4 ms·

I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author wi

I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it? I can understand that someone might react against seeing their work all over the Internet used for free, and use the DMCA to prevent that. I can also understand a generous reaction, and feeling flatter instead. While I don't agree with Ms. Borderline, I do think that if I am going to react handing take down notices, providing a way to buy the image up front it is a fair preventive measure. After all, the internet is like a world wide getto street, and it would be naive to leave my precious jacket out night after night and be surpriced that someone finally run away with it. Attaching a price sign to it at least, and some people might respect it, while others will actually consider buying it as initial offer as oppose to a legal threat.

bigiain 14y ago
"I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it?" It doesn't work that way. Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234". The _default_ is that if you dont own a photograph(/song/story/program/movie), then somebody else does - and unless they've explicitly permitted you some rights to use it, you have _no_ right to use it. (with some very specific "fair use" exceptions, which are far less well understood by just about everybody than they should be. If you're ever tempted to claim "fair use", make sure you know what it means first…)
- jorgeleo 14y ago
  In theory there is no difference betweem theory and practice, but in practice there is. I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive. You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way. I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly. Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers. One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    It may be hard to reach you way up on your high horse there, but I don't think a "these photos are mine, all mine" disclaimer would have done a ton for him. Take Candice as an example. She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth. Even normal users don't read much of the text on websites; look at any of Jakob Nielsen's eye-tracking studies. People who are task-focused (e.g., find an image for their site they're rushing to get up) read even less. Given that, how much do you think Candice will read? And once it's on another site, people will start stealing it from there too. Coughpinterestcough. So as someone who also tries to look at how things work, I don't think he did anything wrong here. Suddenly everybody's a publisher, and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process.
    - jorgeleo 14y ago
      Is not a matter of high or low horses, but a matter of choices. "She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth"... love it. "how much do you think Candice will read?" A bucket of ferrets on meth... none. But that was not the only place the he found the photo. "and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process."... teaching, that is something that I can agree with. On the other side, in principle I cannot agree with Goya's picture "La letra con sangre entra" (Teaching by punishment, or spare the rod and spoil the child) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_letra_con_sangre_entra.jpg?uselang=en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_letra_con_sangre_e... If I am in a high horse, then then that kind of "teaching" is egocentric and self entitlement.
      - wpietri 14y ago
        What disappoints me about your argument here is that you're basically complaining that other people aren't doing things the way you'd like them to be done. You mention egocentricism, but don't seem to realize that he is under no particular obligation to live up to your standards. Reasonable people can disagree on how to handle this. He apparently disagrees with you, possibly as a matter of morals, but more likely as a question of how best to solve a problem with limited resources. If you really care about this problem, solve it yourself. Go make something that makes it easier for somebody like this to act the way you want than the way that's easy for them. Until then, you're just one more person telling the Little Red Hen how she should bake her bread.

bigiain 14y ago

"I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it?" It doesn't work that way. Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234". The _default_ is that if you dont own a photograph(/song/story/program/movie), then somebody else does - and unless they've explicitly permitted you some rights to use it, you have _no_ right to use it. (with some very specific "fair use" exceptions, which are far less well understood by just about everybody than they should be. If you're ever tempted to claim "fair use", make sure you know what it means first…)

jorgeleo 14y ago
In theory there is no difference betweem theory and practice, but in practice there is. I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive. You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way. I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly. Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers. One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.
- wpietri 14y ago
  It may be hard to reach you way up on your high horse there, but I don't think a "these photos are mine, all mine" disclaimer would have done a ton for him. Take Candice as an example. She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth. Even normal users don't read much of the text on websites; look at any of Jakob Nielsen's eye-tracking studies. People who are task-focused (e.g., find an image for their site they're rushing to get up) read even less. Given that, how much do you think Candice will read? And once it's on another site, people will start stealing it from there too. Coughpinterestcough. So as someone who also tries to look at how things work, I don't think he did anything wrong here. Suddenly everybody's a publisher, and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process.
  - jorgeleo 14y ago
    Is not a matter of high or low horses, but a matter of choices. "She's crazier than a bucket of ferrets on meth"... love it. "how much do you think Candice will read?" A bucket of ferrets on meth... none. But that was not the only place the he found the photo. "and it's going to take a while to teach them about copyright. This is part of the education process."... teaching, that is something that I can agree with. On the other side, in principle I cannot agree with Goya's picture "La letra con sangre entra" (Teaching by punishment, or spare the rod and spoil the child) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_letra_con_sangre_entra.jpg?uselang=en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_letra_con_sangre_e... If I am in a high horse, then then that kind of "teaching" is egocentric and self entitlement.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      What disappoints me about your argument here is that you're basically complaining that other people aren't doing things the way you'd like them to be done. You mention egocentricism, but don't seem to realize that he is under no particular obligation to live up to your standards. Reasonable people can disagree on how to handle this. He apparently disagrees with you, possibly as a matter of morals, but more likely as a question of how best to solve a problem with limited resources. If you really care about this problem, solve it yourself. Go make something that makes it easier for somebody like this to act the way you want than the way that's easy for them. Until then, you're just one more person telling the Little Red Hen how she should bake her bread.