Sungura wrote:So I saw this as an issue recently actually here too (I think NZcaver?) but yeah I'm seeing some photos I took like at TAG being spread around. Yes, I gave some people permission to save/put in their albums on facebook, and someone here wanted some too and I told her where to go to get the high quality ones and that's all fine and dandy. I don't mind, I'm not stingy. But what is with stuff I took popping up in places I didn't give permission?
Finally getting around to replying. Yep, that was me bitching about this in another unrelated topic. I'm with you on this one!
Interesting replies from Todd, Teresa, and Ian. Different perspectives can be illuminating. Personally I shoot a lot of photos. Some caving, some not. Many aren't really anything more than "snapshots," but some have been published, some have won awards, and some I have sold as prints. After a caving trip, I commonly spend an hour or two (or more) working with my photos. Downloading to the computer, culling the bad ones, post-processing the good ones, and uploading reduced size versions to my online photo album to share with others. Sharing the images in a timely manner is important to me. Mostly it's a way of passing on my appreciation to the folks I caved with for posing in my photos, helping with flashguns, and generally being patient and waiting while I indulge my addiction. Plus everybody loves photos of themselves (well, mostly).
I make a point of sending out a little note in my email along with the photo link. "You're welcome to share the link with others. If you want to use any shots for publications, websites etc, please ask first." Apparently of late that hasn't been specific enough, so I'm adding an addendum. "Please do not copy and paste these photos on your own photo website. They are quite happy where they are. If you'd like to post specific photos - like shots of yourself - on your Facebook page or another website, contact me for permission. I'm usually happy to oblige." I don't do photo CDs for people any more, but occasionally I still share photos of events by agreeing to have them included on a communal photo DVD
with attribution and copyright notice. However sometimes my request is lost in translation, or Joe Caver with the DVD is unaware of what copyright means or doesn't give a crap. Like with many things, unfortunately a few people can ruin it for everybody else, either through not knowing or not caring. Anyway...
wyandottecaver wrote:...protect yourself or dont cry over spilled milk
I NEVER pass along photos above a few hundred k in size (usually less than 100k)...
"Protect yourself" is a novel concept. More about that later. Personally I do reduce almost all my posted images to a few hundred kilobytes, but more for practical online free storage reasons than to protect myself.
Teresa wrote:What is the problem? Loss of income or plagiarism where someone is passing your work off as theirs or loss of bragging rights? If they are that good, get signed up with istockphoto, and sell them. Someone said put them everywhere...I don't know that I'd go that far, but if you have them on your OWN website, and people take them, so what?
The problem is Teresa, you're missing the point. Last I checked any original work by you, me, or anybody else (while not under contract or in the course of a job) is
automatically copyright unless you specify otherwise. It doesn't matter if you're crying over spilled milk because you feel you lost your bragging rights. If somebody copied and used your images without permission (outside of the copyright act "fair use" clause), THEY are at fault. Regardless of their motivation or yours. To assert your rights, you don't need to list your photos on istockphoto (which has really crappy caving images, by the way) or anywhere else. Nor do you need to have lost income, or be concerned about plagiarism.
Develop a personal style, and people will know the photos are yours, regardless.
Not necessarily true. Photography is not quite the same as painted media or creative writing. While many photographers allow their left brain to go wild and create weird, wonderful and unique images, good photography is not all about original creativity from an artistic perspective. It's also about being in the right place at the right time, and capturing the right moment. Of course this is in itself a form of creativity and excellence, although it doesn't necessarily lend itself to a unique personal style evident in every shot. But I digress.
The only bunch I really detest are people who steal stuff and make money for themselves off them by using them without credit.
I agree. I don't
detest anybody who uses my images without permission with no intended monetary gain. I'd just rather they ask permission
first, like any reasonable person should know to do.
ian mckenzie wrote:I never protect any of my photos, if anyone wants to use them I think that's fine. Usually I get credit, sometimes not, but it does me no harm if there's no credit. I took them to share, after all. It is just an image of a cave, mom nature was kind enough not to copyright the cave so I don't bother copyrighting my photos of her/his/its handiwork. If you put stuff on the web, then it's gonna get used; wasn't that the point in posting in the first place.
Having said that, I myself strive to respect the work of others who may not feel the same as I do, but sometimes it is awfully hard to do so when useful images appear uncredited on the web (or credited, but with no contact information).
Ian gets it - partially. He hit the nail on the head in one respect. While he freely shares his photos, he also respects the work of others who feel differently about open sharing. This is good.
However the bit about mother nature being kind enough not to copyright the cave - while it may be true for him personally - is irrelevant to this argument. Mother nature didn't copyright Yosemite or the Tetons either, so should those images by Ansel Adams also be reproduced freely in the public domain? Just because the subject matter is public, doesn't make it right to use of somebody else's photographic image or artistic creation as you please. As for putting stuff on the web to get used, well it all depends what you mean by "used." Shared with others for their viewing pleasure - sure. Downloaded to their computers for personal use - maybe, maybe not. Copied and reposted on Facebook or elsewhere on the web without permission or attribution, as if the photos were their own - not in my book.
Ian's final comment is how it's sometimes hard to respect the work of others when they appear on the web uncredited, or credited with no contact information. I agree. The solution? If for any reason you can't get permission to use (copy, publish, repost, etc) a photo not taken by you - DON'T USE IT. Simple.
A person doesn't need to protect their work for it to be copyright. I suggest folks take a look at this
online article about copyright myths. Yes it's rather dated, but the key points seem to be as relevant as ever (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Bottom line - I don't think it's unreasonable to share photos with others and expect them NOT to copy and repost or otherwise re-use them without permission. Especially if you post them on a photo website which clearly lists a copyright label next to each image. No watermark or embedded protection required. Just because YOU may not mind others making free use of YOUR images, this DOES NOT give you free rights to other people's images. There is no automatic reciprocity under copyright law.