Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Chris,
Be fair! Everyone knows that artists, writers, etc. work for the love of it and therefore don't need to be paid. They don't need to eat, have a roof over their heads, wear clothes, or any bourgeois nonsense like that.
Cheers,
R.
FujiLove
Well-known
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request. I agree they should pay something for the use of the image - just like the rest of us do to licence or buy photography - but the sums involved here just make them look like greedy, vindictive ****.
It makes me wonder how the two 'photographers' above would fare if they were visited by inspectors from PRS or the Motion Picture Association? How much pirated music and film would they find? And as they are happy to receive thousands in compensation when their work is ripped off, I guess they would be okay with paying $10,000 for every downloaded track, movie and copied CD they discovered?
Maybe photographers are special and never in their lives steal other people's creative work? Or perhaps this a 'one rule for us, different rule for everyone else' kind of situation?
And I've asked this before, but nobody answered. So let's try again...
Where did Ken source this illustration on his M3 page? Did he create it himself? It has his website watermark on it. Maybe he's an illustrator in his spare time? Or did he actually steal it from Leica? Looks to me like something Leica would put together. Or how about all the manuals on Buktus (http://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html) that lots of people read on here...and which, I'm guessing, are technically all stolen from the camera manufacturers.
If you've ever downloaded one of those PDF manuals from Buktus, it's time to put your hand in your pocket and send $10,000 to compensate your favourite camera manufacturer for their 'loss'
css9450
Mentor
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request. I agree they should pay something for the use of the image - just like the rest of us do to licence or buy photography - but the sums involved here just make them look like greedy, vindictive ****.
It makes me wonder how the two 'photographers' above would fare if they were visited by inspectors from PRS or the Motion Picture Association? How much pirated music and film would they find? And as they are happy to receive thousands in compensation when their work is ripped off, I guess they would be okay with paying $10,000 for every downloaded track, movie and copied CD they discovered?
Maybe photographers are special and never in their lives steal other people's creative work? Or perhaps this a 'one rule for us, different rule for everyone else' kind of situation?
And I've asked this before, but nobody answered. So let's try again...
Where did Ken source this illustration on his M3 page? Did he create it himself? It has his website watermark on it. Maybe he's an illustrator in his spare time? Or did he actually steal it from Leica? Looks to me like something Leica would put together. Or how about all the manuals on Buktus (http://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html) that lots of people read on here...and which, I'm guessing, are technically all stolen from the camera manufacturers.
If you've ever downloaded one of those PDF manuals from Buktus, it's time to put your hand in your pocket and send $10,000 to compensate your favourite camera manufacturer for their 'loss'
Those merchants sure are vindictive ****, sending people to jail for shoplifting stuff that's worth a few dollars.
There's a reason for high awards in copyright cases. Same reason they send thieves to prison, even if its for theft of something worth only a small amount: Deterrence.
The only reason to get upset about it is if you yourself are a thief. Criminals think laws that proscribe their way of life are unjust. The cold fact is that if you want to avoid paying a big copyright judgement...DON'T STEAL. Its really that simple.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
This is a well-known problem in criminology. The simple-minded imagine that if the death penalty were imposed for every offence, people would be deterred from e.g. speeding.
The trouble is, certainty of prosecution is far more of a deterrent than the negligible prospect of a very severe penalty. In other words, knowing that you would pay $100 for driving faster than the speed limit, each and every time you did it, and that you would always be caught and prosecuted, would be more of a deterrent than a one in ten million chance of prosecution and the death penalty.
This also leads to the question of what is "fair". You object to $10,000. What would you consider "fair"? $1000? $100? $10? Given the hassle of trying to get any money at all, I suspect that $10,000 is reasonable and "fair". Otherwise people just wouldn't bother.
Cheers,
R.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
So you checked with Ken and he told you he stole Leica's image and put his watermark on it? He also told you he got $10k for his M3 image? And you checked and found pirated images on his computer?
You've checked all the photographers who want to be paid and found pirated music on their computers?
And you've done the research to state as true that all these photographers are posting photos, just so they can sue for damages?
You are just blowing smoke. Your basic point is all people do bad things, so everyone should just be able to do bad things with no responsibility for what they do. And make it legal.
Your argument stinks for the good of a civil society.
You've checked all the photographers who want to be paid and found pirated music on their computers?
And you've done the research to state as true that all these photographers are posting photos, just so they can sue for damages?
You are just blowing smoke. Your basic point is all people do bad things, so everyone should just be able to do bad things with no responsibility for what they do. And make it legal.
Your argument stinks for the good of a civil society.
I don't object to people being paid a fair amount for the work they do. What annoys me, and I find utterly ridiculous, is someone being awarded $10,000 for the use of one very ordinary image of a camera (Rockwell), or many thousands of dollars in 'damages' when a business uses one image and takes it down immediately upon request. I agree they should pay something for the use of the image - just like the rest of us do to licence or buy photography - but the sums involved here just make them look like greedy, vindictive ****.
It makes me wonder how the two 'photographers' above would fare if they were visited by inspectors from PRS or the Motion Picture Association? How much pirated music and film would they find? And as they are happy to receive thousands in compensation when their work is ripped off, I guess they would be okay with paying $10,000 for every downloaded track, movie and copied CD they discovered?
Maybe photographers are special and never in their lives steal other people's creative work? Or perhaps this a 'one rule for us, different rule for everyone else' kind of situation?
And I've asked this before, but nobody answered. So let's try again...
Where did Ken source this illustration on his M3 page? Did he create it himself? It has his website watermark on it. Maybe he's an illustrator in his spare time? Or did he actually steal it from Leica? Looks to me like something Leica would put together. Or how about all the manuals on Buktus (http://www.butkus.org/chinon/index.html) that lots of people read on here...and which, I'm guessing, are technically all stolen from the camera manufacturers.
If you've ever downloaded one of those PDF manuals from Buktus, it's time to put your hand in your pocket and send $10,000 to compensate your favourite camera manufacturer for their 'loss'
PKR
Mentor
"In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft."
I made a comment about Photographer Jim Marshall telling me that, he made as much money on legal actions one year as he made on his photo work. Maybe, that's what you were referencing ?
Here's what i remember, about what Jim told me about that year; i think it was in the late 90s. I don't know how many lawsuits his attorney won in that year but, two of them were big. One amounted to $250,000. The two big ones were with Ralph Lauren and Ford Motor Co., as i recall.
Re: Ford
Jim had done some editorial photos of Alice Walker, author of "The Color Purple" , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_Purple . Ms. Walker received a Pulitzer for that work. Jim told me that, Ford Motor Co. had contacted him wanting to use one of the photos in an Ad campaign. Jim told them no. He said it was editorial work and involved a subject who wasn't "model released" for anything but editorial usage. And, in any case, he wouldn't release a photo without her permission. Ford's Ad agency used the photo in a major Ad campaign, witout the permission of Marshall or Walker. I think they both sued. Jim won his lawsuit. I'm not sure what happened with Ms. Walker.
Ralph Lauren:
The second big lawsuit that brought income to Jim that year involved, Ralph Lauren and a Clothing Ad campaign. Jim and Bill Graham were good friends. Jim often said that, without Graham's help and permission for access, he would never have been a success as a music photographer. Jim went to a lot of after hours "rock band" parties. Graham threw his share. At some event, i don't know the location, Jim photographed Bill "filliping him the bird". Jim was famous for both giving and receiving these gestures. His photo of Jonny Cash, middle finger up, is part of music photo history. Jim refused Lauren's request, saying that, it's a personal photo of a friend and, was published in Rolling Stone with permission from both parties. It was used editorially. Lauren went ahead and used the photo in their Ad campaign, expecting to be sued. And, they were.
One of the two lawsuits brought a $250,000 settlement. I don't think Jim was trolling for legal money. It wasn't his nature to do that kind of thing.
I was taught that, you don't take things that don't belong to you. Your experience may have been different?
http://www.jimmarshallphotographyllc.com/
.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
PKR
Mentor
I'm constantly reminded of the Gaussian Curve when intelligence is in question.
Hope you and your wife are well, pkr
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Highlight: We are, thanks. And you and yours are well too?
For your first sentence, I am reminded of something my dear late father said many years ago:
If you really want to annoy a certain kind of person, remind them that half the population is of below average intelligence
The few who dispute this tend to seize on definitions of either "average" or "intelligence".
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The counter is that most people have more than the average number of arms, legs and eyes...
Edit: but the median figure is two for each...
Regards, David
The counter is that most people have more than the average number of arms, legs and eyes...
Edit: but the median figure is two for each...
Regards, David
FujiLove
Well-known
Today we call those people neuroscientists.
FujiLove
Well-known
One of the cornerstones of justice, at least in the UK, is proportionality. So taking the three examples mentioned above:
1. Someone drives at 40 mph through a built-up 30 mph zone, potentially risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians. If caught, they would be fined £100 and given three penalty points on their licence.
2. Someone walks out of a shop with £50 of goods without paying, potentially costing the shop owner the £25 which they paid for the goods wholesale. If caught (assuming it's a first offence) they would be served with a penalty notice of £85.
3. Someone steals a cat picture taken by a professional photographer that's for sale elsewhere, and uses it on their blog. If caught, they are hit with a £7,800 fine ($10,000 at today's exchange rate).
That's completely ridiculous.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
The cat sued them..that makes all the difference in the world..no one fks..with cats..as they don't like..blogs..or the internet..for that matter..
css9450
Mentor
Obviously you are referring to the shoplifter. I agree; he should have one or both arms severed above the elbow.
FujiLove
Well-known
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
But I repeat: what WOULD you consider fair, given the hassle and expense of pursuing a claim? And how would you suggest that the wronged party should approach their suit?
If it were a simple, automatic, infallible process -- anyone who steals a picture is automatically charged (say) £100 minimum, with the option of pursuing further damages -- it would be a very different matter. And several of us would be millionaires.
Also, damages are not the same as a fine. If you want to see REALLY disproportionate damages, look at what UK courts impose for libel.
Cheers,
R.
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
Every time I read a thread like this, I'm amazed that a photographer or other creative will side with someone stealing the work of another photographer/creative.
I, wrongfully, assumed that photographers would side together with one another against theft of images and creative property, yet every time a thread like this pops up, there are a few "who cares" or "you put it on the internet, you deserve it" people.
I, wrongfully, assumed that photographers would side together with one another against theft of images and creative property, yet every time a thread like this pops up, there are a few "who cares" or "you put it on the internet, you deserve it" people.
css9450
Mentor
I think its just mostly one guy.