There's this thread in the copyright forum that may be of interest to some of you:  http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3387574  This one post in particular made me a bit furious... 

I hope you all won't mind my linking to this thread here.  But someone is belittling the work of photographers, I think it's only fair that it be brought the the photographers attention.  :glare:

Thanks, I can understand what ticked you off.

thanks for the link, infuriating indeed.... had to leave my 2p's worth ;)

Just shows this member has not got a clue about photography. 

Thanks for taking the time to post in there, maybe (kinda doubtful, but we can be hopeful hey? ;) ) this little discussion will have open his eyes on a few things.  And if not his eyes, others maybe who saw things the way he sees them will think about it all a little bit more and will understand better...

Thanks Lucie... and to whom it may concern, I for one know that there are Renderosity photography members with a Master degree in Fine Arts. If that doesn't prove much as far as artistry is concerned, at least it should prove that they are not unfamiliar with the subject...

Yikes...well, I said something likely to no avail but off my chest for the moment.

It's not to no avail, some people who are in the habit of taking photos without asking out of ignorance may read that thread, see how photographers feel about it, understand and may decide to do the right thing from now on.  There are still people who do things wrong because of ignorance, educate them a bit and they'll change their ways.  Not everybody has this strong sense of entitlement Vintorix has.

"Not everybody has this strong sense of entitlement Vintorix has."  Lucie, you have spoken quite kindly and well made your point.

I agree, many have yet to learn that "on the net" is not synonymous with automatic freebie.    Some will learn that and will respect the properties of others.       Tom.    off to work I go...

I want to see some of Vintorix's photos to see how good he is or is not.  I noticed no gallery. 

I ran into that entitlement attitude recently. A member at dA is using other people's work and putting her face over the charcaters in the images and altering them to suit her "vision." This included some well known commercial work and unfortunately one of my wife's paintings. I made a report to the dA admin and the image was removed overnight. Sadly she still has other work in her gallery that is obviously not all of her making. I am not sure what the admin does over there but they are certainly as not on the ball as our team here. I think in her case, it was ignorance. She finds an image on the web and thinks it is okay to use it. I think many people who do this would not if they realised what they were doing is theft and they need to be educated. Those who know better and do it anyway, well, that is another story...

Quote - I want to see some of Vintorix's photos to see how good he is or is not.  I noticed no gallery. 

He's already admited to not being a photographer himself, or that being one is not a big deal. He is a "digital artist." Hah. Still nothing in that gallery of his.

I have seen in the jewelry industry knock-offs of all sorts of brand names™©, many blatant as the Gucci, Rolex and Cartier watches.  Then again, some will try to take a hot item and bend it a little, redo a bit here and there to try and avoid © infringement.

A smart judge will say, "It is obvious where you got the idea, the theme of the item".  Then it is a win for the true designer.    I feel that a part of a photo is as much the property of the photog as is the whole.  As I said on the other thread, to steal is to steal and a thief is a thief is a thief.  If someone feel entitled to do so, that is aberrant thinking.

Then again, while the words may be true or only made up to spark attention and stir others, the issue of knowledge of the rights of others and owership is vital enough to be mentioned now and then.   I can easily understand how a newcomer may be ignorant of protections which they may also enjoy.          Tom.  nuff said by me on this one..better things to do.

Well... Sadly, by the time I arrived to see what was up this link was locked.  There will always be someone who wants to "steal" good art and manipulate it.  Since I joined here in 2003,  I've seen Rosity there already and dealt with that on a few levels.  We all need to be informed and do what we can to protect our own images. 

I guess I will go out on a limb and say that going to investigate on my own and finding that I could not access the link Lucie left because I am not a coordinator has me a little ticked off.  But, I will survive and chalk it up to someone trying to "protect" us...  Like Tom said... better things to do. 

Just let me know, please, why we are no longer allowed to view the orig link. 

Thanks,

Jodie

this is what I got when I click the link

Welcome to the Renderosity Forums

Only Coordinators can participate in this forum.

SO nothing to read

They've removed the thread a few days ago with no explanation, but maybe it was just getting too ugly in there. 

I don't know why it was removed.

Well what is of more concern  is this person still a member!  It was reported to our Admin so I assume whatever he was doing was deemed to be within our rules..

He started another thread in the copyright forum the day after this one was removed, got no answer after a day and started insulting people again, that was locked pretty quickly.   He sure has a way of talking to people...

its unfortunate that the other thread was removed instead of just locked.  Other members should still be able to read it. It would have made them aware of his intentions and how he treats people as well.

From what I've seen posted in his gallery,  uh well  judge for yourself. Note I actually went to his homepage, as I don't feel he needs our views to justify or add fire to his way of thinking.

Well, from experience in times past on other websites,  there were always a few who wanted to disrupt anyway possible by saying exactly what would tick off the others and illicit many responses.   A way of personal satisfaction? 

You see, I don't care if that commentator was serious or a disrupter wanting responses, either way I see statements were made which support blatant violations of the terms of service here.   That should not be tolerated or supported.   I will say no more on the subject in open forum (unless I truly get more ticked off then I hope to have better sense than to speak!).       TomDart

I don't really need to see what he wrote, either.  I just wanted an explanation of the situation that had taken place.  Nobody explained why the link was locked from the rest of us in the "open" forum. 

If it was truly a violation of the terms of service, why weren't we simply informed of that?  

That's all. 

I'm done and I'm not going to tell this bother me... isn't worth the time. 

Peace to all ~

Jodie

I saw this topic related article in the February edition of Managing IP :
[ I can't post it in the copyright forum :~((...

http://www.managingip.com/Article/2102438/Artist-pleads-fair-use-over-AP-photo-of-Obama.html

WEEKLY NEWS - FEBRUARY 16, 2009 Artist pleads fair use over APphoto of Obama

An artist s rendition of an Associated Press photo that came to symbolise Barack Obama s presidentialcampaign has become the subject of a heated debate over fair use in the US

The AP photo was taken during an event at the National Press Club in 2006, and was later digitally altered by artist Shepard Fairey for a series titled the "Obama Works".

The AP claimed that the infringed copyright. But Fairey's lawyer, Anthony Falzone of Stanford University's

Fair Use Project, last week filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York to block any future claimsby the AP, marking an abrupt end to licensing negotiations between the two parties.

Falzone chose to try the case in the Southern District of New York, where a 2006 judgment in Blanch v Koons affirmed that artist Jeff Koons' sampling of a photograph in a collage fell under fair use requirements.

In a statement, the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said: "AP believes it is crucial to protect photographers, who are creators and artists. Their work should not be misappropriated by others. The photograph used in the poster is an AP photo, and its use required permission from AP."

While there is little disagreement that the AP's photo inspired Fairey's works, the key question will be whether or not the work is transformative. "The issue here is: Is it original? Did he create it? It's not whether it is art," said Ed Colbert of Kenyon & Kenyon. "Transforming [the photograph] requires more than an alteration of the original."

"The AP is going to say it's not a transformative use," said David Donahue of Fross Zelnick. Donahue added that the AP is also likely to argue that it has licensed news photographs for political uses before.

Fairey's fair use argument could also be undermined by the profits he earned for his work. "It's more difficult to argue fair use when there's a commercial aspect to the user's work," said Donahue. "The court should analyse fair use as of the time the work was created, when Fairey created the poster with the intention of selling copies of it. The fact that the work became famous does not make the use any fairer."

The case demonstrates one of the grey areas associated with applying copyright law in the digital age. But both Colbert and Donahue see little potential for legislation in the future. "I think there is benefit to having an elastic standard," said Donahue. "The difficulty lies is predicting how a court will come out."

Kenyon's Colbert agreed. "If you want certainty, yes, you'd have to start tightening up lots of areas of copyright law," he said.

Colbert, however, sees these ambiguities as promoting innovation. "If you want to encourage people to think outside the box a little, to give the courts a little room in determining what's fair, because you never know what the future will bring, then you want some flexibility

** **

***Blanch v Koons affirmed that artist Jeff Koons' sampling of a photograph in a collage fell under fair use requirements.***The March issue of Managing IP will feature a discussion of the changing face of copyright law in the digital age, including an interview with copyright activist, Lawrence Lessig.

Thank you...

An interesting case indeed.....

@Gimi53;
Thanks for posting it here....but as this is directly related to copyright matters......why would Rendo not let you post this in the copyright forum here?

Yup - post gone - just got here.

From the sound of the thread, I would have been po'd too.

People take images from other people a LOT - the part that aggravates me most is they seem completely ignorant that what they have done is wrong, and vehemently defensive that they've done nothing wrong. The more you point out, the louder they get and start even jumping into the "I'm an AR-TEEST - this is creative freedom" bandwagon as though that is supposed to stop all conversation and justify them as correct.

On a side note, I secretly partially get a kick out of seeing people use my images on ebay ;-) On any given day I can find a few with just a quick search.

-Lew

Hehe - there's 8 I just found on ebay right now. ;-)

This may be totally incorrect but I believe hearing a while back the argument was between the photographer and the AP, each claiming to own the image.  Of course, the photo had already been appropriated for commercial gain through manipulation....

The blant expression of "I will take if I want" is the really ticking off part of what started this all. I will not consider that more but am quite concerned about the ©  law and intrepretation thereof.          Tom.
**
thundering,** were your images part of commercial advertising? If so, I would imagine lots of folks would consider it fair to use that to sell the product, even if on eBay.  I would not see it as honest or fair but others easily could, not even thinking about © in the first place.

Yes, it's very loose territory - they are commercial images of watches and jewelry used in catalogs and magazines. If I REALLY wanted to get snippy about it I could, but I don't.  It's mostly people selling the watch they bought and don't use, or necklace, etc.

Every once in a while it's a company that managed to get a hold of a bunch of them and are commercially selling them on ebay - and didn't pay for the rights to use the images.

Again, I actually don't really care as this is mostly small potatoes, and I don't want to start going after every person who does it. What would ACTUALLY tick me off is if anyone would claim the image as theirs - or use it in a paid advertisement in a magazine or something if they become another supplier of those items. Then I'd probably go ape over it.

But on ebay... Mostly I perk up, smile and go, "Hey! There's another one of my images!" And point to the screen as though ANYONE else would be amused about it but me (and I'm usually alone at the time... what does that say...?).

-Lew