[filmscanners] Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:23:50 -0400 Larry Berman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Some of you may have heard about Google's new search engine for images. Google say they respect robots.txt, so if you don't want material indexed, preventing it is easy enough. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: That is completely wrong. There were no 2400 baud modems in 1971. Dataphone modems date from the early 1960s, and as far as I know, they always supported up to 2400 bps. So what? Actually, that's now a change of story...but none the less, there weren't 2400 baud modems in 1971. See above. And now you are an expert on the US Bell System too! My my! No, but when I actually tried to get such modems installed, that's what I was told, and I had to settle for having a Dataphone hardwired to my line. No handy RJ11 connectors in those days, and even if you had them, you weren't allowed to use them.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: Average versus maximum for whom. For Web surfers at large. I keep statistics for visitors to my site, and they correlate well with statistics I have seen for other sites. Right now, 800x600 is the most common resolution. The 1024 X 768 being the resolution that has the average usage in terms of all the actually used resolutions. 1024x768 is in second place, after 800x600. You never said that average and maximum resolutions referred to *usage* and by *web surfers only* until this post. Since the discussion originally referred to _Web surfers_ _using_ the Web to access images, to what else would I have been referring? I am not even going to ask for the source of this statistic. The primary source is my server logs, and the log data I've seen from other sites, as well as some explicit studies I've encountered, agree with mine.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Tom writes: There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971. The Bell System leased Dataphone modems with speeds up to 2400 bps from the early 1960s, almost a decade earlier, if my distant memory serves. I found a reference to Multics systems using such modems, presumably in that decade. So there were 2400-bps modems by 1971, although they were not common, and they certainly were not cheap. Not everyone used acoustic couplers (which cannot support speeds above 300 bps, as far as I know). Modems had to be hardwired to subscriber lines to support higher speeds (Bell would not allow modular plug-in modems, so this was a political restriction, not a technical one).
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Tom writes: There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971. The Bell System leased Dataphone modems with speeds up to 2400 bps from the early 1960s, almost a decade earlier, if my distant memory serves. I do not believe that. So there were 2400-bps modems by 1971, No, you have not shown that to be true. Provide proper substantiation to this claim. One problem that I have with that though, as with any of your arguments is you are now changing the rules so you can claim your original statement was not wrong, even though it was. You want to claim that current modem technology is only 33k, when in fact, it is 48/50k. You also want to compare hardwired modems in the past to regular phone line modems of today. That is just absurd. Even if there were 2400 baud modems in 1971, that's 20x slower than today, NOT 10, so no matter what, your claim is just wrong.
more OFF-TOPIC foolish claims and banterings - was - RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Average versus maximum for whom. For Web surfers at large. I keep statistics for visitors to my site, and they correlate well with statistics I have seen for other sites. Right now, 800x600 is the most common resolution. I believe that says more about the visitors to YOUR web site, than it does about any average. I also don't know how accurate that information (screen resolution) is.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: What you would be licensing or renting in those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's services (skilled labor) and not the product (e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other tradesmen built or repair to your vehicle that the mechanic made). So why are the rules for artists different?
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
As I've stated, you just don't know what you're talking about, and arguing with you is nothing more than a waste of time. So stop wasting it Austin. Do the killfile thing. We're all getting worried about your blood pressure. The reason you aggravate me, and have done so to near everyone on the other Leave me out of near everyone. Let's just say I was raised to be tolerant ... rules. People get fed up with that behavior. Believe me, though you claim innocence and benevolence, a lot of people know better. Please don't count me as one of them. AA is a bit of a droid, but your rantings are beginning to deafen. You are like wrestling with a tar baby. So why do you keep trying to win? Get a life. IB
Re: more OFF-TOPIC foolish claims and banterings - was - RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: I believe that says more about the visitors to YOUR web site, than it does about any average. As I've said, my figures agree with figures I've seen from other sites. Additionally, I get quite a broad cross-section of visitors, from students to homemakers to office workers to military officers. I also don't know how accurate that information (screen resolution) is. It is provided by the browser, which obtains the information from the operating system, so when it is provided, it is 100% accurate.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: I do not believe that. OK. No, you have not shown that to be true. Provide proper substantiation to this claim. What is proper substantiation? You want to claim that current modem technology is only 33k, when in fact, it is 48/50k. It is difficult to achieve speeds that high on most lines. This is one reason why 56K modems have not been as big a splash as once hoped. You also want to compare hardwired modems in the past to regular phone line modems of today. That is just absurd. No, they are one and the same. The only difference is that you can unplug a modem today because it incorporates a modular jack in the cord. In the olden days, you weren't allowed to just plug stuff into the wall, and a telephone-company technician had to come out and permanently connect your modem to the telephone line, by attaching wires on the line to screw terminals on the modem. Functionally, however, the two types of modem are identical. Even if there were 2400 baud modems in 1971, that's 20x slower than today, NOT 10, so no matter what, your claim is just wrong. Actually, it would be 20.4167 times slower, based on your own figures, but since these figures are all within an order of magnitude, I don't see a reason for concern.
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: snip Want to bet that it wasn't any individual musician who chased Napster? Actually it was a band called Metallica. And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here - if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money I'm shocked and impressed. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not privately owned images but images in the public domain or that even if copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit as log as they give the photographer credit and the use is ethical, legal, and the copyright owner is held harmless for any misuse by the user. I want to clarify the licensing agreement on royalty free images, especially since I have some of those which I have sold royalty free distribution rights to. Royalty free images are not freeware. Royalty-free images continue to be copyright owned by the original author, who has signed over certain rights to another organization, usually a distributor of the images (often on a collection on a CD-ROM or for download for a fee). The original owner agrees to allow the distribution company to distribute the image(s) with certain granted rights to the PURCHASER of the collection. These granted rights usually consist of the ability of the owner of the CD-ROM (or fee payer, if these images are downloaded) to use the images in a manner such that they do not have to pay per use, as is the case with standard images sold. In other words, in paying a one time fee, the person is granted the rights to use the images multiple times, (often in multiple formats and purposes) without additional costs. However, these licenses vary considerably as to what types of uses these images can have. Depending upon the license agreement, they might be restricted to non-commerical usage (often the case), or to not forming more than a certain percentage of a final project or product. Even when they can be used commercially, they often are restricted from being used in a manner that they themselves form the bulk of the value of the final product (such as selling prints of the images, greeting cards, coffee table books, calendars, and the like) They are always restricted from being resold or redistributed in digital format, or to be given away (for reuse) in that manner either. Some licensing agreements require that a photo credit be attached to the image in any commercial or publication use. That often is the copyright tag of the distribution company rather than the original copyright owner. So, if you have accessed a royalty free image, and have not paid the original fee for it and use it for anything, or if you distribute with intent for others to use, or if you use it contrary to the manner allowed for in the license agreement, you are likely in violation of the copyrights of both the distribution company AND the original owner, who maintains license and rights for all usage outside of those he/she sold to the distribution company. Therefore, they are not free for someone to download from a website and do as they please with. Other than the right to have it exist on their computer in a buffer (as a result of the image appearing on a website and a browser capturing) royalty free images are not to be used or distributed to others in any format by a secondary receiver of the image who has not paid the initial fee for use. I hope that clarifies things somewhat. I would suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used rather than the *is* copyrighted caution. Moreover, some images even when or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for certain types of uses - e.g., editorial and educational uses, for use as legal evidence under certain circumstances one they have been published (wherein placing them on a web site is treated as publication), and the like. Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are may be all the caution that is required or appropriate. With very few exceptions most modern artwork and images are copyrighted, even work for hire is copyrighted by the company that had the work done on their behalf. In fact, unless the work is out of copyright meaning it is rather old, as in public archive, or some work paid for via taxes (some NASA images, for instance), the work is almost definitely copyrighted by someone. The copyright owner has the right to do as they please with those rights, including making them available for public use for free, BUT, no one should assume that to be the case. The law has finally been clarified in the US and Canada, that the copyright tag isn't even required, and it is expected that one should ASSUME the image is copyrighted and should not be distributed or used without express permission of the owner. In some cases the law dictates minimum fines associated with copyright infringement regardless of it there was intent, nor if there was profit gained by the user, or lost by the holder of the copyright. If Google wanted to be ethical about this, their disclaimer would consist of a spash page for that database which required an I agree click and stated
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
As I've stated, you just don't know what you're talking about, and arguing with you is nothing more than a waste of time. So stop wasting it Austin. Do the killfile thing. We're all getting worried about your blood pressure. I appreciate your concern. My blood pressure is actually quite low ;-) You are like wrestling with a tar baby. So why do you keep trying to win? I can be foolish at times. Get a life. I have a very fine life, which is none of your business. This comment was entirely uncalled for, and I don't appreciate it.
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Rob Geraghty wrote: Harvey wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: snip Want to bet that it wasn't any individual musician who chased Napster? Actually it was a band called Metallica. And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here - if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money I'm shocked and impressed. Obviously, they did not pay for the whole thingBut they paid a lot of money to ge the ball rolling. I fail to understand why there seems to be so much animosity towards protecting *OUR* rights in all of this...It is beyond me, and it saddens me, but perhaps it's just al the current news (terrorists et al). Harvey Ferdschneider partner, Skid Photography, NYC (about a mile from the World Trade Center)
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Pat Perez wrote: Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit. As an example, Phillips, to this day gets a fee on every cassette shell manufactured, and Sony and Phillips get something on ever CD-R. And all commercial software works on the same principle. Here in Canada, top recording artists and the record industry even get paid when I buy a blank CD-R or RW to record my own data on! Now that's downright wrong, but enough people are copying copyrighted work that they convinced government to collect on behalf of the industry. The reason people in the creative fields get paid on a royalty or residual basis is twofold, one, the can rarely be paid what the work is worth the first time, and two, in general, only those whose work is repeatedly used amass big bucks, which protects the individual purchasers from overpaying. Rather than looking at this as being paid for work already done, it is really more a matter of being paid piecemeal. Truly valuable creative works (including inventions and the like) are sometimes so valuable that no one could ultimately afford them, so many share in the value for their use. Heck, you capitalists should be happy, it's a user pay system! Sometimes creative works are sold outright for a lump sum, which is a risk on both sides. The work might not bring in as much as expected, or it may prove so valuable that the new owner makes a killing. Ask the Michael Jackson about the Beatles recordings he owns rights to. Art
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I would definitely pursue the Encarta infringement. Mr. Bill deep pockets Gates needs a few lessons in etiquette, it would appear. Art Rob Geraghty wrote: Harvey wrote: musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal item. Only because it's worth billions to some very big corporations like Sony and HMV. If it was only the artists screaming, the care factor would be very small. I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on web search engines. I doubt it because of the relatively low value attributed to web images. They're not worth large amounts to any major corporations. It may be very important to a photographer like you or I, but we can't afford the sorts of legal bills required to chase these things. Want to bet that it wasn't any individual musician who chased Napster? Beyond all of the above: We don't like it when our images are appropriated. No. I am beginning to wonder how many of mine have been. I found out a while back that a scan I made of an opal was appropriated by Microsoft Encarta online - without a request or attribution of the source. Judging by the website logs, it appears that other images on my site are being used by other web sites who have actually linked to my site rather than copying the images - this means I am effectively paying for their convenience! It's hard to avoid this sort of thing. I don't have time to set up the means to avoid it. One quick method would be to use symbolic links to files and rename the links. Periodically renaming the links would ensure that anyone linking to the files would find the links broken, and the search engine links would break also. The renaming would have to be done by server-end code. Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of discouragement of theft. It's a brave new world, and it's not easy for trusting folks to avoid being shafted by those who are taking advantage of the web's open nature. The web was oiginally conceived by academics for academics, not by anyone whose income derived from their art - and needed copyright protection. Rob PS I would also suggest that avoiding filenames which obviously relate to content is probably a good idea. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
So why are the rules for artists different That is the point they are not different. The creation is the embodiment of the artists talent, skills, creative powers, knowledge, and services (or if you will the carrier of the artists conception). It is the conception which is an expression of those skills, talants, knowledge, etc. that is being rented for use and not the physical creation itself or the actual physical labor that was involved in generating that conception. But I do not anticipate that you will agree or will ever be able to be persuaded, so I will just leave it at. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: What you would be licensing or renting in those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's services (skilled labor) and not the product (e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other tradesmen built or repair to your vehicle that the mechanic made). So why are the rules for artists different?
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Respectfully Creativity in and of itself, is not that scarce. OTOH, creative works, that contain a message that translates generally are. My wife owns a gallery and art school. The number of folks who come in with SOMETHING created, and the creativity of even the grade school participants (during the day she teaches art to homeschooled kids) is astounding. Then again, there are the folks who called the local paper to report a naked woman in the front yard of a building on Main Street - when we recently showed a nationally recognized scultors works. There is no reason why an artist ought not get compensated for the work they do. And most artists actually 'sell low' out of fear of rejection. Through my wife I have met quite a few artists that make a decent living at their work. And those that really are professional, DO have work that has more to it than those who dabble. The single biggest difference between artists making a living at what they do, is how much they actually just 'do the work'. Most 'starving artists' are actually either a) blocked b) really don't want to be artists, but like the image of it c) worried too much about 'being successful' with the small body of work they have, rather than just continually 'doing the work'. The hard part for photographers, unlike sculptors and painters in various media is that a) almost everyone has access to a camera, whereas most folks figure they simply are 'bad at art [read drawing]' b) shoot enough shots and you might get lucky - this makes some parts of the Stock industry just brutal c) photographic images are inherently reproducible, and hence lack quite as much 'uniqueness' to them - especially ones that have been or are being digitized in some form. But that doesn't mean you can't make an income of it. BUT ONLY if the creative rights are protected. - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Johnny writes: I am interested in how you would go about 'abolishing' royalties. By dramatically limiting the scope of copyright protection, and/or by greatly reducing its duration, perhaps to the same duration as patent protection. If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem. Not really. In the not-so-distant future, I think it will become a problem for artists and especially organizations that depend on royalties. Creative works are a scarce commodity ... Hardly. There are far more people with talent than there is demand for talent. This is why there are so many starving artists in the world, whereas there are very few starving engineers. Celebrity is a scarce commodity, and that's what usually commands the big bucks, not creative talent. But celebrity is ephemeral, so last year's solid gold may be this year's solid lead.
filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey wrote: musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal item. Only because it's worth billions to some very big corporations like Sony and HMV. If it was only the artists screaming, the care factor would be very small. I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on web search engines. I doubt it because of the relatively low value attributed to web images. They're not worth large amounts to any major corporations. It may be very important to a photographer like you or I, but we can't afford the sorts of legal bills required to chase these things. Want to bet that it wasn't any individual musician who chased Napster? Beyond all of the above: We don't like it when our images are appropriated. No. I am beginning to wonder how many of mine have been. I found out a while back that a scan I made of an opal was appropriated by Microsoft Encarta online - without a request or attribution of the source. Judging by the website logs, it appears that other images on my site are being used by other web sites who have actually linked to my site rather than copying the images - this means I am effectively paying for their convenience! It's hard to avoid this sort of thing. I don't have time to set up the means to avoid it. One quick method would be to use symbolic links to files and rename the links. Periodically renaming the links would ensure that anyone linking to the files would find the links broken, and the search engine links would break also. The renaming would have to be done by server-end code. Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of discouragement of theft. It's a brave new world, and it's not easy for trusting folks to avoid being shafted by those who are taking advantage of the web's open nature. The web was oiginally conceived by academics for academics, not by anyone whose income derived from their art - and needed copyright protection. Rob PS I would also suggest that avoiding filenames which obviously relate to content is probably a good idea. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: I doubt it, the people who are stealing your images are probably the young teenagers and people on the street who are not using them commercially anyway and who you will not educate or stop. I'm not so sure. My impression is that stealing images is the rule on the Web, rather than the exception. For every person who asks me permission to use an image, I suspect there are one hundred others who just copy the image and never say anything to me. Copyrights mostly pertain to commercial reproduction and use not to personal non-commercial uses. Personal reproduction is generally prohibited, too, and is most likely to be actively sanctioned when it involves a significant material loss for the copyright holder. The problem is that individual infringements involve so little loss and are so hard to isolate and prosecute that most copyright holders let it slide.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Todd writes: It's called licensing. I know what it is called. However, having a name for it doesn't make it ethical. The music industry, film industry, and software industry, are based upon it, to name just a few. Yes, but that does not make their activity ethical. And, just incidentally, people who write software are never included in copyright protection if they don't work for themselves. This is also true for some other domains, such as music in certain cases, and films. Copyright is ostensibly intended to benefit the artist, but more often it benefits his agents instead. So instead of the artist working once and being paid forever, which is already questionable, the artist works once, is paid once, and then his agent is paid forever, which is an order of magnitude more questionable from an ethical standpoint.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: ... but that it is practically nil is at best an overstatement ... Do a search on images, then count the number that are probably _not_ copyrighted. Very often the number is zero. True enough under current copyright laws and conventions; but that has not always been the case. That is irrelevant, since only the current law is applicable. Moreover, it can always change in the future. When it changes, the search engine can change its notice appropriately. ... it may just be more practical for these search engines to caution that the materials might be copyrighted rather than asserting that they are. It would be still more accurate to advise that some images might _not_ be copyrighted, since the absence of copyright is a rare exception to the rule, and not the inverse.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Johnny writes: If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it forever. Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay your mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once?
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Not if royalties are abolished entirely. Everyone would be paid just once for the work he does, at the time he does the work. The car mechanic charges the same for each car he fixes because he has the same work to do on each car. The lawyer is much the same as each contract is just like one of the previous contracts. He no doubt buys in the initial wording from elsewhere and inserts the appropriate names as applicable. The artist would need to charge prohibitively large sums of money to the first customer as nearly all the work is performed for the first customer. Subsequent customers only need a very small amount of work. The only way this system can work is if large companies are sold the control of the product. They would have too much power and would exploit both the artist and the end customer. The royalty system works because each party can limit their risk and is ultimately financially better off. The artist can sell a product much cheaper and hence find customers much easier. If the product is particularly good the artist will make a lot of money if it is not he will make very little. The publisher does not need to find a large sum of money to purchase the rights of a product that might flop and hence avoids expensive mistakes. He can make a small profit for a small run and a much larger profit on a very successful product. The end customer will get more choice at more reasonable prices as the flops are weeded out at little cost. If the customer ARM Holdings have made a very successful business out of licensing chip designs and collecting the royalties. ARM have no expensive manufacturing facilities so have low overheads. The chip manufacturers get new chip designs faster, more reliably and cheaper. The general public get new products that are better and cheaper. I hardly think that Intel/TI/Motorola go to ARM for chip designs because it costs them more money! Steve P.S. I have used ARM as an illustration as it is an obvious example of how the royalty system does work as the chip manufacturing industry has been transformed in a matter of a few short years by ARM. I would like to declare a small interest as I do have a few ARM shares, but I am in no way wishing to recommend/ramp the shares. In fact they are an unfashionable tech stock with an unusually high PE ratio (not good). Whatever happens to the share price the business model undoubtably works to the benefit of everybody.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
It has taken many years just for the average screen size to advance from 640x480 to 800x600... High resolution, such as 1280x1024 and higher has been around for 20 years. The reason it wasn't prevalent in low end consumer computers (as it was prevalent in Sun, SGI, DEC and other high end workstations) had nothing to do with unavailability. PCs weren't ready, hardware wise, application wise, and use wise (OS and applications) for the general public to have any need for high resolution. There was also a cost issue.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote: We collected $10,000 from a tv 'news' show for lifting our images from the NY Times, using them out of context and without our consent or permission. How much would you have charged them if they had asked to license the images for that use? If they had asked, and if we had allowed the use, we would have charged $1000. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Modems are only about 10 times faster than they were thirty years ago. Please show proof of a common (or any for that matter) 5k+ modem from 30 years ago. 30 years ago, modems were barely 110 baud, and they were not modems, they were acoustic couplers. 30 years ago is 1971.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/10/01 5:54 AM, Anthony Atkielski squawked from the Olympia of Ignorance If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it forever. Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay your mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once? it's called a contract, Anthony. Both parties enter into it freely. If the producer says no to the 5%, I would ask for a much larger lump sum up front. Since the producer has no idea if the movie will make money, it is safer for him/her to contract to pay me royalties than to 'buy out' my rights. If all monies had to be paid up front, the risk of making a movie would be much higher, so fewer would get made, and they would be EVEN WORSE than they are now. As it is my payment is highly contingent. For a spec screenplay, a producer might take out an option for $30,000 for a year. If s/he exercises the option, they pay another (say) $100,000. If they make the movie, say $400,000. Then the 2% or 5% of net if it ever goes into profit. Since hardly any options are exercised, and of those that are exercised, hardly any are made, and of those that are made, hardly any make money, the contractual structure makes a lot of sense but few writers get stinking rich. Copyright is a simple possessory fact. I write a spec screenplay that no-one pays me for, I own it. Just like I would own a car. I can sell the screenplay just like one would sell a car. The contract of sale is where the royalties are written in: they are part of the consideration. In the case of a commissioned screenplay -- a 'work written for hire' -- copyright belongs to the producer not the writer. In this case the contract between the producer and the writer in which the writer undertakes to provide services contains the royalty clause. I am interested in how you would go about 'abolishing' royalties. Would you make it illegal for parties to enter into a contract which included them? Royalties are basically a contractual amortisation of the worth of the creative work over the lifetime of the creative work. That's all. The alternative is that pay you pay more up front. You might as well abolish mortgages and say everyone should pay for their house in cash. If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem. Creative works are a scarce commodity and the creators are free to charge what they want for them and structure the deal as they see fit. No-one is forcing anyone to enter into contracts with them. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Todd writes: It's called licensing. I know what it is called. However, having a name for it doesn't make it ethical. Here's a fortune cookie for ya, Anthony: You have great energy, put it to good use. Todd
RE: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
It was not Metallica alone; they had vast support from the recording industry as well as some other artists and writers. However, if one does not take things literally, Rob has a point since Metallica is a very wealther band with significant influence and revenue generating capacity - the group may even be incorporated as a corporate entity. At any rate, it was the organization, Metallica, that took on Napster and not the individual band members as individuals. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 3:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Rob Geraghty wrote: snip Want to bet that it wasn't any individual musician who chased Napster? Actually it was a band called Metallica. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I'm not so sure. My impression is that stealing images is the rule on the Web, rather than the exception. This is a little ambiguous; what aren't you sure of? Are you uncertain that is its mostly teenagers and laypersons who are stealing low resolution thumbnail images; or are unsure that one will probably not be able to educate or stop them? There is a lot of theft of images taking place on the web just as their is a lot of theft of written materials ( did you know that emails to lists are considered protected materials so technically you cannot dupplicate them in their entirety without permission of the creator of them). However, I doubt if the majority of it is being done knowingly by commercial image users or for commercial use. I suppose that technically just merely downloading an image to one's monitor for previewing is a form of reproduction and duplication; but I understand your point. I just doubt that much of the copying that you are referring to is being done commercially by professionals in the industries that make commercial use of imaging which is not to say that there is none or little of it going on - what goes on no matter how small is significant when it is being done commercially as opposed to for personal purposes. Personal reproduction is generally prohibited Technically correct, I should have been more clear here in what I meant. When I said mostly I probably should have said practically speaking. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: I doubt it, the people who are stealing your images are probably the young teenagers and people on the street who are not using them commercially anyway and who you will not educate or stop. I'm not so sure. My impression is that stealing images is the rule on the Web, rather than the exception. For every person who asks me permission to use an image, I suspect there are one hundred others who just copy the image and never say anything to me. Copyrights mostly pertain to commercial reproduction and use not to personal non-commercial uses. Personal reproduction is generally prohibited, too, and is most likely to be actively sanctioned when it involves a significant material loss for the copyright holder. The problem is that individual infringements involve so little loss and are so hard to isolate and prosecute that most copyright holders let it slide.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
While I generally agree with you on several points in your response to Harvey, I have to say that screen resolutions right now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using some video cards and a little higher using other video cards. However, all this discussion about a future which none of us are able to accurrately foresee or predict does not respond to the points in question which are concerned with what is happening in the hear and now. The search engine people are not concerned with structuring their cautions based on future possibilities but on current realities; so I doubt if they would find such rationalizations very pursuasive when it comes to what they will or will not include in their search engines. Moreover, since the search engines merely furnish a low resolution thumbnail representation of images on other web sites with links to thoe site they are on, I would think that if a cautionary advisory is to be uesed and is effective at protecting the images on the sites being linked to that cautionary advisory should be on the site itself with the image that is being linked to more than on the serach engine. Of course, this switches responsibility back onto the image owner to protect his own images on his site rather than making the search engine responsible for this task. As for Harvey's comments concerning fair use and editorial use in connection with copyright, he does not make it clear if his legal action against TV news shows or any other media outlet were in Federal or state courts, based on copyrigth infringement or other state laws concerning appropriation of images. If the legal action was brought in state courts it was not for copyright violation since that can oly be brought in federalcourt in that the law is a federal statute. If it was brought in the state courts then the action was based on state laws which are not technically copyright laws and the caution that the images are copyrighted would not apply as a caution aginst the sorts of actions that were being brought in the state courts and would vary from state to state. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Harvey writes: ... but eventually, our screen resolution will be the same as paper reproduction. I don't expect that ever to occur, as there is very little need for it, and it is technically difficult. It has taken many years just for the average screen size to advance from 640x480 to 800x600, and matching print use would require resolutions of at least 3600x2700 or beyond. That is not likely to be achieved with CRT technology, and it may also be very difficult with flat-panel technology, at least for the foreseeable future. It might only take a year or 2, or longer ... If it happens at all, it will take far longer than two years. Current screen resolutions are barely above what they were thirty years ago. The average resolution of 800x600 today is not even twice that of text-only CRTs from the 1960s. Part of this is related to the fact that print resolutions are often well beyond what people can actually see, and so there is no good reason to try to duplicate them in display systems. For example, who could have predicted, 10 years ago that 20 gig hard drives would be the norm ... And who would have predicted, when solid-state replaced vacuum tubes nearly half a century ago, that people would still be using huge vacuum tubes (i.e., CRTs) in 2001? ... or that modems would be performing at the speeds that they do ... Modems are only about 10 times faster than they were thirty years ago. The inability to make them work _really_ fast is what will cause their demise in the future, as other methods of communication become available. I think that the same will, finally, be true of the image search engines as well. I think that there is a very strong possibility that the Internet and like technologies will eventually bring about the abandon of copyright as it now exists. It will be a long, hard fight, led mostly by giant multinationals who are the real beneficiaries of copyright (as opposed to individual artists, who often sign away their rights, anyway), but it will not be successful in the long run. Beyond all of the above: We don't like it when our images are appropriated. Life is tough. It is frustrating to think that we can *only* post thumbnail sized images on our website, or need to disfigure them with our copyright or watermark, (for fear of theft)...There must be a better way. I don't do either of these. I provide good-sized images with no watermarks or disfigurement. I figure that some people will steal the images, but hopefully enough people will pay for them so that I can still derive revenue from them. If I can cover my costs and turn
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: Actually it was a band called Metallica. If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
First, your statement that only the current law is applicable may be true where you live but where I live in the US it is not. Images created and registered under the old copyright laws are governed by the older laws that they were copyrighted under. There are many images in the historic archives whose copyrights have run out or never existed that are in the public domain. There are many images created as work for hire by the U.S. government ( and probably other governments as well) which are in the public domain in so far as they were created with public moneies and under work for hire contracts. I just finished some copywork about a year ago for a company that was putting out a CD of those sorts of images (mostly those which are well known or famous from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s). Neither the company nor I needed to get copyright releases for the images since they were in the public domain; permission was necessary in some cases to access the originals which where housed in secure collections in public libraries and archives. Sometimes, permission to access the collections was contingent on the institution being given a photo credit and sometimes on the payment of a small token fee to cover the costs of admission to the institution and that particular collection or the maintenane of the collection. If special or additional services from the institution were needed they would have to be paid for by the company; but this was not a license fee. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: ... but that it is practically nil is at best an overstatement ... Do a search on images, then count the number that are probably _not_ copyrighted. Very often the number is zero. True enough under current copyright laws and conventions; but that has not always been the case. That is irrelevant, since only the current law is applicable. Moreover, it can always change in the future. When it changes, the search engine can change its notice appropriately. ... it may just be more practical for these search engines to caution that the materials might be copyrighted rather than asserting that they are. It would be still more accurate to advise that some images might _not_ be copyrighted, since the absence of copyright is a rare exception to the rule, and not the inverse.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
While the res[ponse will not satisfy you, the answer is that the creator is not selling the rights but only renting them; if the creator decided to sell the rights then he would not be able to collect rent on each and every use after the sale of the rights - the new owner would. It is sort of like real estate. What is being sold or rented is usage rights not the product itself, whioch is sort of like going into a hardware store and renting equipment rather than buying it outright. Inb the case of the mechanic, you are buying his services out right and not renting the use of those services as might be the case if you purchased annually an annual service contract. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Johnny writes: If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it forever. Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay your mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once?
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: High resolution, such as 1280x1024 and higher has been around for 20 years. I said _average_ resolution, not _maximum_ resolution.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: If they had asked, and if we had allowed the use, we would have charged $1000. And if you had refused to allow the use, they would have been faced with a certain lawsuit if they ran the images. By not asking, they took a calculated risk that you would not see or sue them, and they didn't have to ask permission. Unfortunately for them, in this case they lost, and you saw and sued. But the images still ran, didn't they?
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: High resolution, such as 1280x1024 and higher has been around for 20 years. I said _average_ resolution, not _maximum_ resolution. Yes, I was talking average resolution, that's why what you said was wrong. The average resolution of Sun and SGI etc. workstations has easily been in the neighborhood of 1280x1024.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: If they had asked, and if we had allowed the use, we would have charged $1000. And if you had refused to allow the use, they would have been faced with a certain lawsuit if they ran the images. By not asking, they took a calculated risk that you would not see or sue them, and they didn't have to ask permission. My, what a brilliant deduction! You obviously have a low regard for others intelligence. Do you really believe that people didn't understand that's how this works prior to your pointing it out?
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Harvey writes: Actually it was a band called Metallica. If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game. Since this is your opinion vs my opinion, I'm not going to debate with youBut I will point out that they felt that their losses were in the millions of dollars, and for that money, it *would* makes sense for them to pursue it with really good lawyers. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie Solomon wrote: While I generally agree with you on several points in your response to Harvey, I have to say that screen resolutions right now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using some video cards and a little higher using other video cards. However, all this discussion about a future which none of us are able to accurrately foresee or predict does not respond to the points in question which are concerned with what is happening in the hear and now. The search engine people are not concerned with structuring their cautions based on future possibilities but on current realities; so I doubt if they would find such rationalizations very pursuasive when it comes to what they will or will not include in their search engines. Again, I'm not making myself clear. I don't care about the rationalization of the search engines...What I'm saying that it is important for *us* to realize that this is just the beginning of a process that will change over time. And further, it's to our benefit to get everything right (from our point of view) *NOW*...Not 10 years from now, when the opposite is accepted policy, and it will be harder to change. It's always easier to change policy before it becomes 'the way it's done'. snip As for Harvey's comments concerning fair use and editorial use in connection with copyright, he does not make it clear if his legal action against TV news shows or any other media outlet were in Federal or state courts, based on copyrigth infringement or other state laws concerning appropriation of images. If the legal action was brought in state courts it was not for copyright violation since that can oly be brought in federalcourt in that the law is a federal statute. If it was brought in the state courts then the action was based on state laws which are not technically copyright laws and the caution that the images are copyrighted would not apply as a caution aginst the sorts of actions that were being brought in the state courts and would vary from state to state. Actually, we never needed to go to court at all. All it took were a bunch of phone calls and the *threat* of legal action. We did speak with a lawyer, (who did not want to take the case on, we suspect, he felt it was not worth his while), who told us we were within our rights to pursue it, and that it was a 'Federal' matter. I think they settled because our asking price ($10,000) was just right. According to Federal copyright law, they could have been penalized up to $100,000 per infringement (there were 2), and that it would have cost the parent corporation the $10,000 just to defend themselves.Oh, and also because they were *clearly* in the wrong. :- ) Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
John wrote: on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of discouragement of theft. you mean javascript I think yes that's a good idea. In fact I might search that out. AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. The only Javascript I've used is server side code in an ASP. But I don't want to start an argument about it! Suffice to say that the code is embedded in the header of the web page and interpreted by the browser not the server. :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Johnny writes: I am interested in how you would go about 'abolishing' royalties. By dramatically limiting the scope of copyright protection, and/or by greatly reducing its duration, perhaps to the same duration as patent protection. If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem. Not really. In the not-so-distant future, I think it will become a problem for artists and especially organizations that depend on royalties. Creative works are a scarce commodity ... Hardly. There are far more people with talent than there is demand for talent. This is why there are so many starving artists in the world, whereas there are very few starving engineers. Celebrity is a scarce commodity, and that's what usually commands the big bucks, not creative talent. But celebrity is ephemeral, so last year's solid gold may be this year's solid lead.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: While the res[ponse will not satisfy you, the answer is that the creator is not selling the rights but only renting them ... So why can't a bricklayer rent the fruit of his labor instead of selling it? You want him to build a house? Just pay him each month for the time you spend living in the house; if you wish to stop paying, you must move out.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: The average resolution of Sun and SGI etc. workstations has easily been in the neighborhood of 1280x1024. Over 95% of Web surfers are using PCs running under Windows, and the most typical resolution settings for them are 800x600 and (to a lesser extent) 1024x768. The 1280x1024 resolution has the disadvantage of not preserving the correct aspect ratio on the screen, so I usually recommend against it. The wallpapers on my site for this resolution have been anamorphically distorted to adjust for the asymmetric aspect ratio.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: Please show proof of a common (or any for that matter) 5k+ modem from 30 years ago. The usual practical achievable speed today is about 33K bps. Thirty years ago, it was about 2400 bps over slightly conditioned lines, and 1200 bps over unconditioned lines, a difference of about 30:1. Unfortunately, the need for bandwidth has expanded far more quickly than the capacity of ordinary modems, which is why broadband is gaining in popularity. 30 years ago, modems were barely 110 baud, and they were not modems, they were acoustic couplers. 30 years ago is 1971. Hardwired modems existed in 1971, and even before. They were not widely used because the Bell System wouldn't allow it.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: ... I have to say that screen resolutions right now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using some video cards and a little higher using other video cards. You're welcome to say that, but since I was speaking of average resolutions, and not maximum resolutions, your observation is not germane. Currently, most people surfing the Web have their screens set to 800x600, with 1024x768 running a moderately close second, and 640x480 a much more distant third. ... I doubt if they would find such rationalizations very pursuasive when it comes to what they will or will not include in their search engines. They will not find anything persuasive that does not have a lawyer behind it, unless it costs them money.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes: My, what a brilliant deduction! Thank you. You obviously have a low regard for others intelligence. No, but it doesn't hurt to illustrate the point for those who may not have had occasion to reflect upon such things. A person motivated only by ethics might never consider this, for example. Do you really believe that people didn't understand that's how this works prior to your pointing it out? I believe that many people will not have considered it. I typically would not, since ethical considerations alone would discourage me from speculating along such lines.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/10/01 5:54 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johnny writes: If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it forever. Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay your mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once? Let me tell you about the quality of repairs that I have been getting on my '95 Camaro Z28 here in sunny Columbus... Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never entering the business. Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no expenses and it was an eight hour day. Worst case it is a 16 hour day with thousands in expenses. Am I missing something? Tom From: Anthony Atkielski snip Many artists can recover all their costs, and then some, on the very first sale. An artist who sells a day's work for $200 doesn't need any additional income from royalties. And if he were a bricklayer, he wouldn't receive any.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
The 1200 baud modem was fairly common in 1984. The 2400 baud modem became common in 1985 or so. In 1978 when I was in college, 110 baud was the best that we could do until they upgraded to a staggering 300 baud. There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971. Perhaps arguements would be more useful with actual facts. I'll tell you. I got back on the list a week or so ago, but these stupid pissing contests are about to drive me away. Who cares about modem speeds and magnetic tray tables -- particularly the 50 or so posts after it was clearly proven to be a hoax. If they have a direct relationship to filmscanning, I can't find it. Even the Napster discussion is a stretch, but I can at least say copyright discussions can apply to photography. Is it always this bad? Should I just give up? I must have had 30-40 posts from Austin and Anthony today -- all of which should have been offlist. Tom - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:48 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Austin writes: Please show proof of a common (or any for that matter) 5k+ modem from 30 years ago. The usual practical achievable speed today is about 33K bps. Thirty years ago, it was about 2400 bps over slightly conditioned lines, and 1200 bps over unconditioned lines, a difference of about 30:1. Unfortunately, the need for bandwidth has expanded far more quickly than the capacity of ordinary modems, which is why broadband is gaining in popularity. 30 years ago, modems were barely 110 baud, and they were not modems, they were acoustic couplers. 30 years ago is 1971. Hardwired modems existed in 1971, and even before. They were not widely used because the Bell System wouldn't allow it.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Tom, I'd just like to state that I totally agree that those threads did NOT belong on the list. I have usually replied to non-scanner messages off-list. I think that is a good general policy, in most cases. It is fine to form buddy relationships with people met on a list like this one, but it does not have to be shared with everyone else. It is even less appropriate to have a vituperative off-topic contest on-list. I found those messages a pain. Hersch At 06:38 PM 09/10/2001, you wrote: The 1200 baud modem was fairly common in 1984. The 2400 baud modem became common in 1985 or so. In 1978 when I was in college, 110 baud was the best that we could do until they upgraded to a staggering 300 baud. There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971. Perhaps arguements would be more useful with actual facts. I'll tell you. I got back on the list a week or so ago, but these stupid pissing contests are about to drive me away. Who cares about modem speeds and magnetic tray tables -- particularly the 50 or so posts after it was clearly proven to be a hoax. If they have a direct relationship to filmscanning, I can't find it. Even the Napster discussion is a stretch, but I can at least say copyright discussions can apply to photography. Is it always this bad? Should I just give up? I must have had 30-40 posts from Austin and Anthony today -- all of which should have been offlist. Tom - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:48 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Austin writes: Please show proof of a common (or any for that matter) 5k+ modem from 30 years ago. The usual practical achievable speed today is about 33K bps. Thirty years ago, it was about 2400 bps over slightly conditioned lines, and 1200 bps over unconditioned lines, a difference of about 30:1. Unfortunately, the need for bandwidth has expanded far more quickly than the capacity of ordinary modems, which is why broadband is gaining in popularity. 30 years ago, modems were barely 110 baud, and they were not modems, they were acoustic couplers. 30 years ago is 1971. Hardwired modems existed in 1971, and even before. They were not widely used because the Bell System wouldn't allow it.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
You missed nothing. ;-) Todd I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never entering the business. Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no expenses and it was an eight hour day. Worst case it is a 16 hour day with thousands in expenses. Am I missing something? Tom From: Anthony Atkielski snip Many artists can recover all their costs, and then some, on the very first sale. An artist who sells a day's work for $200 doesn't need any additional income from royalties. And if he were a bricklayer, he wouldn't receive any.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I was speaking of average resolutions, and not maximum resolutions Average versus maximum for whom. For me, 1600 x 1200 is my maximum resolution that I can get on a majority of my monitors with 1024 x 768 and 1152 x 864 being the average resolutions that I can get from among all the possible available resolutions. The 1024 X 768 being the resolution that has the average usage in terms of all the actually used resolutions. I think my observation is very germane; it is your statement that was not very precise. You never said that average and maximum resolutions referred to *usage* and by *web surfers only* until this post. How am I or any one else suppose to know what you meant to say but left unstated. Currently, most people surfing the Web have their screens set to 800x600, with 1024x768 running a moderately close second, and 640x480 a much more distant third. I am not even going to ask for the source of this statistic. However, any determination of average resolution would be dependent on how one defines ones sample. Are we talking about a world wide sample or a North American Sample or...? And Why have you arbitrarily restricted it to people surfing the web? In the US and quite probably in North America in general, sales of 17 monitors are far greater than those of 14 and 15 inch monitors with 19 monitor sales trailing close behind the 17 ones. All are capable with the newer video cards of resolutions greater than 800 x 600. Since most users of the 17 and above monitors have newer higher resolution cards, I would assume that they are using higher resolutions for those monitors on or off the WEB. Many systems which have 17 or above monitors and the newer video cards are work stations that may not be connected to the internet/web at all; and other may be used by people who do not surf the web whatever you define that as being. I do not surf the web although I do use the internet and do go to specific sites from time to time as the need arises, I use dual monitors 17 or bigger on each of two systems at resolutions of 1024X768 and higher, would I be included or excluded from your sample based on some arbitrary definition of surfing the web? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: ... I have to say that screen resolutions right now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using some video cards and a little higher using other video cards. You're welcome to say that, but since I was speaking of average resolutions, and not maximum resolutions, your observation is not germane. Currently, most people surfing the Web have their screens set to 800x600, with 1024x768 running a moderately close second, and 640x480 a much more distant third. ... I doubt if they would find such rationalizations very pursuasive when it comes to what they will or will not include in their search engines. They will not find anything persuasive that does not have a lawyer behind it, unless it costs them money.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Rob writes: AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either side. You'll know it's Java if it takes half an hour to execute; if it executes instantly, it's Javascript. Anyway, all you have to do is turn off Java or Javascript to get past things like this. Some surfers, including myself, have these turned off by default for security reasons. If the display of your image depends on Java or Javascript, and your visitor doesn't have it, chances are he will simply leave the site rather than try to find a way to see your image.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Now that is one of your more stupid arguments. The equivalent for your bricklayer as is the case for your mechanic would be to keep them on an annual paid retainer or service contract so that they would be available to furnish bricklaying services or mechanic services whatever they may be throughout the year for you. What you would be licensing or renting in those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's services (skilled labor) and not the product (e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other tradesmen built or repair to your vehicle that the mechanic made). What is being sold and/or rented is not the fruit of the labor but the labor or services themselves. It is not the results of the labor or services in the case of trades people, professionals, craftsmen, artisans, or just plain old employees who rent or sell their services by the hour and not by the finished product). When buying/renting the services, the price or rental costs of the services includes the skill levels of the service person and value of their time in addition to any expenses like materials and parts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: While the res[ponse will not satisfy you, the answer is that the creator is not selling the rights but only renting them ... So why can't a bricklayer rent the fruit of his labor instead of selling it? You want him to build a house? Just pay him each month for the time you spend living in the house; if you wish to stop paying, you must move out.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Tom writes: I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never entering the business. Well, $200 a day is $50,000 per year. Removing, say, half for expenses, that's still $25,000 a year, which is a living wage, although it won't make you rich. Still, that's a lot of money for a freelance photographer; it's so much, in fact, that hardly any photographers achieve it, which is one reason why so many photographers are amateurs rather than professionals, and still keep their day jobs. Trying to make a living with photography is a good way to starve. Of course, this is true for all of the fine arts, not just photography (at any given moment 80% of SAG is unemployed, and I think the average acting income among members is only a few thousand dollars a year). Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no expenses and it was an eight hour day. Worst case it is a 16 hour day with thousands in expenses. Yes. Not a pretty picture. Royalties don't necessarily make a dent in that, either.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site says that the images *might* be copyrighted, when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing). However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not privately owned images but images in the public domain or that even if copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit as log as they give the photographer credit and the use is ethical, legal, and the copyright owner is held harmless for any misuse by the user. I would suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used rather than the *is* copyrighted caution. Moreover, some images even when or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for certain types of uses - e.g., editorial and educational uses, for use as legal evidence under certain circumstances one they have been published (wherein placing them on a web site is treated as publication), and the like. Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are may be all the caution that is required or appropriate. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Alan Womack wrote: I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the index. But that (not using descriptive terms) defeats the whole purpose of getting one's website listed. The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site says that the images *might* be copyrighted, when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing). Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Harvey writes: The possibility of losses is scary, What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site? Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
While I do not always agree with Anthony or his reasoning, I think that he raises some good questions here that merely a yes answer while sufficient is not very helpful. I for one am curious and would like further elaboration on what sort of client would license or buy a thumbnail image or a web resolution image. I can think of two possibilities - to use for layout marketing purposes as opposed to actual publication or to use in another web site as a display within the context and design of that web site. If there are other reasons why someone would want to license a thumbnail image or a web resolution image in contrast to a high resolution and/or larger sized image, I would be interested in increasing my awareness. I would also be curious to hear in more detail why you think images would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site. This is especially of interest since my understanding is that the Google engine indexes images and refers users via links to the sites where they can be found but does not actually house the thumbnail images themselves on its server or site. I am also curious about your reasoning in light of the old truism that locks are for honest people which may be read that those intent on stealing images will find a way to steal them form your site or another site whether the site indicates or not that they are copyrighted. This is true even if you watermark the images on your site. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Anthony Atkielski wrote: Harvey writes: The possibility of losses is scary, What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site? In a word, yes.to both questions. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Harvey writes: In a word, yes.to both questions. Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site? Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most people want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to pay much. I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images, such as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution images, and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen). I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business practices, but suffice it to say, that the fees generated from licensing web images are more than worth our time and effort. And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the larger images on our website (although our website is currently down). Again, I maintain that saying that an image on a web search engine 'might' be copyrighted is misleading, when, more than likely, it *is* copyrighted. Perhaps they should, on every page, of every search, have a paragraph about copyrights. It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long way to alleviate the ...Oh, I thought it was in the public domain' excuse. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Since we shoot mostly famous rock roll personalities and sell a lot of stock imagery, we find that our images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by those who would rather not pay us our rightful fees. However, whenever such unapproved usages are found out by us, and threatened with legal action, we we tend to get our regular fees plus an extra charge for their illegal actions. So, again, a clear copyright admonishment will help us get our money more easily. We don't pretend to understand others businesses, but we feel that these search engines do have a responsibility to state in clear and certain terms that imagery cannot just be lifted. It makes public education just that much easier. We want our clients to understand that our (and this is *all*, yours and mine), images have a value and a clear ownership. We feel its in every professional photographer's best interest to keep those ownership rights issues in front of the public whenever possible. I am old enough to remember when it was a new concept to base licensing fees based on usage, rather than on a flat day rate for commissioned work. I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest to revert to the old way of doing business, with lower fees. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the likelihood of someone wanting to buy a web resolution image is probably very low; but the likelihood of someone wanting to steal it (i.e. use it for free) is probably much higher. Typically, those that do steal web resolution images are those who either do not use images for their livelihood and do don't understand anything about copyrights and licensing or those who are aware of such things but will steal what they can and do not really concern themselves with the quality or resolution of the image that they steal and use. While it can be argued that making low resolution images available on the web and easy to find entices people to download and use the low resolution images rather than view them as previews upon which to base decisions as to what Images they would want to license high resolution versions of which in turn may narrow the market for higher resolution images, I do not think this really is as big a problem as one might think; and the existence of engines like Google probably do not have any major impact on the rates of image theft. Thus, I concur with your first paragraph in both its literal articulation as well as in some of the associated implicit issues it suggests. As for the second paragraph, I do not think that the question being raised is so much people buying low resolution web images per se; but the issue is more the effectiveness of selling or licensing high resolution versions of the images being cataloged and displayed on web sites based on those low resolution web displays. I know some stock photographers who do find this as an effective way of marketing their images; however, I, like you, have not found the web to be an effective way to market high quality and resolution versions of images or commercial photographic services. My experience like yours has been that the costs outweigh what those who use the web are willing to pay for services and use of images. It tends to cater to the mass market mentality where those shopping tend to want high quality images ( if they are even concerned with or know quality) at poster prices - if not for free - and cheap photographic services where quality is not the concern but bottom line pricing is. In short the web market, in my experience, is the sort of market where the buyer regards all photographers indiscriminately as if they were copy machines (with no differences in style or skills being recognized) and all images as if they were off the shelf manufactured retail products like you find in a retail outlet.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes: However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not privately owned images but images in the public domain ... Virtually nothing is in the public domain, and I agree with those who object to the phrasing of the search engine's warning. Saying that an image might be copyrighted implies that copyright protection is the exception to the rule, when in fact, essentially everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly released to the public domain by the copyright holder, or unless it has entered the public domain through expiration of copyright. And in some jurisdictions a copyright holder _cannot_ release his work entirely to the public domain; it can only enter the public domain when the copyright expires. So the search engine should really be saying this is copyrighted material (the exceptions being practically nil). ... or that even if copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit ... Images like that are almost as rare as public-domain images. And in any case, they are still copyrighted, so the misleading notice mentioned above remains inappropriate. I would suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used rather than the *is* copyrighted caution. If the engine says it is copyrighted and it is public domain, no big deal, since there is no owner whose rights are being infringed. But if the engine implies that it isn't copyrighted when it is, the owner of the copyright may have a legitimate gripe about the deliberately misleading nature of the message. Moreover, some images even when or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for certain types of uses ... But they are still copyrighted, aren't they? So implying that they are not is still inappropriate. And assuming fair use is also highly inappropriate, since the cases of fair use of an image represent only a very tiny fraction of all possible uses of an image, despite the unjustifiably optimistic viewpoints of some image users. Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are may be all the caution that is required or appropriate. Copyright is the default when a work is created. Therefore all works should be treated as protected by copyright until and unless the absence of such protection can be established.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business practices, but suffice it to say, that the fees generated from licensing web images are more than worth our time and effort. Then you are most likely a fortunate exception to the rule. Again, I maintain that saying that an image on a web search engine 'might' be copyrighted is misleading, when, more than likely, it *is* copyrighted. I agree, as I have said in a separate post. However, I'm not opposed to including the images in thumbnail form in search engines, with pointers to the real thing. Perhaps they should, on every page, of every search, have a paragraph about copyrights. People who steal images are usually either too unethical or too stupid to follow the rules. In either case, it isn't usually a question of ignorance, and so putting a paragraph of explanation on a site probably won't make any difference. It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long way to alleviate the ...Oh, I thought it was in the public domain' excuse. The public domain, like fair use, is very widely understood, but I suspect that the misunderstanding is often quite deliberate.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest to revert to the old way of doing business, with lower fees. Of course not, if you make more money with the new system. But is it really ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody else has that privilege.
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit. - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harvey writes: I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest to revert to the old way of doing business, with lower fees. Of course not, if you make more money with the new system. But is it really ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody else has that privilege. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Pat writes: Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit. Yes ... but why?
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Pat writes: Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit. Yes ... but why? Because creative people's work has *worth*, and we live in a capitalist system. If the creative types don't get/take the financial compensation, the corporate types will. The consumers will *never* a savings due the lack of payment to the creators. It will just be viewed as more profit for the higher ups. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
or practically implies that it probably is not copyrighted. Given this, which was not originally a literal part of the substantive discussion, I was only offering a set of practical reasons that might be offered to justify using *might be* rather than *is.* I did not assert that they were my reasons or that I totally accepted or was comfortable with them; nor did I assert that anyone else has to accept them on face value in an unqualified manner. All I had hoped for was that they would be taken as legitimate and reasonable alternative pragmatic justifications that might underlie the reasoning behind the search engine doing what it did in terms of cautionary statements and notices. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 5:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not privately owned images but images in the public domain ... Virtually nothing is in the public domain, and I agree with those who object to the phrasing of the search engine's warning. Saying that an image might be copyrighted implies that copyright protection is the exception to the rule, when in fact, essentially everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly released to the public domain by the copyright holder, or unless it has entered the public domain through expiration of copyright. And in some jurisdictions a copyright holder _cannot_ release his work entirely to the public domain; it can only enter the public domain when the copyright expires. So the search engine should really be saying this is copyrighted material (the exceptions being practically nil). ... or that even if copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit ... Images like that are almost as rare as public-domain images. And in any case, they are still copyrighted, so the misleading notice mentioned above remains inappropriate. I would suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used rather than the *is* copyrighted caution. If the engine says it is copyrighted and it is public domain, no big deal, since there is no owner whose rights are being infringed. But if the engine implies that it isn't copyrighted when it is, the owner of the copyright may have a legitimate gripe about the deliberately misleading nature of the message. Moreover, some images even when or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for certain types of uses ... But they are still copyrighted, aren't they? So implying that they are not is still inappropriate. And assuming fair use is also highly inappropriate, since the cases of fair use of an image represent only a very tiny fraction of all possible uses of an image, despite the unjustifiably optimistic viewpoints of some image users. Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are may be all the caution that is required or appropriate. Copyright is the default when a work is created. Therefore all works should be treated as protected by copyright until and unless the absence of such protection can be established.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
take action on in most cases in the second place? And why do you want the search engine to take steps to protect these sorts of images which you have not taken yourself on your web site so as to keep unauthorized images from being downloaded by the search engines for use as thumbnails for their indexes or others who might be intent on lifting these low resolution thumbnail images? It looks sort of like you want your cake by having the search engines list your images while eating it to by not protecting your own images on your own site by putting copy right notices across an obvious part of the image area or making those images non-downloadable from your site so as to make the search engines come to you to acquire them for use even if you let them use it for free but insist on certain conditions being met. True they may refuse you and you will not be on their search engine; but that is the practical realities of the business world where there is not free lunch. You want the free promotions and advertising, then you give you such things as protections and the right to make demands and conditions. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Since we shoot mostly famous rock roll personalities and sell a lot of stock imagery, we find that our images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by those who would rather not pay us our rightful fees. However, whenever such unapproved usages are found out by us, and threatened with legal action, we we tend to get our regular fees plus an extra charge for their illegal actions. So, again, a clear copyright admonishment will help us get our money more easily. We don't pretend to understand others businesses, but we feel that these search engines do have a responsibility to state in clear and certain terms that imagery cannot just be lifted. It makes public education just that much easier. We want our clients to understand that our (and this is *all*, yours and mine), images have a value and a clear ownership. We feel its in every professional photographer's best interest to keep those ownership rights issues in front of the public whenever possible. I am old enough to remember when it was a new concept to base licensing fees based on usage, rather than on a flat day rate for commissioned work. I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest to revert to the old way of doing business, with lower fees. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the likelihood of someone wanting to buy a web resolution image is probably very low; but the likelihood of someone wanting to steal it (i.e. use it for free) is probably much higher. Typically, those that do steal web resolution images are those who either do not use images for their livelihood and do don't understand anything about copyrights and licensing or those who are aware of such things but will steal what they can and do not really concern themselves with the quality or resolution of the image that they steal and use. While it can be argued that making low resolution images available on the web and easy to find entices people to download and use the low resolution images rather than view them as previews upon which to base decisions as to what Images they would want to license high resolution versions of which in turn may narrow the market for higher resolution images, I do not think this really is as big a problem as one might think; and the existence of engines like Google probably do not have any major impact on the rates of image theft. Thus, I concur with your first paragraph in both its literal articulation as well as in some of the associated implicit issues it suggests. As for the second paragraph, I do not think that the question being raised is so much people buying low resolution web images per se; but the issue is more the effectiveness of selling or licensing high resolution versions of the images being cataloged and displayed on web sites based on those low resolution web displays. I know some stock photographers who do find this as an effective way of marketing their images; however, I, like you, have not found the web to be an effective way to market high quality and resolution versions of images or commercial photographic services. My experience like yours has been that the costs outweigh what those who use the web are willing to pay for services and use of images. It tends to cater to the mass market mentality where those shopping tend to want high quality images ( if they are even concerned with or know quality) at poster prices - if not for free - and cheap photographic services where quality is not the concern but bottom line pricing is. In short the web market, in my experience, is the sort
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the larger images on our website Maybe you should not have larger images that are downloadable on your web site; and if you do, they certainly should not be high resolution images. Obviously, the search engine can only acquire your images for use in their engine by downloading the image from your web site; and they are not only going to be able to download the image at the resolutions that you provide. Moreover, they probably will resize the image into a thumbnail image for their uses as in the index and not use it at its original size if the size is larger than a thumbnail. So I really have difficulty is seeing you concern here with theft and unauthorized use of your images off the search engine web site for commercial purposes or for reproduction since the individual stealing the image off the search engine site will only get a low resolution thumbnail of the larger low resolution images that you have on your web site, which they could got to and steal directly from without having to mess with the thumbnails on the search engine site. It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long way to alleviate the ...Oh, I thought it was in the public domain excuse I doubt it, the people who are stealing your images are probably the young teenagers and people on the street who are not using them commercially anyway and who you will not educate or stop. These same people in all likelihood and despite any admonitions and education will and do regard anything that is on the web, on CD, on TV, on Radio, or on VCR as being in the public domain and there for the taking by them for their personal use. Copyrights mostly pertain to commercial reproduction and use not to personal non-commercial uses. Moreover, the general public does not know or care about copyrights not=r care to be educated about them. so I doubt if any change in the cautionary advisory from might to is will have any effect in general or in your case in particular given the audience for your images. If you think that there should be a stronger advisory caution, then you should put the copyright notice in the image area of the images on your web site. That way it will be on every copy downloaded from your sight including those being used by the search engines who probably got the images from your web site in the first place. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Anthony Atkielski wrote: Harvey writes: In a word, yes.to both questions. Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site? Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most people want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to pay much. I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images, such as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution images, and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen). I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business practices, but suffice it to say, that the fees generated from licensing web images are more than worth our time and effort. And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the larger images on our website (although our website is currently down). Again, I maintain that saying that an image on a web search engine 'might' be copyrighted is misleading, when, more than likely, it *is* copyrighted. Perhaps they should, on every page, of every search, have a paragraph about copyrights. It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long way to alleviate the ...Oh, I thought it was in the public domain' excuse. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
But is it really ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody else has that privilege. It's called licensing. The music industry, film industry, and software industry, are based upon it, to name just a few. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/9/01 1:51 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: If there are other reasons why someone would want to license a thumbnail image or a web resolution image in contrast to a high resolution and/or larger sized image, I would be interested in increasing my awareness. Banner ads. Todd
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/9/01 7:42 PM, Todd Flashner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But is it really ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody else has that privilege. I sure do! If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it forever. Of course 5% of producer's net is all, since movie accounting is specifically designed to make sure the movie makes no profit while making the producer and the studio extremely rich (which is why my 5% is known as 'monkey points') but the point remains. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
After reading what seems like a million posts on the copyright issue, *and* a prestigious amount of typing, I'm just going to try to give my opinion and (hopefully) leave it at that. :- ) I fear everyone is thinking in the very short term here (regarding search engines and the web). Web resolution is now only 72 dpi (some new monitors are up to 125 dpi), but eventually, our screen resolution will be the same as paper reproduction. It might only take a year or 2, or longer, but eventually the resolution will be up there with traditional printed material. For example, who could have predicted, 10 years ago that 20 gig hard drives would be the norm, or that modems would be performing at the speeds that they do, or that processor speeds would have gotten so far so fast, so as to be considered 'supercomputers'.? What ever becomes the normal operating procedure, with web search engines, will stay. For example, typewriter keyboard layout is a constant reminder of how 'first on the scene' rules. The original (keyboard layout) was put together to *slow* down the fingers, to allow the slow mechanics of the *original* typewriters to work. But these days we want a faster type pattern. Several companies tried to introduce better layouts, some years back, but the original was too ingrained into our world, and these *improvements* failed. Think MP3 technology. Nobody in the recording industry worried about it in the beginning when there was no such thing as common broadband internet service...But that's not true anymore. And stealing copyrighted musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal item. I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on web search engines. Napster, et al, tried to say that it was not their responsibility to regulate what was done with their file sharing softwareThe law has proven this to be a false argument. I think that the same will, finally, be true of the image search engines as well. None of what we say, or think makes any difference, the cases that will decide these issues are currently working their way through the courts (in the US), and within a few yearsAll will be revealed. Beyond all of the above: We don't like it when our images are appropriated. The search engines, while only posting thumbnails, directly link to the original websites. It is frustrating to think that we can *only* post thumbnail sized images on our website, or need to disfigure them with our copyright or watermark, (for fear of theft)...There must be a better way. People that *should* know about copyright issues, don't. Just last week, a national magazine that we work for, thought that they could take one of our photos (that we shot to illustrate an editorial article) and use it for a national ad campaign for another business that they owned. When these people don't know, why should we expect the rest of the world to understand copyright issues? 'Editorial' and 'educational' uses: Images cannot be appropriated for either editorial or educational uses without compensation. A textbook cannot 'appropriate' one of our images without compensating us for said image, nor can a professor copy (like on a Xerox machine) a chapter of a textbook, without compensating the publisher (et al) of that book. (We collected $10,000 from a tv 'news' show for lifting our images from the NY Times, using them out of context and without our consent or permission.) Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: The possibility of losses is scary, What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site?
re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the index. alan Harvey writes: The possibility of losses is scary, What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site? Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I also looked at the images.google.com engine and noted that the indexing is based on the text near to the image, not the name of the image. So even if your image is named image0001.jpg, you will still find it if the word cake appears near it on the web page. --Dana -- From: Alan Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Majordomo leben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Date: Saturday, September 08, 2001 7:16 AM I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the index. alan Harvey writes: The possibility of losses is scary, What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site? Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Harvey writes: The possibility of losses is scary, What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site? In a word, yes.to both questions. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: In a word, yes.to both questions. Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site? Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most people want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to pay much. I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images, such as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution images, and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen).
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/8/01 4:35 PM, SKID Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan Womack wrote: I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the index. But that (not using descriptive terms) defeats the whole purpose of getting one's website listed. The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site says that the images *might* be copyrighted, when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing). I did a search for my own images using every combination I could think of including my name, aliases, domain name etc etc etc and turned up nothing. I did however see a lot of very good photographs that I wouldn't have found otherwise. I say hooray for google. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/8/01 12:28 PM, Dana Trout at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also looked at the images.google.com engine and noted that the indexing is based on the text near to the image, not the name of the image. So even if your image is named image0001.jpg, you will still find it if the word cake appears near it on the web page. I did a search for johnny deadman include quotes and it turned up exactly one image, which definitely wasn't one I was expecting. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
There was an article on the subject of copyright, artists' rights and picture search engines in the NY Times on Thursday, Sept. 6, 2001, on Page 1 of the 'Circuits' section. So far, the courts have ruled against the photographers, but we are still early on in the appeals process. It is certainly a subject to stay abreast of. The possibility of losses is scary, Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Larry Berman wrote: If you're an artist or photographer and have images on your web site.. Some of you may have heard about Google's new search engine for images. As they've been indexing the web for content, they have also been indexing the web for image files. http://images.google.com is the new search engine. Every results page contains the disclaimer, this image might be copyrighted Shows how important it is to put your copyright information on each image. Here's a post from the Photo District News forum about the issue: http://www.pdn-pix.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/38.html Larry *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com ***
