Copywrite

[reverberation]

I had an interesting experience today. I was buying cloth tape and ran into a person who was buying a frame for an inkjet print. After chatting about prints, the person stated that the print he was framing was downloaded from the internet. He stated, "I'm only going to do an 8 1/2 by 11, I have software that will let me do any size, but thats just not right." I didn't say anything, I was not even going to post this, but it kind of bothers me. The truth is that I didn't know what to say. I had a really rough day yesterday and damaged my favorite camera so the surge of anger I felt was ignored. Its been on my mind though, and thinking about it brings up an experience I had at a website that I would rather forget. It seemed that many people who did not like my photographs felt the need to download them. I personally would never steal another photographers work, I would even try to avoid copying it. To me, downloading a picture I don't own the copywrite to is stealing. Its outrageous, yet I surmise that it is widespread. I see the photographs that people share here as sacrosanct. I am wondering if I espouse a widely held view or a minority view. My question: Have you ever downloaded a photograph you did not take? I exclude photographs downloaded by permission, as in editing.

[megan]

Interesting poll, and that experience just confirms my fears. Not that the world is clamoring for my photos, but I try to put the lowest resolution images possible up. While I photograph for the joy of it, I'd like to make $$ from the images that I put out for the world to see. You can't stop people from downloading your images, but it's still disappointing that you experienced that. I would have said something, but I understand why you didn't!

[Asylum Steve]

Have you ever downloaded a photograph you did not take?...

I do it all the time. Copyright laws are meant to protect us from unauthorized commercial use of our work...

IMO, downloading and printing artwork from the web for personal use is no different than tearing a page with an interesting photo out of a magazine and taping it to your refrigerator or bulletin board or putting it in a scrapbook. Or even a frame...

I have a morgue of literally hundreds of photos taken from magazines as reference for everything from lighting to styling concepts to composition to subject posing.

I also have many printed pics of fashion models taken by other shooters that were downloaded without permission. Again, it's solely for reference for talent I may want to work with or use for a specific job, or an image I like whose style I may want to try.

I seriously doubt anyone has much of an objection to this "fair use", and I certainly have no problems with others using my work the same way. In fact, I find the idea very flattering...

FWIW, art buyers all over the world (and by that I mean Photo Editors and Art Directors at publications and agencies) do this exact same thing all the time. They're responsible for paying photogs tons 'o dollars for work, and one way they keep track of who they like is to "steal" images off the web and file them or stick them up on a wall.

That's fine with me... :thumbsup:

It's profiting off of someone else's work that is both illegal and unethical...

[megan]

Yeah, I *get* that - it's just that from a fine-art POV, if someone dowloads my photograph, prints it, frames it, and puts it on their wall as art, I'm not getting a sale. Whether you shoot digital or film, you have overhead. If someone ganks your photo off the web in the way Reverberation described, I'm not even beginning to cover that overhead. Art is a product, creating is labor. Then again, someone who DL's from the internet and frames laser print isn't likely to actually *buy* art anyway, but still... I've had people email me and say they couldn't afford $xx for an 11x14, do I have a cheaper, smaller print or a laser print they could buy? And I've obliged... In most cases didn't make a dime because I was so flattered and pleased that they respected the art (and didn't download) that I sent an additional print of something else along with it.

[jorgemonkey]

I didn't vote, because my answer isn't quite on the list.

Like Asylum Steve, I have a folder full of other photographers images. They are all portait/wedding/people photos, and I use them to get ideas on lighting, poses, places to shoot. Would I ever print them or use them for a purpose than what I am using them now? Not a chance.

Of course, the only photos on my walls that I didn't take are some of our wedding photos. Everything else on my walls are mine

[brmill26]

Steve, the Copyright Act most definitely DOES protect against illegal personal use, not just commercial! For example, if someone copies your image and rehosts it on another site claiming it as their own, even if it's not for sale, they have violated your copyright!

Steve alludes to another good point. Physical media vs. a digital file are two very different things. Digital files may be copied, transformed, and redistributed infinitely. Magazine papers may not. That is a HUGE difference in terms of copyright. No one will be bothered by a collection of magazine photos. But a collection of digital photos is a bit more ambiguous. Most of us here, myself included, have photos that were shot by another photographer that we use to learn from, admire, etc; but would never think of printing, altering, or claiming as our own. That's because we're photographers and we respect another's work. Unfortunately, the rest of the population doesn't understand any of those concepts and they assume that any photo on the net is fair game. And in reality, it is.

I actually just finished writing an article on the basics of copyright and protections you can use with your images. The host site won't publish it until Monday, but I'll post the link when they do.

[Asylum Steve]

Steve, the Copyright Act most definitely DOES protect against illegal personal use, not just commercial! For example, if someone copies your image and rehosts it on another site claiming it as their own, even if it's not for sale, they have violated your copyright!

Well, no argument here, but I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. What you describe is re-publishing someone's work and taking credit for it. Obviously a no-no...

I was only talking about downloading and printing images for personal use where no presentation is being made to anyone else. Strictly personal viewing (in the physical world, not the web) or reference use.

My point is the original poster's view that any and all downloading of another's work being wrong just doesn't make sense to me...

[brmill26]

Well you're right, but I used that example because it's one of the most common (see Flickr).

Technically, both downloading and printing "for personal use" are illegal. Downloading, though, would probably fall under fair use b/c a download is made every time you view the image anyway. But by downloading, you've technically made an unauthorized copy, which is particularly dangerous in that a digital file may be reproduced infinitely, which is where most people run out of Fair Use coverage.

Printing a copyrighted image from a downloaded file is absolutely illegal no matter your use. That's why Walmart, et al, won't print images they don't think are yours. It makes no difference if you print them at home. You've stolen the sale of a print from that photographer. If that photographer is me, you're not in bad shape b/c it's not worth much. If that photographer is Anne Liebowitz, you're about to write a very big check to cover the price you would have paid to buy her print.

[Asylum Steve]

if someone dowloads my photograph, prints it, frames it, and puts it on their wall as art, I'm not getting a sale...

You know, I have never wasted a moment worrying about this, one because the difference between my web images and the ones that I actually print at 300dpi 16x20, sign, mat, and frame to sell is like night and day. Boosting a low-res jpeg off my web site and printing it large would be like taking a photo off an older tv screen. If they like my work that much that's the least I can provide for them...

Second, you hit the nail on the head. "I'm not getting a sale". Point is, you're not getting a sale whether they copy the pic off the web or not. It doesn't matter. It's not like you're losing a sale because they chose to download. These people are not our customers, at least it doesn't seem to me they are...

[Asylum Steve]

Printing a copyrighted image from a downloaded file is absolutely illegal no matter your use...

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. In fact, I have little to no interest in arguing legal points on really any topic. So I guess here's where I bow out of the discussion... :cryin:

To me, there theoretical law and practical law. I could not care less about theory. And practical law in the real world tells me no one cares (or knows for that matter) what I download and print in my home.

Even if it's a 4x5 print of a Lebovitz original. Truth is, no one is losing any money...

Still, I'll assume you know what you're talking about, and take a twisted pleasure in the fact that I seem to have broken the law MANY MANY times...

I always wanted to be an outlaw... :8:

[fx101]

Well you're right, but I used that example because it's one of the most common (see Flickr).

Technically, both downloading and printing "for personal use" are illegal. Downloading, though, would probably fall under fair use b/c a download is made every time you view the image anyway. But by downloading, you've technically made an unauthorized copy, which is particularly dangerous in that a digital file may be reproduced infinitely, which is where most people run out of Fair Use coverage.

Printing a copyrighted image from a downloaded file is absolutely illegal no matter your use. That's why Walmart, et al, won't print images they don't think are yours. It makes no difference if you print them at home. You've stolen the sale of a print from that photographer. If that photographer is me, you're not in bad shape b/c it's not worth much. If that photographer is Anne Liebowitz, you're about to write a very big check to cover the price you would have paid to buy her print.

No, certain uses are protected by law. You may not claim the work to be your own, you may not publish the image, and you may not print it if the photographer has not authorized a print reproduction. However, you could host the image on another personal website if the source is credited and it is not being used for promotional or commercial purposes. This being said, this is the real world. I expect people to print my images. This is normal. What do I do? I embed them in my flash gallery. You can't decompile the flash file to steal the image. You could print-screen but then you would have a small image that would look REALLY bad printed at 8x10 or larger. I've shot two weddings (alongside another photographer) and when I help make the gallery, I simply make sure that an end-user can't download an image. However, as part of the contract, I allow password protected access by the part of the client to access unedited (but with a small watermark) jpegs. This limits leakage onto the internet.

[reverberation]

Interesting points being made. I understand the nature of the internet and really wanted to address downloading for personal use, specifically printing, or using photographs as a screensaver. I usually bookmark the publishers site where the image resides, knowing I can view the image there whenever I want, giving the publisher the increase in web traffic. When I first got on the internet in the 90s, I downloaded and used portions of artwork from a graphic artist in a series of web pages that satirically poked fun at the way people "borrowed" on the internet. I realized my use was illegal and took the pages down. The thing that struck me today was the guy seemed a decent person and felt he was doing nothing wrong. Probably the thing that is really bothering me is that I said nothing. Perhaps I feel guilty over having downloaded and used another persons work on one of my web pages and thats why I don't download other peoples images.

[megan]

Oh, I agree that a low-res image from the web and a hi-res print for sale are two different things... and that someone downdloading and printing a crappy image off the net is not the sophisticated person that would buy art... the difference being that were the web not in existence, the illegal downloader & printer's opportunity to steal this image from me would be nil. Still, either way, no sale, but without the web, he wouldn't have an image at all. Splitting hairs, I know, but like I said - these are my images, and they are for sale, not for free.

[reverberation]

Downloading a photographic work for the purpose of study is also a private use that has moral implications in my mind. I think, especially in the case of lighting techniques, that there ought to be an acknowledgement when new techniques are implemented. If this is not done, then the history of the art becomes muddled and this , in my opinion, will inevitably lead to less understanding of the artistic expression in society. The soul of society dies.

[Didache]

I have, on occasion downloaded archive material for use in historical Audio-visual sequences. For instance, I have done AVs on Auschwitz, the Battle of Britain, etc. Virtually all the used in these sequences were images were taken by myself, but a few archive images taken at the time give them historical context.

This is a slightly grey area I suspect. It may be that the images I have used in this way (probably a couple of dozen over the years) were public domain in any case. But it may also be that their copyright is owned by some trust somewhere.

Do I feel at all guilty? To be honest, a little as I am very strong on copyright protection and theft of images. However, I do not and never have used any of the AVs for commercial gain - they are purely for personal satisfaction and camera club use. Also, I like to think that the trust which owns the images (if indeed that is the case) would probably approve of the way I use them.

It's a sticky one.

Cheers
Mike

[another view]

Oh, I agree that a low-res image from the web and a hi-res print for sale are two different things... and that someone downdloading and printing a crappy image off the net is not the sophisticated person that would buy art...

My first thought. Sure it's possible for the guy to make a big print, but what does it actually look like? Plenty of free programs to make it any size if he really wants to do it (or crop it to a standard print size, "adjust" the contrast... ).

If I liked a shot well enough to hang it on my wall, I'd buy a print from the photographer. Maybe some people don't see the difference but I think it's huge. Their choice of how the print looks is just part of the package for me (paper choice, sharpening, etc).

Back to the original question, this isn't something I do but really trying to stop it would be like handing out tickets to everyone who drives 1mph over the speed limit or jay-walks. Why waste the time on something that's impossible? For several years, commercial/wedding photographers have been talking about getting away from counting on print sales - just too easy for the customer to make their own.

[natgaines]

Maybe I haven't been in the field long enough to have it personally offend me but I have to agree with some of the other posters here. I would never try and sell anothers work, but that's not to say that I download for examples, etc. I never even crop or edit them, but that's not to say someone else wouldn't go out and try to take credit for someone else's work.

I also download music for free, but I'd never sell it. Music artists don't make the huge chunk of their money from CDs anyway, so I don't feel bad about it. Just my two cents.

[Benguk]

Watermark that shiz and don't sweat it (I know it detracts from the image, but what other option do you have if you care a ton about this type thing?).

[mjs1973]

The only real way to prevent people from downloading images is to not place them on the web to begin with. If it's not there, they can't steal it. On the other hand, if it's not there, they can't see it either. I know of people who have downloaded my images and used them for screen savers or wallpaper. Did it bother me? Yes, a little, but not enough to take down my website, or stop posting pictures here, or on my flickr account. For me, the exposure, and possible sales I get from showing my work on the web far outweighs the risk of having someone download a low res image.

Does the risk outweigh the potential reward?

I do on occasion download images from the web, but I have never even considered trying to pass them off as my own. Mostly I take them from the critique forum to try to see if I can tweak them a bit to make them look better. It helps me be more specific when giving feedback. Of course I don't repost the image, without the permission of the original photographer. I have also done it to see if there is any EXIF data in the file that would help me give someone some feedback, or for my own knowledge to see how a shot was taken. These images always get deleted once I'm done playing with them.

[freygr]

The way the current lawyers and laws are going the copyright will be much longer than 50 years, the corporations are making them almost infinite. almost all of my photos which I've down loaded are in the public domain any way, photos from the civil war, US army and Navy photos though WWII and a few latter.

If you are caught with an legal copyrighted work the statuary fine is $10,000 a copy. The new laws are really messed up. The laws on digital stuff, doesn't make any sense at all and the law tries to remove far use.

[Ultra Magnus]

Well, your poll selections aren't very good. I download pics of the internet all the time. Isn't that what google image search is for?

We occasionally print something for whatever, if my wife wants a graphic for some thing she's working on. I download things I find funny to share wiht people I know, one of my favorites are those demotivators posters.

Now, I don't see how you can possibly make any kind of decent print of any pic off the internet, seeing how low web resolution is. How good of a print can you make from an 800x600 jpg anyway?

Here's one I use all the time- it's used everywhere in a lot of forums I frequent when some newb brings up a topic that has been disucssed to death several times over-

I don't know who took it, nor do I care. No one is making any money off this photo.

BM

[brmill26]

I think a key point to take away from this thread is what is legal vs. what is "accepted" vs. what is moral. All three can be quite different and all three can converge on certain points. Different people follow different points more closely than others, and so you end up with what we see above, which is a hodge-podge of viewpoints coming from all three directions. The Copyright Act *attempts* to address all of the above, but in doing so it has become insanely complex and even less well understood by the general public. It is also extremely subjective, which makes it very difficult to explain because every rule has exceptions.

I mentioned above that I've written an article on Copyright. This one is just the first in a weekly series I will be writing for HyperPhocal, so if you're interested in learning about what Copyright actually says, come check it out. Myself being a law student and a photographer, I'm trying to write it to help photographers understand what they need to know in order to protect their work, give it greater value, and stop misusing the work of others.
http://hyperphocal.com/?p=130

[Asylum Steve]

Myself being a law student and a photographer, I'm trying to write it to help photographers understand what they need to know in order to protect their work, give it greater value, and stop misusing the work of others...

Well, I hope it goes without saying that you're doing all of us a huge service. As I mentioned, I get bored quickly with legal discussions, but I have no problem with others making a go of it, especially when they can boil important issues (like this) down and give the rest of us a bottom line and some pointers.

Anyway, if there's one thing I learned from this thread (and I can't believe it never occured to me!) it's that we all download other people's photos onto our computer when we view web pages in a browser. It's just temporarily.

So any one that answerd the poll that they would never do that is lying...

[reverberation]

I have, on occasion downloaded archive material for use in historical Audio-visual sequences. For instance, I have done AVs on Auschwitz, the Battle of Britain, etc. Virtually all the used in these sequences were images were taken by myself, but a few archive images taken at the time give them historical context.

This is a slightly grey area I suspect. It may be that the images I have used in this way (probably a couple of dozen over the years) were public domain in any case. But it may also be that their copyright is owned by some trust somewhere.

Do I feel at all guilty? To be honest, a little as I am very strong on copyright protection and theft of images. However, I do not and never have used any of the AVs for commercial gain - they are purely for personal satisfaction and camera club use. Also, I like to think that the trust which owns the images (if indeed that is the case) would probably approve of the way I use them.

It's a sticky one.

Cheers
Mike

You bring up some interesting aspects of this topic, for me. Historical context. You can't do an AV piece on those topics without it. I think strong copywrite laws will give a greater depth to historical context. If you don't know where something comes from how can you place it in correct context? This speaks to the very core of the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion, the right of an individual. I see copywrite as a petal on the flower of freedom. What it really is, is a definitive link to our past.

[Loupey]

I hope I'm not taking this thread too far off topic but have you thought about people stealing your work that was already "purchased"?

Sure downloading low-res web images doesn't keep me up at nights, but I've had reservations from the start regarding selling smaller prints. I figure, if someone likes my images enough to pay good money for them, they may like it enough to scan them and do with it as they please (make copies, email to friends, etc.). I'm sure some out there have the impression that if they paid for a print, they can do with it as they please.

A lot of my sales are of 8x10 or 8x12 matted on 11x14. For the above reason, I never sell prints loose and I always mat with a permanent bond so that dismantling them would destroy the original.

Perhaps I'm overthinking things too much. But I'm considering only selling prints 11x14 and larger for several reasons including the above. Still, better to do something and have some risks than do nothing.

Just a thought.