I'm not sure where this should be posted, but I thought this is something that should be known to the membership.
I was notified by a friend that one of the larger optional photos I had posted just a few days ago showed up on a commercial website called Pixdaus.com. NPN was the only internet site the picture was posted on, so I know it came from here. The poster, screen name "Poppy", had swiped it, even attributing it to my name. She or he did not have any permission at all to do that, and an attribution does not cover the theft, in my opinion. Our site brings up a specific copyright notice on a right click, but has no other protection for the larger optional photos as they do for the smaller photos.
While I was there, I searched the site by keyword and found one more, but this came from elsewhere, I think. I also saw a number of photos that looked familiar and may have come from here also. The site has removed the photos at my request, so that is all to the good. But as near as I can tell, this site posts mostly the work of others, garnered from all over the internet. They seem to totally ignore the copyright laws.
Sorry to hear about this Philip. It seems to be a never ending issue these days, no matter what site it is posted at. We just had a discussion a week or so back about a similar event. Click on NPN link. NPN
I found three of my shots; one is a 1,200 pixel post, the other two are screen grabs. All were posted by "poppy," the same person Philip described. I've emailed Pixdaus, demanding the photos be removed. I've posted a comment to "poppy." I urge other NPNers to check Pixdaus as well. If enough of us complain, maybe the site will disappear.
If my photos are still posted on Monday, I plan to make a formal written complaint, starting a copyright lawsuit.
Posted by Wayne Jones on March 12, 2009 at 9:56 PM
This "Poppy" seems to be a big fan of NPN photographers. I just looked at http://www.pixdaus.com/?sort=userlast&name=poppy, and the site has 332 pages of his posts, and just the FIRST 2 PAGES OF 332 contains images by the following NPN members:
"By Jimmy Gekas"
"One of the Symbols of Spring by Giuseppe Guadagno"
"Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) by Gary Gulash"
"Black Rock Cottage in Winter by Steve France"
"Sunrise on Heavy Runner Mountain (Glacier National Park) by Morris McClung"
"Pheasant feathers by Marinus Wieten"
"Lake Huron Ice Flow by Wayne Simpson"
"Sunrise over Badwater by Martin Stankiewicz"
"Feisty Redpoll by Keith A Anderson"
ALSO, just out of curiosity, I did a search for "Adamus" which turned up 28 images, mostly posted by Poppy, too. I guess this makes a case for clearly including your copyright info IN the image. I wonder how many photographers regard this sort of exposure as theft, and how many view it as free advertizing
Posted by Bruce Painter on March 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM
You can add the following two as photos stolen from NPN members by Poppy
"Touch of Gold" by Ian Cameron
"Great Horned Owl nestlings by Grace Blair"
Also "Frosted Paradise-by Ian Cameron " was stolen by artemis.
It appears that a lot of the photos on this site are stolen. Some still have the owners copyright still on the photo.
The only thing worse than finding so many stolen photos is that none of mine were good enough to be stolen.
"I wonder how many photographers regard this sort of exposure as theft, and how many view it as free advertising."
I would not be one of those. I put too much hard work and money into what admittedly is an expensive hobby. Moreover, advertising by its very nature is designed to produce revenue from targeted exposure. This does neither. It is more of mutual m**********n than it is anything, or counting coup. Those photos are our property. Taking them without permission is theft. Period.
Jim, I read your very cool comment to Poppy. If you need any testimony for a lawsuit, via affidavit or whatever, call on me.
Yep, looks like my last post "Sierra Crescendo" made Poppy's popular picture review too. It looked to be a screen grab of the larger image, as the quality looked bad. As a minimum at least Poppy is posting the rightful owners name. Last week I came across another robbed image of mine on a web site over in the country of Turkey that did not have recognition of any sort posted. It was a thumbnail sized image
On quick review I found several CANP members images there too. I will alert them in the CANP regional forum.
Thanks for the head's up. I found 4 of my images hosted there. It usually doesn't bother me much, but when someone doesn't let me know, and in addition hosts the image themselves with no 'linkjuice', I get a bit ticked off.
Posted by Terry Sohl on March 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I think you could spend most of your time going after folks like this, if you so desired.
Go to "Tineye.com". You can do a reverse lookup of any photo on your site. Enter the URL of a photo, and it will show who else has that exact same photo up on a different website.
Gets a bit depressing when you type in photo after photo, and keep seeing your hard work show up all over the place, usually without any recognition of who the photographer was.
Posted by Ian Wolfenden on March 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM
Thanks, Philip, for drawing attention to this. I found one of mine there and have written to have it removed.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on March 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM
It's rather ironic that Pixdaus tells people to post images "they like", yet at the same time say not to violate copyrights and be sure to give credit. As if...it's okay to steal images as long as credit is given????
This is from their front page....
Host and bookmark the photos you like with Pixdaus! You will have them here for later.
Show people something nice!
Cool images would participate in ratings, dull stuff would be downvoted fast.
Either give the link or upload the saved image.
Share your photos with others via blog-posting or linking, your friends and other people can see what you like and comment.
Make private 'my favorites' lists with Pixdaus, and Pixdaus would recommend you images you might like.
Please don't violate copyright laws.
Please give credits.
I have thought that the precedent had been set for this type of crap with the Napster case and that file "sharing" site could be held liable for their users posting other people's intellectual property even it there were no "royalities" being denied?
These "sharing" sites may say they do not make a profit from the image being on their site,(implying that the images itself is not sold as product) but they all sell advertising space. that sales income is dgenerated due in part to the site's traffic, which is as a direct result of the content on that site. So in my opinont, if our image is drawing in the traffic which drivesthe advertising engine, then your product is in fact generating "commercial income" for that site and you should be entitled to a sahre of that income. Or am I living in a too rose colored world?
Posted by Jesse Speer on March 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Hmmmm. Well, I guess I'm in a very small minority here. And I admit that, but I can't understand the uproar in this particular case. I understand the legality and technicalities that people are raising. Legit beefs. You obviously have to ask if you're going to "share" the work of someone else. If you don't, it's wrong. But this person is essentially offering free publicity - if you really think about the specifics of this situation. "Poppy", you can use my nicely credited photographs - not that I would care if you had already. And yes, photography is part of my income. But I also realize the beauty of free advertising made possible by the internet.
I'll take the discovery of my work by thousands of new eyes, over the pile of pennies potential advertising royalties from a free sharing website any day. Sure, I don't like the fact that you used the work without asking. But I guess I probably should have put a big copyright in my work - knowing that anything I post online for public consumption can easily be swiped. And often is. Seriously, if this bothers you, then take part of the blame for posting images that have virtually zero copyright deterrent. Watermark them, take them off the internet or move on with life. Or worry more about the actual thieves out there that you will never see or hear about, because they aren't out there giving you big fat credits after "stealing" your work - knowing that this sort of thing is inevitable as long as we have human nature and screen grabs.
Sorry about the rant, and I realize this will ruffle features, but give the person a break. Yeah, I realize they infringed upon your rights, or whatever. Still, what does this user really stand to gain ... but a headache and a dislike for photographers now? With those obvious credits, how many end users would really give thought to the fact that the user maybe didn't obtain proper permission? No, it's probably more like this ... "That image is amazing and I'm going to go Google this photographer."
You crediting-the-artist thieves, have your way with my work!
Posted by Nathan Lovas on March 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I tend to be with Jesse on this one. As long as they are giving me credit for the images and not making money themselves from them, I am ok with it. I have made print sales from this exact scenario that I would not have made without it. If they are posting my images and taking credit themselves then that strikes be a bit differently.
We all have the right to control our work however we choose, this is just how I look at it.
I found one of my images posted by "fauna". I requested they remove it and also posted the comment that the image was used without permission.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on March 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
A few words about Picdaus. The domain name registries show it is hosted through a proxy registrar. That means you can't tell who owns or controls the site, only the name and address of a proxy (based in AZ) that is in the business of hiding ownership of sites. I take that as circumstantial evidence of a guilty conscience.
But I did receive this message from Pictdaus:
Thanks for reporting the photos have been removed. We don't tolerate
such actions from our users and would be glad if you report more of
your knowledge of such facts.
pixdaus.com support
13.03.2009, в 2:40, Jim DeWitt написал(а):
And I've confirmed that my photos have been removed.
Posted by Pam Colander on March 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I agree with Jesse also. I received a very speedy remedy regarding vi.sualize.us from the site contact person (who is in Spain, BTW). He put the correct title back on the image, uploaded a version with my copyright (provided by me), and put a link to my website. My name always appeared as the artist so no change was required for that. I have come to the conclusion that if I don't want my images stolen then I'd better quit putting them out there, which I don't intend to do.
Posted by Jesse Speer on March 13, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Jim, just FYI ... it's quite standard to enable such privacy options with a registrar. This is handled in a variety of manners. (If you were to check my domains, you may not even see my registrar.) It's becoming quite common. Eliminates junk mail of all types, for one thing - and more importantly potential fraud with domain management. I'm sure Pixdaus is more worried about backlash from their adult content, if anything. They clearly responded immediately and appropriately to your request.
Not to belabor the point, but while I do agree with Jesse's point of view, I do so only to a certain extent. I'm not directly 'losing' money with my images being posted as they were...so why should I care? Well, I'm greedy, and if I don't feel I have the potential of gaining that is where I draw the line - eg if I am not given sufficient credit, I ask that it is provided or the image removed. In this case, I didn't believe my name in tiny lettering below the photo was sufficient credit - I want a link to my website. I believe this is only fair. Many will have a different opinion on this issue, and that is mine. Perhaps in the future my opinion will change for one reason or another, because I know in the past it has changed. I will say that Pixdaus.com removed the images promptly without question.
I guess what bothered me more than anything else was the wholesale harvesting of images. I may have been a bit naive not putting some copyright info on the face of the photo—well, I was, no doubt of it—but the attitude of "Poppy" was more "screw you, I've apologized and removed the photo and there's an end to it as far as I am concerned." My question is, did Poppy or any other of the people on Picdaus gathering images by the truckload have a sudden crisis of conscience and remove all their illegal harvest?
That didn't and won't happen until those of us who make images for sale or pleasure draw a line and say collectively and strongly "NO!"
I also agree with Jesse's, I've always said no one knows your alive and in business unless you tell them. The two that have posted my images there are making my job to get my name out there a little easier. As long as I get credit for the image I don't have a problem with it. You never know, someone may see my image there, see my name, due a google search, end up at my site and buy a book or sign up for an online workshop. I also agree with Greg, that it would be nice if the my name was larger or even a link to my website, but I'm ok with any small effort by others to promote my work.
I'm with Greg. If there's a link to the website where the photo came from, then MAYBE it's an OK practice. As is, the "credit" doesn't really do the photographer a lot of good.
Keep in mind that this practice of using photos without permission extends WELL beyond just this website. As has been posted out here in the past, there have been other cases where people have "borrowed" images like this, but have also gone so far to as crop to remove any copyright/name burned into the image, and have not given any credit.
I used to be shocked at how often my images are used without permission. Not shocked anymore, but it's still disturbing.
Philip is right...this practice in general won't stop until photographers in general stand up for themselves. If people like "Poppy" think it's OK to grab material without permission, it's not much of a stretch for those kinds of folks to try to profit off of that material. As someone else pointed out...while "Poppy" himself may not be profiting right now, Picdaus and sites like that ARE profiting off of our work, through ads appearing on their site.
Jesse,
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. While I can see the intangible value of the "free advertising' it;s still theft of ones intellectual property for profit. Not "Poppy's, but the sharing site that generates advertisment based on their content; which in this case is your work, your effort, your art. (Not only that but teh site actively encourages their users to go out and do what they do.
Winking at it, will not make this kind of petty theft go away, nor will rationalizing it. it's almost as bad as blaming the victim for the thief's actions. It's the politics of comparable ethics, and for myself, being a rather old schooler I have a hard time accepting that. I was brought up to believe that theft is theft; be it a twenty-five cent candy bar (which I got a good hide tanning for), or a five-thousand dollar car (which I never did becaue of that hide tanning).
As long as we condone the behavior, or make excuses for the theif's action, it wil continue to plague us, and will eventually escalate to include other.more tangable crimes.
I found 8 of my photos by searching for my last name - all of them from the 'larger version' posted on NPN. No telling how many there may be where I have not been given credit! In reading the comments on the photos on the site, I get the impression this is done innocently by posters who, themselves, are not photographers, but simply like our pictures and want to share them with others. I don't mind it if I'm being given credit, but emphasizes to me the need to put my copyright and website address on my larger posts to take full advantage of the advertising.
Ok, here is a scenario: You buy a "Time" magazine or any national or international magazine of your choice. Right there on the cover is one of your photographs stolen from NPN. It has your name as credit for the image. You go to the article inside and there are two more half page images of yours that were screen copied from your website. You again are given credit for the photos under the photos. An article has been written there by some writer (the same guy who stole your images). According to you folks who think it is ok for "Poppy" to steal your stuff as long as you are given credit then the same logic would apply here. It is ok for a writer to take your stuff as long as you are credited. Maybe the writer is not being paid either for multiple reasons - maybe all he asked for was a tear-sheet to show he was published inb Time Magazine. You are going to be pretty upset with that writer and Time Magazine for the money you lost out on getting from a National or International Magazine. While Poppy is not making money, that website IS making advertising revenue with your images on it.
The deal here is that by allowing this to go on unchallenged or un-checked is going to drive down the prices we receive for images. With enough of this happening, legal eagles will be able to say that it is an accepted practice and no one needs to pay for images anymore. Getting free advertising is a wonderful thing as LONG AS you have given permission. Otherwise, you are setting the entire photography industry up for a fall.
This is already happening in several ways. Look at all the free royalty free images that are available now. These images have driven down the prices that pros are given for images. This is a simple fact when looked at industry wide (yes, some photographers still get their huge sums...but that is getting to be fewer and fewer.
So, folks need to look at the wider "picture" when thinking it is acceptable to have their images stolen and used as long as credit is given. Otherwise, the whole "copyright" idea is going to be frittered away.
There are photographers who undercut established rates just so they can get published and make a name for themselves (get credit for their images). This undercuts us all. This discussion really equates to the same thing.
As usual, some folks will see this differently than me.
Good points from Terry, Rick and Troup, I wonder how much our opinions differ from those who make money from their photography and those who don't. It seems acceptable to me for someone to use my image without permission that promotes my image a positive way, with the oppinion that it's considered advertising for my product, but if you don't sell your images, offer workshops,etc. I can see that you might be upset by the theft.
One of the lenses I use is a Tamron 90 macro, and if I go to Tamron's site and pull off the picture of that lens, post it in my blog and mentions it's a great lens, I can't imagine getting a call from Tamron scolding me for the theft of their image. But then you could say that I'm just showing a product rather than a artistic photo, but that's what my images are in a way, my products.
I'm sure that tons of images are being pull off NPN for all kinds for varies uses that we'll never know about, and in a million years (or until someone comes up with a block that hackers can't figure a way around) you'll never stop it, so if it's something that will drive you nuts it's probably better not to post images on the net.
Troup, the difference is Time may sell mags becuase of your images being there, so they make money off of you, Poppys not making money off the images. I guess I can't complain to the fact the site my image is posted has advertising, because I'm advertising there also.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 13, 2009 at 7:15 PM
A few points :
I have thought that the precedent had been set for this type of crap with the Napster case and that file "sharing" site could be held liable for their users posting other people's intellectual property even it there were no "royalities" being denied?
Richard - That's true, but only if they refuse to remove it when asked. Youtube and Napster both showed that they are NOT required to screen user content for copyright violations. They ARE required to remove it if requested to though. For example, clips from NFL games are frequently available on Youtube for a short time, but the NFL constantly screens for them, and asks Youtube to remove what it finds. (Not sure if they get all of them though.)
But then you could say that I'm just showing a product rather than a artistic photo, but that's what my images are in a way, my products.
Mike - The tamron lens issue isn't quite a good enough analogy. Posting a photo of a lens is not posting the actual item they are selling. If someone posted a picture of one of your images, that's a copy of the actual thing you're selling (or could easily be printed into one). So tamron would probably not care, since they aren't trying to sell images of their lenses.
However, I agree that small-time use is probably OK. There's definitely some grey area in there, somewhere between "no one ever uses you image for anything without permission" and "time magazine stole your image".
WOW! I created more reaction than I might have believed! Straight up, here are my feelings on the whole subject: if I don't place a high personal premium on something I have created, then no one else will either. I don't look for pay for what I do, but I get much personal fulfillment out of both taking and making photos. I work hard at it to make it better. My galleries are the web sites where I post my pictures and have my good name.
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161
Posted by Jesse Speer on March 14, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Speaking to nobody in particular ... that website that "published" your photo immediately removed it, after the user error (deviant, naive or otherwise) was brought to their attention. Right? What's wrong with how this played out? You have one ignorant user in Poppy, which speaks more about human nature than it does any possible erosion of the copyright concept. The human nature has always been there, and always will be. It's just more apparent to the artist via the internet medium. Doesn't mean we're seeing the end of copyright as we know it? Why?
And why does this company's profits matter - and what is the direct link of profits to your copyright worries? The company didn't lift your photograph. Weren't the complaints resolved exactly as expected - the company immediately fixing the errors of a stray user? Isn't that the fulfillment of copyright protection, let alone a display of respect for your art? If anything, the response of Pixdaus gives me hope that copyright issues are being taken seriously in a new and developing internet world. Seriously, why is this event being used as proof of a perceived erosion of artist rights - or some sort of decline in photography? Sorry, but I don't see it - nor do I think other photographers need to be scared into thinking they're doing something wrong ... if they don't care about Poppygate ... or selling for Royalty Free ... and so on. I think we are all better served just realizing that it is so much easier for people to "appropriate and redirect" art these days, regardless of the intent. That's the lesson here. Increased vigilance will serve our needs ... and we don't need to think that the floor is falling out from beneath our feet. Change in the industry doesn't mean we're losing our individual rights. (And I'm not even a liberal.)
There are many reasons for a decline in photographic pricing, and I can assure you that most of it is due to the nature of modern photography - as the industry naturally reacts and adapts to the proliferation of the art form. It's really not due to the convictions of some of us who simply aren't bothered by Poppygate. I am seriously tired of hearing that line of thinking ... or rather having any up/coming photographers around here and other places feel the need to embrace the burden that they are somehow hurting their established brethren - that a photographic apocalypse is taking place because they see their bottom line falling. It can really be summed up as a simple reaction/adjustment to the needs of today's photo buyer. For example, I am also a graphic artist. I buy a lot of photography. You better believe that I love royalty free images and even $5 images when I can get them. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
There's plenty to choose from these days. Everyone has a camera. And there are more decent, usable or even good images - not always provided by pros. It's the nature of the industry, and photographers are forced to adapt - and even rise above it if they can. But I digress, there is no link to any erosion of the copyright concept, when you look at the transgression and resolution of this Poppygate matter. It doesn't mean you're undercutting anything or anybody if you aren't worried or bothered. If anything, it means that you are at peace with your whole place in this modern picture - which happens to be working out very well for some of you. And when you realize that it was handled appropriately, in the end - that maybe your copyright entitlement isn't really that threatened. You realize that it's really nothing more than a serious proliferation (or possible realization?) of idiots and scam artists in a very accessible medium - people that have always been a threat to the whole copyright concept. And if money is tighter due to falling rates, then maybe the "free advertising" might be a perfectly acceptable means of marketing for some ... without the acceptance of an irresponsible, imposed burden of guilt.
Again, what more can you ask of this situation as an artist? Is this another forecast of doom, or an encouraging note for artists that even "shady" places like Pixdaus still honor and respect copyright. And can someone show me where Pixdaus is asking their users to steal the copyrighted works of others? I still haven't found it. I've read everything suggested here, and still no luck.
I see "poppy" has swiped some of my photos as well. I got a good laugh reading some of the comments, a bit different than NPN dialogue (one was a debate between commentors about whether the shot was "fake" or not, lol) Ah well...such is the age we live in. Im with Jesse here, swipe my photos but please give me credit!
I truly do not understand. To me, thievery is thievery. It doesn't matter whether it is small or large, has only personal value or commercial value, is just human nature or is the work of the devil. It is still theft. My feeling is that what you laugh off today, you may regret tomorrow. I don't know about guilt, either. If I am the victim, what do I have to feel guilty about? If I and others do our due diligence, the idea of an "irresponsible, imposed burden of guilt" then falls by the wayside, and the problem, real or perceived, is solved. And we may nip in the bud more serious theft.
I would also point out that Pixdaus, and sites like it, "honor and respect copyright" because they do not want the potential liability that could result from having stolen images on their servers, posted by their subscribers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides that an ISP may be able to avoid copyright infringement liability rising from infringing content on a website hosted by the ISP for a customer, if the ISP follows the procedures set forth in the above Act. One way to get your copyrighted content off the internet is to notify the ISP that it has stolen images on its servers. That, some of us did, except the ones who thought "no harm, no foul."
I understand that Pixdaus is not asking their users to steal the copyrighted work of others. The fact that their site is FULL of stolen copyrighted images must just have escaped their notice!
I've had my rant. The soapbox can go to someone else. They can have the last word.
Philip, suppose you had an outdoor display of your photography at an art show, open to the public, attracting large crowds. Someone takes some photos of your photography, and posts it on their website, creidits you and says in a caption "look at all these great photos Philip Hodgkins displayed at the fair" Would you be equally upset if this happened? I have no expectation of your response, i am just truly curious, because thievery is not thievery, there are degrees to it and some are worse than others.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 14, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Hey Stan
Conversely, suppose you sneak into your local Toyota dealer tonight, steal a brand new Tacoma, and then proceed to drive around town showing everyone how awesome the truck is. Better yet, you post a video on youtube and say how wonderful you think the truck is. You think Toyota will say 'oh sweet, free publicity'? Or, that if they call you up and say 'hey, that's our truck, can you bring it back', and then you return it, that all's candy?
The 'free publicity' argument is no argument at all.
Ignorance isn't an argument, either. Tell the next police officer who pulls you over that you didn't know what the speed limit was. Or, that there was a speed limit.
That said, it's great that apparently Pixdaus.com have been removing said images as asked. Personally, I think the law should require more of providers to check copyrights on material posted, and be held accountable when material is posted illegally.
Well, Stan, the second thing I would say would be that he misspelled my name. It's Hodgkins, if it actually got that far. The first thing I would say, as I would be there to oversee my display, would be "No photographs, please. If you want to buy my photos, they are for sale." and, while it is true there are degrees of thievery, they all have one thing in common—they are against the law; and (dare I say it?) against the 8th Commandment.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 14, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Take a look at http://vi.sualize.us/help/terms/ which states the terms of use for its members.
Catherine - I don't see anything objectionable in that. The part about distributing and reproducing what you post is simply a CYA on their part since essentially what any photo site does is make copies of images and send them to people's computers. It would be nice if they explicitly stated that they don't own the copyrights to anything posted, but they don't claim to own them either.
They also make note of the fact that they aren't responsible for what users post and will take it down if requested. This is also standard web practice, as noted above. EVERY site that lets users post things has to operate this way (Flickr, Youtube, Facebook, etc), otherwise they would have to employ armies of people simply to validate copyright of posted material - and it would never work. All they can do is remove it when asked. And if a user posts copyrighted material, they can have their account revoked, but it's so easy to make accounts at these sites that's usually hardly a deterrent.
If what Poppy or any others that stole our images did was a crime then who's willing to put up the money to hire a lawyer, go after them and teach these people a real lesson. If you think that by having the images removed fixes things, it doesn't. Your letting them off the hook. If this kind of stuff is really gonna be the downfall of photography, then maybe someone should step up and do something about it. We will complain about the crime but probably no one is willing to put up the cost of prosecuting these people. Any takers?
Im not complaining because it isnt a crime. By any legal definition!
Philip & Carl (sorry, Philip for the name mispell--dont be too offended as i mispell my own name sometimes ): an interesting response, Carl especially since in your example there was clear theft, legally, whereas in mine it was most definitely not theft under any law, at most it was copyright infringement and even that is debatable since fair use might apply, and the fact that it was a public place is going to weigh heavily with most courts. You wouldnt have a prayer in an infringement case, quite frankly, you might not even be able to stop them from posting the photos.
I do have a lot of sympathy for your view, Philip, i'm not overjoyed that widespread image copying w/o permission is ocurring, but I'd rather deal with the realities of the internet and make them work the best they can for me.
Oh, Carl--actually it does help to tell the officer that you didnt know you were speeding, it worked for me three times (#4 my luck runout)
I agree Stan, I'm not sure a court would even hear such a case like this, and not sure as you pointed out it's even illegal as no profit was made. There may be a copyright infringement law but what good is having laws if know one can afford, or take the time to go after the theif. Even if someone stoled my image, put their name on it and sold it for $50.00, I still wouldn't take the time and money it would cost to go after them, so what good is the law. The law works if the amount of the sale is for big bucks or a large company with deep pockets, but in most cases your gonna throw up yor hands and say, oh well. I have a company that I sold products to that never paid the two hundred dollars they owe me, but do you think I'm going to New York to collect, It would cost more than I would recover, so you just write off and move on. I think what some of us are saying is there's really is not whole lot we can do about it, so for me it's easier just learn to live with it and not get uptight. I try to find a positive out of it like my name is on the image so maybe somehow I might get a benefit out of it. I think the best option for those that are really bothered by it is to not post images on the net.
I would like to say the one thing, what I always liked about NPN is that we can have discussions like this and disaggre, but stll have respect for each other and everyone stays civil and not out of control like I've seen on some sites. Thanks
Personally, and this is just personally thinking, I have a lot of contempt for "sharing sites" as they exist to make moeny ffor their onwers (through advertising) while not contributing anything (other than a venue for otehr people's work) or compensating the artist for their efforts.
If I "give" one of my shot to a local free newspaper, or enter a photo contest kowing that I will be granting copywright to the paper in lie of getting free advertising, that is MY decision and I have to live with that,
But if someone who like one of my shots distrubutes them out there in a similar manner without obtaining my permission is stealing from me.(regadless of whose name appears in the credtis. The "theif" was stripped me of my right to say "no I donlt want my image associated with that site/media/article, etc.
Many of these so called "sharing" site are leeches. The pay "lip service" to copyright laws whiule at teh same time encouraging their members (by the sites very existence and operation) to "go forth an take on their behalf, what the operator will not pay for"
That they will remove the object after receiving a complaint doe little to redeem their initial actions. I really hate the attitude that some of these operators have that it is "easier to ask forgiveness, than seek permission". They say this because they don;t want to ask permission as the answer cold very be "no" and then they wouldn't have draw material for thier business site.
If I post an image here on this site, it is MY decision, and with my motivations in mind (whether that be getting my art out there, for honest critique, for help in improvement etc). These "intangables" become my compensation for posting, so I feel that I am getting fair value for that piece. But if creatures like "Poppy" take that image, without permission, and splash it all over the place for their and other entity's benefit, than I am an receiving no consideration for my efforts, and I personally feel that is wrong.
Anyway, it becomes a personal point of view, and I respect other artist's take on it, but will NEVER respect the theif's actions, nor the site's that give them the venue.
'passes soap box off to the next.....'
Peace all,
Rick
Posted by Nelcha Cross on March 19, 2009 at 6:05 AM
Posted by Brent Murphy on March 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Sorry to jump into the discussion a little late, but I just wanted to point out that I'm with Jesse on this one. I think we see this all the time these days, and it doesn't really seem to be a big deal, until it happens to you, I suppose.
For example, while reading The Onion AV Club, I see articles like THIS. That article is full of copyrighted music. In my mind, that is some free advertising for Johnny Cash's music, and might get me more interested in him and buying his albums. As a reader, I think it's great. I'm not sure what Johnny's estate thinks, but I'm guessing they're happy if it gets people to buy more of his albums.
Or what about this blog about art on Time.com. Images of the artwork are used to review an artist. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the publishing world, but I would assume that the artist didn't get paid for the use of those images in the magazine. (I could be wrong, however). Time is publicizing, and properly crediting, an artist.
I would say the same goes for writing. Often, a piece of writing is excerpted in another work, and credit is given to the original author. Can't find an example right now, but it is common for someone to write a review of something, which includes some properly cited paragraphs of the original work. I did it all the time in high school. It was called a "book report". I never had the estate of Nathaniel Hawthorne suing me for referencing one of his books. That would be ridiculous.
This whole thing seems like a lot of the same. Someone is finding something they like, and reviewing it (or making it available for review). Assuming proper credit is given, I don't see an issue. It's not like someone is taking your original RAW file and selling it as their own. They appreciate a small representation of one of your pieces of art, and are letting other people know about it. Basically, someone is working as your personal marketing staff, and you don't even have to pay them! (Again, assuming you are being credited. Whole different story if you are not.)
As for someone taking a photo of your booth at an art show, to tell their friends about what a great artist you are, and you're going to tell them "No photographs, please"? Please. If I can go to my local art museum (Denver Art Museum) and take photos of the artwork, I should be able to take pictures at a local art fair. The Art Museum's web site actually recommends visitors to "Pack a Camera".
I think people are all in a tizzy over nothing. Again, though, I'll just say that this all depends on images being properly credited to the photographers. And I agree that a website link would be nice.
You certainly live in a different world than I do. Here in Savannah, there are NO pictures taken in art museums. Or in historic homes. It is not a custom I particularly admire, but it certainly is universal in Savannah. Also around here, photos shown at events are sold as they are shown, usually. With me, it would depend. If it was a reviewer for the local paper, yes he could take a picture of my pictures. If he were provably from Time, I would give him a copy of the file! It is important that a review be a credible source, not some fly by night showoff at a file swapping website. My feeling is, to quote my parents, "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
I don't know how Johnny Cash's estate would feel about the posting of his copyrighted music. A lot of that stuff depends on whose ox is goring and who is getting gored. Having sung in a choir for the last thirty years, I know choir directors who, without exception, will not copy music, but insist on purchasing the sheet music from a legal source. ASCAP and the recording industry can be right litigious. And while the Cash estate may be sacrificing royalties, the recording companies are sacrificing profits.
BTW, I have been in other places besides my hometown art museums. In Tacoma, at the glass art museum, cameras were forbidden while I was there. Finally, and I sincerely hope this is my final final last word, "TANSTAAFL!"
I see some of mine are there too. He/she seems to be grabbing and posting whatever NPN images he/she feels like grabbing.
THis is why I don't post large size images.
I also want a link to my website posted with any of my images, but don't mind the publicity.
Sandy r
Discussion
48 repliesI was notified by a friend that one of the larger optional photos I had posted just a few days ago showed up on a commercial website called Pixdaus.com. NPN was the only internet site the picture was posted on, so I know it came from here. The poster, screen name "Poppy", had swiped it, even attributing it to my name. She or he did not have any permission at all to do that, and an attribution does not cover the theft, in my opinion. Our site brings up a specific copyright notice on a right click, but has no other protection for the larger optional photos as they do for the smaller photos.
While I was there, I searched the site by keyword and found one more, but this came from elsewhere, I think. I also saw a number of photos that looked familiar and may have come from here also. The site has removed the photos at my request, so that is all to the good. But as near as I can tell, this site posts mostly the work of others, garnered from all over the internet. They seem to totally ignore the copyright laws.
I will still be posting the larger photo from now on, but it will have a big old © right in the middle of it.
NPN
If my photos are still posted on Monday, I plan to make a formal written complaint, starting a copyright lawsuit.
"By Jimmy Gekas"
"One of the Symbols of Spring by Giuseppe Guadagno"
"Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) by Gary Gulash"
"Black Rock Cottage in Winter by Steve France"
"Sunrise on Heavy Runner Mountain (Glacier National Park) by Morris McClung"
"Pheasant feathers by Marinus Wieten"
"Lake Huron Ice Flow by Wayne Simpson"
"Sunrise over Badwater by Martin Stankiewicz"
"Feisty Redpoll by Keith A Anderson"
ALSO, just out of curiosity, I did a search for "Adamus" which turned up 28 images, mostly posted by Poppy, too. I guess this makes a case for clearly including your copyright info IN the image. I wonder how many photographers regard this sort of exposure as theft, and how many view it as free advertizing
"Touch of Gold" by Ian Cameron
"Great Horned Owl nestlings by Grace Blair"
Also "Frosted Paradise-by Ian Cameron " was stolen by artemis.
It appears that a lot of the photos on this site are stolen. Some still have the owners copyright still on the photo.
The only thing worse than finding so many stolen photos is that none of mine were good enough to be stolen.
Bruce
I would not be one of those. I put too much hard work and money into what admittedly is an expensive hobby. Moreover, advertising by its very nature is designed to produce revenue from targeted exposure. This does neither. It is more of mutual m**********n than it is anything, or counting coup. Those photos are our property. Taking them without permission is theft. Period.
Jim, I read your very cool comment to Poppy. If you need any testimony for a lawsuit, via affidavit or whatever, call on me.
On quick review I found several CANP members images there too. I will alert them in the CANP regional forum.
Go to "Tineye.com". You can do a reverse lookup of any photo on your site. Enter the URL of a photo, and it will show who else has that exact same photo up on a different website.
Gets a bit depressing when you type in photo after photo, and keep seeing your hard work show up all over the place, usually without any recognition of who the photographer was.
This is from their front page....
These "sharing" sites may say they do not make a profit from the image being on their site,(implying that the images itself is not sold as product) but they all sell advertising space. that sales income is dgenerated due in part to the site's traffic, which is as a direct result of the content on that site. So in my opinont, if our image is drawing in the traffic which drivesthe advertising engine, then your product is in fact generating "commercial income" for that site and you should be entitled to a sahre of that income. Or am I living in a too rose colored world?
I'll take the discovery of my work by thousands of new eyes, over the pile of pennies potential advertising royalties from a free sharing website any day. Sure, I don't like the fact that you used the work without asking. But I guess I probably should have put a big copyright in my work - knowing that anything I post online for public consumption can easily be swiped. And often is. Seriously, if this bothers you, then take part of the blame for posting images that have virtually zero copyright deterrent. Watermark them, take them off the internet or move on with life. Or worry more about the actual thieves out there that you will never see or hear about, because they aren't out there giving you big fat credits after "stealing" your work - knowing that this sort of thing is inevitable as long as we have human nature and screen grabs.
Sorry about the rant, and I realize this will ruffle features, but give the person a break. Yeah, I realize they infringed upon your rights, or whatever. Still, what does this user really stand to gain ... but a headache and a dislike for photographers now? With those obvious credits, how many end users would really give thought to the fact that the user maybe didn't obtain proper permission? No, it's probably more like this ... "That image is amazing and I'm going to go Google this photographer."
You crediting-the-artist thieves, have your way with my work!
We all have the right to control our work however we choose, this is just how I look at it.
But I did receive this message from Pictdaus:
Thanks for reporting the photos have been removed. We don't tolerate
such actions from our users and would be glad if you report more of
your knowledge of such facts.
pixdaus.com support
13.03.2009, в 2:40, Jim DeWitt написал(а):
And I've confirmed that my photos have been removed.
That didn't and won't happen until those of us who make images for sale or pleasure draw a line and say collectively and strongly "NO!"
Keep in mind that this practice of using photos without permission extends WELL beyond just this website. As has been posted out here in the past, there have been other cases where people have "borrowed" images like this, but have also gone so far to as crop to remove any copyright/name burned into the image, and have not given any credit.
I used to be shocked at how often my images are used without permission. Not shocked anymore, but it's still disturbing.
Philip is right...this practice in general won't stop until photographers in general stand up for themselves. If people like "Poppy" think it's OK to grab material without permission, it's not much of a stretch for those kinds of folks to try to profit off of that material. As someone else pointed out...while "Poppy" himself may not be profiting right now, Picdaus and sites like that ARE profiting off of our work, through ads appearing on their site.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. While I can see the intangible value of the "free advertising' it;s still theft of ones intellectual property for profit. Not "Poppy's, but the sharing site that generates advertisment based on their content; which in this case is your work, your effort, your art. (Not only that but teh site actively encourages their users to go out and do what they do.
Winking at it, will not make this kind of petty theft go away, nor will rationalizing it. it's almost as bad as blaming the victim for the thief's actions. It's the politics of comparable ethics, and for myself, being a rather old schooler I have a hard time accepting that. I was brought up to believe that theft is theft; be it a twenty-five cent candy bar (which I got a good hide tanning for), or a five-thousand dollar car (which I never did becaue of that hide tanning).
As long as we condone the behavior, or make excuses for the theif's action, it wil continue to plague us, and will eventually escalate to include other.more tangable crimes.
Sorry for the rant; I'll get off my soapbox now.
We now return to our regular programming.
Peace all,
rick
The deal here is that by allowing this to go on unchallenged or un-checked is going to drive down the prices we receive for images. With enough of this happening, legal eagles will be able to say that it is an accepted practice and no one needs to pay for images anymore. Getting free advertising is a wonderful thing as LONG AS you have given permission. Otherwise, you are setting the entire photography industry up for a fall.
This is already happening in several ways. Look at all the free royalty free images that are available now. These images have driven down the prices that pros are given for images. This is a simple fact when looked at industry wide (yes, some photographers still get their huge sums...but that is getting to be fewer and fewer.
So, folks need to look at the wider "picture" when thinking it is acceptable to have their images stolen and used as long as credit is given. Otherwise, the whole "copyright" idea is going to be frittered away.
There are photographers who undercut established rates just so they can get published and make a name for themselves (get credit for their images). This undercuts us all. This discussion really equates to the same thing.
As usual, some folks will see this differently than me.
Troup
One of the lenses I use is a Tamron 90 macro, and if I go to Tamron's site and pull off the picture of that lens, post it in my blog and mentions it's a great lens, I can't imagine getting a call from Tamron scolding me for the theft of their image. But then you could say that I'm just showing a product rather than a artistic photo, but that's what my images are in a way, my products.
I'm sure that tons of images are being pull off NPN for all kinds for varies uses that we'll never know about, and in a million years (or until someone comes up with a block that hackers can't figure a way around) you'll never stop it, so if it's something that will drive you nuts it's probably better not to post images on the net.
Troup, the difference is Time may sell mags becuase of your images being there, so they make money off of you, Poppys not making money off the images. I guess I can't complain to the fact the site my image is posted has advertising, because I'm advertising there also.
Richard - That's true, but only if they refuse to remove it when asked. Youtube and Napster both showed that they are NOT required to screen user content for copyright violations. They ARE required to remove it if requested to though. For example, clips from NFL games are frequently available on Youtube for a short time, but the NFL constantly screens for them, and asks Youtube to remove what it finds. (Not sure if they get all of them though.)
Mike - The tamron lens issue isn't quite a good enough analogy. Posting a photo of a lens is not posting the actual item they are selling. If someone posted a picture of one of your images, that's a copy of the actual thing you're selling (or could easily be printed into one). So tamron would probably not care, since they aren't trying to sell images of their lenses.
However, I agree that small-time use is probably OK. There's definitely some grey area in there, somewhere between "no one ever uses you image for anything without permission" and "time magazine stole your image".
And why does this company's profits matter - and what is the direct link of profits to your copyright worries? The company didn't lift your photograph. Weren't the complaints resolved exactly as expected - the company immediately fixing the errors of a stray user? Isn't that the fulfillment of copyright protection, let alone a display of respect for your art? If anything, the response of Pixdaus gives me hope that copyright issues are being taken seriously in a new and developing internet world. Seriously, why is this event being used as proof of a perceived erosion of artist rights - or some sort of decline in photography? Sorry, but I don't see it - nor do I think other photographers need to be scared into thinking they're doing something wrong ... if they don't care about Poppygate ... or selling for Royalty Free ... and so on. I think we are all better served just realizing that it is so much easier for people to "appropriate and redirect" art these days, regardless of the intent. That's the lesson here. Increased vigilance will serve our needs ... and we don't need to think that the floor is falling out from beneath our feet. Change in the industry doesn't mean we're losing our individual rights. (And I'm not even a liberal.)
There are many reasons for a decline in photographic pricing, and I can assure you that most of it is due to the nature of modern photography - as the industry naturally reacts and adapts to the proliferation of the art form. It's really not due to the convictions of some of us who simply aren't bothered by Poppygate. I am seriously tired of hearing that line of thinking ... or rather having any up/coming photographers around here and other places feel the need to embrace the burden that they are somehow hurting their established brethren - that a photographic apocalypse is taking place because they see their bottom line falling. It can really be summed up as a simple reaction/adjustment to the needs of today's photo buyer. For example, I am also a graphic artist. I buy a lot of photography. You better believe that I love royalty free images and even $5 images when I can get them. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
There's plenty to choose from these days. Everyone has a camera. And there are more decent, usable or even good images - not always provided by pros. It's the nature of the industry, and photographers are forced to adapt - and even rise above it if they can. But I digress, there is no link to any erosion of the copyright concept, when you look at the transgression and resolution of this Poppygate matter. It doesn't mean you're undercutting anything or anybody if you aren't worried or bothered. If anything, it means that you are at peace with your whole place in this modern picture - which happens to be working out very well for some of you. And when you realize that it was handled appropriately, in the end - that maybe your copyright entitlement isn't really that threatened. You realize that it's really nothing more than a serious proliferation (or possible realization?) of idiots and scam artists in a very accessible medium - people that have always been a threat to the whole copyright concept. And if money is tighter due to falling rates, then maybe the "free advertising" might be a perfectly acceptable means of marketing for some ... without the acceptance of an irresponsible, imposed burden of guilt.
Again, what more can you ask of this situation as an artist? Is this another forecast of doom, or an encouraging note for artists that even "shady" places like Pixdaus still honor and respect copyright. And can someone show me where Pixdaus is asking their users to steal the copyrighted works of others? I still haven't found it. I've read everything suggested here, and still no luck.
I would also point out that Pixdaus, and sites like it, "honor and respect copyright" because they do not want the potential liability that could result from having stolen images on their servers, posted by their subscribers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides that an ISP may be able to avoid copyright infringement liability rising from infringing content on a website hosted by the ISP for a customer, if the ISP follows the procedures set forth in the above Act. One way to get your copyrighted content off the internet is to notify the ISP that it has stolen images on its servers. That, some of us did, except the ones who thought "no harm, no foul."
I understand that Pixdaus is not asking their users to steal the copyrighted work of others. The fact that their site is FULL of stolen copyrighted images must just have escaped their notice!
I've had my rant. The soapbox can go to someone else. They can have the last word.
Conversely, suppose you sneak into your local Toyota dealer tonight, steal a brand new Tacoma, and then proceed to drive around town showing everyone how awesome the truck is. Better yet, you post a video on youtube and say how wonderful you think the truck is. You think Toyota will say 'oh sweet, free publicity'? Or, that if they call you up and say 'hey, that's our truck, can you bring it back', and then you return it, that all's candy?
The 'free publicity' argument is no argument at all.
Ignorance isn't an argument, either. Tell the next police officer who pulls you over that you didn't know what the speed limit was. Or, that there was a speed limit.
That said, it's great that apparently Pixdaus.com have been removing said images as asked. Personally, I think the law should require more of providers to check copyrights on material posted, and be held accountable when material is posted illegally.
Cheers
Carl
But thanks for asking,
Phil
I've been checking around. Take a look at http://vi.sualize.us/help/terms/ which states the terms of use for its members.
Still think image sharing sites are relatively "innocent" in their motives for allowing members to "bookmark" or otherwise share your images?
I notice that all the burden is placed on the owner of the copyright to identify and request removal of the image(s). The amount of time and work required, at this particular site, of the © owner is significant. I also note with interest all the rights the site claims to have to use posted images! I better make my jpegs even smaller!
Catherine - I don't see anything objectionable in that. The part about distributing and reproducing what you post is simply a CYA on their part since essentially what any photo site does is make copies of images and send them to people's computers. It would be nice if they explicitly stated that they don't own the copyrights to anything posted, but they don't claim to own them either.
They also make note of the fact that they aren't responsible for what users post and will take it down if requested. This is also standard web practice, as noted above. EVERY site that lets users post things has to operate this way (Flickr, Youtube, Facebook, etc), otherwise they would have to employ armies of people simply to validate copyright of posted material - and it would never work. All they can do is remove it when asked. And if a user posts copyrighted material, they can have their account revoked, but it's so easy to make accounts at these sites that's usually hardly a deterrent.
Philip & Carl (sorry, Philip for the name mispell--dont be too offended as i mispell my own name sometimes
I do have a lot of sympathy for your view, Philip, i'm not overjoyed that widespread image copying w/o permission is ocurring, but I'd rather deal with the realities of the internet and make them work the best they can for me.
Oh, Carl--actually it does help to tell the officer that you didnt know you were speeding, it worked for me three times (#4 my luck runout)
I would like to say the one thing, what I always liked about NPN is that we can have discussions like this and disaggre, but stll have respect for each other and everyone stays civil and not out of control like I've seen on some sites. Thanks
If I "give" one of my shot to a local free newspaper, or enter a photo contest kowing that I will be granting copywright to the paper in lie of getting free advertising, that is MY decision and I have to live with that,
But if someone who like one of my shots distrubutes them out there in a similar manner without obtaining my permission is stealing from me.(regadless of whose name appears in the credtis. The "theif" was stripped me of my right to say "no I donlt want my image associated with that site/media/article, etc.
Many of these so called "sharing" site are leeches. The pay "lip service" to copyright laws whiule at teh same time encouraging their members (by the sites very existence and operation) to "go forth an take on their behalf, what the operator will not pay for"
That they will remove the object after receiving a complaint doe little to redeem their initial actions. I really hate the attitude that some of these operators have that it is "easier to ask forgiveness, than seek permission". They say this because they don;t want to ask permission as the answer cold very be "no" and then they wouldn't have draw material for thier business site.
If I post an image here on this site, it is MY decision, and with my motivations in mind (whether that be getting my art out there, for honest critique, for help in improvement etc). These "intangables" become my compensation for posting, so I feel that I am getting fair value for that piece. But if creatures like "Poppy" take that image, without permission, and splash it all over the place for their and other entity's benefit, than I am an receiving no consideration for my efforts, and I personally feel that is wrong.
Anyway, it becomes a personal point of view, and I respect other artist's take on it, but will NEVER respect the theif's actions, nor the site's that give them the venue.
'passes soap box off to the next.....'
Peace all,
Rick
#2... Photographer lgnorance of the Registration of their © and the simple fact
that they should EXPECT any image you put online to be stolen does not excuse
the stealing of any images.
#3.... Just like any other thing in LIFE be a Informed Consumer or Photographer.
#4.... Maybe Poppy didn't have devious motives, but who ELSE has stolen your
images and not given you credit or payment and you have NO idea what site
or other context in which your images are being used...or I should say Abused.
#5....Simply PUT your © name and date on the image AND your website and
EXPECT it to be stolen, if you put it online....
#6.... NO lawyer will even look at your case if you have not Registered your ©
#7.... If you HAVE registered your © for your images and your want to get
FREE advertising.... then put the images online.... PERIOD.
For example, while reading The Onion AV Club, I see articles like THIS. That article is full of copyrighted music. In my mind, that is some free advertising for Johnny Cash's music, and might get me more interested in him and buying his albums. As a reader, I think it's great. I'm not sure what Johnny's estate thinks, but I'm guessing they're happy if it gets people to buy more of his albums.
Or what about this blog about art on Time.com. Images of the artwork are used to review an artist. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the publishing world, but I would assume that the artist didn't get paid for the use of those images in the magazine. (I could be wrong, however). Time is publicizing, and properly crediting, an artist.
I would say the same goes for writing. Often, a piece of writing is excerpted in another work, and credit is given to the original author. Can't find an example right now, but it is common for someone to write a review of something, which includes some properly cited paragraphs of the original work. I did it all the time in high school. It was called a "book report". I never had the estate of Nathaniel Hawthorne suing me for referencing one of his books. That would be ridiculous.
This whole thing seems like a lot of the same. Someone is finding something they like, and reviewing it (or making it available for review). Assuming proper credit is given, I don't see an issue. It's not like someone is taking your original RAW file and selling it as their own. They appreciate a small representation of one of your pieces of art, and are letting other people know about it. Basically, someone is working as your personal marketing staff, and you don't even have to pay them! (Again, assuming you are being credited. Whole different story if you are not.)
As for someone taking a photo of your booth at an art show, to tell their friends about what a great artist you are, and you're going to tell them "No photographs, please"? Please. If I can go to my local art museum (Denver Art Museum) and take photos of the artwork, I should be able to take pictures at a local art fair. The Art Museum's web site actually recommends visitors to "Pack a Camera".
I think people are all in a tizzy over nothing. Again, though, I'll just say that this all depends on images being properly credited to the photographers. And I agree that a website link would be nice.
[/off soapbox]
I don't know how Johnny Cash's estate would feel about the posting of his copyrighted music. A lot of that stuff depends on whose ox is goring and who is getting gored. Having sung in a choir for the last thirty years, I know choir directors who, without exception, will not copy music, but insist on purchasing the sheet music from a legal source. ASCAP and the recording industry can be right litigious. And while the Cash estate may be sacrificing royalties, the recording companies are sacrificing profits.
BTW, I have been in other places besides my hometown art museums. In Tacoma, at the glass art museum, cameras were forbidden while I was there. Finally, and I sincerely hope this is my final final last word, "TANSTAAFL!"
THis is why I don't post large size images.
I also want a link to my website posted with any of my images, but don't mind the publicity.
Sandy r