for the commons.
Commons or not, the guy still needs to make a living.
I understand the opposing argument as, "Yes the guy 'needs' to be able to make a living. Just like I 'need' a private jet. He needs to make a living, but NOT at the cost of bringing bits into existence that I am not allowed to copy!! That is supremely unfair. It's better if those bits don't exist at all. I just can't stand the existence of bits that in any sense 'belong' to someone, and it's better if he doesn't create them at all. If you create some bits, and I can view them, then I REQUIRE the right to copy them. THis is my inalienable freedom. If infringing on this freedom is what allows for the economic creation of amazing bits, then that system is flawed and those bits shouldn't end up getting created."
The above is honestly how people who are currently greyed-out in this thread seem to feel. (Though they don't say it as clearly.) It really is a supreme case of entitlement.
-
Edit: last sentence originally read supreme sense of entitlement; to be clear, the last sentence is my own personal judgment. I don't agree with these people, and I am fine with the existence of bits I am allowed to view but not to copy, i.e. that in a sense are owned by someone else who has an exclusionary right to them, that they can use to keep me from doing certain things without their permission.
The above is honestly how people who are currently greyed-out in this thread seem to feel. (Though they don't say it as clearly.) It really is a supreme case of entitlement.
-
Edit: last sentence originally read supreme sense of entitlement; to be clear, the last sentence is my own personal judgment. I don't agree with these people, and I am fine with the existence of bits I am allowed to view but not to copy, i.e. that in a sense are owned by someone else who has an exclusionary right to them, that they can use to keep me from doing certain things without their permission.
I'll agree to the jist of your "opposing argument" above, except for the uncomfortable tone, and this derogation:
> It really is a supreme sense of entitlement.
That doesn't follow. Why do you attribute such disrespect to people who prefer a different economic/social organization for creative works?
I am a content producer. By trade, by hobby, by lifestyle. I license my works as CC0 as much as possible, and use copyleft for software so that those same works can't be held against me by the copyright system I'm trying to escape. I simply value my freedom of expression, including a philosophy of sharing works, and I also think it would lead to increased economic efficiency for the society.
It's a different perspective, I don't see a reason why you must call it "a supreme sense of entitlement" when I am one of the people creating these works that I want to be shared. It's just a different way for us to structure our resources and freedoms.
> It really is a supreme sense of entitlement.
That doesn't follow. Why do you attribute such disrespect to people who prefer a different economic/social organization for creative works?
I am a content producer. By trade, by hobby, by lifestyle. I license my works as CC0 as much as possible, and use copyleft for software so that those same works can't be held against me by the copyright system I'm trying to escape. I simply value my freedom of expression, including a philosophy of sharing works, and I also think it would lead to increased economic efficiency for the society.
It's a different perspective, I don't see a reason why you must call it "a supreme sense of entitlement" when I am one of the people creating these works that I want to be shared. It's just a different way for us to structure our resources and freedoms.
[deleted]
"That doesn't follow. Why do you attribute such disrespect to people who prefer a different economic/social organization for creative works?"
Because there are plenty of people out there who say exactly that. Granted, in general, they are not content producers themselves. People who believe that they are entitled to these things because they wouldn't pay for them anyway.
Because there are plenty of people out there who say exactly that. Granted, in general, they are not content producers themselves. People who believe that they are entitled to these things because they wouldn't pay for them anyway.
That doesn't seem too entitled to me. Extreme freedom of speech, no more.
By what right do you have to actively prevent (through threat of violence) someone from copying bits?
if you want to update your profile with an email (or email me) I can summarize my thoughts on society privately - it would just be noise in this thread.
By what right do you have to the works of others?
If I observe something, I should be able to make my own representation of it.
It seems that he is (or, used to be) making a living from a specific business model that only exists because it is upheld by copyright law. I am of the opinion that copyright law should be (slowly, responsibly) abolished. As long as people have a need for photographs, we will fund their development.
As long as people have a need for photographs, we will fund their development.
Fantastic! My email address is my profile. Please send me a list of your requirements with advance payment through Paypal - I'll eat the fees - as I am unable to locate any checks or money orders from you. I look forward to doing business with you!
Fantastic! My email address is my profile. Please send me a list of your requirements with advance payment through Paypal - I'll eat the fees - as I am unable to locate any checks or money orders from you. I look forward to doing business with you!
The overwhelming majority of HN users make their living in another business model that only exists because of copyright law.
That would've been more true 10 years ago. Now, the overwhelming majority of HN users make their living in yet another business model that exists increasingly because of the relative obsolescence of the previous business model - namely, by shifting into the $foo-as-a-service realm.
The wages of all those people wiring up form fields to databases for cat sharing companies are propped up --- drastically propped up --- by scarcities engineered into the economy by copyright.
How do you figure? Nowadays, a very large majority of web devleopment primarily consists of taking some collection of open-source tools and other services in order to create a service. The entire justification for the existence of such a service is the idea that most people aren't inclined to do all this themselves.
This isn't a matter of scarcities at all (other than the time of the end user), let alone engineered/artificial ones. It's a matter of "I'm too lazy to setup my own web server to share my cat GIFs, so I'm gonna just use Imgur instead, since they've already done the hard part".
This isn't a matter of scarcities at all (other than the time of the end user), let alone engineered/artificial ones. It's a matter of "I'm too lazy to setup my own web server to share my cat GIFs, so I'm gonna just use Imgur instead, since they've already done the hard part".
I agree. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Not really. You can't copy SAAS (assuming we disallow e.g hacking into servers, which seems fair in so far as you also can't read my diary, since it exist exclusively in my house). You can't copy a cloud system and you cannot meaningfully copy hardware.
[deleted]
I think you're making a logical error in applying the open-source software development model to the arts.
First, software packages are typically collaborative works of many people, improved over time. A photograph is created by a single photographer in an instant (excluding editing time for rhetorical purposes).
Second, photographers are not fungible resources, while software developers are, even controlling for skill level. The photos I take aren't the same as the ones you take, nor are those of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.
First, software packages are typically collaborative works of many people, improved over time. A photograph is created by a single photographer in an instant (excluding editing time for rhetorical purposes).
Second, photographers are not fungible resources, while software developers are, even controlling for skill level. The photos I take aren't the same as the ones you take, nor are those of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.
> I think you're making a logical error in applying the open-source software development model to the arts.
I am not. I have not said anything about software. I think all copyright should be abolished (slowly, responsibly). I have considered the ramifications for different types of arts. Relatedly, I think the areas to which we have (by convention) chosen that copyright should or should not apply in law is arbitrary and sometimes silly (e.g. copyright of fashion).
> Second, photographers are not fungible resources, while software developers are, even controlling for skill level.
Software developers are not fungible resources. Two authorings of software to the same requirements will be substantially different; same for photography.
I am not. I have not said anything about software. I think all copyright should be abolished (slowly, responsibly). I have considered the ramifications for different types of arts. Relatedly, I think the areas to which we have (by convention) chosen that copyright should or should not apply in law is arbitrary and sometimes silly (e.g. copyright of fashion).
> Second, photographers are not fungible resources, while software developers are, even controlling for skill level.
Software developers are not fungible resources. Two authorings of software to the same requirements will be substantially different; same for photography.
After thinking about this more, I believe that some of the answer is whether the copyrighted material is art or craft. I would define art as a creation where the form is more important than the function, and conversely craft as something where the function is more important than the form.
Clearly, there's an analog scale between these two poles. But, take for a moment an http request library. Given a certain spec, multiple programmers (or teams of programmers) might take different approaches to meet that spec -- but the result is functionally the same, and if they faithfully follow the spec, they are all going to be more or less interchangeable.
I think a photograph is qualitatively different. If I were to ask a photographer to "take a picture of an ant", I could get radically different results that are not interchangeable.
I know I'm not going to convince you, so I'm not going to keep trying, but I think abolishing copyright would provide a dire challenge to people who create visual art for a living.
Clearly, there's an analog scale between these two poles. But, take for a moment an http request library. Given a certain spec, multiple programmers (or teams of programmers) might take different approaches to meet that spec -- but the result is functionally the same, and if they faithfully follow the spec, they are all going to be more or less interchangeable.
I think a photograph is qualitatively different. If I were to ask a photographer to "take a picture of an ant", I could get radically different results that are not interchangeable.
I know I'm not going to convince you, so I'm not going to keep trying, but I think abolishing copyright would provide a dire challenge to people who create visual art for a living.
If you just say "http request library" you'll get as varied approaches as your ant picture. Try giving a ten page spec for the ant picture.
There exist creative ways to program, and there exist uncreative ways to photograph.
The typical photograph is more creative than the typical program, but you've mostly just shown the effect of specs.
There exist creative ways to program, and there exist uncreative ways to photograph.
The typical photograph is more creative than the typical program, but you've mostly just shown the effect of specs.
>As long as people have a need for photographs, we will fund their development.
Please explain how.
Please explain how.
One obvious way is taxation. It's the same way we fund expensive photographs of space, and high-quality journalism, and world-class educational materials... all of which contribute to the common good, like these insect photos.
There are many other ways. Is it hard to think them up yourself? Private foundations, crowdfunding, tangential services and showcases (he's already doing that), etc...
This isn't some novel idea, it's how a great amount of our works are produced today even though we also have copyright. Without copyright, we would lubricate different models for the knowledge economy. It's not like the world could only possibly be the exact way we do things now.
There are many other ways. Is it hard to think them up yourself? Private foundations, crowdfunding, tangential services and showcases (he's already doing that), etc...
This isn't some novel idea, it's how a great amount of our works are produced today even though we also have copyright. Without copyright, we would lubricate different models for the knowledge economy. It's not like the world could only possibly be the exact way we do things now.
You're going to have to provide proof for that assertion. You're also going to have to provide proof that images of the same quality are going to be produced.
So you want to financially incentivize photographers to make low-quality, un-amazing photos?
You think the Law should be used to determine how to properly incentivize the commerce of photographs, at the cost of its peoples' freedom of expression?
Probably you do, and that's a fine perspective. I was just offering a different point of view for the sake of discussion.
Personally I think we'd be fine without that law, and anyone who wants high-quality amazing photos can pay to have them captured. Many of us would do so. But when the photo is distributed, without copyright law, people would be free to share it. That doesn't prevent someone from wanting (and paying for) the photo to exist in the first place. My appreciation for a photo is not detracted by another's simultaneous appreciation of it.
Probably you do, and that's a fine perspective. I was just offering a different point of view for the sake of discussion.
Personally I think we'd be fine without that law, and anyone who wants high-quality amazing photos can pay to have them captured. Many of us would do so. But when the photo is distributed, without copyright law, people would be free to share it. That doesn't prevent someone from wanting (and paying for) the photo to exist in the first place. My appreciation for a photo is not detracted by another's simultaneous appreciation of it.
> That doesn't prevent someone from wanting (and paying for) the photo to exist in the first place. My appreciation for a photo is not detracted by another's simultaneous appreciation of it.
If you want to appreciate the photo, the photographer has a gallery on their site you can visit and freely view. The photos are definitely gorgeous. But we're not talking about appreciating the photos. We're talking about hosting the photo yourself or using it commercially.
Making these photos is very expensive. If someone pays so much for a photo, they'll surely want exclusive rights. Why would I pay tens of thousands of dollars for a photo I'd like to use commercially, and then share it with others for free? It's better to have the licensing be cheaper, and have lots of people be able to pay for the photo.
This is like saying "bands should give their music away for free, because the record label already paid to record it."
If you want to appreciate the photo, the photographer has a gallery on their site you can visit and freely view. The photos are definitely gorgeous. But we're not talking about appreciating the photos. We're talking about hosting the photo yourself or using it commercially.
Making these photos is very expensive. If someone pays so much for a photo, they'll surely want exclusive rights. Why would I pay tens of thousands of dollars for a photo I'd like to use commercially, and then share it with others for free? It's better to have the licensing be cheaper, and have lots of people be able to pay for the photo.
This is like saying "bands should give their music away for free, because the record label already paid to record it."
You're calling for a "patron" model of the arts, in which artists collect a one time payment (from one or more individuals) in order to create new artwork.
That's fairly inefficient in several aspects, and by "inefficient," I mean that it's not likely to lead to artists creating the works that people want to consume.
First, this reduces the artist to only producing works that a single entity (person, company), or a small group of entities, wants to commission. If a thousand people each want a picture of a wasp $10-worth, that's very different from two sponsors each paying $5,000 for that image, and everyone else paying zero.
Second, it makes it nearly impossible for an artist to create work "on spec" and then collect payment on it later. Again, the artist is taking a ton of risk since he/she is looking for a massive payment from one or two patrons, vs. small payments from many consumers. Also, how is a photographer to advertise his or her work online, if anyone can just copy the image to their hard drive?
Third, it restricts authors to only extracting value from their art at the time of creation. If a photo becomes wildly popular a year or two after it was created and sold the first time, then the author can't get paid for it.
Fourth, as a potential patron who is a rational actor, I have a strong incentive to comb the Internet for a free photo before I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to commission a new one. Won't this stifle the funding for creation of new works of art?
That's fairly inefficient in several aspects, and by "inefficient," I mean that it's not likely to lead to artists creating the works that people want to consume.
First, this reduces the artist to only producing works that a single entity (person, company), or a small group of entities, wants to commission. If a thousand people each want a picture of a wasp $10-worth, that's very different from two sponsors each paying $5,000 for that image, and everyone else paying zero.
Second, it makes it nearly impossible for an artist to create work "on spec" and then collect payment on it later. Again, the artist is taking a ton of risk since he/she is looking for a massive payment from one or two patrons, vs. small payments from many consumers. Also, how is a photographer to advertise his or her work online, if anyone can just copy the image to their hard drive?
Third, it restricts authors to only extracting value from their art at the time of creation. If a photo becomes wildly popular a year or two after it was created and sold the first time, then the author can't get paid for it.
Fourth, as a potential patron who is a rational actor, I have a strong incentive to comb the Internet for a free photo before I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to commission a new one. Won't this stifle the funding for creation of new works of art?
Hence, patreon. I hope eventually everyone is on there and I can start contributing more materially to the artists I love than via exposure and the occasional thing they sell.
Yes? That being the whole intention of copyright law, which exists in every modern country in the world?
To be fair, nfoz seems to understand and accept that this is how copyright law works (in the U.S. at least; in many other countries copyright is treated as a natural right, akin to property).
He also states it's reasonable to agree with such law, which it undoubtedly is.
But I think he's being reasonable too, suggesting there could be alternatives. Like most of us here, I make my living out of copyright law. But I'm far from sure it the best way to deal with compensating creative, trivially reproducible work.
He also states it's reasonable to agree with such law, which it undoubtedly is.
But I think he's being reasonable too, suggesting there could be alternatives. Like most of us here, I make my living out of copyright law. But I'm far from sure it the best way to deal with compensating creative, trivially reproducible work.
Fair enough.
For what it's worth: I'm not sure it's the "best" way, but I'm more sure that it's the optimal way in a market economy. Things should cost what they're worth to buyers, and coercion (which is what infringement is) should be taken out of that equation.
For what it's worth: I'm not sure it's the "best" way, but I'm more sure that it's the optimal way in a market economy. Things should cost what they're worth to buyers, and coercion (which is what infringement is) should be taken out of that equation.
Copyright law is being used both for 'good' and for 'bad' purposes in roughly equal measures. Some creators make some money, plenty don't, quite a few non-creators manage to get their hands by hook or by crook (or even legal transfer) on some rights and seek rent on them for all those rights are worth or more if they can.
Copyright is a very double edged sword at best.
Copyright is a very double edged sword at best.
[deleted]
It sounds like he was describing more of a commission system - i.e. "hey, I'll give you $1000 to take this super-duper-awesome photo of this grasshopper that's sitting on my windowsill right now" or "hey, I'll give you $1000000 and cover transportation/lodging expenses if you agree to tag along with our entomological team and take photographs of this new species of dung beetle we discovered in Sudan".
[deleted]
>Personally I think we'd be fine without that law, and anyone who wants high-quality amazing photos can pay to have them captured.
You haven't a clue how much those photos cost if you had to pay the full price for their creation. Think a trip to a foreign country + plus some seriously expensive macro lenses, lights and a very good camera. Plus the photographer likely would want some salary as well.
That means those images are going to cost at least 10k, which is likely too much for e.g BugsBeGone to use one for their website. The price would of course come down if more people could share the images, from which the natural conclusion is to allow all people to share the image, provided they pay a fee for the right to do so.
>at the cost of its peoples' freedom of expression?
This is copyright, not patents. The existence of these photos doesn't in any way prevent you from taking whatever photos you want to take, nor limit how you can edit yours. Sure you can't take his photos, but you couldn't do that without copyright either because they wouldn't exist in the first place.
You haven't a clue how much those photos cost if you had to pay the full price for their creation. Think a trip to a foreign country + plus some seriously expensive macro lenses, lights and a very good camera. Plus the photographer likely would want some salary as well.
That means those images are going to cost at least 10k, which is likely too much for e.g BugsBeGone to use one for their website. The price would of course come down if more people could share the images, from which the natural conclusion is to allow all people to share the image, provided they pay a fee for the right to do so.
>at the cost of its peoples' freedom of expression?
This is copyright, not patents. The existence of these photos doesn't in any way prevent you from taking whatever photos you want to take, nor limit how you can edit yours. Sure you can't take his photos, but you couldn't do that without copyright either because they wouldn't exist in the first place.
That means those images are going to cost at least 10k, which is likely too much for e.g BugsBeGone to use one for their website.
Then a bunch of people who want to use it for their websites pool their money, so that they can each pay a fraction of the 10k. You know, crowdfunding.
Then a bunch of people who want to use it for their websites pool their money, so that they can each pay a fraction of the 10k. You know, crowdfunding.
Appreciation isn't the problem. Exploitation is the problem. If use my work to make money without my permission and without falling inside a fair-use exception, then I have a big problem with that.
Lets assume that this fellow isn't rich beyond belief. I'm sure he's not.
Say he can take a really nice photo. To take this photo he has a number of expenses, he needs a certain amount of training, he needs to take a certain number of bad pictures before finding the good one.
Now right now he makes a living selling 1,00 copies of this photo to various organizations and publications.
Now say he can't do that. He can only sell it once. Two things happen. First is, to make the same amount of money, which is enough to cover his expenses and his failed photos, he needs to charge 100 times as much money. A $400 photo is now a $40,000 photo. The second things is, while before there were maybe 1,000 people willing to pay $400 for the photo, right now there might not be anyone willing to pay $40,000 for it.
There would especially be nobody willing to pay $40,000 for it when they know that as soon as someone else paid the $40,000 for it, they could get it for free.
In fact, even the people who had a budget to $400 for it before might not be so eager, because most of the photos they would get are now free. They just have to wait for someone else to get it first.
So this guy, who before was making an alright living taking photos, and a couple times a year getting a great photo that can sell a hundred copies, now has no means of supporting his photography.
Previously he could take photos that 100 people would be willing to pay $400 for and get by. These are very high quality photos. Maybe the majority nobody cares about. But if he can only sell them once, he can't afford it, and nobody can afford to buy it. Because of this he can't afford to take it, and the picture never exists.
Right now, de facto, anything that's released on the internet, licensed or not, is going to be there forever. Copyright's existence doesn't change that. For the commons this is a good thing. He can take legal action against people who are using his works without license, but he isn't targeting blogs and international sites and other places he can't reach.
Because of this scenario he is able to produce his works, and at the same time his work will be available across the globe. The only places targeted are companies who are trying to make money and think his work might be a free way to do this.
This isn't "So your blogger has been found using Alex's photographs" or "So your art project has been found using Alex's photographs". It's company.
If we are in some communist utopia where the companies using those photographs for free are also giving their goods away for free, then I don't think he would care.
But if an airline uses your photograph to advertise without credit and still charges you full fare to fly, and profits off them, why is that right? Shouldn't those profits go to the commons too?
Say he can take a really nice photo. To take this photo he has a number of expenses, he needs a certain amount of training, he needs to take a certain number of bad pictures before finding the good one.
Now right now he makes a living selling 1,00 copies of this photo to various organizations and publications.
Now say he can't do that. He can only sell it once. Two things happen. First is, to make the same amount of money, which is enough to cover his expenses and his failed photos, he needs to charge 100 times as much money. A $400 photo is now a $40,000 photo. The second things is, while before there were maybe 1,000 people willing to pay $400 for the photo, right now there might not be anyone willing to pay $40,000 for it.
There would especially be nobody willing to pay $40,000 for it when they know that as soon as someone else paid the $40,000 for it, they could get it for free.
In fact, even the people who had a budget to $400 for it before might not be so eager, because most of the photos they would get are now free. They just have to wait for someone else to get it first.
So this guy, who before was making an alright living taking photos, and a couple times a year getting a great photo that can sell a hundred copies, now has no means of supporting his photography.
Previously he could take photos that 100 people would be willing to pay $400 for and get by. These are very high quality photos. Maybe the majority nobody cares about. But if he can only sell them once, he can't afford it, and nobody can afford to buy it. Because of this he can't afford to take it, and the picture never exists.
Right now, de facto, anything that's released on the internet, licensed or not, is going to be there forever. Copyright's existence doesn't change that. For the commons this is a good thing. He can take legal action against people who are using his works without license, but he isn't targeting blogs and international sites and other places he can't reach.
Because of this scenario he is able to produce his works, and at the same time his work will be available across the globe. The only places targeted are companies who are trying to make money and think his work might be a free way to do this.
This isn't "So your blogger has been found using Alex's photographs" or "So your art project has been found using Alex's photographs". It's company.
If we are in some communist utopia where the companies using those photographs for free are also giving their goods away for free, then I don't think he would care.
But if an airline uses your photograph to advertise without credit and still charges you full fare to fly, and profits off them, why is that right? Shouldn't those profits go to the commons too?
"You think the Law should be used to determine how to properly incentivize the commerce of photographs, at the cost of its peoples' freedom of expression?"
I think this is a false question, as you never had the rights to the work of others in the first place.
I think this is a false question, as you never had the rights to the work of others in the first place.
The only way to attempt to invalidate nfoz's words there in the way that you want to results in begging the question.
I disagree that nfoz's suggestion is a good one. (See tptacek's followup to lultimouomo[1]). But it doesn't mean the question is invalid. (See lultimouomo's initial reply to tptacek[2]).
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313558 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313549
I disagree that nfoz's suggestion is a good one. (See tptacek's followup to lultimouomo[1]). But it doesn't mean the question is invalid. (See lultimouomo's initial reply to tptacek[2]).
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313558 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313549
[deleted]
You got downvoted to oblivion, but it's worth noting that "valuable for the commons" is actually a very strong reason for good copyright protection with a reasonable term. We want as many people as possible producing IP, and it's worth the short term cost of paying them to do it because the long term payoff is much richer.
This has, sadly, been subverted in many cases ... but it's still strong reasoning.
This has, sadly, been subverted in many cases ... but it's still strong reasoning.
So you paid his license fee for releasing them to the public domain? How much did that cost and how many pictures did you fund? And thanks!
Serious, not-glib question: how do you propose that he make a living creating the pictures? Or do you propose that he not make a living creating the pictures, and they should instead by a hobby?
Then come up with a system to incentivize that. 'Your work is so awesome that you can't be allowed to exploit it commercially' is a ridiculous argument.
An expiry of copyright - after which a work enters the public domain - would accomplish this rather nicely without completely disincentivizing content creators.
Unfortunately, while this is already the case in theory in many jurisdictions, it's not the case in certain others, where the duration of copyright is effectively set to "current year minus first appearance of Mickey Mouse plus twenty years" thanks to the interests of a particular company whose name rhymes with a "D" and ends with an "isney". :)
Unfortunately, while this is already the case in theory in many jurisdictions, it's not the case in certain others, where the duration of copyright is effectively set to "current year minus first appearance of Mickey Mouse plus twenty years" thanks to the interests of a particular company whose name rhymes with a "D" and ends with an "isney". :)
This is a fine point of view if the commons are willing to give him comfortable living accommodations, good food, relaxing holidays, camera equipment and trips around the world to take these photographs.
They could definitely do that. The government could choose to hire him as a nature photographer, give him a very nice salary and release the photographs into the public domain. Or we could pay him per work to do it.
But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the world and photograph things for the good of the commons. If society is not willing to accommodate him, why would he be willing to sacrifice himself to accommodate society?
They could definitely do that. The government could choose to hire him as a nature photographer, give him a very nice salary and release the photographs into the public domain. Or we could pay him per work to do it.
But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the world and photograph things for the good of the commons. If society is not willing to accommodate him, why would he be willing to sacrifice himself to accommodate society?
It's almost as if the commons has fallen victim to some kind of... what's the word? Grave misfortune?
I don't think you understood zeidrich's point in this case :) There's no tragedy of the commons for copyrights because the commons doesn't get reduced by usage. Tragedy of the commons as I understand it applies to things like air, which is free, but which people can deplete. (Externalizing pollution costs.)
Things like research can end up belonging to the commons but there's no tragedy of the commons argument about it. Instead your parent in this case I think was just pointing out that this is stuff that wouldn't exist at all if it weren't commmercially protected.
Things like research can end up belonging to the commons but there's no tragedy of the commons argument about it. Instead your parent in this case I think was just pointing out that this is stuff that wouldn't exist at all if it weren't commmercially protected.
While you are technically correct that tragedy of the commons only applies to nonexcludable-rival public goods, your pedantry has helped nobody in this comment thread learn more. There's a time for it, and most pedants fail to see when it is actually important to correct definitions.
The tragedy of the commons is (among other things) a parable about market failure and inadequate property rights.
Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons seems to disagree with you and talks in terms of depeleting a resource.
It can refer to both over consumption and under investment.
Not according to the article I linked, which even has a four-paragraph section called "metaphoric meaning" that does not extend to that meaning; nor do any of the examples in the long list of examples under the section "modern commons" show such a meaning.
The term "tragedy of the commons" simply refers to a different concept. It's just not what it means. It means common resources become less useful over time.
This is not a statement about investment; it's just that the effect that is described is quite specific. You don't have to use an incorrect term to describe what you're talking about.
The term "tragedy of the commons" simply refers to a different concept. It's just not what it means. It means common resources become less useful over time.
This is not a statement about investment; it's just that the effect that is described is quite specific. You don't have to use an incorrect term to describe what you're talking about.
Somewhat tragic, right?
> But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the world and photograph things for the good of the commons.
I want that. Many people want that. And my tax dollars do do this already. Provincial and federal governments actively fund the development of news, education, and artistic media in many jurisdictions.
I want that. Many people want that. And my tax dollars do do this already. Provincial and federal governments actively fund the development of news, education, and artistic media in many jurisdictions.
This is the US government's gallery http://digitalmedia.fws.gov for wildlife and fisheries.
I wonder if we could have some kind of system that both incentivizes him to create in the first place, by granting him a temporary monopoly on the commercial rights, and yet ensures that his work will eventually become part of the public domain?
It could center around the "right to copy". Hmmm, what could we call it?
It could center around the "right to copy". Hmmm, what could we call it?
This comment doesn't deserve those downvotes. You are right those pictures are much more important than those I take, but to follow that to its logical conclusion then we only get those amazing pictures in the public domain if the public is willing to pay a lot for them. In theory that could be done using e.g Patreon but in practice that probably has to be done using the, admitably broken, copyright system.
> You are right those pictures are much more important than those I take, but to follow that to its logical conclusion then we only get those amazing pictures in the public domain if the public is willing to pay a lot for them.
That conclusion does not follow. The pictures will become public domain if and when the copyright expires on them. Assuming that happens.
That conclusion does not follow. The pictures will become public domain if and when the copyright expires on them. Assuming that happens.
The historical way lots of content came into the public domain is death.
That's why plenty of artists - plenty of nature photographers among them - died relatively penniless.
http://europeansectionlgm.typepad.fr/photography_and_cinemat...
That's a friend of mine who died 3 years ago, he made the most amazing pictures. 50,000 of them in a archive in his home in Suprasl, and we can't even find the funds to properly digitize them so they will likely be lost sooner or later.
That's why plenty of artists - plenty of nature photographers among them - died relatively penniless.
http://europeansectionlgm.typepad.fr/photography_and_cinemat...
That's a friend of mine who died 3 years ago, he made the most amazing pictures. 50,000 of them in a archive in his home in Suprasl, and we can't even find the funds to properly digitize them so they will likely be lost sooner or later.
The historical way lots of content came into the public domain is death.
That's why plenty of artists [...] died relatively penniless.
can you expand on this? how does lifelong copyright cause artist poverty? i'm not signalling either dis- or agreement, but your claim needs to be substantiated.
That's why plenty of artists [...] died relatively penniless.
can you expand on this? how does lifelong copyright cause artist poverty? i'm not signalling either dis- or agreement, but your claim needs to be substantiated.
If this comment was made about music it would have been up-voted.
So go ask him how much it would cost for him to sell you the rights to the photos, so you can do just that.
[deleted]
So, the nicer your car is, the more people should just take it for a ride for free?
If you want more Public Domain images of insects out there I'd suggest donating to the "Insects Unlocked" project. It is raising money on Utexas' kickstarter clone "HornRaiser".
https://hornraiser.utexas.edu/project/54e79bbc14bdf7205ddd5a...
https://hornraiser.utexas.edu/project/54e79bbc14bdf7205ddd5a...
It is worth noting that the author, Alex Wild, is also the mentor of the project you mention. He discussed [1] a day before the impact of the project on professional photographers.
[1] "Will The Insects Unlocked Project Damage The Commercial Insect Photo Market?" - http://www.myrmecos.net/2015/03/27/will-the-insects-unlocked...
[1] "Will The Insects Unlocked Project Damage The Commercial Insect Photo Market?" - http://www.myrmecos.net/2015/03/27/will-the-insects-unlocked...
Good catch. I had completely missed the link.
This article presents a side to intellectual property rights that it's all too easy to overlook when you are constantly hearing about patent trolls, the MPAA/RIAA, and so on. Copyright is intended to benefit people just like you and me for whom content creation such as this is how they feed their children and keep a roof over their heads.
This does also highlight the need for due diligence if you're using images that you've found on the Internet though. This is often easier than you might expect -- you just have to upload your image to Google image search, and it will do a pretty good job of helping you track the original creator.
This does also highlight the need for due diligence if you're using images that you've found on the Internet though. This is often easier than you might expect -- you just have to upload your image to Google image search, and it will do a pretty good job of helping you track the original creator.
It's interesting to see how much the FOSS developer community (or rather, the people in this thread who are complaining about this article as if it's part-and-parcel with supporting FOSS) has confused the idea that software should be libre with the idea that it should also be gratis. That's unfortunately not their last mistake, as it seems then also want to extend this to an idea that other copyrightable works should be gratis, too.
The Software Freedoms [0] don't mean you get to scarper off with other people's hard work. They mean that, once you have paid and received permission to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.
Software is a thing that we use to get work done, a thing that doesn't necessarily work correctly or sufficiently or whatever other reason you might want to change it. We have a need to protect the rights of users because, without said rights, the user could potentially end up in a situation where their livelihood is significantly impacted by the failing software.
A work of art, on the other hand, is meant for consumption. You can't make a photo so integral to your workflow that replacing it with another photo could be detrimental to your self. Most programs are not reasonable substitutes for each other. Most photos of bumblebees are--more or less--perfectly acceptable substitutes, not because all photographers are equivalent and interchangeable, but because your need to have that photo is not more important than the photographer's need to eat.
The Software Freedoms are not about copyright. Copyright is just the mechanism through which the GPL operates, in an ideology that believes that software should not be copyrightable. It's the belief that these two things are so fundamentally different, that copyright is not the appropriate means to protect software developers, that led to the creation of the GPL. The GPL is nothing more than a hack on top of the copyright system to make copyright--for software--useless. It is not an overall indictment of copyright.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The Software Freedoms [0] don't mean you get to scarper off with other people's hard work. They mean that, once you have paid and received permission to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.
Software is a thing that we use to get work done, a thing that doesn't necessarily work correctly or sufficiently or whatever other reason you might want to change it. We have a need to protect the rights of users because, without said rights, the user could potentially end up in a situation where their livelihood is significantly impacted by the failing software.
A work of art, on the other hand, is meant for consumption. You can't make a photo so integral to your workflow that replacing it with another photo could be detrimental to your self. Most programs are not reasonable substitutes for each other. Most photos of bumblebees are--more or less--perfectly acceptable substitutes, not because all photographers are equivalent and interchangeable, but because your need to have that photo is not more important than the photographer's need to eat.
The Software Freedoms are not about copyright. Copyright is just the mechanism through which the GPL operates, in an ideology that believes that software should not be copyrightable. It's the belief that these two things are so fundamentally different, that copyright is not the appropriate means to protect software developers, that led to the creation of the GPL. The GPL is nothing more than a hack on top of the copyright system to make copyright--for software--useless. It is not an overall indictment of copyright.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I have to admit that I once thought essentially the same thing that you have written. However, I'm not so sure now. I think Software Freedom is distinct from copyright and while copyright in its current form is a problem for Software Freedom (insofar as it is too restrictive), doing away with copyright does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are concerned with Software Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all move to CC0 from GPL and be happy.
I am not one of those who would espouse that all FOSS software should use unrestrictive licenses. CC0, or attribution based Free software licenses definitely have their place, but I think that the world would be poorer without a license like the GPL. The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules. If someone wants to compete against a GPLed project, they either have to play by the same rules or build their own project from the ground up.
Instead of "copyright or not copyright", I think the Free software movement has shown that there is a range of restrictions that can be beneficial. Picking the appropriate restrictions for your project is an incredibly important task. When looking at CC (Creative Commons) licenses, I think it becomes a bit more obvious what things are valuable. They definitely benefitted from being able to look at the history of Free Software development when these licenses were developed.
I know there is a growing movement of people who are extremely enthusiastic about very unrestrictive licenses. However, I can't help thinking that they miss something -- only thinking about a binary world of very restrictive (all rights reserved) and non restrictive (at best attribution only). To be honest, I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works. Of course it isn't. Even in a world without copyright, this would not happen because lacking legal means, companies would pursue technical means of making it difficult to make derived works. Because of this I tend to license my work as GPL because I know a thriving, fair community can be served this way. The restrictions (made possible by copyright) are valuable.
I am not one of those who would espouse that all FOSS software should use unrestrictive licenses. CC0, or attribution based Free software licenses definitely have their place, but I think that the world would be poorer without a license like the GPL. The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules. If someone wants to compete against a GPLed project, they either have to play by the same rules or build their own project from the ground up.
Instead of "copyright or not copyright", I think the Free software movement has shown that there is a range of restrictions that can be beneficial. Picking the appropriate restrictions for your project is an incredibly important task. When looking at CC (Creative Commons) licenses, I think it becomes a bit more obvious what things are valuable. They definitely benefitted from being able to look at the history of Free Software development when these licenses were developed.
I know there is a growing movement of people who are extremely enthusiastic about very unrestrictive licenses. However, I can't help thinking that they miss something -- only thinking about a binary world of very restrictive (all rights reserved) and non restrictive (at best attribution only). To be honest, I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works. Of course it isn't. Even in a world without copyright, this would not happen because lacking legal means, companies would pursue technical means of making it difficult to make derived works. Because of this I tend to license my work as GPL because I know a thriving, fair community can be served this way. The restrictions (made possible by copyright) are valuable.
doing away with copyright does not seem to be on the agenda of those who are concerned with Software Freedom (notably the FSF). If it were, we could all move to CC0 from GPL and be happy.
that's wrong. FSF is concerned with preserving software users' freedoms. abolishing the copyright without further changes to the legal landscape would have terrible consequences for those rights: even though you would be able to sell copies of any (say) software no matter how you procured it, you wouldn't get the source and wouldn't have the freedom to modify it for your needs.
The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules.
that's true, but we don't need copyright to ensure creative works users' rights. the GPL is a hack, using the copyright (law meant to restrict your copying rights) to subvert those who try take away your right to copy. we don't need copyright for that any more than we need copyright to have other public goods funded by taxes, for example. all that is needed is a law codifying the software users' freedoms formulated in the GPL.
I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works.
that's also the GPL world.
that's wrong. FSF is concerned with preserving software users' freedoms. abolishing the copyright without further changes to the legal landscape would have terrible consequences for those rights: even though you would be able to sell copies of any (say) software no matter how you procured it, you wouldn't get the source and wouldn't have the freedom to modify it for your needs.
The GPL ensures an even playing field so that someone can't take a large Free project, add a small piece and compete with the original project using different rules.
that's true, but we don't need copyright to ensure creative works users' rights. the GPL is a hack, using the copyright (law meant to restrict your copying rights) to subvert those who try take away your right to copy. we don't need copyright for that any more than we need copyright to have other public goods funded by taxes, for example. all that is needed is a law codifying the software users' freedoms formulated in the GPL.
I love the thought of living in a world where everything was CC0 and everyone would willingly encourage people to take the source code and make derivative works.
that's also the GPL world.
>They mean that, once you have paid and received permission to use the work, you shouldn't be restricted in your use of the work.
Including reselling the work. This is one part I don't understand. One person pays full price and sells it to everybody else at a lower price, until the product is free as in, yes, free beer.
Including reselling the work. This is one part I don't understand. One person pays full price and sells it to everybody else at a lower price, until the product is free as in, yes, free beer.
I actually like the no-nonsense nature of this page. It would be even better if Alex profited more in the long run (he's got amazing images) and if less was going to support the legal system that created the copyright mess in the first place.
One step at a time I guess!
One step at a time I guess!
If you look up the case that Alex linked to it turns out that the company he's suing were used hand illustrated paintings [1] that seemingly traced Alex's original photo.
That's still fairly sketchy, but hardly the case of blatant republishing of photos that he's alluding to. I can actually see them arguing fair use.
[1] http://cdn.orkin.com/images/ants/red-imported-fire-ant-illus...
That's still fairly sketchy, but hardly the case of blatant republishing of photos that he's alluding to. I can actually see them arguing fair use.
[1] http://cdn.orkin.com/images/ants/red-imported-fire-ant-illus...
Naive question: how does the legal system determine appropriate damages for this kind of infringement? Can ImageRights just name a number, or is there some kind of precedent?
Using a $500 photo intuitively seems worse than using a $5 photo. But if the offender had no intent - ie. a grandmother that didn't know you can't just copy anything from Google Images - would be bizarre to have punitive damages be a multiplier of the original license cost.
Using a $500 photo intuitively seems worse than using a $5 photo. But if the offender had no intent - ie. a grandmother that didn't know you can't just copy anything from Google Images - would be bizarre to have punitive damages be a multiplier of the original license cost.
Depends on the country.
I recently had a case in France where a very well known magazine used one of my photos without permission; my lawyer advised that photo worth is judged by the reputation of the photographer.
If you're an amateur happy snapper, you'll get hardly anything. If you're a world famous photographer, you'll get significant amounts.
In one regard, that seems fair - and in another - grossly unfair.
If you're an amateur happy snapper, you'll get hardly anything. If you're a world famous photographer, you'll get significant amounts.
In one regard, that seems fair - and in another - grossly unfair.
Sounds like "greater of: reputation of infringer and reputation of photographer" would work.
>>> Our government’s copyright enforcement framework treats infringements as civil matters that generally require legal counsel.
I wish it did! Most infringement of a commercial work seems to incur criminal penalties (though you can recover civil damages as well).
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
I wish it did! Most infringement of a commercial work seems to incur criminal penalties (though you can recover civil damages as well).
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Though there's wiggle room in the statute, the USG has two bars to clear in order to criminally prosecute the misuse of a copyrighted photo as a promotional device for a business:
* The infringement must be not only intentional but willful, which implies not only that the infringer deliberately used the photograph, but did so with full awareness of their duties under copyright law; that's a higher bar than simple intent.
* To be a felony, the infringement must not only have a goal of commercial advantage or private gain, but that advantage itself must be with respect to the reproduction and/or distribution rights of the original author.
If you deliberately harvested this guy's bug pictures and resold them, you'd be easy to charge criminally. But slapping one of his pictures on your website is probably too fuzzy to charge criminally.
* The infringement must be not only intentional but willful, which implies not only that the infringer deliberately used the photograph, but did so with full awareness of their duties under copyright law; that's a higher bar than simple intent.
* To be a felony, the infringement must not only have a goal of commercial advantage or private gain, but that advantage itself must be with respect to the reproduction and/or distribution rights of the original author.
If you deliberately harvested this guy's bug pictures and resold them, you'd be easy to charge criminally. But slapping one of his pictures on your website is probably too fuzzy to charge criminally.
I don't believe there does have to be advantage/gain, if the retail value of the work exceeds $1_000. [1]
He seems to be taking a very reasonable tact by going after genuinely commercial abusers, if his description is correct.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506
He seems to be taking a very reasonable tact by going after genuinely commercial abusers, if his description is correct.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506
From the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual:
There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
The language in (4) is actually the subject of a good deal of discussion, because it changed (to that) relatively recently.
There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
The language in (4) is actually the subject of a good deal of discussion, because it changed (to that) relatively recently.
I don't understand the context. Is that published to give a general, and not completely accurate, picture of the law? Or is the DOJ actually saying they won't enforce 17 USC 506 a-1-b?
It's not a reflection of the actual law. Maybe it's a mistake. Even if it's an accurate reflection of DOJ policy, they can rewrite it whenever, and start enforcing the law as written... retroactively, even.
It's not a reflection of the actual law. Maybe it's a mistake. Even if it's an accurate reflection of DOJ policy, they can rewrite it whenever, and start enforcing the law as written... retroactively, even.
What was the result of the lawsuit v orkin? Doesn't show any of the details / payout
It was filed last December, so maybe it wasn't resolved yet?
On a bright note, you take gorgeous photography and I agree with you.. at least get your written permission to use, and if you don't want someone to use them, than its yours only.
Many people here believe a necessary and legitimate role of law is to provide specific methods for creators of intellectual goods to earn income, and are willing to encroach on people's freedoms in order to archive this goal. Other's don't view this as a necessary or legitimate role of law (and many aren't even convinced that intellectual property law actually provides a net benefit from a utilitarian standpoint).
I believe it is specifically the creator's responsibility (and in general, the market's role) to figure out how the creator can make money.
I am reminded of a rather blunt slogan found in cat-v (http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/) and in the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom's page (http://c4sif.org/): "Your failed business model is not my problem."
I believe it is specifically the creator's responsibility (and in general, the market's role) to figure out how the creator can make money.
I am reminded of a rather blunt slogan found in cat-v (http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/) and in the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom's page (http://c4sif.org/): "Your failed business model is not my problem."
Does anyone else get the startup idea I got? Photo copyright infringement enforcement as a service? Feels too dirty to interest me, but maybe there's a business there for someone.
This exists.
timus83(1)
The guy spent $50k on equipment to make these photos.
Sorry iPhone/Android users. Pro photo equipment IS expensive.
No matter how many terapixels your piece of shit, made in China pocket device is claimed to have, the true pro equipment takes a mortgage to have. And muscles to carry. High quality glass is heavy. And expensive (did I already said that?) to manufacture.
It's all still made in Japan. Every little thing on it is.
And that's a price to pay for top quality.
And so - his response is reasonable.
It's all still made in Japan. Every little thing on it is.
And that's a price to pay for top quality.
And so - his response is reasonable.
The licensing would be every bit as justified if the gear were cheap. This is how he makes his living, he's under no obligation to give it to anyone for free.
No one can ever arrange bits in that order because I was the first one to do it.
Are you implying that the photographer's digital assets aren't being used, but that the alleged infringers somehow recreated the bits and the fact that they are identical is coincidental?
Let's assume that this is a valid characterization of things. Now, we could try flipping one or more of those bits. Surely the soundness of this argument guarantees that the resulting bit sequences are not protected so long as nobody else ever arranged those bits that way, and we're free to use them, right? In fact, we would be the only ones allowed to use the resulting bit sequence then.
Problem is, if we actually did this, the protection status of those bits in real life would not comport with the results we outlined above. Specifically, we would find that many of the resulting bit sequences would be just as off limits to us. That's because copyright is not about bits, and the original characterization that it is is not a sound one.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
Problem is, if we actually did this, the protection status of those bits in real life would not comport with the results we outlined above. Specifically, we would find that many of the resulting bit sequences would be just as off limits to us. That's because copyright is not about bits, and the original characterization that it is is not a sound one.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
You're making it sound like there was no effort that went into capturing that image.
Well, for copyright, it doesn't actually matter anyway.
How much are the infringement letters demanding? $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument.
> $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument.
How do you figure? I think 10x is an entirely reasonable penalty for stealing* someone's work instead of paying for it lawfully. The MPAA demanded $30,000 for a $0.99 song, which I would say is completely unreasonable. But 10x seems pretty inline with a non-excessive penalty.
How do you figure? I think 10x is an entirely reasonable penalty for stealing* someone's work instead of paying for it lawfully. The MPAA demanded $30,000 for a $0.99 song, which I would say is completely unreasonable. But 10x seems pretty inline with a non-excessive penalty.
$200 probably wouldn't cover lawyers fees. From an amoral perspective, there's a simple cost function: (cost to buy) vs (chance of being caught * cost of damages). If you don't make the cost of damages high enough then the behavior will continue. [0]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
He's licensing full-resolution digital images for around $400 a pop, so I'd say that asking infringers for a $1000 payment is easily fair and probably far too low. You are stealing his work and lawyers are not cheap.
Legal fees are likely more than $100 per image, so I imagine he's asking for licensing fee + legal fees + deterrent fee.
So probably closer to $1000, if not more.
Also, who said anything about morality? This is law, not philosophy. We're firmly planted on the 'is' side of 'is/ought', at this point.
So probably closer to $1000, if not more.
Also, who said anything about morality? This is law, not philosophy. We're firmly planted on the 'is' side of 'is/ought', at this point.
$200 might be reasonable if two things were true:
1) There was no legal expense 2) He catches at least 50% of the violators
In that case, he would at least make as much as if there were no violators. However, he has legal costs, and probably only catches a fraction of the violators.
So the equation should be something close to:
(Price charged for violation - legal fees) * % chance of being caught = Original price of image
1) There was no legal expense 2) He catches at least 50% of the violators
In that case, he would at least make as much as if there were no violators. However, he has legal costs, and probably only catches a fraction of the violators.
So the equation should be something close to:
(Price charged for violation - legal fees) * % chance of being caught = Original price of image
Yes he does. Dealing with copyright infringement can be very expensive and time consuming.
I can see the guy's point, but at the same time, I found the tone of the write-up to be unbearably smug.
Evidently the law is on his side, but reading the way this page is written makes me wish that it weren't.
Evidently the law is on his side, but reading the way this page is written makes me wish that it weren't.
I didn't interpret the tone as smugness so much as someone who's tired of having people illegally use his images and then try to argue with him about it.
His tone doesn't even come off even as just barely smug.
My take has been people who work with code build up a view of copyright that is completely biased by the way open source model works. A model where sharing everything benefits your peers, because most people using open source will generally make their living off of products or services that are built using those tools.
The end result of photography is not a tool, it is an original creative work that is how professional photogrpahers make their living. Besides the very limited scope of fair use there is no general benefit for the community to be able to freely use the creative works of others who have licensed that work as All Rights Reserved other than to be a cheapskate.
My take has been people who work with code build up a view of copyright that is completely biased by the way open source model works. A model where sharing everything benefits your peers, because most people using open source will generally make their living off of products or services that are built using those tools.
The end result of photography is not a tool, it is an original creative work that is how professional photogrpahers make their living. Besides the very limited scope of fair use there is no general benefit for the community to be able to freely use the creative works of others who have licensed that work as All Rights Reserved other than to be a cheapskate.
He doesn't want you to take his position personally. He does want you to pay for using his work, and gives plenty of reasonable justification why. If he's coming off as smug, then I imagine it's because he's dealt with people/entities that feel that infringing his work is a benign act when it takes a big financial toll on him.
I liked the tone: "just the facts, ma'am" simply doesn't work in this case, mostly because of the tone of the questions - which is 100% accurate.
His answers may be a little snarky and sarcastic, but the questions he is answering properly represent the attitude and tone of the people who use creative work without permission.
His answers may be a little snarky and sarcastic, but the questions he is answering properly represent the attitude and tone of the people who use creative work without permission.
Your response comes over like a false sense of entitlement.
"It’s just a photo! Surely a photo can’t be worth that much."
I can't believe people would actually think that after having obviously done something wrong.
"It’s just a photo! Surely a photo can’t be worth that much."
I can't believe people would actually think that after having obviously done something wrong.
It's hard. When something is easy to reproduce, it's easier for humans to devalue it. "It's just a photo/mp3/movie/tv-show"...
The problem is while things like oil and food and human labor are physically scare, information is not, and not because that information was easy to initially create, but just as a matter of fact, it is terribly easy to reproduce.
It might have more to do with psychology than anything.
The problem is while things like oil and food and human labor are physically scare, information is not, and not because that information was easy to initially create, but just as a matter of fact, it is terribly easy to reproduce.
It might have more to do with psychology than anything.
No - on HN it should not be hard.
We may be smug about it and criticise his business model, saying "he should give his image for free and charge for making custom picture or work for the BBC or another imaginary plan based on whatever works in our field".
But that should not be difficult for us to understand the value and the work there is behind a single picture. That's too similar to making a small fortune writing code which is what most of us are doing here.
We may be smug about it and criticise his business model, saying "he should give his image for free and charge for making custom picture or work for the BBC or another imaginary plan based on whatever works in our field".
But that should not be difficult for us to understand the value and the work there is behind a single picture. That's too similar to making a small fortune writing code which is what most of us are doing here.
It is not easy to reproduce capturing beauty. If the product is information than any random bits will do. What we care about is aesthetic bits, which his is the provider of.
Look, for most people here, we understand that something like the linux kernel took decades of man hours, if not a century by now. However, it's trivially easy to copy the result of those years of effort, even if the initial effort wasn't that easy, as I hint in my post. It turns out that such copying is legal and desired by the original authors, as it is much easier for them than it is for artist; still, it is a fact that the product is easy to reproduce while the act is not. This is at the heart of this whole conflict between the content-creators and the content-consumers today.
The matter of fact is that artificial[0] constraints on the product of such creations are the best method we have developed to ensure that the creators continue to be paid for their work, and I'm not sure of another, feasible way. Things like generous benefactors, be them individuals, institutions, or governments, are too few and not with enough capital to support enough creators without selling their products.
If anyone has a better idea, they could revolution history forever. Apart from Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, however, I know of no other way that will work.
[0]when I say artificial, I am speak matter-of-factly, not to offend anyone. The interesting thing is such talent and experience needed to produce such works is scarce, it's just the product isn't.
The matter of fact is that artificial[0] constraints on the product of such creations are the best method we have developed to ensure that the creators continue to be paid for their work, and I'm not sure of another, feasible way. Things like generous benefactors, be them individuals, institutions, or governments, are too few and not with enough capital to support enough creators without selling their products.
If anyone has a better idea, they could revolution history forever. Apart from Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, however, I know of no other way that will work.
[0]when I say artificial, I am speak matter-of-factly, not to offend anyone. The interesting thing is such talent and experience needed to produce such works is scarce, it's just the product isn't.
>The product is easy to reproduce while the act is not.
The act is getting easier and easier to reproduce, up to a certain basic level - which seems to be good enough for commercial purposes.
The arts have seen an unbelievable explosion of activity. There are more people writing, making art and music, taking photos, creating code, and everything else besides, than ever before - not just by a little, but by an astronomical amount.
The problem is that most of the work is eh-okay. Average-and-worse mediocrity is very easy to fine. Basic entertaining competence is less common, but still not rare.
And that seems to be all most consumers want - hence the success of 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight, and the rest, and their equivalents in other media.
In the past, culture was good at distilling out the extreme talent, so historically the arts have amassed a fine collection of game-changing geniuses, while allowing the eh-okay creators to drop into oblivion.
It's Salieri vs Mozart - commercially Mozart was the loser while alive, but not so much a few centuries later.
Today it's harder to find a Mozart because the modern equivalent is probably working for an ad agency, and has limited time to produce truly game-changing genius-level work.
And it might not sell anyway. And it would probably get lost in the noise even if it did sell.
The answer is probably the much-discussed living wage. Let everyone who wants to make art get on with making art full time, without having to worry about starving or being homeless.
Most of it will suck, some of it will be okay, a little of it will be jaw-droppingly awesome.
tl:dr; It's the socially-enforced dogma that art exists primarily for profit that causes the problems. Get rid of that, and a lot of the issues go away.
The act is getting easier and easier to reproduce, up to a certain basic level - which seems to be good enough for commercial purposes.
The arts have seen an unbelievable explosion of activity. There are more people writing, making art and music, taking photos, creating code, and everything else besides, than ever before - not just by a little, but by an astronomical amount.
The problem is that most of the work is eh-okay. Average-and-worse mediocrity is very easy to fine. Basic entertaining competence is less common, but still not rare.
And that seems to be all most consumers want - hence the success of 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight, and the rest, and their equivalents in other media.
In the past, culture was good at distilling out the extreme talent, so historically the arts have amassed a fine collection of game-changing geniuses, while allowing the eh-okay creators to drop into oblivion.
It's Salieri vs Mozart - commercially Mozart was the loser while alive, but not so much a few centuries later.
Today it's harder to find a Mozart because the modern equivalent is probably working for an ad agency, and has limited time to produce truly game-changing genius-level work.
And it might not sell anyway. And it would probably get lost in the noise even if it did sell.
The answer is probably the much-discussed living wage. Let everyone who wants to make art get on with making art full time, without having to worry about starving or being homeless.
Most of it will suck, some of it will be okay, a little of it will be jaw-droppingly awesome.
tl:dr; It's the socially-enforced dogma that art exists primarily for profit that causes the problems. Get rid of that, and a lot of the issues go away.
> while things like oil and food and human labor are physically scare, information is not
It's hard to value something that isn't scarce.
It's hard to value something that isn't scarce.
I'd go with weary over unbearably smug.
I'm sympathetic to his cause. Imagine having your work stolen and having to deal with this for years. It would be very disheartening work. It looks like he's trying to only go after those that are using his images to make money. If that's the case, they most certainly should pay for the service that he has provided.
Not nearly as smug as the person who thinks creative works are easy to create and thus should be free.
I don't find it smug at all. I work in film, and whether I'm on set or writing a screenplay I make my business to know my responsibilities in regards to other people's copyrights and trademarks. And this is at the low-budget end, I don't collect a fat salary for rubber-stamping clearance forms or anything like that. I do the research, I write and ask for permission or information about authorship, and if I don't the reply I hoped for then I shelve the idea or rethink it. As a creator, I have a responsibility to treat the creative work of others with the same respect that I would like them to treat mine.
Yes, it's often tedious and frustrating, and involves hours of work that I'd rather spend writing or photographing new material. On the other hand, I don't live in fear of demand letters.
Yes, it's often tedious and frustrating, and involves hours of work that I'd rather spend writing or photographing new material. On the other hand, I don't live in fear of demand letters.
It is well-known and well-documented that our ability to infer tone from electronic communications is poor, so your chances of being correct in judging his tone are not much over 50%: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239121
That's better than chance, but not really enough to pass judgment on someone. This may be why you have been downvoted. It may also be that others read his tone (with 56% accuracy) differently.
The tone of this message is meant to be neutral and informative.
That's better than chance, but not really enough to pass judgment on someone. This may be why you have been downvoted. It may also be that others read his tone (with 56% accuracy) differently.
The tone of this message is meant to be neutral and informative.
It came off as explicit, not smug.
I disagree but don't understand why you were down voted... it seems that others disagree and think that's who they should express themselves. Maybe they are smug?
Criticizing tone is one of the least productive ways to engage with an idea. It doesn't address the idea itself, and perception of tone is very subjective, so it stimulates an exchange of opinions, which is not what we want to read in the HN comments.
Refer to DH2 in "How to Disagree" by Paul Graham (2008) http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html (not that this is a disagreement... but the article is still relevant)
Refer to DH2 in "How to Disagree" by Paul Graham (2008) http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html (not that this is a disagreement... but the article is still relevant)
Perhaps the commenter I replied to above wasn't interested in engaging with the idea. Maybe he just wanted to express his displeasure with the tone. Not every interaction is going to be the type of interaction you expect (i.e. "engaging with an idea"). Sometimes, critiques of written works have to do with the tone. There is nothing wrong with that.
The reason that comment got down voted and the reason I got down voted had nothing to do with PG'S 2008 post. It had everything to do with an abrasive community...
Yet, as my old man used to say, "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and only the pigs like it." So it is on HN...
QED Turtles all the way down.
The reason that comment got down voted and the reason I got down voted had nothing to do with PG'S 2008 post. It had everything to do with an abrasive community...
Yet, as my old man used to say, "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and only the pigs like it." So it is on HN...
QED Turtles all the way down.
[deleted]
Please stop polluting public space with proprietary images. If you don't want to share keep them in your drawer. It's immoral to use the reputation boost internet provides without accepting that people will share your work.
To downvoters: If copyright lawyers can manufacture morality and play on lowest instincts ("mine! go away!") so can everybody else ("stop limiting my freedom!").
On more serious note every resource that is copyrighted should carry plainly visible note about like warrnings on cigarette packs so mildly creative people can stay away from it.
To downvoters: If copyright lawyers can manufacture morality and play on lowest instincts ("mine! go away!") so can everybody else ("stop limiting my freedom!").
On more serious note every resource that is copyrighted should carry plainly visible note about like warrnings on cigarette packs so mildly creative people can stay away from it.
From the author:
Of all the varieties of infringement-related comments, the “stay off the Internet” refrains are the most toxic. In one go they both acknowledge that infringement is bad for artists while also showing no concern for the Internet, which would be poorer for their absence. “Don’t post it” is the ultimate nihilistic diss.
Of all the varieties of infringement-related comments, the “stay off the Internet” refrains are the most toxic. In one go they both acknowledge that infringement is bad for artists while also showing no concern for the Internet, which would be poorer for their absence. “Don’t post it” is the ultimate nihilistic diss.
I think a lot of people conflate the rent-seeking behaviors of the larger media conglomerates that acquire licenses to creative works with the monetization seeking behaviors of small-time content creators.
It's not a "diss" though, but a legitimate opinion on copyright which is found both in discourse and in law. Just because the author is opinionated and throws around rhetoric emotional words like "toxic" and "nihilistic" doesn't make his opinions any more supported.
What's toxic is piling up so many people to profit from setting up a barrier on such as simple thing as information sharing and reuse.
But US does the same for so many things, health care, collecting fines for municipal violations, keeping people locked up, providing education, politics.
It is only to be expected that many people would feed of on relationship between people and information there. No other country is so zealous about interfering with it for profit.
But US does the same for so many things, health care, collecting fines for municipal violations, keeping people locked up, providing education, politics.
It is only to be expected that many people would feed of on relationship between people and information there. No other country is so zealous about interfering with it for profit.
If you have a better way for someone to make a living being able to do that, and one that would actually happen, then you're welcome to try and do it with your works.
There are dozens of methods of profiting from your work without sueing people and lots of people including me already use them. Unfortunately sueing works too to some limited degree especially in the US and people use it because they want to profit and don't care how much damage they do the creative environment.
It's a licensing violation, which is treated as a breach of contract. That's how contract disputes are settled.
As for "damage to the creative environment," the person trying to making a living off their work is not the one doing damage. The people who believe they are entitled to the work of others are the ones who should bear the sole blame for that.
As for "damage to the creative environment," the person trying to making a living off their work is not the one doing damage. The people who believe they are entitled to the work of others are the ones who should bear the sole blame for that.
> As for "damage to the creative environment," the person trying to making a living off their work is not the one doing damage
Tell that to all scared teenagers posting "No copyright infringement intended" because they made something cool while Sony makes its living. Being exposed to copyright law causes permanent brain damage. Your creativity might never recover. Some people don't want to make a living out of their creations, they just wan't to create stuff without anyone telling them which components they may and may not use.
Tell that to all scared teenagers posting "No copyright infringement intended" because they made something cool while Sony makes its living. Being exposed to copyright law causes permanent brain damage. Your creativity might never recover. Some people don't want to make a living out of their creations, they just wan't to create stuff without anyone telling them which components they may and may not use.
Oh bullshit. That's like saying not being able to break any other law causes brain damage.
In a sense you are right. Imagine homeless hungry teenage coming with empty pockets to a food market. Try to imagine how he feels.
That's exactly how any average creative young person that is aware of copyright feels when she comes to internet.
She can use the culture but only if she won't ever get caught.
Being exposed to unfair inhumane laws influences people brains.
That's exactly how any average creative young person that is aware of copyright feels when she comes to internet.
She can use the culture but only if she won't ever get caught.
Being exposed to unfair inhumane laws influences people brains.
[deleted]
So your argument is that companies should be able to profit off of my work for free?
He states that he does not go after personal blogs.
I have yet to hear a decent argument that explains why commercial profit-making organisations should be able to get my work for free.
He states that he does not go after personal blogs.
I have yet to hear a decent argument that explains why commercial profit-making organisations should be able to get my work for free.
So your argument is that you should be able to use open communication platform to promote your work in any way possible for nothing, but collect as much money as you can by coercing into submission using any means necessary of people who ran into you work on this open platform and liked it so much that they shared and/or extended it?
> people who ran into you work on this open platform and liked it so much that they appropriated it for their own gains
ftfy
ftfy
He has not only a 1st amendment right to display his work in public, but as the creator, he also holds controls that privilege over his works under the copyright act.
Suggesting he should go away is ridiculous.
Suggesting he should go away is ridiculous.
Invoking the 1st amendment is just as ridiculous, though, because the core conflict is between speech and copyright. ;)
Why is it ridiculous? The parent-poster suggested he keep his work private to avoid copyright infringement. In fact, the owner should not view potential infringement as any threat to his ability to exercise his freedom of speech (e.g. display his work).
Because the main thing copyright does is curtail speech. Your argument can be rephrased as "The creator should feel comfortable using his freedom of speech to display his work in public because nobody else has the freedom of speech to display his work in public." Positive freedom of speech is clearly not the issue here.
It's a totally flawed use of freedom of speech anyway. Freedom to speak does not mean freedom from consequences. (Especially when it comes to people quoting you.)
It's a totally flawed use of freedom of speech anyway. Freedom to speak does not mean freedom from consequences. (Especially when it comes to people quoting you.)
> Because the main thing copyright does is curtail speech.
You lost me, there. That's a twisted reading of copyright.
You lost me, there. That's a twisted reading of copyright.
It's simple. Every original work is a form of speech. Reproduction and retransmission, that's speech too. Copyright places restrictions on this. That's pretty much the only thing it does. The words you use, the sounds you make, these have to abide by copyright.
I'm not saying that makes copyright bad. Laws against fraud also work by curtailing speech. But I think it's a reasonable description.
I'm not saying that makes copyright bad. Laws against fraud also work by curtailing speech. But I think it's a reasonable description.
You are wrong on the facts, about how laws against fraud work.
At least in America, courts only hear actual and not hypothetical controversies. Judges also do not grant a priori restraints on speech very often or very lightly. Laws against fraud criminalize (and preclude 1st amendment protection for speech implementing) dishonesty in certain contexts. But they do not restrain it by punishing the speech itself.
At least in America, courts only hear actual and not hypothetical controversies. Judges also do not grant a priori restraints on speech very often or very lightly. Laws against fraud criminalize (and preclude 1st amendment protection for speech implementing) dishonesty in certain contexts. But they do not restrain it by punishing the speech itself.
You've lost me. I never said the restrictions were a priori censorship. You can make the speech, and then you will be punished after based on it violating the law. And what do you mean by "punishing the speech itself"? Does "speech itself" mean the existence of speech or the contents of speech? If the former, I never claimed that, if the latter, they do punish that.
I guess what I'm getting at is, the freedom of speech is a bit stronger than you have suggested, but it is only a shield, not a sword.
You've got that backwards, nearly the entire Internet is private space, with specific terms & conditions for being allowed to use said private space.
I'd argue that much of the internet consists of minds of people who browse, communicate and share. Private are most of the pipes, low level and high level (like Facebook but not torrent).
On more serious note every resource that is copyrighted should carry plainly visible note about like warrnings on cigarette packs so mildly creative people can stay away from it.
But it generally does, and there is actually a procedure for dealing with 'orphan works' whose copyright status can't easily be established. Most work has the copyright statement right on it or in the metadata, and anyone who makes living from copyrighted works lodges copies with a repository like the Library of Congress and pays a fee for the privilege (about $50), because doing so is the only way to recover statutory damages if your work is infringed.
But it generally does, and there is actually a procedure for dealing with 'orphan works' whose copyright status can't easily be established. Most work has the copyright statement right on it or in the metadata, and anyone who makes living from copyrighted works lodges copies with a repository like the Library of Congress and pays a fee for the privilege (about $50), because doing so is the only way to recover statutory damages if your work is infringed.
> On more serious note every resource that is copyrighted should carry plainly visible note about like warrnings on cigarette packs so mildly creative people can stay away from it.
Warning: If you're in a nation that has signed the Berne Convention, everything that's copyrightable is copyrighted unless otherwise noted.
Warning: Copyrights are known to the State of California to cause reproductive harm.
Warning: If you're in a nation that has signed the Berne Convention, everything that's copyrightable is copyrighted unless otherwise noted.
Warning: Copyrights are known to the State of California to cause reproductive harm.
Any copyright indication fulfills the legal requirement.
To suggest otherwise, that established copyright law shouldn't apply if one makes a work public, means anyone should be able to take work on Github and ignore license. Attribution? Who cares. Required contribution upstream? Upstream this. Inclusion of source code and license? Get bent. After all, the developer is using the reputation boost that the Internet provides since they can consult as a subject expert, right?
To suggest otherwise, that established copyright law shouldn't apply if one makes a work public, means anyone should be able to take work on Github and ignore license. Attribution? Who cares. Required contribution upstream? Upstream this. Inclusion of source code and license? Get bent. After all, the developer is using the reputation boost that the Internet provides since they can consult as a subject expert, right?
Funny thing is that what you described is exactly how internet works if you don't let lawyers inside.
By my count this would sill be a win. And I'm a programmer and I'd be delighted if million people stole my code. And I have no faintest idea how people using my code might reduce my income.
By my count this would sill be a win. And I'm a programmer and I'd be delighted if million people stole my code. And I have no faintest idea how people using my code might reduce my income.
It's backwards. Resource is private property on internet unless there is a licence attached and allowing otherwise.
It's like saying things tend to levitate unless there's nothing preventing them from falling down.
Copyright goes against physics of internet.
Copyright goes against physics of internet.
[deleted]
All I'm reading in your comment is an entitlement to other people's work.
I feel no entitlement to use other people's work if they don't market it.
I'm just not fond about people pushing their work into other peoples faces and calling moral outrage if they take it (because they can because that's how internet works) and ransom them.
I'm just not fond about people pushing their work into other peoples faces and calling moral outrage if they take it (because they can because that's how internet works) and ransom them.
I've had people send nasty emails after I moved or got rid of an image that they were hotlinking. People have called me all sorts of ugly names because a free app that I wrote didn't have a feature they need. People have posted nasty stuff because I didn't provide them phone support at 3am for a GPL open source utility that I released. All this because I can't always manage to reply to people needing support for my free-time projects. I'm sure a lot of you here have known the same type of treatment.