I think this is stealing...what do you guys think?

[Cinka]

The other day a friend posted a link to an interview with "artist" Mavi Staiano who takes photos from Facebook and uses them to make t-shirts and posters, collages. I argued that the artist doesn't have permission to use the photos and that while I have nothing against using someone else's images for art, it's just good practice to ask permission first. My friend (and the artist as well) both argue that the images aren't works of someone's art - they're just snapshots. Furthermore, if they didn't want people to take them, they'd update their privacy settings on FB.

STRANGER ON MY T-SHIRT - Viceland Today

I tend to think that if you use something without permission, it's stealing and that photographs are property - even the bad snapshots on Facebook. People like to call it "reappropriated" as if it was found in the dumpster and unwanted in someway.

What do you guys think?

 

[Arch]

i think your right and they are wrong... the T-Shirts don't look very good anyways.
BTW if they are selling the T-Shirts then it probably is copyright theft, regardless of what they consider 'art'.

 

[Scatterbrained]

copyright violation?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Yes, agreed, it is a copyright violation but do the authors of the photos even know it? And suing for the small amount it represents is not worth it. But if this guy starts making some serious money with his shirts, watch out... someone will probably sue him.

You do mention collages, which I don't see in your link, and those are quite another story. The basic deal with collages is that no part of it can be so big as to represent a certain percentage of the total work. Frankly, from looking at the law a long time ago, I decided that in most cases of collages it would be a question of who has the best lawyer.

 

[jeph]

I think that its stealing, I am also intrigued by the ad for "Hot Prison Pals".

 

[Overread]

"reappropriation" is fancy word that some like to use to hide the fact that they are indeed stealing something that belongs to someone else. The argument that they would "update their privacy settings" is not valid at all - otherwise you could argue that you should never ever leave your home so as to avoid being mugged.

It's theft of others peoples digital property pure and simple - chances are sueing the guy is not worth it but you could easily get a takedown order from his webservice provider for his site. I forget the specific term or how to go about it but it should be fairly simple to prove that he is performing copywrite theft and profiting from it - though it of course does not stop him from throwing the site up somewhere else.

It might be worth flagging facebook with regard to the theft and profit aspects - otherwise unless he happens to use some richpersons image chances are the worth of enforving the law is not going to equal the comeback (and I mean that in more than just monitary terms(.

 

[Dallmeyer]

Send the boys 'round: slit a few silkscreens, snap a few brushes ..scoff at their oeuvre. stuff like that. That shoulld learn 'em!

 

[Josh220]

Technically yes. But do people on FB have enough of a clue to pursue something like that? Probably not.

People actually by that junk? I'd rather throw my money in the trash.

 

[ghache]

LOL

 

[Hooligan Dan]

"reappropriation" is fancy word that some like to use to hide the fact that they are indeed stealing something that belongs to someone else. The argument that they would "update their privacy settings" is not valid at all - otherwise you could argue that you should never ever leave your home so as to avoid being mugged.

It's theft of others peoples digital property pure and simple - chances are sueing the guy is not worth it but you could easily get a takedown order from his webservice provider for his site. I forget the specific term or how to go about it but it should be fairly simple to prove that he is performing copywrite theft and profiting from it - though it of course does not stop him from throwing the site up somewhere else.

It might be worth flagging facebook with regard to the theft and profit aspects - otherwise unless he happens to use some richpersons image chances are the worth of enforving the law is not going to equal the comeback (and I mean that in more than just monitary terms(.

I think the term you're looking for is a Cease and Desist order.

Overread is correct. That's pretty much all that's needed in this situation.

 

[Overread]

Ahh thanks Dan - yes a Cease and Desist order was what I was thinking of

 

[KmH]

Ahh thanks Dan - yes a Cease and Desist order was what I was thinking of

I think it's actually called a DMCA takedown notice. (Digital Millenium Copyright Act).

The web site is only required to take it down, contact whoever put it up, and if that person says your DMCA notice is BS, the web site can then put the image right back up and lets the parties that are in dispute slug it out in court.

This from a link at www.photoattorney.com:
Using the DMCA Takedown Notice to Battle Copyright Infringement

 

[Big_Pink_Snapper]

FWIW, Once you upload a picture to FB, it becomes their property! It's in the agreement you have to agree to in order to upload your photos in the first place. Basically, if you upload your photos to FB and someone uses them, you're SOL.

 

[Josh220]

FWIW, Once you upload a picture to FB, it becomes their property! It's in the agreement you have to agree to in order to upload your photos in the first place. Basically, if you upload your photos to FB and someone uses them, you're SOL.

I would assume that loophole might give FB the right to use the photo's, but not all of the members.

 

[Overread]

Exactly - I don't quite know the current stance of FB's legal rights regarding images - it used to be that they did get full *royalty free* usage rights to any uploaded image, but that the right would be lost if the owner of the image removed it from the FB website. They changed it at one point to remove the latter clause and it blew up in their face. As I understand it things went back to the original rule and as far as I know it is similar to that situation still..

So FB could directly profit, but take down the image and they lose the right - however it does not convey rights to independant 3rd parties to use the images without permission of the owner -so your rights are protected in that regard.