"I'm not sure what you're talking about. At no point did I blame either side I just stated the facts. Thanks for your comment though.
=]" - Dave Bullock / eecue
"I don't believe in people who don't believe in global warming. On the other hand, I do believe in Captain Crunch, for I am the Frizzle Fry. =]" - Dave Bullock / eecue
"love the peak. i made the mistake of riding the funicular rail down with my back facing downward. i was queasy for days after that. great shot!" - Dave Bullock / eecue
"These were shot with a Canon EOS 5D and a 24-70 f/2.8 L lens. They are HDR shots and were combined and tone-mapped using Photomatix." - Dave Bullock / eecue
@scott - respectfully - it is cost effective to attribute & associate value to a far more basic granularity of data - a zero or one, even - a question, what makes the image uniquely identifiable? the ability of a friend &/or family to identify the person? curious - what about that person's voice? - Scott Moskowitz
which bits are salable in the images she sells? The bits attributable to production (PhotoShop) & which to the recognizability of the subject of the image? Is there something more specific that you believe should or should not be sold without authorization? Mug shot? High school photo? What is *owned* by the subject? - there is an objective solution if the question is better framed - thus I am curious - Scott Moskowitz
Sorry, they're a "derivative work" and the right to create/own/sell such work vests in the original artist or creator. NOT by the subject, NOT by the modifier. - Glen Campbell
Scott M., seriously, stop talking like this is a damned scientific paper. She's taking people's photos and using them without permission. If she wants to photoshop photos, let her take her own damned photos or pay for the right to use others' photos. End of story. - Raoul Pop
@scott - My issue is that my photography is being used without permission to create an image that is being sold. It's pretty straightforward. - Scott Beale
Also, just to clarify, when I said "people's photos", I meant photos that people have taken, not photos of people. Sometimes 140 characters does not quite cut it. - Scott Beale
another context a person who frequents a bar may be less willing to share basic identifiable information with her camera - the recording of information on her device as captured in image form prior to any production value-add (someone took the captured digitized image & used PhotoShop to allegedly add value) - how much what uniquely identifiable information is *personal* - Scott Moskowitz
Seriously, I have absolutely no clue what your are talking about. I'm ready to leave it at that. - Scott Beale
I think Scott M. is a troll. Not a foul-mouthed troll, but a troll nonetheless. Dude, do you not get that photos are being stolen? Are you that obtuse? - Raoul Pop
stealing photos and selling them is ethically WRONG. period. end of story - Susan Beebe
Thanks Raoul & Susan, I'm glad to have a bit of sanity in this thread. - Scott Beale
right on!! that was like a bad acid trip! ha, ha! not that i've ever had any ya know - Susan Beebe
Several people have been in contact with her. For the most part she's avoiding any questions about the use of the photos and is now saying that they are not for sale once people started asking her about it. - Scott Beale
What's amazing about all of this is that she is a Associate Professor of Fine Art at Pace University, so she should know better: http://jillianmcdonald.net/bio... - Scott Beale
so I would say the first step would be to contact her and ask her to stop and find out if and how many of the images she has sold. if that doesn't work, have smithers release the law hounds. - Dave Bullock / eecue
it is art ... it is like modifying anything ... i make art out of tires, should michelin be pissed? no - Gregory Lent
Gregory, so let me get this straight, you think that Michelin creates art, the tires, and that's exactly the same as photos made by a photographer. Um, ok. - Scott Beale
photography is art. Jillian is ripping off Scott's work = wrong!!! she's not even giving credit where credit is due... so lame - Susan Beebe
This kind of stuff makes me sick- lack of respect for the artist (from an artist herself!) have you gotten in touch with her Scot? Good luck. - anna awesomesauce
Better yet, get ahold of the dean at her university... It's making -them- look bad, and that should get you some action of some sort. - abacab
Did someone just put Scott's photography on the same level as tires? - Mike Doeff
and once again, this is why i stand by my beliefs that Creative Commons is a mess of a system that doesn't work for photography. I understand that you use your photos to promote your other business ventures, but you could still do the same under All Rights Reserved and have more say over the end usage. - lane hartwell
and I still can't see where she is selling anything. She's just a crappy derivative "artist". - lane hartwell
I doubt this had anything to do with CC. Also I'm not the only photographer who's work she used. My point is that an established artist and associate professor of fine art should know better. - Scott Beale
Regarding "selling" part, a friend of ours contacted her about the prints and she said that they were for sale. It was only after she was called out on this that she said that they photos were not for sale. - Scott Beale
Here's Jill's quote from the email where she responded to my friend who inquired about the prints "There are three different prints, each in a limited edition of 5. If you're interested in prices I can get you those too." - Scott Beale
this is why i only publish at 450 x 337. im not the greatest photog, but still i would be pissed if i found someone jacking my pix. thx, SB for bringing this to your ever increasing and amazingly large audience. and thx for calling her out. - Plug 1
Okay, I didn't see the info about selling them. Yes she should know better. It's not right for someone to sell another person's creative efforts without their explicit written permission. I don't know your exact CC license, so I can't say what is and isn't acceptable usage. Again, my issues with CC, it's just not clear. - lane hartwell
if i make a collage out of calvin klein ads, am i in violation of what mr. beale is suggesting? - Gregory Lent
@gregory - that's kind of what I'm thinking as well. So it's okay to make a derivative work of something commercial but if it's another artist it's automatically not okay? That said, the sale aspect could be a slippery slope, but I really don't see how this can be construed any different from Girl Talk's Feed the Animals or any other mash out / derivative work out there. We applaud musical derivative work, but reimagining someone else's visual work is not cool? Really? - Neil Lee
the fact that she stopped selling once confronted tells me she know she was walking a fine line. SB, did she offer up any sort of logic such as Neil Lee just did? - Plug 1
I haven't talked to her, but when confronted with this by our friends she avoided the issue. - Scott Beale
@ SB - that pretty much sums it up, then. she played herself. - Plug 1
Neil Brings up an interesting point. Scott, aside from your noncommercial/attribution license, I'm genuinely curious to learn of your reasoning for going with 'no derivative'. I'm finding myself in a hypocritical trap when comparing my approach to photos vs music. (in terms of mashup culture). - Mauricio
My 2 cents on the music vs. art thing as a former Music Industry minor. :) In the case of music, anyone can sample songs without the artist's ok, BUT they have to pay them a fee to use it. The artist can say "hey I don't like your stuff, don't use my music", but there is no legal way to stop it from happening if they go through the hoops to credit you for the sample and pay you royalties. (this info is 10 yrs old- dunno if things have changed since then). I'm not sure what rules apply to using art. - Lorrianne Nault
Mauricio, the answer is simple, I just want them to contact me first. That way I have an idea of what's happening to my work. More importantly the license I use helps me protect the people in my photos. For instance, in this case she simply cut people out of my photos to use for her art. - Scott Beale
Here's more from Rubin Starset, who contacted the artist. She first told him the prints were for sale, then after everything started to blow up, quickly changed her mind: http://rubin110.livejournal.co... - Scott Beale
In our modern environment where music is commonly shared - in theoretical violation of copyright and so forth - is it entirely unexpected that someone would go and share photographs with similar disregard? The difference here being that they're making money from it, I suspect. I license my photographs under CC non-commercial because I'd prefer to choose how they're used to make money. I chose the CC NC license in part because I have to accept that people will share my photos like candy - but not sell them! - Richard Soderberg
Would this be something to potentially escalate and contact the chair of her department and such with? Not that we want to unduly punish someone over a misunderstanding, but our universities and educational institutions pride themselves on students and faculty not plagiarizing their works. While her use is derivative, it still seems to violate the principles of academia as well as the license of the original author. - Dave Schumaker
(Follow up to my post immediately above) - That said, we're at 7+ hours and counting, and other than being cagey, she hasn't offered up a reasonable explanation yet. - Dave Schumaker
For what it's worth, I totally support Scott's preference for non-derivative, but I thought the point had to be raised that there's a serious disconnect between what we consider okay vs. what we consider stealing. @dave schumaker - I really, REALLY don't understand what her employer or anyone else connected with her has to do with this. - Neil Lee
I agree with Neil. Keep Pace out of this a her works are her personal works and not connected to the school she works for. Now the people who commisioned the Zombie performance are far game on the other hand. She is doing her zombie performance as a commisioned work and part of that is the prints and posters that use Scott's photos. So technically she is using his art to make money -- even if she is not (any longer) selling the prints directly she is still profiting by them indirectly as promotion is part of the larger performance. - CatCubed
I'm a bit surprised at people bringing up the music analogy. Derivative use of music is also NOT OK - it depends on the length, context, and how significantly it has been altered. You can bet that musicians who have a substantial piece of music ripped off and see others make money off it are not happy and will go after their rights. Better to get permission first. - LauraBrarian
@raoul did i offend you? "troll"? i am an inventor of digital watermarks, i get it @susanbeebe i don't drink - my question is where does fair use begin - "confusingly similar" standard separate & apart - photographs of individuals is not so clear cut @laughingsquid howard austin feld did some of the same things with work for hire I paid for, so, I posed the question - if you had the ability to know the valued bits, eg, the bits that *caused* payment for the image, would you consider such a technology? - Scott Moskowitz
@lauran you are correct - i included a person's voice in my long lost query - the permissions include the sound recording, song writer / publisher right, performance & mechanicals (relating to the publishing &/or song writer) depending on the intended use, fwiw ... - Scott Moskowitz
Jillian Mcdonald http://tr.im/76d not terribly good stuff, but I'm not sure I have moral qualms with it in this day in age. just tonight I stole Tina Feys head right off Google - ⓃⓄⒶⒽ ⒹⒶⓋⒾⒹ ⓈⒾⓂⓄⓃ
