is the easiest way to share online.
Learn more »
So the Los Angeles Times Thinks It’s OK to Rip Copyrighted Photos From Flickr? -
August 31, 2009
Thomas Hawk Digital Connection
28 other people
that's sad, but unfortunately it's common -
I don't think anyone that follows the stealing of photography is at all surprised by this. It sucks but so common. -
I hope that the LA Times is not one of the papers that is attacking Google for grabbing news from them and making money off of it. -
Thomas: Did you see your post on Flickr is currently image number 3?
@Holger, brilliant capture. I love the pic title also. That is almost like looking into a mirror, looking into a mirror. The circular copyright infringement going on here is spectacularly good. -
But photos are "meant to be free like the wind when placed online" or they used to be by your account not too long ago. Interested in blog traffic or the issue? Has your stance on photo rights evolved? -
@Jim: If I remember correctly (?) TH's point is that they are meant to be free, until someone - in this case the LAT - is making money with them... -
Jim, you're confusing how I feel about a mainstream media company flagrantly taking photos for publication in a for profit venue vs. people getting wound up over every little instance of copyright infringement including people printing out their photos for personal use. Something people have very little control over and involves no commercial application of the work. One can easily live their live getting wound up every time a NY Times author suggests that some people might print out a photo from the web and hang it in their house. Something that you will *never* know about. Not really worth getting wound up over something like that in my opinion. When a major commercial venture though publicly uses photos like this, certainly there's free money for people who's photos they've used if they want to go get it. Unlike you I don't see these issues in exactly the black and white terms that you do. It seems to me not so long ago you were hosting copyrighted music on your own website no? -
Unfortunately your take on "commercial application" is not that of everyone else. The issue of selling or licensing photography is anything but black or white some people license photos, some sell prints, some just want them to be seen on blogs, some want bloggers to pay for use and some want all or some combination there of. Copyright terms are there to express the preferred limitation of use by a photographer and should be respected regardless of the who the user might be. The issue of personal or commercial use are intertwined and seeing how there is an increased demand for photo buyers to have simplified licensing terms I see the standard being held differently for commercial and smaller private entities (personal use) as being incompatible. While having someone print photos (without the knowledge of the photographer) is not an issue for you it is for others who rely on print sales and it can have a negative impact to their business. Full time artists and those striving to be full time artists rely on others abiding by their copyright terms to secure revenue or reserve the right to generate future revenue. Supporting artists starts with respecting not just their artistic vision, but their intention and preference of use no matter who you are. Placing an image online serves a purpose in varied ways for artists. Its flawed to assume and instill in others that because its online it's "free" while holding others to a different standard because of who they are, who they work for or what company it is. -
Jim, weren't you hosting a copyrighted mp3 file on your own website a while back. Does copyright only apply to photos or does it apply to music as well? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical here extolling the virtues of copyright in your pure black and white world but thinking that the same rules don't apply to you? -
Copyrights matter for any creative medium and that's why creative work that finds its way to my web site or any web site I manage is used in line with the licensing terms set by the artist or special permission is sought by the artist. To your question no I was not hosting a copyrighted mp3 file, but ~20 seconds of a song was embedded in a .mov file for a limited period of time. If copyrighted material was used improperly in the past steps were taken as fast as possible to remove such items. - So I'm still curious why do you see there being a difference if an "All Rights Reserved" photo is used by the LA Times vs an individual who repurposes an artists work on their site or makes prints? Is the intention of an artist no less worthy of respect if you're the LA Times or an individual? - You don't seem to have a problem with infringing copyrighted work according to past posts "Sometimes I violate copyright. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I publish these shots to Flickr and Zooomr and Pownce and my blog — where I make money selling ads — and sometimes I don’t. ... Fair use? Who the hell cares. The images need to be captured. And they need to be presented to the world in new and exciting and fun ways." So it's not OK for the LA Times, but its ok for you? -
"that's why creative work that finds its way to my web site or any web site I manage is used in line with the licensing terms set by the artist or special permission is sought by the artist." So did you get Brian Eno's permission when you hosted his music on your own website? I'm confused.
Anthony says over in his thread (
) that it's (finally) fixed now. -
Stephen Mack #TeamMomo
good to see. :) I'm still interested in if Jim Goldstein had permission from Brian Eno when he decided to host Brian Eno's music prominently on his website as a background music track to his photographs. Given that Jim states that "creative work that finds its way to my web site is used in line with licensing terms set by the artist or special permission." and seems to feel so passionately that when people use copyright material for personal use that they are "stealing." Maybe Jim and Brian are best buds and he gave him permission personally or maybe Jim feels that "stealing" part of a work for a "limited period of time." is ok. -
I'm not sure what you're after other than avoiding the question at hand in relation to your post and your thoughts Thomas. I wasn't born with the innate knowledge of our legal system, but I make the effort to learn it, make adjustments and disseminate accurate information. As stated if improperly used material was placed on my site I've made effort to remove it as fast as possible. Seeing as how its not on my site any longer I think the answer to your questions was made. --- My question remains.... I'm curious why do you see there being a difference if an "All Rights Reserved" photo is used by the LA Times vs an individual who repurposes an artists work on their site or makes prints? Is the intention of an artist no less worthy of respect if you're the LA Times or an individual? - You don't seem to have a problem with infringing copyrighted work according to past posts "Sometimes I violate copyright. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I publish these shots to Flickr and Zooomr and Pownce and my blog — where I make money selling ads — and sometimes I don’t. ... Fair use? Who the hell cares. The images need to be captured. And they need to be presented to the world in new and exciting and fun ways." So it's not OK for the LA Times, but its ok for you? -
Jim, you say that you weren't "born" with the innate knowledge of our legal system. I'm not suggesting that you posted the copyrighted file to your website the year you were born. I'm suggesting you posted it late last year. Were you unaware of copyright law last year? Is this something new that you've only picked up recently? What I'm after is simple. Did you violate Brian Eno's copyright? It's an easy yes or no question. Was it ok because it was a .mov file instead of a .mp3 file that you used? You see this is the problem of trying to live in your black and white world. My comment in addressing your question from my blog: "Jim Goldstein seems to object to the fact that I've raised this issue, while in the past stating a more liberal view of personal use regarding copyrighted material. Jim offers up his own "black and white" interpretation of how copyright ought to be talked about which is ironic given that he previously was hosting copyrighted music on his own site prominently as a background track to his photos. Best I can tell, he seems to feel that if you host copyrighted material as a .mov file vs. a .mp3 file it's somehow o.k. Why are the copyright zealots always the ones that are the most hypocritical? In terms of my past comments on copyright, I believe that it is virtually impossible to work as a photographer respecting copyright in the pure black and white world as Goldstein views it. Maybe if you just stick to nature photography like he does that's one thing. But if I go to Disneyland and shoot a Mickey Mouse character. Or if I shoot the giant Coca Cola neon sign in San Francisco. I'm personally not going to lose any sleep over this, even if I am breaking Coke or Disney's copyrights. I'm still going to post these images on Flickr and Zooomr and my blog and am perfectly willing to suffer any consequences of my decision to do so. I'm also personally not going to lose any sleep if people use my own work for personal use. Want to print out one of my photos...
So Jim, was your use of Brian Eno's music late last year as background music to your images on your own personal website a copyright violation or was it not? Still waiting to hear if you had personal permission from Eno to use the music as you said earlier: "creative work that finds its way to my web site or any web site I manage is used in line with the licensing terms set by the artist or special permission is sought by the artist." In your black and white world of copyright it's a simple yes or no answer. It's not that hard really. Why the hesitancy to answer it? -
@jimgoldstein. Regarding your tweet.
First of all it's not slander when it's written it's libel. Secondly. Hypocrisy = someone saying one thing and doing something else. When someone says that copyright is black and white. And then they say that any content on their sites is properly licensed or is used with artist approval. And then I point out that per archive.org you were in fact using copyrighted material on your main site without artist approval in the most recent screenshot for your site available from archive.org. Well that's in direct contrast to what you stated. So I call that hypocrisy. Saying one thing and doing something else. If you see that as "slander" fine. But be a man and discuss it here on FriendFeed where you started your tirade. Don't run away to Twitter to cry about how I've "slandered" you. I'm here, ready, willing and able to talk about my views and can do it all day long if you'd like. -
Fun stuff. -
©2013 FriendFeed -
Tools & Widgets