Can I steal your image?

[EhJsNe]

chances are they are only 12 years old too.........

its not that foolish = its how a majority of the internet functions and is percived by people - information on it is seen as free property to be taken and used for any means. Heck just look at avatars on forums most are of images people do not legally own or have any right to use.


Welcome to the internet - may I take your coat and your bank account details please

Thats great! :lmao:

 

[DRoberts]

I can see that we are all living in the digital world now...
Epp_B, I understand some of your arguments over terminology, but do you really believe half of what you have said?
"You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it"...
Really? So if I take a film photo of a unique subject matter, and I develop it and someone comes into my house and steals it, they have only infringed my photo, not stolen it?
Theft is theft...regardless of whether it is "classified" as larceny, infringment, theft, embezzlement...etc, etc...it all means that someone took something that they had no right to. In the context of casual conversation on the subject the term theft is a general term used for just that. They didn't have the right to use my photo, so they stole it or commited theft.
When I go to the store I get in the "car"...Not into the "Chrysler 300"
Your arguments while (some) technically correct, are invalid to the context of this post.

 

[epp_b]

Really? So if I take a film photo of a unique subject matter, and I develop it and someone comes into my house and steals it, they have only infringed my photo, not stolen it?

Digital photo.

If someone put your photo in a scanner, they didn't steal it.

 

[Samriel]

I didn't read the whole thread in detail, but it seems interesting, so I'll join in.

"You can't own a specific photo, but you can own the "right to copy" it"...
Really? So if I take a film photo of a unique subject matter, and I develop it and someone comes into my house and steals it, they have only infringed my photo, not stolen it?

Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)? Is that stealing? Because when people copy data on the internet, it amounts to the same thing - you do not lose property, at least not directly. You can only lose the eventual profits which it would bring you, although it is doubtful that a person who chooses to "steal" would be paying for it, unless he really wanted it. I'd call it an infringement, as it is called in most legal systems I know of.

I originally come from a region where copyright and intellectual property laws were introduces very recently, and I'm still having problems accepting the concepts as something natural. I see and accept the necessity of the concepts, but property still needs to be something very touchable in my head. I guess I just need some more time to adjust...

The discussion here reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend from Iceland about a meeting of representatives from Europe and Africa about the fishing rights in the Atlantic. He said that more that half of the participants, most from Africa, didn't understand how one could discuss to whom the ocean belongs... it doesn't belong to anybody in their belief. Different backgrounds, different views...

Good you got to sell the photo by the way. I've got a new respect for the guy now that he actually payed for your work.

 

[jlykins]

I'm glad I could start a topic that inspires this much discussion.

 

[DRoberts]

Digital photo.

But you didn't say a digital photo, you just said a photo. Remember we are being technical and literal here.

If someone put your photo in a scanner, they didn't steal it.

Sure they did. I didn't give them permission to take it and scan it.
The stealing was in the act of taking it, not what they did after the fact.
What your saying is, I could walk into a gallery and take any photo I wanted to off the wall and take with me, because it is not a tangable item, its just an idea. Of course, I would have to remove the frame or I could be charged with a criminal offense.

Why can't you just accept the generalization of the terminology used and what context its being used in, instead of making a big issue about it.

 

[epp_b]

Sure they did. I didn't give them permission to take it and scan it.
The stealing was in the act of taking it, not what they did after the fact.
What your saying is, I could walk into a gallery and take any photo I wanted to off the wall and take with me, because it is not a tangable item, its just an idea. Of course, I would have to remove the frame or I could be charged with a criminal offense.

I should clarify. If you borrowed him a negative, he scanned it and returned it to you, he did not steal it.

Heck just look at avatars on forums most are of images people do not legally own or have any right to use.

Oh noes! Those people are strangling the 100 square pixel avatar market! Give me a break. Technically speaking, yes, they are committing copyright infringement, but that's going according to the letter and taking a power drill to spirit of the law.

 

[Overread]

Oh noes! Those people are strangling the 100 square pixel avatar market! Give me a break. Technically speaking, yes, they are committing copyright infringement, but that's going according to the letter and taking a power drill to spirit of the law.

Well the law typically takes things to the letter (odd that you take this position as its been the mainstay of your argument thus far - so your rather shooting yourself in the foot )

And yes most people would consider it taking things too far - which is why its allowed - were anyone - however - to take offence they would be within their rights to take legal action if they so desired.

also there is an avatar market (yes some people do pay for them) so there is even a financial interest to be protected by those companies.

 

[Big Bully]

I didn't read the whole thread in detail, but it seems interesting, so I'll join in.



Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)? Is that stealing? Because when people copy data on the internet, it amounts to the same thing - you do not lose property, at least not directly. You can only lose the eventual profits which it would bring you, although it is doubtful that a person who chooses to "steal" would be paying for it, unless he really wanted it. I'd call it an infringement, as it is called in most legal systems I know of.

I originally come from a region where copyright and intellectual property laws were introduces very recently, and I'm still having problems accepting the concepts as something natural. I see and accept the necessity of the concepts, but property still needs to be something very touchable in my head. I guess I just need some more time to adjust...

The discussion here reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend from Iceland about a meeting of representatives from Europe and Africa about the fishing rights in the Atlantic. He said that more that half of the participants, most from Africa, didn't understand how one could discuss to whom the ocean belongs... it doesn't belong to anybody in their belief. Different backgrounds, different views...

Good you got to sell the photo by the way. I've got a new respect for the guy now that he actually payed for your work.

Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)?

Honestly this is an invalid point because; a) not very many people have that sort of technology or equipment to pull that off, b) making a perfect photographic copy is almost impossible, due to the fact that there would be some differences and a photographic copy would not be as clear as the original, thus making it not a perfect copy.

I originally come from a region where copyright and intellectual property laws were introduces very recently, and I'm still having problems accepting the concepts as something natural. I see and accept the necessity of the concepts, but property still needs to be something very touchable in my head. I guess I just need some more time to adjust...

There is the big difference right there... Different countries value intellectual property differently, and don't have as strict of laws as the US on protecting intellectual property.

 

[Samriel]

Hmm, but how about if you invite him to your house, and he takes a perfect photographic copy of your photograph, allowing him to make a perfect copy (let's assume he has the sufficient skills and equipment to do this)?

Honestly this is an invalid point because; a) not very many people have that sort of technology or equipment to pull that off, b) making a perfect photographic copy is almost impossible, due to the fact that there would be some differences and a photographic copy would not be as clear as the original, thus making it not a perfect copy.

I agree that this situation is highly hypothetical, but the point was not how many people could actually do it or not, or how perfect the copy would be. The point was to represent the "digital problem" in an "analog" way, because with digital imaging a) many people have the technology and equipment (any computer should do), and b) making a perfect copy often requires only the click of a button.

 

[Big Bully]

I agree that this situation is highly hypothetical, but the point was not how many people could actually do it or not, or how perfect the copy would be. The point was to represent the "digital problem" in an "analog" way, because with digital imaging a) many people have the technology and equipment (any computer should do), and b) making a perfect copy often requires only the click of a button.

Good point.