Canarsie

There is an industry of attorneys who use the tact of “extortion” — or, at least, the perception of it; and not my choice of word — to extract compensation from alleged violators of copyright law.As I said: I am not a lawyer.

LPDAL

The problem was that no credit was given -- it was just copy and pasted with no credit or source. In any event, nearly all major intellectual works require consent to post, not solely attribution -- copying three sentences and providing a link back to the article doesn't fulfill the requirement of consent in these cases.

-LPDAL

Canarsie

I am not necessarily arguing that issue; rather, the circumstances have changed with regard to the use of the work of other people — even if the premise is the same.

In the “old days”, if someone used a photograph of mine without my permission or proper accreditation, I would not benefit at all — and, like you, I would not be happy, to say the least.

With exceptions such as FlyerTalk, I am not a user of forms of social media; but there seems to be an appetite for “going viral” these days — probably due to advertising and media attention. As an example, many videos posted on YouTube have some form of advertising embedded in them where the creator of the video receives payment per number of clicks or views — meaning the more clicks or views, the more money the creator earns. When other people post that video, there is the excellent chance that the creator will earn even more money...

...so please allow me to posit an admittedly extreme scenario: let us say that you posted a video on the Internet where you earn money based on the number of clicks or views due to advertising. A major media outlet decides to use it without your consent; and you earn thousands of dollars in revenue as a result.

What would be your thoughts about that; and what action — if any — would you consider taking?

Again, this is only to illustrate how the landscape has changed for the purpose of discussion and not an argument defending the infringement of the copyright of the work of the owner of content.

LPDAL

First, I would have to determine if I had any legal recourse or actionable offenses. If I have no valid cause of action, no court will accept my case, so that is crucial.

Second, I'd ask whoever was posting and profiting off my work to cite who made it -- me -- and depending on how much money they made, to at least pay a small commission. If they do so, I am fine.

If they do not accept my offer or ignore it and I deem that I have sufficient cause of action, I will take them to court. Taking someone to court should be a last resort, not the first line of offense. Taking anyone to court is no light matter.

-LPDAL

Canarsie

I agree with you, for what that is worth.

As basically implied by sbm12 — according to my interpretation, anyway......copyright infringement with regard to the Internet is akin to the “wild west” these days — unlike in the days prior to the Internet, where copyright infringement was basically either “black or white” and was easier to define and enforce...

sbm12

Do you believe that the rules have changed in terms of what is permitted? Or just in terms of how easy it is to break the rules?

Canarsie

I believe that many people generally do not understand the rules; and I also believe that the possibility of earning more money might cause some people on both sides of the issue to forgive infractions to copyright laws currently in place.

To answer your questions, the rules are indeed easier to break than ever because of the Internet, which has also been disruptive in such practices as the collection of sales tax on items and services sold, which customers have been able to bypass in the past — but those rules have been changing...

...and the rules for the use of content perhaps may need modification as well to allow for the vagaries introduced by the disruptions caused by the Internet while still protecting the owners of content.

I do not believe that work created by someone should be outright stolen — or, to a lesser extent, taken — without compensation of some sort to the creator of that work — even if it is in the form of driving traffic for increased revenue from clicks and views...

...and thanks to the nature of social media, there seem to be creators of content who are more than willing to allow — and perhaps encourage — the “theft” of their work regardless of express permission due chiefly to increased advertising revenue based on clicks or views, which tends to cloud the rules even more...

...and clouding this issue even more still is what happens when an original photograph is altered extensively to the point where it is unrecognizable — such as when it is used as part of an illustration? I believe credit should be shared by the photographer and the artist of the illustration; but what exactly are the rules?

This is not an accusation — as I know you personally and therefore know you better than to skirt the rules — but rather a question: on this article you posted today, I see no attribution to the photograph used. What was the original source of that photograph?

Again, I raise these issues primarily for discussion purposes from which we can all learn from our input and participation...

sbm12

Fair use covers the use of that image IMO, based on using only part of the original functioning as parody/satire and, most importantly, not reducing the value of the original by diluting it.

In the most recent PMM situation I do not believe any of those standards were met.

Canarsie

I figured the use of that photograph was probably covered under the doctrine of fair use.

I probably would have still sought to find out the source anyway to at least give credit, just in case — but that is just me.I would concur — but I have no first-hand knowledge about the acquisition and use of the content in that article; although I would not blatantly copy much of an article if I were writing an article of my own.

CMK10

Your nominal damages wouldn't even cover the filing fee. The idea of a private citizen suing a blog because they used a picture they'd posted on Flickr is frankly laughable from a legal perspective.

dimramon

+1 to what CMK10 said.

Aside from that, you have mentioned on multiple occasions how you differentiate yourself by not being in it for commercial reasons or to generate revenue.

But now, you state that you are willing to take their money if they are "profiting" from your pictures.

I think that's hypocritical.

LPDAL

As a former forum moderator and head moderator for an aviation themed Minecraft server (whose files were corrupted and to this day, I still miss it -- we had a gigantic airport with functioning lights, redstone motorization) I can tell you that the majority of people that I dealt with, at least, fully understood the rules.

Their justification was that they did not agree with the rules, thus they did not have to follow them, and actually, this was the most common justification I received, to which I replied with showing them the door. I could not make this up if I tried. I'm sure police officers deal with this nation wide on a daily basis.

Also, SBM12 is right, going after people for copyright infringement is generally a lost cause. Look at the FBI and MPAA's large-scale efforts to take down torrent sites with thousands (millions) of pirated movie files and other illicit media. The authorities successfully take down a site, then a mirror is up a few minutes later unharmed, with ten times the amount of bootlegged films. I'm not endorsing or condoning piracy, but just pointing out entities with power have a very difficult time combating it even with their massive amount of resources.

-LPDAL

Canarsie

You are both correct.

In fact, allow me to take the liberty to add the unfortunate caveat that if you post content on the Internet in any way, shape or form, expect for it to be pilfered — regardless of the rules, laws or moral fortitude.

The most effective way for that not to happen is to not post content to the Internet in the first place.

LPDAL

Of course. But I'm a very non-confrontational type -- I let a large amount of garbage that happens to me go as long as I'm not being maimed physically or my media isn't being used to sell snake oil. You might notice, Canarsie, that a handful of users follow my post history and negatively comment to everything I post. I just ignore them, because it isn't worth it. Thank heaven for the ignore list function, and my development of a thick skin early on.

Having said that there are people who do just the opposite. A good friend is a high - level customer service manager at JP Morgan and Chase Bank Debit Card Services and he received a case where a man was claiming fraud because a gas station charged him one cent too much. Yes, one cent.....

The idea that a private citizen managed to get these blogs to take down the photos they stole from himself (read: me) with letters he himself wrote is frankly laughable. I was the one with the last laugh, but it wasn't that humorous, anyway. Seeing my photos with a caption under them that read "With the debt builder 5000 / bankruptcy expediter 9000 platinum unobtanium card you can ride in a first class seat just like this!!!! FOR FREE!!!!" made me want to barf. Repeatedly.

-LPDAL

CMK10

I've mentioned this before, for someone who loves to talk about all their law breaking if they ever want to they could probably come after you for defamation and libel.