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

[LokiZ]

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.

What do you guys think?

I think that easily comes from someone totally lacking in intellectual gray matter LOL. It's no more ridiculous then me saying hey I am gonna walk up to his door when he is not home and finding that he left his door unlocked I then proceed to steal all of his worldly possessions... Well if he REALLY didn't want me to steal his stuff he would not have forgot to lock his door. ...Huh? What?

Just because someone does not choose to use methods to deter theft does not mean the law does not exist with the absence of those methods.

So yes, it is stealing, yes it is a crime, Just not a crime that has yet went to trial.

Edit: But that their in is the problem with the world today. It's not enough for it to be a crime. In order for many of the worlds population to find something wrong enough not to engage in they first must find that the risk or conviction rate is high enough to cause them some discomfort. (myself include at times) It's sad really.

 

[magkelly]

This is why although I hate to use them I will usually watermark my photos of my friends online. I only refrain if they ask me to but I don't like to put any photo of mine online anymore sans one. I have sold two photos so far for print work, stock stuff. But I also have seen a couple of my photos used without my permission online as web backgrounds and once I had one photo come up tagged as someone else's work on a popular art site which completely burned me up. I sent them a copy of the original photo with my time stamp and they kindly pulled it, but it made me very angry to see someone else claiming my photo as theirs.
I have allowed people to use my photos online and for personal use too. But I only let people who ask, and I do insist upon a photo credit usually.

But yeah, that's why I mostly watermark these days.

No one is going to use my images on a t-shirt to sell except for me if I can help it, not unless I authorize it.

 

[Cinka]

Yeah, doesn't help that they're ugly t-shirts - which leads to an entirely different topic of why people who create ugly art are celebrated.

Also, not sure about that prison ad. Is it an ad?

I agree with everyone here. I'm sure my friend doesn't get it for several reasons: She's not a photographer and she's still young and hasn't been burned by art theives. Neither have I, but I don't want to be so I'm careful. You have to protect your work. End of story.

As for snapshots on Facebook, I didn't know Facebook owned them. That's annoying. I suppose, they haven't done anything about it, but they could like make a book or something. Obviously, they wouldn't share the proceeds. Thinking about removing my photos. Except, my mom likes them I suppose I should start watermarking even the snapshots. I do watermark my pro work.

Thanks guys!!

 

[Dominantly]

Yup, that angers me.

 

[eriqalan]

OK, if you do it to review the images this is called "fair use" and not stealing

Stealing is claiming they are yours or taking the whole article / gallery; not samples to demonstrate the review

 

[c.cloudwalker]

OK, if you do it to review the images this is called "fair use" and not stealing

Stealing is claiming they are yours or taking the whole article / gallery; not samples to demonstrate the review

You need to make a t-shirt to review an image?

You may want to read the copyright laws...

 

[Dominantly]

Yeah, of course... He makes a T-shirt for review, and then sells it to other people for a profit so they can review it as well.

It's totally legit.

 

[KmH]

OK, if you do it to review the images this is called "fair use" and not stealing

Stealing is claiming they are yours or taking the whole article / gallery; not samples to demonstrate the review

Fair use is usually decided in the courts because it's anything but cut-and-dried, but it's also usually the first 2 words out of an infringers mouth, right before the next 6 words, "I didn't know it was copyrighted".

Oft times infringers convieniently confuse model release law with copyright law because a model release is not needed for editorial usage, satire, commentary, etc.

The bottom line is, copyright infringers really specialize in manufacturing spurious justifications for stealing copyrighted works.

The most recent, infamous case of infringement is the infringement perpetrated by Richard Fairy.

 

[Derrel]

The guy's an image thief. He makes tacky T-shirts with stolen images. Kind of lame,really.

 

[eriqalan]

I think you misread - I was stating the law; not this application. I kinda figured most would figure it out on their own .....

Maybe you should review copyright laws; what I said was correct. I never said that this was fair use (and in fact demonstrated what fair use was - which goes to the original comment)

 

[eriqalan]

It is fairly clear when you are doing a review - which is the point of the law; generally using 20% or less of an article is obviously "fair use"

Pictures are a bit harder - if someone uses 1 of your pictures (in a review of 200 you posted on the internet) that would still be fair use

The original post referred to a specific situation and had an obvious NOT fair use - use for money

I was only trying to show the law - what is legitimate; some obviously tried to see in that comment what was not there

 

[KmH]

It is fairly clear when you are doing a review - which is the point of the law; generally using 20% or less of an article is obviously "fair use"

Regarding the "point of law".

Help me out here about where it says anything about 20% or less being "generally" or "obviously", fair use. Seems I'm missing something.

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

 

[FrankLamont]

Which is the problem with fair use. Fair dealing is a far better, clearer and less problematic system/section of copyright law.

By the way, a cease and desist letter can be sent - just a basic notice (not order, mind, which is from the court) calling for a cease of any illegal activity, by anyone to anyone applicable. DCMA is a US thing, digitally centred.

RE the original post: it's just plainly... wrong in so many ways. And the fact that the t-shirts look terrible...

 

[Vautrin]

The sad fact of the matter is without a lawyer you can't really force the guy to stop and irregardless of what you read into the US copyright code, if you're not a lawyer (or even if you're a lawyer but it hasn't gone before a judge) it's really just idle speculation.

 

[tasman]

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.

If facebook owns the images or has has copy right then facebook should be the one to stop the guy from stealing the photos or sue him. And I agree that it is stealing.