Can I steal your image?

Now that guy really does have some cheek!

Definitely. I'd have responded with something like:

I must say, I'm quite upset. You've used my images with out my permission. I use my images to promote my business (which is not easy) and all the while, you've been using my hard work to do the same for yourself.

My concern is that if you continue to use my images I will have to contact my lawyer as I have never given you the rights to do so. This sudden confession means I'll have to better protect my images so this doesn't happen again (thank you for the heads-up).

Why would you do such a thing? I am an honest businessman and small businesses like mine (and yours) don't get respect (especially when one steals from another). I hope you realize it took me a long time to create images that I liked. Now I have to further protect them. Please don't take them again. I don't think you want me to call my lawyer about this.

If you do wish to use my images, I've attached a spreadsheet of prices for your perusal. Please make all checks payable to...


Hopefully the emphasis on "my" would get the point across. If not, I'd love to hear from his lawyer.

What do you guys think? Strait to the point but not to harsh...

I think it's fine. You didn't make yourself look like a jerk or anything.
 
a) "Intellectual Property" is a disingenuous and insulting euphemism. You can't "own" an "idea", no matter what the law says.

Huh? And you can't change a blue sky to green simply by declaring it so.

No insult. And, I'm very sincere.

Are you saying there's no value to my work? Do you believe a box of print paper right off the shelf has no additional worth with my images?

I'm certain you know it's wrong and immoral to take something that you have no right to.

It's silly to argue about it.

-Pete
 
Sure you can -- as surely as you can own a tree.
You're clearly not understanding the contrast between a physical object and an abstract idea.

A tree is a physical thing. I can plant it on my property and it belongs to me. I own it. If you take a chainsaw to it and remove it from my property, it's theft. That's simple.

A photo is an abstract concept. I can put it on my hard drive. If you copy it from my hard drive to a CD, it's copyright infringement, not theft.

You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it, hence the term "copyright". If two people have a photo of the same subject and a similar or same composition, neither of them stole it from the other, but each own the copyright to their specific photo.

For example...

Here's a photo I took:
http://eppb.myphotos.cc/album/miscellaneous/do_not_enter.jpg

Here's a photo a guy I know took:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/2407943717_d6569691a5.jpg?v=0

They're of the same sign in the same location, but neither of us knew that the other had taken the photo at the time. I don't own the idea, neither does he, but we each own the copyright to our own photo.

I still have it...but now, since it can be freely taken and reused, it's worthless. You've therefore deprived me of the value of the item, even if I continue to hold a copy of it.
Whatever "value" you have placed on the photo is imaginary and abstract. No idea has a concrete value that you can put a dollar amount on.

You can put a dollar amount on a tree based on size, weight, quality, age, health and many other concrete factors. Nothing is concrete about artwork.

If I make my money writing software, or taking pictures, or painting paintings, I don't use that money in some theoretical way -- I use it to buy groceries, and pay a mortgage, and put gas in the car. Taking that money deprives me of those things in a real way -- I don't get paid, so I really can't drive to the store and really can't buy milk.
My heart bleeds. You can't base your business what people should do, but what people will do. If it's easy to copy, people will copy it. Live with it or go out of business. If you can otherwise add value to it, people are usually willing to pay for that value.

Copyright is not a right to make money from your work, it's a right to try to make money from your work as long as it progressive according to the constitution (in the US).

Or, alternatively, I have to stop writing software, taking pictures, or painting paintings (or developing that cure for cancer I've been working on) -- since doing so is considered a "free gift" to the world -- and have to sell hamburgers instead to make the money I need to live.
Great, something I can relate to. I am a web developer by trade, which includes writing website management software. I charge a reasonable rate to get the job done for each customer and that's it. If the customer decides to pickup and go, they're free to take the software with them.

Why should I care? I already got paid for it. Copyright may give me the right to charge for it in perpetuity, but that would be foolish and hurt business, so I don't.

Repeat after me: copyright is not a retirement plan.

If it's done on a small scale, I have a right to recoup that loss. If done on a large scale, the taking could be criminal. I see nothing wrong with that.
Here's the problem with accusations and conviction of copyright infringement: if I download a crapload of commercial software using bittorrent, I'm doing it because:

1) I'm cheap, or
2) I'm poor, or
3) I'm lazy

If I'm cheap and the software is not available via warez channels, I won't buy it anyway. If I'm poor and the software is not available via warez channels, I won't buy it anyway. If I'm lazy and the software is not available via warez channels, I won't buy it anyway.

The end result is zero loss. You're going to get anyone in these categories to buy your software no matter how hard you fight it, so fighting it is just wasted energy.

A statutory monopoly that's been recognized as necessary to the development of art and science. So much so, in fact, that it's written into the U.S. Constitution.
Yup, and written with explicit purpose to promote the progress of useful arts and sciences, not to pad your pocket book. Go read it.

Copyright wasn't even conceived with the idea that you should have a right to make money creating art, it was conceived with the idea that the money aspect was merely an incentive to promote progress. Progress first, money second.

Huh? And you can't change a blue sky to green simply by declaring it so.
See: LSD :lol:

I think I phrased that incorrectly. "Intellectual Property" is not part of law, it's a euphemism that was coined in the 70's so that big media could have a term to use instead of "monopoly".

I'm certain you know it's wrong and immoral to take something that you have no right to.
Of course. No argument there. Just as long as you know that copying a photo is not "taking" anything. Copyright is not a moral proposition, it's a utilitarian one.

I liken to traffic law: there's nothing inherently immoral about going 200 MPH on public roads, but it sure is illegal. Traffic laws are a utility for safety, not moral guidance.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently immoral about hitting CTRL+C, CTRL+V, but it may be infringing copyright in some circumstances.
 
Last edited:
"You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the"

Do you mean scene/subject?
 
A shopkeeper asks a regular teenage customer if they are any good with computers; to which the teenager replise that they are. The shopkeeper then goes on to talk with the kid about computers in general, and lets slip that he would really like photoshop CS3 - but its £100s - way too much money.
The teenager replise that they can get it for free (warze) of the net = to which the shopkeeper is very excited. So they go back to his house and the kid sets up the download for the man - the kid then asks if the man is alright with this (since its theft) to which the man replise that he was never would never have bought the software of the company anyway since it cost too much - and that the comany has millions whilst he has only his earnings from the shop.

The next day the kid walks into the shop again - this time he selects a rather nice jacket from a stand and then walks out the door. The shopkeeper runs after him and stop the kid - he then asks why the kid was not paying for the jacket and stealing from him - to which the kid replise that the jacket cost way to much for him (only earning a few £s a month) so he was never going to buy the jacket so the sale is not lost - and besides the shopkeeper is so much richer than he that the cost of the jacket is nothing.



Moral of the story - theft is theft - be it digital or physical
 
...
Moral of the story - theft is theft - be it digital or physical

Definitions of infringement:

violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"
misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Use of an image without authorization is -- infringement. Get over "theft."
 
Here's the problem with accusations and conviction of copyright infringement: if I download a crapload of commercial software using bittorrent, I'm doing it because:

1) I'm cheap, or
2) I'm poor, or
3) I'm lazy

Or because you are minimising running costs/maximising profit by taking a decision that you find the business risk (that you won't get found out) in doing so acceptable.
 
Or because you are minimising running costs/maximising profit by taking a decision that you find the business risk (that you won't get found out) in doing so acceptable.

This is why I think the 'violator' is probably just an idiot. If they never said anything in the first place, who would know if there were an infringment?
 
Definitions of infringement:

violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"
misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Use of an image without authorization is -- infringement. Get over "theft."
Good to see that someone else here seems to understand things.
 
I guess were getting mixed up between the understanding of theft to the general population and the understanding of the word in the legal sence.

to most people stealing is theft - and theft is stealing. Whilst in a legal sence its not. Either way digital data still has copywrite on it so its still infringment to take it without permission - and to take without permission is stealing to most people.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top