13 ms·

This: "The audiences that Di Petta and Cameron have built are created with the work of photographers who they don't pay or even credit. They don't provide sourc

This: "The audiences that Di Petta and Cameron have built are created with the work of photographers who they don't pay or even credit. They don't provide sources for the photographs or the captions that accompany them. Sometimes they get stuff wrong and/or post copyrighted photographs. " Combined with this: "I'm sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives." Nothing 'new media' about it. Theft plain and simple.

burntsushi 13y ago
> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  No no, your right. I should have know better. My old company, Royalty Free Models, used to sell regular people for commercial photoshoots. I sold them with all rights included like a ShutterStock database with actual people. Even agency's don't understand copyrights...
  - sgdread 13y ago
    Stock companies require signed model release for every person on the photo. But copyright is belongs to creator - photographer.
- archgrove 13y ago
  This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who have decided, in defiance of the laws and remunerative structures society has constructed, that they're entitled to the work of people without giving anything back (apart from some advice like "I'm giving you free advertising", "find a new business model" or "this will actually help you in the long run"). Society has created intellectual property, in the same way it created physical property, and if you can steal the later, you can surely steal the former. One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future. I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument. (The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
    - archgrove 13y ago
      I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation. > Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings. But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important. However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
GuiA 13y ago
> They don't provide sources for the photographs or the captions that accompany them. Sometimes they get stuff wrong and/or post copyrighted photographs. I can reverse-search for any picture on Google Images and, with extremely high accuracy, find a picture's origins. If this is something we deem as problematic, why not solve it at the source by having the service (i.e. Twitter) identify the images that are posted and properly credit them? That'd be a neat startup idea actually (and it probably already exists in some form?) A service to which you send a picture, and it returns to you its copyright information. You could market it by doing things like writing a Twitter bot (named "HistoryInPicsCredits" or something) that automatically tweets copyright information of images posted by HistoryInPics.
- kevinchen 13y ago
  When you reverse-searched on Google Images, did you notice that their captions often distorted the facts or outright lied? I think that's the bigger story here: it's not that "new media" or "kids these days" don't care about attribution for the sake of giving credit. The photos aren't attributed because it would be easier to find their contexts. If people know the facts, the account would be less interesting and therefore less popular.
virtuabhi 13y ago
Shouldn't this be considered "fair use"? A bunch of guys find some pictures on the internet. These pictures are not the originals but low-res jpegs. The pictures are saved on their machines (by the browser). Then the pictures are uploaded to Twitter. The source/photographer is provided with every picture (if info. is available). I don't understand how photographers are losing here? They are getting free publicity from the pictures which were already accessible to everyone.
- chadwickthebold 13y ago
  "free publicity" Exposure doesn't put food on the table.
  - fr0sty 13y ago
    Indeed. "working for exposure" is basically a swear word in some photography circles.
- ama729 13y ago
  > They are getting free publicity For that, they would have to be properly credited in the first place...
BeccaCory 13y ago
I don't think I agree with this. A lot of their pictures ARE public domain, and I have to say, the fact that a) they met through youtube and b) managed to create an organic following of nearly a million, not to mention the number of impressions each tweet gets, in a matter of months, is highly impressive. There are plenty of people who use pirated photos through twitter, and true, they are now making a profit from it, but think of the things YOU were doing when you were 17 years old.
- doktrin 13y ago
  It's quite possible to consider those facts in isolation. What they have accomplished is impressive for 17 year olds, but it's very reasonable to acknowledge the moral (and legal) gray space their work occupies. Moreover, it's possible to comment without bringing both of those facts up together. I know I'm not particularly interested in extolling the virtues of these particular individuals. It's just not interesting. Maybe the OP feels the same way?

burntsushi 13y ago

> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.

digitalengineer 13y ago
No no, your right. I should have know better. My old company, Royalty Free Models, used to sell regular people for commercial photoshoots. I sold them with all rights included like a ShutterStock database with actual people. Even agency's don't understand copyrights...
- sgdread 13y ago
  Stock companies require signed model release for every person on the photo. But copyright is belongs to creator - photographer.
archgrove 13y ago
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who have decided, in defiance of the laws and remunerative structures society has constructed, that they're entitled to the work of people without giving anything back (apart from some advice like "I'm giving you free advertising", "find a new business model" or "this will actually help you in the long run"). Society has created intellectual property, in the same way it created physical property, and if you can steal the later, you can surely steal the former. One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future. I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument. (The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
  - archgrove 13y ago
    I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation. > Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings. But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important. However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.

GuiA 13y ago

> They don't provide sources for the photographs or the captions that accompany them. Sometimes they get stuff wrong and/or post copyrighted photographs. I can reverse-search for any picture on Google Images and, with extremely high accuracy, find a picture's origins. If this is something we deem as problematic, why not solve it at the source by having the service (i.e. Twitter) identify the images that are posted and properly credit them? That'd be a neat startup idea actually (and it probably already exists in some form?) A service to which you send a picture, and it returns to you its copyright information. You could market it by doing things like writing a Twitter bot (named "HistoryInPicsCredits" or something) that automatically tweets copyright information of images posted by HistoryInPics.

kevinchen 13y ago
When you reverse-searched on Google Images, did you notice that their captions often distorted the facts or outright lied? I think that's the bigger story here: it's not that "new media" or "kids these days" don't care about attribution for the sake of giving credit. The photos aren't attributed because it would be easier to find their contexts. If people know the facts, the account would be less interesting and therefore less popular.

virtuabhi 13y ago

Shouldn't this be considered "fair use"? A bunch of guys find some pictures on the internet. These pictures are not the originals but low-res jpegs. The pictures are saved on their machines (by the browser). Then the pictures are uploaded to Twitter. The source/photographer is provided with every picture (if info. is available). I don't understand how photographers are losing here? They are getting free publicity from the pictures which were already accessible to everyone.

chadwickthebold 13y ago
"free publicity" Exposure doesn't put food on the table.
- fr0sty 13y ago
  Indeed. "working for exposure" is basically a swear word in some photography circles.
ama729 13y ago
> They are getting free publicity For that, they would have to be properly credited in the first place...

BeccaCory 13y ago

I don't think I agree with this. A lot of their pictures ARE public domain, and I have to say, the fact that a) they met through youtube and b) managed to create an organic following of nearly a million, not to mention the number of impressions each tweet gets, in a matter of months, is highly impressive. There are plenty of people who use pirated photos through twitter, and true, they are now making a profit from it, but think of the things YOU were doing when you were 17 years old.

doktrin 13y ago
It's quite possible to consider those facts in isolation. What they have accomplished is impressive for 17 year olds, but it's very reasonable to acknowledge the moral (and legal) gray space their work occupies. Moreover, it's possible to comment without bringing both of those facts up together. I know I'm not particularly interested in extolling the virtues of these particular individuals. It's just not interesting. Maybe the OP feels the same way?