| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
30 extreme sports photos
Chris Large, Photographer
 |
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 4:54 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> I'm kinda surprised no one jumped on this re his use of photos maybe without acknowledgment of copyright. The captions reek of "use.... but I'm giving them credit" WTF is "via"
Perhaps another case of some "fan" helping us out by showing our work to everyone. Or is there something else here that I'm not understanding......? |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 6:13 AM on 03.29.10 |
| ->> I do think this would fall under the "fair use," category, ie, he is commenting specifically on the photos and their content rather than using them for something else (ie, fansite) Am I incorrect? |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:58 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> He's asked if he has permission (and to provide proper copyright data, etc.) His response:
"If you click on each photo, it directs you to the location the photograph is actually hosted (500px, 1x or the photographer’s personal site. In the case of 1x, the username is below the image, and will take you to their profile which has all their contact information. On a personal site, just use the contact form provided.)"
Joe - Fair Use is a bit of a stretch for me, as the commentary is basically nothing more than "here are some cool photos".
I noticed at least on SS member (Donald Miralle)whose image is included. Perhaps he'll chime in. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:19 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> He has added a much more detailed response.
Interesting read if you have the time..... |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:58 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Jack,
While that may speak to why a photographer may decide to voluntarily choose to grant such permission,it certainly doesn't speak to a blogger simply assuming that such is the case, simply because "(t)he reason being is that, particularly in a post like this, most photographers simply will not bother to answer an email request about it." |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:36 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Providing free use of imagery to bloggers is an option that some photographer might choose to exercise. But they are under no obligation whatsoever to do so and there is no requirement that they even respond to inquiries.
Without permission, it's illegal.
--Mark |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
|
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 11:27 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Mark
My point exactly. Perhaps my sarcasm about "fans helping us out" wasn't realized. My images are my images...period!
If someone wants to use them for whatever reason then they should talk to me ...or my lawyer maybe.......
Chris |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 1:07 AM on 03.30.10 |
->> Mark,
What I don't understand is how do sites like Google get away with what they do/are?
If I type "Donald Miralle sumo wrestling" into Google images, it will display several of the photos from that same photo session that is included in the OP's link.
If it is OK for Google to create a dynamic result that displays these images with links to them, why is it not OK for an individual to create a static page of linked images?
I am hoping to better understand because a lot of these things regarding allowable usage are very confusing to me. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:38 AM on 03.30.10 |
->> Eric Shafer, the blogger in question, posted this reply to a post made by Mark Loundy - in which he asks that it be posted here.
"Valid points Mark, and you’re not wrong. It’s an ethical dilemma, since I work with photography and digital art and have seen my art featured, ripped for use in web designs, and I’ve even had web templates ripped from my gallery. I’m aware that having your art and photographs ripped off is painful, obnoxious and a hassle to deal with.
However, at least to chime in on the discussion over at SportsShooters, I hope that as the internet becomes less of the ‘wild west’, that fair use will expand to cover blogging. The reason that I felt fair use would apply in a situation such as this, is that photographs were selected from general photography gallery sites (1x, 500px, Flickr, deviantART). Credit is maintained (the usage of the word ‘via’ is a habit I got into on a different blog where users would submit their daily inspiration submissions), and the photographs are linked (in many cases, I tried to link to the photographer’s home page as opposed to just the location on the other photo site, I was hoping that Google Alerts or another incoming links tracker would alert the photographers of the usage in the event contact was otherwise difficult.
This is opposed to selecting from their own sites, where many photographers have disabled downloading of images, and forcibly grabbing the image and posting it.
You mention that just because they respond doesn’t mean anything, and again, you’re correct. However, some of the photographers here, and even more of them in the Volcano Photographs post are from the Associated Press (most likely, they have better things to do than answer some 21 year old blogger, additionally, they are used to their photographs being featured around the globe). There’s a great article from Harvard Law about the Associated Press and the DCMA, located here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/4381
FTA: “When evaluating fair use claims, courts are most concerned with whether the copying will undercut the market for the original work.”
In a post such as this, the market for the original work is certainly not being undercut, therefore fair usage might be assumed. Again, the jury is still out. I hope that in the future, a certain rule is created for bloggers (ie, no more than 500px width, link to original source, included “copyright ” at the end, etc). But until then, this debate will probably continue.
If you wouldn’t mind posting at least the excerpt of this that contains the link to the Harvard article over on SportsShooters (since I’m not a member), that’d be great. I encourage the other members to comment on this, as always, I’m all for hearing thoughts and opinions from other bloggers, readers and of course, the photographers themselves on what they consider ‘fair use’ of their photographs.
And in response to Jack’s comment, no, I haven’t read that article.
EDIT: Also a great read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet
(Sorry for the compressed size of this comment, threaded comments don’t work quite as well in small spaces :P )" |
|
Rick Osentoski, Photographer
|
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 9:17 AM on 03.30.10 |
->> Posted as a comment to this blog:
Eric,
By your reasoning in point number 1, most magazines don't make money directly from the use of the photos in them, so should they be allowed to use photos for free? Like the magazines you sell advertising on your Blog, so you do make money on your site where you are using images without compensating the artist. Even Facebook does not allow the use of an image if you do not have permission to do so, I know, I have had them remove dozens of mine that I have found on profile pages.
Espn, MSNBC, CNN and most news outlets run Blogs so they should be allowed to use images for free as long as they give a credit?
Your reasoning is off, don't inflate the value to a photographer by having a photo on your site if it was worth that much you would be making a ton of money from your advertising and then could afford to pay for the usage of the photos. Also by creating this little controversy I'll bet your hits are up and therefore you now have something to show potently advertiser to justify whatever you charge. You state that you charge to help cover losses, isn't that what all businesses do, they charge to cover losses and hopefully enough to make a profit. If your business model is not making money the artists shouldn't have to supply you with free content unless they give you permission, how many of the above images do you have permission to use? |
|
Mike Doran, Photographer
|
Petaluma | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 11:04 AM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> Stealing is stealing anyway you put it. What you are doing is wrong and I hope every photographer you took images from goes after you. I fr one would be contacting my legal representative if I found one of my images on your site. |
|
Mike Doran, Photographer
|
Petaluma | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 11:06 AM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> I know Chris Hultner did not authorize the use of his image. |
|
Rick Osentoski, Photographer
|
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 11:07 AM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> Eric must not have liked being told he was stealing images as he turned off the comments to this post. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 11:31 AM on 03.30.10 |
->> "FTA: “When evaluating fair use claims, courts are most concerned with whether the copying will undercut the market for the original work.”"
As a freelance photographer when I shoot and image it is usually intended to illustrate a particular story or commentary. When I create such images I post them on the appropriate website so that potential clients can view them and negotiate for their use. These negotiations often require that the client has some guarantee of exclusive use and if Mr. Shafer, claiming fair use, shares them with the world without my consent then he has most certainly "undercut the market for the original work" by removing my ability to provide such exclusive use.
He may also create a problem for photographers who grant their copyrights to their employers but still have permission to display them on their personal web sites. This could be a bigger problem for himself when he does it to Getty or AP and they take offense.
Whether its 50 pixels wide or 500 it doesn't matter. A blogger has no more of a fair use claim if he or she uses a copyrighted photos without the copyright holders permission than does any other publication. In most cases, if your local paper used one of your images they would get your permission and probably pay for its use. Bloggers should be held to the same standard. Just because the technology for delivering the product has changed it doesn't mean that the photographers or artists rights have. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:42 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> Kevin,
There is no black and white answer to your question. Google Images thumbnail listings are consider to be Fair Use. What they host or aggregate is a largely unusable link to the owner's image.
--Mark |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 7:25 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> Mark,
In case of search engines I can see where there is a gray area. Plug in a set of key words and what ever pops up, pops up. If you google "30 great sports photos" the search engine doesn't review the images and pick 30 good ones and then display just those for you. There is no opinion applied to the process.
In this case the blogger selected these "specific" images and then posted them so that his readers could view them. His intent is to diplay them in a manner that enhances the appearance of his blog and that attacts readers. The whole via, link and fair use argument just doesn't hold water in this case. If any of the image copyright holders were to pursue it I'm sure whatever legal counsel he retained would tell him he had stepped into a losing fight.
If a SI or ESPN writer did this on one of his or her blogs you can bet there would be property rights lawyers drooling from coast to coast. (I am certainly not implying that any Sport Illustrated or ESPN writer would ever do something like this, just trying to illustrate my point.) |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 11:35 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> It's clearly not fair use...
That you can go to this guy's blog and view them clearly devalues the value of the work, as one no longer has to purchase a newspaper or magazine or go to a paying website in order to view them (and you pay via ads, or whatever model); instead you can just find it for free on his blog.
I heard a wedding/portrait photographer speak recently and they were very clear - they don't put a thing online until they've been paid in full and all products have been delivered, the reason being that when someone can view images online, they can have satisfaction from them, etc. If they can't view them online and instead have to actually buy prints/digital versions, etc, then they can actually sell their work.
The same applies here - if someone can get the experience through a non-revenue-generating site rather than a revenue-generating site, revenue is lost due to access through the non-revenue-generating site. |
|
Jeff Hinds, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 3:44 AM on 03.31.10 |
| ->> Absolutely, Isreal! Now that I looked at the images on his blog I have no need to visit/purchase the original sites in which the images were stolen from... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
