-
1
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
While you are at it, could you post any tips on how to keep
rape victims from being raped? It is their fault, right?
One way to know if you are stealing an image is to ask, did I
commission this? If the answer is no, BINGO. But you can go
ahead and keep on blaming the victim.
For anyone wondering why Dana is so concerned about
appearing like he's on the right side of this issue, take a little
peak at the genesis of the discussion here:
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/rethinking-
healthcare/big-mother-gets-her-shot-at-cutting-health-
costs/1023/?tag=content;col1#comments
-
2
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Point REALLY is....
I'm very glad to read that you and Mr. Bozelli ended up having
what you characterize as "a rather civil online discussion" about
the incident to which you refer.
However, the point repeatedly raised by people who, like
myself, have to advocate for themselves and pay for their
representation themselves in all copyright matters is this: it is
patently illegal, however easy technology has made it to do so,
to use images without permission. PERIOD.
There's another branch of technology which makes stealing very
easy as well: it's called weapons technology. The minute
someone first discovered that a pistol pointed at another
person increases one's odds of gaining that victim's property, it
went into immediate use.
Your tips, while helpful, don't address the real issue: copying
intellectual property without permission is against the law. As
others have pointed out, the legal umbrella protecting YOUR
work spell it out quite plainly.
These tips read like a thug selling Kevlar vests after the fact.
This is no mea culpa on your part, sir.
(Quick side note: I hope this conversation which you describe as
"civil" doesn't include the arrogant, callous and dismissive
initial reply you made to Mr. Bozelli's comment, in which he
claimed ownership of his work.)
Sincerely,
Richard P. Clark
Illustrator
Society of Illustrators Board Member 2002-2004
-
3
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Sooooo, because I _can_ copy books, articles, music, etc, it's
ok?
Watermarks protect art but they have nothing to do with
copyright. As an art director looking at dozens of portfolios a
day, I find watermarks very intrusive when trying to decide
which artists I should hire. (Hire, as in, for the _work_ that they
do.) Should writers have to dissemvowel their own work in
order to maintain copyright?
Publicity is great and there are many reasons an artist may
want to give their work freely, but it's up to them to decide.
Irene Gallo
-
4
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"I like using illustrations in my stories, but when I simply linked to them, in the late 1990s, I was accused of ?stealing bandwidth.?
So through trial and error I developed a policy. I would try to use small versions of each image, just big enough to fit the space. I would credit sources. I would name them and link to them. If it was a piece of art or a poster that was being sold online, I?d link to the sales page. And I?d say nice things."
Aside from the fact that this is illegal?you can't simply make up your own rules about copyright?it misses the point: it's YOUR obligation as a user of art to obtain the license, not the copyright owner's to police the thieves (and yes, Mr Blankenhorn: it's theft).
And since you're making the claim that you've credited art and linked back to it for years, I wonder if you can show us the evidence of that is from this recent post, from April 2nd:
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2010/04/facing-the-fear-of-otherness.html
One hopes you discover, Mr Blankenhorn, that not all publicity is good publicity.
-
5
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana,
Last time I checked my landlord didn't accept publicity in lieu of a rent check. Nor will ConEd, the cable company, the phone company, the girl working the register at the food store, or anyone else accept my offer of an insignificant amount of exposure instead of cash.
Illustrators get paid to create work so that it grabs people's attention. An illustration's job is to be seen. What you call publicity is simply part of the job description.
If you have the ability to find images on the internet, you have the ability to send an e-mail or pick up the phone to find out if you can license the image for your use.
I'm sure you wouldn't approve of me copying your writings and using them for my purposes, in fact the terms of use n this site prohibit it.
-John W. Tomac
-
6
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana, time to talk to your legal department before you get sued.
You are referring to your illegal use of Chris Buzelli's work. Chris is a renowned and deeply respected artist world wide. Just look at Macy's Flower Show art this year for starters.
The suggestion of "exposure" in lieu of payment is one of the most tired and age-old methods of insult that would-be clients have used throughout history to justify abusing the expertise and experience of artists. Any professional artist will laugh at such a suggestion, especially when such "exposure" comes via an arrogant jerk who can't come out and apologize and admit their bad behavior.
Further insulting us, you present a lesson on watermarking as if artists have been living under rocks for the last 20 years. As was pointed out in your other thread, watermarks have been rendered all but useless with technological advances, which it seems you need to learn more about before spouting out. Yeesh.
A more productive discussion would be about the ethics of the mindset of taking things freely from the web. Chris Anderson's book "Free" was largely plagiarized from (of all things) Wikipedia, yet this fact was oddly absent in the media. This is making for a Smart Planet?
-
7
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Goodness. Talk about missing the point.
Taking images and using them, as you, Mr. Blakenhorn, did, is
ILLEGAL.
And, by the way, from whom are we "protecting" our copyrighted
images from? You, Mr. Blankenhorn?
-
8
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Seriously? You are actually still trying to justify your theft?
Maybe you came up with that genius "policy" but it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it legal. I wonder if CBS and Smartplanet are behind you on this. Somehow, I very seriously doubt it.
I was under the impression that you are a professional journalist. If you make money from your articles, you should be willing to pay for the art you use. Plain and simple. I recommend you man up and apologize for what you did (and seem to want to continue to do, based on this article) before that publicity you are so fond of turns around and bites you. Not all publicity is good.
-
9
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
We already have something to protect our copyrighted images on the
web. It's called the COPYRIGHT.
Merely crediting and/or linking to the artist does not give you carte
blanche permission to use an image. EVER. Regardless of whether the
image is watermarked or not. You only have permission to use the
image if you purchased the rights or were given the rights by the
artist or copyright owner.
We know that browsers download images to a temp directory on your
hard drive as you surf the internet - don't treat us as if we're
idiots. Downloading an image for the purpose of viewing it is
personal use and fair use. Go to town! Downloading art and then re-
uploading it to your website and using it to promote your healthcare
article is NOT THE SAME THING.
Those image and copy protection services are useless. There's a
button on your keyboard that takes a capture of the entire screen,
including the images. Sure it takes about 3 seconds longer than just
saving the image, but that's probably not going to deter someone who
really wants to use the image.
We don't want or need your patronizing 'advice' on how to protect
ourselves. We want you to stop taking what doesn't belong to you.
Thanks for the buffet lunch analogy, by the way. Is that about how
much you think art is worth? Try a car for the comparison instead. Do
you also think that someone who leaves their car parked on the street
should not call the cops if it's broken into? Because watermarking
and copy protecting your art is about as effective as locking your
car. The thieves can jimmy it open in two seconds if they want to get
in.
-Kiriko Moth
www.kiriko-moth.com
-
10
04/07/10 | Report as spam
the new "Dana Dodge" article
Thanks for attempting to educate us, oh wise one. Since you can't seem to admit
that you screwed up...
As far as disabling the right click option, anyone with moderate skill can simply
take a screenshot and crop it...There are just too many ways around any coding.
Visual artists shouldn't have to put a banner across their images. How would you
like it if your readers experienced a pop-up add in the middle of every paragraph?
And they shouldn't be required to pay for watermarking services like digimarc to
protect our copyright law given rights...I mean, if they've got to pay to protect
every image, how are they to make a living?
The internet is not a buffet for you to swipe art from.
Support your fellow creatives. If you can't pay them, at the very least ask
permission. If you can't find them, LEAVE THEIR WORK ALONE.
Lars Grant-West
-
11
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I dont understand how someone who makes money by creating something, writing, can think it is ever okay to steal something another person has created, artwork. I shouldn't have to clutter my images with watermarks just to stop people from stealing my work. Illustration isn't just a source you add to a works cited page and be done with.
-
12
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I find this article extremely insulting as both an illustrator and a
technophile, and I feel like you have absolutely missed the
point.
Mr. Blankenhorn, what you did is theft, plain and simple. Your
attempts to skirt this fundamental disregard for the rights of
illustrators is as infuriating as it is ill-informed. There are
copyright laws, and you should abide by them. You should pay
a usage fee or not use illustrations, period. This situation
Watermarks are ridiculous -- anyone worth their salt can easily
remove them and they compromise the work, and they still do
not protect it from being used. HTML and Javascript commands
are easily gone around with screen capture. What we should do
to protect our images is, as a community, go on the offensive
when copyrights have been infringed. That is what we are
doing now.
You are in the wrong here -- the law makes that abundantly
clear. I understand that you are trying to save face, but there is
no way to sugar coat the facts, and blaming an illustrator that
you infringed upon AND an entire industry is certainly not the
way to solve anything.
Brian Stauffer's analogy could not be more perfect.
-
13
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I work for the marketing department of printing company. We see hundreds and thousands of impressive photos, illustrations and pieces of artwork come off our press. We don't just have access to thumbnails but hi-res files that we could use to print posters and whatever else we could dream up.
However...
If our creative team wants to use an image for one of our own promotions, we contact the owner of the image and not only ask for permission, but often trade printing credit for a written and signed release. On our promotional piece, we then clearly state their name and website address. That's how WE give an artist credit and hopefully drive some business their way.
-
14
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
As a young artist, hoping to one day make a living off of my work, it pleases me to see such unity in the community concerning instances such as this.
If anything, Dana, you should learn three very important things from all of this:
1. You stole. It was your fault. And as much as I'd pay to see something along the lines of "I don't have the time to ask permission" try to stand up in court, one can only hope you are (now) wise enough not to get yourself into that mess.
2. What's easier than stealing someone's images on the internet? Getting the entirety of the internet to realize, and spread word of how ignorant you are.
3. The best way to save face, and not get the entirety of the internet really, really pissed off at you, is to acknowledge when you're in the wrong, humbly apologize, and amend your ways. Not proceed to lecture those with far greater resources and understanding than yourself concerning the issue. All that will wind up doing is get you a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and make for a good laugh at work.
Cheers.
-
15
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
What astounds me, Dana, is that you have the audacity to write as though his work were in a venue that you could exploit - and yet here we are, reading your article on the very same internet.
I assume that, when someone appropriates your words to meet their needs, you will be comfortable with this infringement. Hey - atleast you can get some great publicity!
Kate Kelly
-
16
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Maybe you should start putting a watermark over your writing because
otherwise artists may decide that they would like some writing to go
with their images. What, your writing is copyrighted, too? Well if
there was no watermark across it, then it must have been your own
bloody fault.
-
17
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
If you had a shred of self-respect, you would admit you screwed up and did something at the very least unprofessional, demonstably illegal, and simply downright wrong. That you've been doing it a long time and didn't get caught before now? Does not justify it. That you think technological changes that make it easy means that makes it all right? No, you're still utterly in the wrong. That you have the free means of getting educated about copyright law basics, about Creative Commons, about intellectual property rights at places like your local library at the very moinimum? Makes your continuing adherence to this indefensible position ludicrous, pitiful, and disgusting.
That you have the tagline "Thinking Tech" here is blatantly a lie. There's no thinking going on.
-
18
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Another analogy....
Hey, Blankenhorn,
Another thought on your outrageous, willful and repeated
violation of copyright-holder's rights: you claim you've done a
service to the infringee by linking the image and giving credit
to the image-maker (i.e., copyright-holder). In essence, you've
set the terms and negotiated the payment all without the
owner's input.
Try this: go into a restaurant, order a meal, consume it, and
leave what you think is fair payment. I'd love to be in the
audience when you're arrested for theft.
Involve the people who own the work you want to use. To do
otherwise is lazy at the least and criminal no matter what
justification you attempt to offer.
-
19
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
You understand that a work need not have a copyright notice on it to be protected by copyright law, right?
Right?
-
20
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Failing to take basic steps is like leaving a buffet lunch out by the street, walking away, and then calling the cops when someone takes a carrot."
See, you are wrong about that. Chris Buzelli DID protect his work. Do you not remember when he made you take his image down? I think that constitutes protection of his image. Do you know why you then proceed to take it down? I will tell you, because you had to or you would have been in legal trouble. It's very simple. There is already protection for Mr Buzelli, but if you continue to do this you will find that there is not very much for you.
Do you also realize that you got more comments on your articles misappropriation of an image that the actual content itself? What was that again about good publicity?
-
21
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
This is ridiculous.
Dana, you really should consult a copyright lawyer. As someone who
publishes on the Internet, it's astonishing how little you know
about the laws that are relevant to your work, and the works you
have been stealing.
Simply put, copyright exists from the moment any creative work is
created. A copyright notice isn't required. Copyright is the Right
of a creator to control how their work is Copied. (See, right there
in the name.) In order to use any copyrighted work, you need
explicit permission.
Simply put, you are wrong, and the position you are taking is
laughably ignorant and selfish. You are the burglar telling people
they should buy better locks.
You need to apologize, not struggle to defend yourself. You're just
making it worse.
-
22
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
http://i44.tinypic.com/rbk5ug.jpg
Look guys, this illustration has no watermark! That means anyone can take it to use, hooray!
-
23
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Hi Dana, I am contemplating starting a blog about technology with a "green" twist. However, I'm incredibly unoriginal so I hope you don't mind if I use some of your articles for "reference" (i.e. steal).
Also, I am growing a beard just like yours. I hope to emulate its beauty and luster.
-
24
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Sketch
Mr. Blankenhorn, what you did was shameful, inappropriate, and ignorant. I think an apology is in order along with the promise you?ll never do this type of nonsense again. I would even recommend you write a blog post about copyright law, how valuable illustration art is and how it greatly affects our culture.
CBS???
-
25
04/07/10 | Report as spam
I apologize, again
Y'all may not accept the apology, or the explanations, or my
interpretation of the law, but there it is. On some things we must
agree to disagree.
-
26
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Rich Tu
Within the range of fair use, go for it. As to the beard, you may want
to have it go in white, as the picture is a few years old.
-
27
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Wow, I am not usually one to get irritable about things, but the
fact that you seem to think that it is the ARTISTS fault for not
employing some sort of anti theft system within their artwork is not
only arrogant, but insulting. As both a Writer and an Illustrator I
feel that your disregard for the intellectual property of artists
not only presents you with a legal problem but also makes you a
target for every illustrator out there, to make sure every image you
*aquire* from now on will be either paid for, or you have written
permission. You can say you are not an employee of CBS but a
freelance writer, all that means is that the lawyers come for you
and you cannot hide behind a networks legal department. Unless you
have very good friends or one hell of a legal degree, I would be
worried.
Thorne
-
28
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Interpret this, Mr. Blankenhorn. Excerpted from the site you linked to:
"Some people mistakenly believe it's permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided. For example, they believe it's okay to use a photograph in a magazine as long as the name of the photographer is included. This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement. In some cases, such as advertisements, acknowledgments can backfire and create additional legal claims, such as a violation of the right of publicity. When in doubt as to the right to use or acknowledge a source, the most prudent course may be to seek permission of the copyright owner."
-
29
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Are you a father Dana? Do you teach your children that it's OK to
steal from street buffets? Yes; lots of vendors leave their goods out
on the street when the weather is fair in the hopes of getting their
products more exposure, but when the children ask if it's free, the
good parents tell them that it's not and to take it would be stealing.
I think today has most likely turned out to be a very bad day for you.
My advice to you is to use it to reevaluate yourself and your morals
and start fresh tomorrow. Good luck.
-
30
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Keeping your hands off art or anything else.
Are you a father Dana? Do you teach your children that it's OK to
steal from street buffets? Yes; lots of vendors leave their goods out
on the street when the weather is fair in the hopes of getting their
products more exposure, but when the children ask if it's free, the
good parents tell them that it's not and to take it would be stealing.
I think today has most likely turned out to be a very bad day for you.
My advice to you is to use it to reevaluate yourself and your morals
and start fresh tomorrow. Good luck.
-
31
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Within the range of fair use, go for it. As to the beard, you may want to have it go in white, as the picture is a few years old."
Oh excellent, because MY interpretation of fair use is to take exactly what you did and not give you credit for it.
And WHAT, and few years old?!? Forget it, my dream is dead.
-
32
04/07/10 | Report as spam
re: I apologize, again
You still don't get it. There is nothing to agree or disagree about. The US law
states pretty clearly what is going on here, and your "interpretation" breaks
that law. Until you go and reread about copyright usage and fair use, I suggest
that you refrain from using images to accompany your work.
Gant Powell
-
33
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Hi guys. I've taken the liberty of posting SmartPlanet articles on my
website. I'm enjoying getting the advertising revenue from them!
Don't worry?I linked to your site, so I'm helping you promote
yourself! You're welcome!
Oh, if you'd rather I didn't use your articles, just insert the words
"DON'T STEAL MY ARTICLES," in capital letters, after every
sentence. No problem!
-
34
04/07/10 | Report as spam
I'll always accept a sincere apology
But, man, Dana..... That is really weak.
It's not about agree or disagree.
It's not about your "interpretation" of a law agreed-upon by an
international community.
It's about the BLACK AND WHITE written word of the law. I
understand that you thought you were providing just
compensation; that's all well and good. Apologizing half-
heartedly by hiding behind those platitudes noted above reeks
of insincerity, man.
Look, I can't speak for anyone else, but my reading of the whole
brouhaha is this: it appears that no one likes the behavior you
exhibited. None of the cogent response has been ad hominem.
Anything that does look personal is all about the snarky
responses, man. And it won't discontinue until the
platitudinous and half-hearted admissions become real.
Admit a mistake without the B.S. Goodness, man.....
-
35
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I put nothing "out there".(Period)""" To know me is to hire me or not. SAD. PS: Try to afford a "patent" in the land of the free! Not actually possible. SAD. sorry for yelling.
-
36
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
No, we most emphatically must not ! You have not offered an
apology only some stuffy look-down-your-nose lecture that is
absurd and ignorant in it's content! And it shows you to be a
smug thief with no understanding of the law! And too much
ego to say you were wrong!
Either apologize like a man and admit you have a lot to learn
about copyright law or take the bad publicity you will find
spread over the internet by every self respecting artist.
Oh, by the way. I am an illustrator and my daughter is a well
known writer! She would find your attitude and ignorance as
insulting to the writing community as I find it to the art
community!
-
37
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I put "nothing" out there. (Period!)....I think? SAD. I also, would never afford a patent in the land of the free. SAD. sorry for yelling I'm less than enchanted. Venture capitalists need not apply ... and I won't call you.
-
38
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Y'all may not accept the apology, or the explanations, or my
interpretation of the law, but there it is. On some things we must
agree to disagree."
Are you a lawyer? More specifically, are you an intellectual property lawyer? Or a judge? Or another legal professional? *YOUR* interpretation of the law doesn't matter when you are WRONG. You might be interested in the article 'Copyright Myths Uncovered' here:
http://artsandcraftslaw.com/id7.html
Shannon Okey
author of 12+ major-publisher books, designer, and NOT an intellectual property thief
-
39
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Oh man, you guys. I figured it out. Get ready to laugh. This guy here... he
seems to think ... wait for it... he seems to think that this particular phrase
applies to him: "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright."
Darling, that's if you're reporting ABOUT the piece of artwork in question.
"OOoohhhh," everyone says. Oh, wait, no we already knew that.
And see, just after that it says that you should consider: " the effect of the
use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." So
basically, it says that you're a jerk.
By the way, you're getting a lot of "publicity" on twitter right now. Must feel
good, right?
-
40
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Fair Use
You point to the Fair Use provisions -- did you actually READ them?
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
You used Buzzelli's work for a commercial purpose. This was not for your kid's science fair project background. This website, presumably, exists to make money and compensates you in some way, no?
-
41
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Y'all may not accept the apology, or the explanations, or my
interpretation of the law, but there it is. On some things we must
agree to disagree."
Wow. Are you a child? Your picture makes you look like an adult in his late 40s or early 50s, so it's a little shocking to see your words where you are acting like such a baby.
Why is it that people with utterly bankrupt arguments always trot out the "agree to disagree" chestnut?
Here's the deal. If you want some pretty pictures to put on your article, either make them yourself, hire someone to make them for you, or purchase them from a legitimate stock image archive. It's that simple. If you can't handle that then don't put images in your article. Period.
-
42
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I'd say it's less about your interpretation of the law vs. you know, the rest of us, and more about our correct interpretation of the law vs. the fantasy intellectual property "laws" of your imagination.
-
43
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Judy Riggenbach
I have apologized. I will not link to anything Mr. Buzelli does ever
again, I promise.
But those who leave their doors unlocked and then call the police
when someone takes a book and leaves a note are making more of this
than there is. Especially when the book is returned immediately upon
asking.
In this article I have told you how to prevent anyone from
downloading any image you post on any Web site. I have linked to an
explanation of the law in question and apologized for any offense.
You and your friends just aren't taking sorry for an answer.Reminds
me of an old football saying -- never kick a man when he's down
unless he's already down. And there are four of you.
-
44
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"But those who leave their doors unlocked and then call the
police
when someone takes a book and leaves a note are making
more of this than there is. Especially when the book is returned
immediately upon asking."
I've read this over and over....and still I go, "wha....?"
-
45
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Exactly, Irene. Exactly.
Dana - Your analogies do not change the fact that taking an
image which does not belong to you and which you have no
right to take (much like the book in your analogy) is wrong and
against the law. There is no interpretation of that law that can
make you look better. It is the law. This is what people are at
odds with.
You are breaking the law and making excuses about why you
broke that law. Utter ridiculousness.
You are not sorry for stealing Chris' illustration, you are sorry
someone caught you doing it and is chastising you for it.
Sam Bosma
-
46
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Do you get paid to be a writer? Do you get money for this? Are you really that bad at forming an argument, or are you so full of ignorant rage that it is making you babble like an incoherent ape?
I have absolutely know idea what your metaphor about leaving doors unlocked is supposed to mean. Perhaps try rephrasing it using English grammar.
-
47
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
In my last post "I have absolutely know idea what your metaphor about leaving doors unlocked is supposed to mean" should have read "I have absolutely no idea what your metaphor about leaving doors unlocked is supposed to mean."
-
48
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"I have apologized. I will not link to anything Mr. Buzelli does ever again, I promise."
Once again, I think you are missing the point. Let me summarize (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) Fair Use does not cover random use of images on a professional blog.
2) We are not only upset on behalf of Mr. Buzelli, but all the artists you have stolen from.
3) A true apology would involve:
i) Removing this insulting and condescending travesty of an article.
ii) Committing to purchase your images or use public domain/creative commons images in the future.
-
49
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Please stop comparing valuable works of art to carrots and borrowed books. If they are so insignificant, why do you need them to enhance the value of your article?
-
50
04/07/10 | Report as spam
I still apologize
Artists who leave their work on the Web, in the clear, with no
watermark, easily copied, expect it to be copied. It is copied, by
Google, by other search engines, ad infinitum.
Now, if you expect Google to not do that, you write a robots.txt file
and Google won't do it. If you don't want others to use it, with
credit, you watermark it or copy protect it.
Calling me a thief does not solve your problem. I have told y'all how
to solve your problem. I have apologized, and will change my behavior
in the future.
But frankly your personal insults, the level of invective, speaks to
something else beyond me, and beyond this case. I'd like to hear what
it is.
-
51
04/07/10 | Report as spam
angelaperry
How does removing an article telling artists how to protect their
images help artists protect their images?
-
52
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Seriously
You keep digging that hole.
I'm sorry I will not make this mistake again.
I apologize. Will follow the appropriate protocall in the future.
I was wrong. I had an error in judgement. I apologize.
No and, no but, no if. The end. any of those statements above would have stopped this entire thing dead in its tracks but your blatant rudeness is why the only posts defending you are your own.
-
53
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Oh you caught me robbing you. Drats. Here, have your stuff back. *Sigh* But know that next time, put a padlock on that bag. I can't believe you'd expect someone like me NOT to rob you. You were _asking for it_.
-
54
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Oh my God, Dana, you really DON'T get it. These people are not
leaving their doors unlocked; these laws are there to protect
these images, regardless of whether or not you know about
them, and until you understand that it's not the artist's fault for
not, essentially, obscuring their work with watermark crap, no
one is going to accept your apology. I got a parking ticket last
week--at the bottom of that ticket, it said, in far clearer and
more professional sounding terms than I can explain, even if
you didn't know you couldn't park there, or if you forget about
the ticket or lose it, you still violated the law and have to pay
that ticket. The same general concept applies here. Not
knowing the proper rules doesn't exempt you or anyone else
from them. This whole issue doesn't have all that grey area you
seem to think there is, and that is part of the reason we're all
pissed off.
While it is good and proper and saving your ass legally that you
took down the art after you were asked to, your responses to
the creative community and the laws that are put there to
protect their livelihood are insulting. Saying sorry for
something doesn't work when you're so clearly blaming the
opposite party rather than taking responsibility for something
that people in general, not JUST you, clearly need to be more
informed about in their professions as it is AGAINST THE LAW.
Haven't you noticed that even writers and non-creatives
disagree wholeheartedly with you? Not a single person is
coming to your defense. Shouldn't that tell you something?
-
55
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana, you're the king of analogies. Horrible ones though. If you
were to take your analogy and swap one important word, it reads more
clearly why it does not actually defend your actions.
"Those." Who are you referring to when you say "those"? The proper
word for the analogy in this case, the artist's case, would be
Author. So let's swap the word and re-read your analogy.
But *authors* who leave their doors unlocked and then call the
police
when someone takes a book and leaves a note are making more of this
than there is. Especially when the book is returned immediately upon
asking.
Of course now in the trivial time you've borrowed the book from this
author your managed to read and get your use out of it and now have
no more use of it and have stolen the privelaged knowledge within
the book.
If you're still comfortable with this, then why not allow your
clients, the ones who pay you to write, borrow your articles for
just a moment, let people read them without ever paying you, then
they'll give you back that article. But hey, your name is on it.
-
56
04/07/10 | Report as spam
LockonStratos
Sometimes I make money as a writer. Sometimes I don't. But I still
write, and will continue to write, and will continue to work on the
web whether anyone pays me for it or not.
Because it's what I do. It's what I am. Just as you are.
I have apologized. I have sought to explain the law. I have told you
how to prevent this from happening to you. And I have apologized
again.
You won't write robots.txt. You won't watermark. You won't copy
protect. Yet you expect everyone on the Web to ask your written
permission before using your images, even with credit.
It's not going to work. This is going to happen again and again. What
are you going to do -- organize a posse each time? Be practical.
The tools of protection are in your hands. I suggest you use them.
-
57
04/07/10 | Report as spam
"I'm sorry, but..."
All of your apologies come in the form of "I'm sorry, but..."
You haven't done anything heartfelt. You've done nothing to convince me you really feel like you're in the wrong. I can tell because your idea of a proper follow-up to this incident is to post a ridiculous article like this one. If the artist used all of your suggested tools, he would've thwarted your attempts to rip him off.
All it takes is for you to say "I was in the wrong for using someone else's work without permission. It's against the law and is immoral. No amount of protection on one's images justifies my behavior. The artist is 100% in the right and I am 100% wrong. I will stop implying that the artist was asking for it."
And STOP RIGHT THERE. No add-on crap like giving your Righteous and Esteemed advice about how the artist should've acted differently.
YOU
ARE
WRONG
Stop qualifying and deflecting to your image protection suggestions. THAT is what is rubbing everyone the wrong way.
-
58
04/07/10 | Report as spam
#56
Your explanation of the law is irrelevant, because it is obviously and plainly wrong. Stop deflecting.
-
59
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Blankenhorn
Why do you persist to disrespect the art community? We are a strong and legitimate band of creators! Yet, you and your elitist and socialist and liberal agenda continue to demean and deny that what we create is our intellectual property and if you use it without our consent or consent from those who own the rights to it, you are in violation of the law and we will come down on you like a hammer just as you have seen by the whirlwind of comments that have been unleashed on you due to your pride and ignorance that will not allow you to simply admit you made a mistake and do the right thing next time you want to use someons' artwork. And may I say thank you to the wonderful artists and readers that have explained such logic to this benign idiot.
-
60
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
A message for Dana Blankenhorn from science-fiction writer Harlan Ellison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
-
61
04/07/10 | Report as spam
kgosselinart
I have been writing about Web business models since 1994.
The book analogy was well-meant. In fact, I encourage you to read
anything I've written here, as many times as you like, without my
permission. Read anything about me, from any time in the past,
without my permission.
There's a business model for that. It's called advertising.
There are other business models for books and more valuable content.
But they all have a flaw. Because in demanding payment before giving
over the content, you limit your audience.
You can do that. You can use the tools I've offered here to limit
your audience. Many people do. Rupert Murdoch is doing it right now
in England. He's demanding payment before letting people read his
newspapers.
But you don't seem to want to do that. Why not? Because you'll limit
your audience and reach. You can't have it both ways.
I have apologized. I took the piece down as soon as I was called on
it. And I apologized. And I changed the article in question. And
apologized. And I wrote another article describing how this can be
prevented. And I apologized. Not only to you, but to Mr. Buzelli, to
the editors here, and to the world.
But I won't leave the issue, I won't leave the argument, I won't
leave the field of writing. It's the only art I have.
-
62
04/07/10 | Report as spam
aa1037
You're right. I'm sorry but.
I'm sorry but the Web is the Web. You can either protect your content
from copying and demand payment, or you can let people see it and gain
income that way.
You want it both ways. That's not going to happen.
-
63
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
How does removing an article telling artists how to protect their
images help artists protect their images?
Because we already know these things and how innefective they are; removing watermarks takes very little time and effort and anyone can copy the entire screen. Intrusive watermarks make the art ugly, and copy-protection only stops those who have been using windows for less than a week. That's about it.
Most artists leave their art unmarked since we expect professionals to act professional, and not use our art for commercial purposes without our permission...
Whoooopsiedaisy.
-
64
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Leemyster83
I am part of the art community. It's a small art, I grant you, but
one I have practiced nearly all my life, and will continue to
practice regardless.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand unlimited circulation
for your work and then complain when it's used with credit.
I don't care if you think the law is on your side. It's not practical
and it's not happening.
You can either use the tools I've offered to limit your art's
exposure, or find other business models that work for you. You can
kill my career but you won't change the Web's architecture.
That's the point I'm trying to get through to you. That's the but.
That's what you're not listening to.
-
65
04/07/10 | Report as spam
DanaBlankenhorn
"How does removing an article telling artists how to protect their
images help artists protect their images?"
You are assuming that your advice is helping artists protect their images. Many of the artists who have commented here have explicitly stated that your advice in fact DOES NOT protect images.
What DOES protect images is a socially agreed upon standard of honesty. This standard is formalized as copyright.
The reason you should remove the article is because of such statements as "through trial and error I developed a policy. I would try to use small versions of each image, just big enough to fit the space. I would credit sources. I would name them and link to them..." and "Publicity is good. Art that isn?t seen doesn?t exist. But this week I ran into someone who hadn?t gotten the good word about publicity. He called me a thief..." etc.
You are implicitly undermining an artist's copyright with these statements. You are saying, "copyright doesn't apply if it's small and link to the artist" and "any publicity is good publicity, and the artists should thank me." These implications go in direct opposition to what you are saying is the subject of the article, to help artists preserve their copyright.
If you edit the article to remove your opinions and simply provide instructions on how an artist can add watermarks, then it has merit as instructional. Otherwise, it reads like what it is: an attempt to cover your backside.
-
66
04/07/10 | Report as spam
JRainville
That's interesting. Locks are picked therefore we don't use locks.
We've been robbed so we leave our doors open. We attack all those who
credit our work because others took it without credit.
-
67
04/07/10 | Report as spam
#62
Wow. You miss the point. Again. The Web is not the Web in that it exists outside the law. And your condescending suggestion that folks want it both ways is laughable.
What do people want? For you to admit that you misinterpreted fair use and that the law's protection on the artist's work is sufficient.
Instead, you suggest that it would've never come to this if he protected his work with your cockamamie suggestions above. You know how to get around a right-click disabled site? PrintScreen. I'm convinced you take that image even if there are your Esteemed protections on it.
And you did not do the artist a favor by "letting people see it". That's not your prerogative. It's not your choice. Exposure instead of payment is not a valid argument.
Saying "I apologize" is not the same as admitting you're wrong.
-
68
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I would like to congratulate artist Chris Buzelli for schooling
Mr. Blankenhorn, and congratulate, likewise, the many
familiar names from the art world who have added their
several cents.
It is appalling that Mr. Blankenhorn, by his own claim a
journalist for 25 years, has remained in that time so grossly
ignorant of the nature of the copyright protection that he,
like Chris Buzelli, relies upon to protect his livelihood. It
appears that Blankenhorn has deluded himself into believing
that "fair use" is a right which he may invoke at his
pleasure, rather than a defense which will, in
certain circumstances, permit the infringer---thief, in
simple terms---of a copyrighted work to avoid paying the
penalty for his theft.
It is, however, to some extent unsurprising that Blankenhorn
would be so confused, relying as he does upon materials
from Stanford University. Stanford was, until recently, the
home of one of the most dedicated anti-copyright
"copyright" lawyers in this country---Larry Lessig, who was
an architect of the (unsuccessful) Eldred v. Ashcroft
case which sought to circumscribe the length of the
copyright term; the originator of the proposal that creators
pay $1 a year per work to preserve their copyrights after 50
years had elapsed, and one of the strong proponents of the
concept of "orphan works," which may be properly viewed as
fair use on steroids.
Lessig and his ideological allies have had little success thus
far in getting their proposals enacted into law, but they have
enjoyed immense success at popularizing the false concept
that the public interest is not being served unless "the
public"---i.e., the casual thief too cheap to license use of a
work---is permitted to enjoy free use of the product of
other people's creativity. They have spent much energy to
blur the important distinction between unprotectable ideas,
and the protectable expression of ideas---and to
foster in the public mind the notion that protecting one's
personal expression (e.g., in the form of an image)
is the same as fencing off an idea.
Blankenhorn needs desperately to educate himself in this
area---and artists need to remember that unless they
register their works with the Copyright Office prior to
infringement, they have no effective remedy against
casual thievery.
-
69
04/07/10 | Report as spam
angelaperry
I'm not covering my backside here. My backside is exposed and well-
paddled.
I'm covering the Web's backside. And I will continue to do so.
-
70
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Yet you expect everyone on the Web to ask your written permission before using your images, even with credit."
Yes, that is exactly what we expect. Just as my nieghbour expects that, if he happens to leave his door unlocked, I won't walk off his TV set.
(If I were to, by the way, I don't think the police would accept "they left their door unlocked!" as an excuse.)
-
71
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Daniel Abraham
Finally, a decent response. Thank you.
You don't like Larry Lessig. Fine. You think he's a bad lawyer whose
interpretation of the law should not be used. Fine.
But that does not change the Web. The Web offers you tools to protect
your work. Like robots.txt. Google won't index you page if you just
write a robots.txt file taking it out of the index. It won't index
your images if you write one excluding those images form the index.
Once Google gets your image, and indexes it, then it's available. You
can watermark is and copy protect it. Doing either one will keep me
from using it -- I guarantee.
Going after me does you no good. You have to break the web.
Try.
-
72
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Scott Chantler
I have given you the tools of protection. I have promised not to use
the work in question again.
But I believe fair use protects me legally. If the Supreme Court rules
otherwise, that may change. We'll see.
On the other hand, I might paraphrase Andrew Jackson and ask, "how many
servers have they got?"
-
73
04/07/10 | Report as spam
And Further...
"You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand unlimited circulation
for your work and then complain when it's used with credit"
No one here is demanding unlimited circulation for their work. Are they? Anyone? Raise your hand if you want unlimited circulation at the expense of your professional status.
"I don't care if you think the law is on your side. It's not practical and it's not happening."
We don't think so, we know so. And if we aren't going to fight for our rights, who is? Saying it's impractical to expect people to be honest on the Internet reflect poorly on your own personal views, not mine.
-
74
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
hey, I've stolen mp3s too, I'm not saying I'm a saint. But I'll
never say it's not wrong. Just because you're willing to write for
free doesn't mean others have to. And suggesting the merit in doing
bro-bono work as validation to taking another person's copyrighted
material is irrelevant. There's a lot you're saying that has worth,
but it's all irrelevant to why people are upset. People are upset
because you're not simply stating, yes you stole. Thank you very
much Dana for "teaching" me how to protect my images. And we're all
aware what google does. We're also aware that google states on it's
site that "Image may be subject to copyright." This means you as a
searcher need to be aware of the risk of breaking the law. All this
does not change whether or not what you did is right or wrong.
It's OK Dana. Tomorrow is another day. Take a deep breath and
learn from this. It will get better.
-
75
04/07/10 | Report as spam
#66
Please quit using that analogy. For your own sake.
Picking locks takes plenty of time and practice to perfect. It's incredibly risky to be seen skulking around in front of a house, let alone try to pick the lock. Locking the doors is therefore an economical way of preventing entry.
Pressing Print Screen takes 1 second, zero effort, and no risk.
You credited the artist, more than most would do. You still did not ask him if credit was enough compensation for the usage of his art.
-
76
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"But I believe fair use protects me legally."
I'd like to know why you think that.
-
77
04/07/10 | Report as spam
aa1037
The Web exists outside the law? Really? Really.
OK. I'll take you on for the Web then. I'll take you on for the Web
until the last breath leaves my body.
You want the Web banned because it doesn't suit you. Really.
And I was just about to give up on this argument.
-
78
04/07/10 | Report as spam
lolcopter.
Sounds like someone snoozed and boozed through college.
Honestly, didn't they teach you old timers anything?
Common sense. Do you speak it?
-
79
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"We attack all those who credit our work because others took it without credit."
Nope, we attack ALL people who take without asking because they took it. Credit or not.
"I'm covering the Web's backside. And I will continue to do so."
Well, gee, I hope the Web thanks you. Because it looks to me like the more you stand on your soapbox and preach the evils of defending copyright to the copyright holders, the more it hurts your credibility. Which hurts your career.
You say writing is all that matters to you. I disagree. I think being right is all that matters to you. Because otherwise, you would not be willing to sacrifice you career on the alter of defending Internet thievery.
-
80
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Um...
"But those who leave their doors unlocked and then call the
police
when someone takes a book and leaves a note are making
more of this
than there is. Especially when the book is returned immediately
upon
asking. "
I've been watching this show on truTV called Bait Car. It's when
the police put out a car that belongs to them and wait for a
criminal to steal it. Well, when the criminal is caught, they give
the car back to the police. But, here's the kicker...THEY STILL
GET ARRESTED AND GO TO JAIL BECAUSE WHAT THEY DID IS
ILLEGAL!!!
Does this sound familiar? It's analogous something, but I can't
quite put my finger on it...hmmm. Oh, that's right, it's you with
the artwork.
How about you say you're sorry like your mother taught you
and drop it.
-
81
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Blankenhorn, #71: It's not a matter of "not liking" Larry
Lessig. He's a pleasant guy, and a very clever one. He just
has an ideology which is completely at odds with his chosen
field.
Lessig has dedicated his life to killing the goose that lays the
golden eggs. It's understandable, perhaps---in the ruck of
academia, it's always easier to make a name for yourself if
you are a contrarian, and of course the prevalent Marxism of
academia ensures that if you are against protecting private
property you will be lionized.
That you have chosen to follow Lessig's tutelage on
copyright matters is unfortunate, as it renders you an
ideologue who is ignoring his own self-interest. That you
do not recognize Lessig's views as slanted, and as
historically at odds with copyright protection as it has been
historically viewed in this country, renders the quality of
your journalism suspect.
More to the point, however, as you have been told many
times in this thread by many of the artists participating, the
existence of electronic means to deter thieves such as
yourself is beside the point. It is illegal to steal a car
whether or not the owner has put a club on the steering
wheel; by the same token, copyright law renders it illegal for
you to steal someone's image whether or not they use the
"club" of a watermark.
-
82
04/07/10 | Report as spam
angelaperry
Both of us have our principles. You believe yours are right. I believe
mine are right.
I have devoted 25 years to covering the online world, and I have
learned a lot in that time. This is also a lesson.
I disagree with you, and will continue to defend the Web as it is. But
I thank you for taking the time on this thread, and I apologize for any
offense.
-
83
04/07/10 | Report as spam
harmonillustration
I got busted fast in this case. I removed the offending object. I
apologized. If you were a cop I'd be in the dock. And we would see what
would happen then.
I have sought to explain and defend the technology of the Web in this
thread. I will continue to do so.
-
84
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
BTW, Blankenhorn: You say you've been a journalist for 25
years. It may interest you to know that since 1978---
that's 32 years, or seven years longer than you've
been scrivening---all work is covered by copyright as
soon as it is fixed in tangible form.
True, that copyright is unenforceable until the
work has been registered with the Copyright Office, but it is
covered by copyright nonetheless.
I'd be interested to know how you've managed to go a
quarter of a century without acquainting yourself with the
fundamental tenets of the law under which you ply your
trade.
-
85
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Once Google gets your image, and indexes it, then it's available. You can watermark is and copy protect it. Doing either one will keep me
from using it -- I guarantee."
You seem to be arguing that putting your images on the Web at all is tantamount to releasing them to the public domain. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The simple, legal fact that you seem to be missing is that the permission for rights of usage lies entirely with the copyright holder. If I post images online, I'm fine with the idea of Google indexing them, so that people can find my website. THAT is valuable publicity, and I'VE made the choice to do so.
For you to find said image on Google and post it to your website--with or without credit--has bypassed the artist's right to make that choice for themselves. You may think of Google as a flea market of public domain images, but fortunately the law disagrees with you. All still retain our rights, whether our work appears in your Google search or not. That is the law, sir, and is not in any way subject to your interpretation.
-
86
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Daniel Abraham
Again, thanks for your input. But West Coast Law trumps East Coast Law.
That is, the technology of the Web must change for you to get what you
want. And I don't think that's going to happen.
If it did, I also do not think artists would benefit.
-
87
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
That may be one of the worst attempts at an apology I've ever read.
Dana, you don't understand "fair use."
You don't understand copyright law.
Telling people how to protect their images does nothing to mitigate the fact that you stole an image for commercial benefit.
If my publication, the Chicago Tribune (one you occasionally freelanced for), started copying your work from the web and publishing it in full and then telling you "hey, don't you appreciate the publicity?", you would rightly send us a letter from your lawyer demanding appropriate compensation.
Just because the web has made it easy to steal doesn't mean it's in any way ethical to steal.
You write:
"But frankly your personal insults, the level of invective, speaks to something else beyond me, and beyond this case. I'd like to hear what it is."
It is this -- illustrators and photographers have seen their work stolen for years on the web. It's rare that you see someone brazen enough to pat an illustrator on the head and say "here's how you can stop people like me in the future" while fundamentally misunderstanding copyright and fair use.
The level of invective is because someone whose livelihood comes from publishing should know better.
We don't agree to disagree. When you're wrong, admit it and don't add caveats.
Steve Cavendish
Presentation Editor
Chicago Tribune
-
88
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Scott Chantler #85
The use of watermarking would protect you from me, and all who like
me try to work in an ethical manner.
The tools described here give you full power over how your images are
used, and demonstrate your legal right to them without questions
being asked, without human intervention.
That's a real important point. Because human intervention is what
both of us are talking about. And this Web of ours is designed to run
without human intervention -- has been ever since Yahoo became a
search engine.
What we need t4o do, all of us, is find a way to take humans out of
the equation. These tools I've described do that.
Your point on human intervention is well-taken, and it's something I
need you to understand. We need to be able to do our work on the Web
without having to rely on human intervention beforehand. Because the
Web is asynchronous. We're not talking to one another. We're talking
at one another, writing messages in our own time.
-
89
04/07/10 | Report as spam
scavendish
Thanks for the reminder of some good times.
I never used the work in full. I dumbed it down to 200 pixels, and
credited it. That's not using the work in full. The full work is much,
much larger.
-
90
04/07/10 | Report as spam
#83
The real fact is we shouldn't need to encode, padlock, and bury
everything we own, whether it's our art, our books in our
house, or our cars. We should be able to leave the keys in our
cars, and the books in our house and expect them to remain
there unharmed. We should be a civil society whether we're at
the grocery store or some anonymous person in an internet
forum.
The nature of the "FREE" internet is not permission to disregard
our civility and start plundering from one another. To quote
Uncle Ben from Spiderman: "Just because you can beat him up
doesn't give you the right to."
Just because you CAN steal something from the internet, that
doesn't give you the RIGHT to.
As far as I know it is illegal to download music from things like
Limewire or Torrents or whatever that nonsense is. Just because
the technology exists, doesn't make it right or legal.
Go ahead and defend the precious technology of thievery. Just
remember,
"Eat crap. 10 billion flies can't be wrong."
-
91
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Blankenhorn, @ #86:
Again, thanks for your input. But West Coast Law trumps
East Coast Law.
That is, the technology of the Web must change for you to
get what you
want. And I don't think that's going to happen.
If it did, I also do not think artists would
benefit.
Unlike yourself, I am not a mere scrivener. I am a copyright
lawyer. And I will tell you, first, that there is no such thing
as "West Coast" versus "East Coast" law in this matter;
copyright is a federal statute.
Second, "the technology of the Web" is not an issue; what is
at issue is whether you have the right to use someone's
work without a license from them, or not. And you don't.
Period. That license may be given gratis, or you may have
to pay for it---but without it, you are an infringer. A thief.
If you wish to invoke fair use, you may---but what you are
saying, whether or not you realize it, is, "Yes, I am a
thief, but please please please do not hold me liable
for stealing."
-
92
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Thanks for the reminder of some good times.
I never used the work in full. I dumbed it down to 200 pixels, and
credited it. That's not using the work in full. The full work is much,
much larger."
So is reprinting your article in a much smaller font not considered plagiarism "in full"?
-
93
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Mr T
Mr Blankenhorn, you should write an article on how to dig yourself into a deeper hole, as you seem to be brilliant at it. XD
-
94
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
None of these "tools" protect content.
Watermarking makes an image less desirable for use, however, it's
not uncommon for people to remove them by cropping or manipulating
the image.
You're an idiot for thinking you're providing anything other than a
disservice to artists by posting this drivel. Do your research.
Every single thing you're suggesting is circumventable and makes it
glaringly obvious how little thinking you put into "Thinking Tech".
You used someone's work without permission. You were wrong to do it,
and wrong to post this. Suck it up and properly apologize instead of
being such an *******.
-
95
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Just because you see something you like doesn't mean you can take it. This is starting to feel like arguing with a child about "finders keepers"
-
96
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Daniel Abraham
Actually Mr. Cavendish of the Tribune reminded me of a very important
point.
I didn't steal the whole thing. I took what was on the Web, I
displayed it as a 200 pixel wide thumbnail.
If I took an entire song or an entire article, courts say I've taken
the whole work. But how is it possible if I use a 200 pixel
thumbnail? Is art so different from music that a thumbnail is the
whole work? Is a 20 second excerpt of a song the whole song?
I don't think so. Just as taking a paragraph or two of this article
and quoting it with credit isn't theft of the article, so a thumbnail
of a larger piece of art is also publicity.
Under the law.
You obviously disagree. But I have case law that I believe is on
point http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?
msg_id=001wYa&unified_p=1
If the Google can do it http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-1023629.html
then why can't I, especially as I'm offering publicity rights freely,
and if I could have found a copy of the piece i question available
for sale I would have gladly linked to it?
-
97
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
You didn't take a small corner of the image. You used the ENTIRE image. That's not the same as an excerpt. See #92.
-
98
04/07/10 | Report as spam
j2010 -- thumbnails are protected
Every thumbnail on Google is a reduced-size version of an entire image.
The thumbnail I found on Google was not much smaller than what I
eventually used. And while Google "stole" it with just a link, I
acknowledged the artist and tried to credit him.
-
99
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"I disagree with you, and will continue to defend the Web as it is. But I thank you for taking the time on this thread, and I apologize for any offense."
I completely sympathize with how hard it is for an intelligent person to back down when they've said something truly foolish. I recently did that on another forum. It took me a couple days to get past my ego and apologize. Maybe you just need some space and time to think.
The same issues arose in the real world in every colonization effort--without someone looking over their shoulders, colonists would often take without asking, possession was 9/10ths of the law, and might meant right. As we colonize the digital frontier, thieves will abound, I think we both agree. That's why posses were (and are here) being formed.
I consider time on this thread well spent.
-
100
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"The thumbnail I found on Google was not much smaller than what I
eventually used. And while Google "stole" it with just a link, I
acknowledged the artist and tried to credit him."
Context is everything. Google displays images in a neutral context. You appended his illustration to your writing to illustrate your point of view, on a commercial website.
-
101
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Cavendish and Abraham:
Excellent. If he can't understand you guys, it's because he refuses
to. >>>He is consistent in his delusion.
Thanks very much.
js
-
102
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Blankenhorn@ #96:
If I took an entire song or an entire article, courts say I've
taken
the whole work. But how is it possible if I use a 200 pixel
thumbnail? Is art so different from music that a thumbnail is
the
whole work? Is a 20 second excerpt of a song the whole
song?
I don't think so. Just as taking a paragraph or two of this
article
and quoting it with credit isn't theft of the article, so a
thumbnail
of a larger piece of art is also publicity.
First, the link you posted does not work.
Second, theft of a portion is also actionable; it may not carry
the same penalty as theft of the whole---that is for a court to
decide. But it is still actionable; and you are still
admitting theft by pleading "partial theft" as a supposedly
mitigating circumstance.
Third, presuming that your dead link refers to one of the
cases which permits search engines to function by
reproducing thumbnails, you are not a search
engine, but someone using the work as it was
intended to be used (to illustrate an article), and for profit
(your own), which takes your usage entirely out of any claim
to "fair use." I will note that you seem also to think that
degrading the quality of the image somehow acts to mitigate
your use, whereas in your case---not being a search engine
but a user of illustration---what you have done is in fact
deface and devalue the image.
Even if you had the right to decide what is appropriate
"publicity" of another's work---you don't---your serving up
a degraded version of the image destroys any alleged
value of such "publicity," much as someone
reproducing one of your articles, crediting you, but filled with
misspellings, typos and a nice dollop of profanity would
hardly be considered useful "publicity" by you.
-
103
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Seriously, stop digging the hole.
Your analogs are only valid if you believe everyone in the world is acting like you are. You know the video warning, we would not steal a car, handbag, etc but you? By you words it seems we are clearly in different teams on those concepts.
Even if you disagree with the current legislation it does not make you right. I am sure many a criminal in jail disagrees with the legislation but are they therefore innocent? Well I say no (some may be but that is different issue), but once more I really am thinking we are on opposite teams on this one too.
It sure stings to be slapped silly about things you seem to think are 'locks' but those are so old school that my niece can circumvent them without a moments thought. Most of those tricks are just that also, tricks that may deter the granny from copying a nice image for her desktop. And why would authors need to protect themselves and pay extra costs for protection which has been available to them for years? It must be depressing to live in a world where the wictim of crime is always wrong. Once more seems we are on different teams.
History itself has proven that thief can get what he wants if he is willing to break the social contract and the laws of the society but there lies the gist of the issue. We object to your breaking the contract and the law, eitehr wilfully or out of ignorance. Ignorance is easily forgiven but so far it does not actually seem that you were totally ignorant, merely following your own laws, laws that have this nice little leeway.
You seem to act like some Mafia Boss, 'it dropped from a car, i did not steal it, therefore I am innocent.'
-
104
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I'm less concerned with eliminating the need for human interation from your precious Internet as I am with simply not being ripped off.
You're lucky Chris Buzelli is a nicer guy than I am...I would have had my lawyer so far up your ass by now that he would have been able to tell me what you ate for breakfast. Just to make an example of you.
Though, clearly, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
-
105
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
DANA >>> YOU are the one who has to perform 'due diligence' -
or suffer the consequences. Which is, UH exactly why you
removed it!
-
106
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"If the Google can do it http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-1023629.html
then why can't I, especially as I'm offering publicity rights freely,
and if I could have found a copy of the piece i question available
for sale I would have gladly linked to it?"
Don't go down that road. You aren't Google. This very case is addressed in your link:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#2
Mitigating factors were that Google is using the image for a different reason than the artist created it for. The artist created it for "entertainment, aesthetics, or information" purposes, and Google was using it merely as a link to the artist.
You are not just using it as a link to the artist. You are using it as an artistic illustration for your own work, which falls under the artist's copyrighted use.
Nice try, though.
-
107
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Closing the open bold tag. (Yes, I have OCD. It's bugging me.)
-
108
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I note that Blankenhorn has not yet addressed how he has
managed to work for a quarter of a century in a field
governed by copyright without having apparently bothered to
acquaint himself with the basic tenets and strictures of
copyright law---despite the fact that the current law had
already been in effect for seven years at the time he
supposedly embarked upon his profession.
-
109
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I'd like to chime in with a dissenting view: Dana is not evil, although I agree that to a certain extent we should all chip in and get him a "Fair Use: You are doing it wrong." T-Shirt).
Here's the problem: Copyright hasn't caught up with the way the Internet works. In the paper world, publishers are few and one uses your image, any credit I give you (without compensation) is a feeble thing. The chances of anyone else seeking you out to pay you for your work are miniscule. On the Internet, publishers are many and the exposure (with a link) is more valuable to the artist than any reasonable amount of money the publisher could be expected to provide.
Ethically (and ideally) everyone should be compensated for a cut of the article's profits (including me for this comment, why not?). Practically and economically that won't happen unless someone figures out how to make micropayments work.
The key thing that artists' defenders need to understand is that Dana didn't face an ethical dilemma between paying this artist or not. He most likely had a three way choice: Include this image without compensation but attribution, include any thousands of free images or include no image at all. From the artist's perspective, the first choice is vastly superior. In the linkonomy of the web, attribution with linking is compensation because it can draw a thousand eyes to your name and body of work which can lead to real compensation.
In your rush to crack down on incidental use, some of you seem to be arguing that you'd rather artists were both poor and unknown.
-
110
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Let's wrap this up
Alrighty kids, I think we're beating a dead horse here. He clearly
doesn't care about any of us, what we do for a living, or humanity
and civility in general.
We're wasting precious drawing and watermark making time here.
-
111
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
At the risk of being flamed, I'd like to chime in with a dissenting view: Dana is not evil, although I agree that to a certain extent we should all chip in and get him a "Fair Use: You are doing it wrong." T-Shirt.
Here's the problem: Copyright hasn't caught up with the way the Internet works. In the paper world, publishers are few and if one uses your image, any credit it gives you (without compensation) is a feeble thing. The chances of anyone else seeking you out to pay you for your work are minuscule. On the Internet, publishers are many and the exposure (with a link) is more valuable to the artist than any reasonable amount of money the publisher could be expected to provide.
Ethically (and ideally) every contributor should be compensated for a cut of the article's profits (including me for this comment, why not?). Practically and economically that won't happen unless someone figures out how to make micro-payments work.
The key thing that artists' defenders need to understand is that Dana didn't face an ethical dilemma between paying this artist or not. He most likely had a three way choice: Include this image without compensation but attribution, include any thousands of free images or include no image at all. From the artist's perspective, the first choice is vastly superior. In the link-onomy of the web, attribution with linking is compensation because it can draw a thousand eyes to your name and body of work which can lead to real compensation.
So, please, in your rush to crack down on incidental use of an artist's work, don't be in such a hurry to make the artist both poor and unknown.
-
112
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
srjones, let me be the first of what's sure to be many to tell you that all of that is well and good, but the decision whether or not to avail himself of such free "publicity" is the artist's, and no one else's.
-
113
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
srjones@ #109:
The key thing that artists' defenders need to understand is that
Dana didn't face an ethical dilemma between paying this artist
or not. He most likely had a three way choice: Include this
image without compensation but attribution, include any
thousands of free images or include no image at all. From the
artist's perspective, the first choice is vastly superior. In the
linkonomy of the web, attribution with linking is compensation
because it can draw a thousand eyes to your name and body of
work which can lead to real compensation.
In your rush to crack down on incidental use, some of you
seem to be arguing that you'd rather artists were both poor and
unknown.
No. Wrong.
You are looking at this almost the way Blankenhorn is; as if
you, in your bounty, are giving a gift to the artist. Screw that.
What you do not realize is that the artist has his own images,
his own promotion, his own life. Blankenhorn wanted
something this artist had, and stole it. This was not a gift, no
matter how you slice it.
Blankenhorn had to write his article; that took time. He could
have used some of that time to contact the artist and ask to
license the image. In his arrogance, he did not do that; instead,
he stole it and expected to be thanked for the supposed
"publicity" of his admittedly degraded version of the original,
used without permission.
Who could fail to be grateful for such high-handed theft? Why,
anyone who relies on their own creativity to make a living.
You compound this misperception of the situation.
Blankenhorn did not face an "ethical dilemma"; he faced a
legal choice between outright theft and
licensing what he wanted to use. He consciously
chose the former, wrapped in ignorance of the law, self-
justification, and arrogance.
The Web may have speeded up publication, in some ways, but
it has not erased the distinction between acquiring the legally
necessary permission to use and the failure to acquire such
permission. Artists have always had to deal with people who
would persuade them to give up their work in exchange for
nothing---and any working artist knows that the promise of
"publicity" is nothing.
-
114
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"In the linkonomy of the web, attribution with linking is compensation because it can draw a thousand eyes to your name and body of work which can lead to real compensation."
Actually, SRJones, the opposite is true. Many more people read say, Time or Newsweek or the New Yorker than will ever see this man's blog amongst thousands of blogs. Furthermore, the RIGHT eyeballs will see those magazines, as these are eyeballs who may have an interest in art: buying art, commissioning art, etc. The fact that it is published in a major magazine means to the viewer that the artist is one of the top people in his field, hired by the top people in the field. CONTEXT.
I will grant that if say, an arts blog wrote an article about Buzelli's work and published the piece, that would be different. This, however, was a blog post about health care.
His disrespect for art is apparent even in the way he displays it (as a thumbnail), not to mention that not many people looking to "publicize" their art will do it on a blog about health care at 200 pixels.
When you talk about exposure leading to REAL compensation, that REAL compensation is - you guessed it - being commissioned by REAL magazines. You have it all backwards.
-
115
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I would just like to point out this website:
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
There is a section titled Copyrights and the Internet. Directly under
that title, you can find the subheading "Public Domain - Not!" I
believe that is clear enough.
-
116
04/07/10 | Report as spam
DanaBlankenhorn
"But I believe fair use protects me legally"
If that's the case, then I beg you to put back the original image that you took down, and see how it plays out. I'm pretty sure that your currently broken understanding of fair use and copyright will be vastly improved by the resulting legal action.
You seem to be under the impression that because the internet makes it easy for you to steal, that somehow you're not really stealing. Of course, you are stealing, and you know that you're stealing, otherwise you would have never taken down the image.
Perhaps it's worth going through the backcatalog of your articles here and filing DMCA takedown notices for other material you've lifted.
-
117
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Perhaps it's worth going through the backcatalog of your articles here and filing DMCA takedown notices for other material you've lifted"
Haha... Dana you should totally do that.
-
118
04/07/10 | Report as spam
DanaBlankenhorn
Also, I've borrowed the photo of your wife from your recent article on preventing strokes in order to illustrate an article I'm writing on the joys of sex after 50. I'm pretty sure that you'll be ok with that, since it's perfectly aligned with your interpretation of fair use and copyright, and I'm doing you a favor by crediting you as the photographer and linking back to your blog. Also, if you didn't want me to use your photograph in that way, you would have but a big watermark on it and tried to stop me from right clicking to save it. Thanks!
-
119
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
srjones - all you've said is a much more friendly version of "I've given you exposure, so be grateful for it." And no, being on the internet is no excuse - we are still governed by the copyright law of the United States, and ignorance or laziness where it is concerned will never work as a defense. The law is the law. It was broken, and there is no gray area about it, even on the web.
-
120
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Ethics and Respect?
Even if you were to accept the legal argument that you are
making, we are left with the question of whether or not people
SHOULD take things whenever they want without permission. The
"apology" feels like not much more than a defense, and doesn't
quite make up for the disappointing response.
Thomas James
Escape From Illustration Island
-
121
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Thanks once again
Before setting off, I want to thank all those who posted on this
thread, no matter what your feelings toward me. I'd rather you get
angry than have an aneurysm.
You have given me a lot to think about, and while my arguments today
were poor (and off the top of my head) I think there are important
points at issue.
-
122
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Wow. I don't even know where to start on this one. I can't
believe that someone who claims to be a journalist would think
it's alright to steal someone else's intellectual property. If the
tables where turned and I took your words and used them
however I wanted, you would not think it was alright. I even
suspect you might be angry.
If you follow the logic your "selling" Dana, it would be highly
likely that you will find yourself out of work. The sites that use
your articles can just wait till they find an article they like and
copy and paste it onto their site, thus not needing you. Better
yet, they can wait till you post somewhere else, and just copy
your article and still not pay you.
Andy McNally
artist/children's illustrator
-
123
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I like to walk around my neighborhood and check the locks on the doors of houses and cars nearby. If one is open, I go in and take what I want. When the owners ask why, I say, "If you didn't want me to rob you, you should have locked your door." Works every time.
This is not a facetious analogy. Not locking your door does not negate your ownership. The fact that it is in your house or in your car already establishes that you own it. This is also how copyright works. If I create an article or an illustration, the copyright is mine automatically, whether I write a (c) on it or not. Your equivocating about your intent and your view of the law does not make the reality of your actions any different, or cause the truth to crumble. As a creator of intellectual property yourself, one would assume you'd be more sensitive to this. But then again, you put "stealing bandwidth" in quotes, as if hotlinking to images does not drive up someone's service costs, so you clearly can't wrap your head around concepts that don't come with a physical object attached.
Be a man, take responsibility, and apologize without justifying or suggesting the person you stole from is still somehow in the wrong.
-
124
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
DanaBlankenhorn
04/07/10
I apologize, again
Y'all may not accept the apology, or the explanations, or my
interpretation of the law, but there it is. On some things we must
agree to disagree.
--------
Despite your "apology" being trite and rude, I can accept it.
Despite your "explanations" being shallow, greedy, ignorant and lazy, I can accept it.
On those things, yes. We can agree to disagree.
The reason I don't accept your "interpretation of the law" is because it's illegal.
-
125
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
How about just not using random images you've found in a search, and actually using stuff from Creative Commons or stock image suppliers?
Any idiot can loot the web site of a brilliant artist for images. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Try taking some responsibility for your actions, instead of treating the Internet as your own private eye candy store.
-
126
04/07/10 | Report as spam
I love you guys
I just want to take a moment to thank this HUGE
illustrator/artist/designer family. You all are AWESOME!
I love how tight knit this community is. What other profession has
this kind of camaraderie? Firefighters maybe.
That's all. Just wanted to give a shout out to all my artist brothers
and sisters. You're the best.
-
127
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Mr. Blankenhorn, I have people ask to use my illustrations in exchange
for publicity and promotion. My response is "I don't need the
publicity. I do pretty good a it myself. You found me, didn't you?"
Artists have it tough enough as it is without someone like yourself
trying to justify breaking federal laws. We have become a society that
believes it is easier to ask for for forgiveness than to ask for
permission.
For future reference LLRX has a good article on debunking copyright
myths for bloggers. You should read up.
http://www.llrx.com/features/bloggersbeware.htm
Billy Tackett
-
128
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
You have developed a POLICY?
No one gives a warm crap about your policies, just stick to the laws buddy.
Randis
HD-Fortress.com
-
129
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"I didn't steal the whole thing." ~ Dana Blankenhorn
-
130
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
speaking of which... I'm having an issue with someone copying written
information that I publish daily. Anything easy to prevent someone
from ripping off the written word, too?
-
131
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana,
You don?t mind if I use your Photo for some articles about Art theft , do you? It is ok, because you have no watermark on it! I will of course link it to your article so people can see what you did.
No need to thank me!
Cheers
Randis
HD-Fortress.com
-
132
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"(On a one-button Mac it?s even easier.)"
This line has me so confused.
By writing this article and sticking to your previous comments regarding it somehow being the burden of the artist and more reproachably insinuating that it was somehow the artist's mistake here you've shown yourself to not only be unqualified on the subject but also persistent in the most ignorant of ways.
Don't write articles on things you have no qualifications and no knowledge of. That's not meant to be hurtful, but a bit of common sense should have told you to quit while you were behind.
Read up on the subject, you really should know these things as a journalist / blogger.
-
133
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Even your quotes are crap
You quoted the illustrator as having said "how do I protect my stuff?", but nowhere in the original blog post comments was that asked.
You're still a tool.
-
134
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Randis, that actually would qualify as fair use, as you would be using his photo to educate on art theft and what it does to your reputation/career, and not using it to illustrate a highly controversial article that has nothing to do with the artist in question.
Props to the community, by the way, for not using this as an opportunity to attack Dana's position. It was purely about his theft, and the disgusting and insulting response he has given so far.
-
135
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Disclaimer
I do not have anything to do with Dana Blankenhorn and I do not
want him to cover my backside.
This man clearly does not understand me and cannot be given any
credibility when writing about me and the technologies behind me.
-
136
04/07/10 | Report as spam
You really are missing the point
Google and all those other internet wonders that copy our images into the data base are not making money from the use of the images. We want them and give them permission by posting online to save and use our images in their search engines so people can find us to buy our work. That is not in any way shape or form allowing someone who is making money off the use of those images to use them with out permission or compensation. You are confusing what you are doing (using an image to help make money) and what Google and the internet does, supply a way to get our work out there. Just because you offer free publicity is not the same. His job is to make illustrations for articles just like yours. That means that is what he gets paid to do...if the person uses his work pays him and doesn't steal it. All of your analogies are still stealing. If you find a wallet on the street and do not return it, it's stealing. If you use someone's artwork and you make a profit from the use that is stealing and they have the right to sue you for any and all profit made. You are not Google. Just apologize, sincerely, no buts, ifs,etc. No further stealing of artwork, even if you still don't think it's stealing.
-
137
04/07/10 | Report as spam
when it comes down to it...
Mr Dana, you have hit a nerve in the art community. Please realize that it isn't the original act of stealing the work that infuriates people as much as your "interpretation" of the law. Law isn't, for the most part meant to be interpreted, but followed.
I think it is great that you like illustration and feel that it adds to your work. In fact I hope you keep using it. But I also hope that you take into account what these artists have said about doing the right thing and abiding by the law.
This large thread is in part do to a growing problem that artists are facing and your attitude about the situation only infuriates more artists. Let's all help each other instead of separating ourselves into groups that are right and wrong.
-
138
04/07/10 | Report as spam
DANA, IF YOU ARE CORRECT - -
- - and you are SO confident of that, then why did you remove
it?
? Am sure you have another flaccid response, like that false
apology.
? Why do you "apologize" for something you aren't sorry for?
? And then you kindly and condescendingly construct a
copyright protection method?
OH, it gets better and better. Dana hubris has no limits.
? I enjoyed seeing all the people - all your friends, your fans
your family, your supporters, your coworkers - everyone who
rushed to your defense. Good work Dana. Really. I mean it.
? Go ahead, steal some more: the next guy may not be so
forgiving.
-
139
04/07/10 | Report as spam
when it comes down to it...
Mr Dana, you have hit a nerve in the art community. Please realize that it isn't the original act of stealing the work that infuriates people as much as your "interpretation" of the law. Law isn't, for the most part meant to be interpreted, but followed.
I think it is great that you like illustration and feel that it adds to your work. In fact I hope you keep using it. But I also hope that you take into account what these artists have said about doing the right thing and abiding by the law.
This large thread is in part do to a growing problem that artists are facing and your attitude about the situation only infuriates more artists(many of whom are also writers). Let's all help each other instead of separating ourselves into groups that are right and wrong. Why not be kind to your fellow creatives and do the right thing, not the easy thing.
-
140
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Not to mention...
to go with the bait car analogy, I know we have all seen to catch a predator. They don't actually get to rape the young children, but they still go to jail.
-
141
04/07/10 | Report as spam
WOW
the intensity of idiocy that dana says here is staggering.
it is illegal to use something that isn't your without expressed permission. end of story. no analogies, no metaphors. it is illegal, and what you did was theft, that by all accounts you should have been sued for (which is how we artists enforce our copyrights- not with just silly removable watermarks. you'd have been better off linking us to lawyers than how-to ing us on preventing right clicks.)
essentially the problem here is that you have been shown mercy by an artist who could have taken you to court. and instead of a frank "im sorry and i was wrong" apology, you have been giving these backhanded lectures about 'your interpretation of the law' and adding in quips- every time you say the word apologize in your responses it is accompanied by "but" in the same sentence, followed by a lengthy metaphor for why your kids should get to steal carrots or some other stupid ****. and after doing that you enforce the idea that you apologized. you didn't. you made excuses. saying "im sorry you feel that way" or "im sorry but" is not the same as saying you are sorry. editors, writers, artists, and even a friggen copyright lawyer have told you YOU ARE WRONG. KNOCK IT OFF. you should enforce the laws and for those who DONT there is no shortage of lawyers willing to take an easy copyright case- talk about easy money when you or people like you come into a federal court and spout on about their "policies".
until you purchase an island and name it 'dana-land' your policies dont mean jack ****.
~artist/illustrator, (of whom all his work is protected by copyright)
David Wentworth
-
142
04/07/10 | Report as spam
I don't know about anyone else, but
I am sending an email to CBS asking them to please educate their affiliates, reporters, and anyone else involved with their company about copyright infringement. Maybe their lawyers can get it through to this guy that there is nothing he needs to get through to us.
-
143
04/07/10 | Report as spam
For anyone else
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php
-
144
04/08/10 | Report as spam
The great unobservant public
Yes, what Mr. Blankenhorn did was wrong, that has been well-established. Yes, Mr. Blankenhorn was ignorant to the accepted business practices of commercial illustration as it exists today in Amercia (at least). Yes, this ignorance and perceived lack of tact in the matter continues to infuriate the commercial illustration community. This community has wasted no time in stating the terms and conditions of the accepted business practices in an attempt to educate Mr. Blankenhorn. And yes, Mr. Blankenhorn is lucky that the proper legal action for such a trespass was graciously not taken against him.
However, Mr. Blankenhorn is right about one thing:
This will happen again.
Mr. Blankenhorn may not know anything about how illustration is supposed to properly change hands, but he is not an ignorant man. He is exactly the type of professional person who should be absolutely well aware of graphic arts protocol.
But he wasn't aware.
And if he wasn't, what about the countless other online professionals who are just as ignorant as Mr. Blankenhorn was prior to this incident? Many of today's popular news blogs were yesterday's barely-viewed Livejournals; it is unreasonable to assume that every author properly educates themselves on the finer points of commercial illustration business practices as their personal success increases. Yes of course they obviously should, but they don't because people en masse don't always think before they act.
So yes, the commercial illustration community has fully articulated how their business is properly conducted. But they only did it here, or on illustration community sites, or on illustrator's own individual blogs, which in all likelihood exhibits their work in a low-resolution file format which is employed to illicit interest and hopefully work, but has inherent potential to also attract another Mr. Blankenhorn.
Commercial illustration is not yet the most online-compatible business venture. If it were, there wouldn't still be a large population of illustrators who still have an unjustified aversion to anything digital permeating the illustration industry. The fact these non-issues are still around is a testament that commercial illustration still has a ways to go before its place in the online arena is adequately protected.
-
145
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I cannot believe the lengths you will go to deny the very fact that you did steal someones work without their permission. You of all people - a so called serious journalist - should know why copyright laws exist and the rights of the artist. You have ridden roughsod over this with a patronising excuse about "educating" us on images on the web. You are plainly the one that needs educating properly instead of admitting you were wrong. You are lucky that the artist concerned is'nt taking litigious action against you and the company that allowed you to write such rubbish using his image. You are a thief. Don't patronise illustrators - apologise perhaps in this case is too little too late - but really your integrity is certainly in question!
-
146
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
First, try and understand that copyright is automatic. It's not something that the artist needs to add. That's pretty simple, right? Forget watermarks, HTML, and stupid notices. IT IS ALREADY PROTECTED IN LAW. And maybe re-read fair use too, because you clearly have no concept of what it means.
Second, you stated this in your reply to the person from whom you stole the art - "If I had to get permission for every illustration I used I wouldn't have time to get any illustrations on my articles and would likely not make any money". So you have stated outright that these images are absolutely key to your making money.
And yet you think you should just be allowed to take them? If they are so important then do you not think that the artist deserves payment, or at the very least to be ASKED? Your attitude, although commonplace in your profession, beggars belief.
Tell you what, I'll cut and paste all your articles for my blog. I'll draw a little picture to go with them and declare it fair use. Deal?
-
147
04/08/10 | Report as spam
Post mortem and our apologies
First off, our apologies to Chris Buzelli, the artist who had the image that Dana removed. Typically, we let our bloggers make these situations right on their own with readers, but now that Dana has dug himself a hole and surfaced somewhere in China I figured I'd chime in publicly.
The post mortem:
For starters, Dana should have asked permission to use the image. Period. Typically, we use images under Creative Commons licensing, generic corporate art made available through releases, media distribution or whatever and stock art we purchase through a service like istockphoto. If it's unique---like Chris' art---we ask for permission or if time is an issue (it usually is) we just don't use that work.
If I were writing Dana's big mother/health care post I probably would have just used Martin Lawrence's Big Momma movie promo pix or something. That may have not been the perfect image, but you get the idea. If it's something unique you just have to have ask for permission. One man's favor via a link is another man's theft. That's why generally speaking I rely on distributed publicly pix.
But this entire conversation really went off the rails with Dana's response to Chris. When you're in a hole stop digging. Yes, there are tools that can be, but that's not really the issue. A simple apology without the lecture would have sufficed.
Whether it's "legal" to surface a smaller version or thumbnail of a work is besides the point to me. We're CBS so we need to ask permission if we are using images that are unique or don't fall under some licensing scheme. Hope that clarifies things a bit. The discussion following the SmartPlanet posts were interesting and highlighted an important point.
-
148
04/08/10 | Report as spam
#77
A mistake. I wrote "The Web is not the Web in that it exists outside the law." The rest of the context of my comments, however, should've made it obvious that I meant to write "The Web is not the Web in that it doesn't exists outside the law."
-
149
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dear Larry Dignan,
Thank you very much for your comment and straight forward apology. I'm actually overwhelmed by the strong and positive support from the hundreds of comments and emails. I think this whole situation could have been avoided with a simple apology and/or "how can I compensate you for my mistake".
My artwork and many others artwork are stolen constantly on the web for similar uses. It is illegal and I hope this discussion has shed a little light on this important issue.
I also hope this unfortunate situation will not prevent you from legally using "unique" illustrations other than stock art in the future. When treated with due respect, illustrators are very kind and understanding people.
Sincerely,
Chris Buzelli
-
150
04/08/10 | Report as spam
@buzelli
Anytime. And our sister site BNET uses illustrations all the time so we use a good bit of them in our business unit.
Cheers
-
151
04/08/10 | Report as spam
Paul Ainsworth,Illustrator
?especially as I'm offering publicity rights freely?
what if a magazine called NAZIS UNITE MAGAZINE ripped and published a thumbnail illustration and put the artist?s name under it? Hey no harm no foul right? Thanks for the shout out and that free publicity to a demographic I really wanted to hit. The Nazis.
(Yes I just made a comparison to a Nazi magazine...obviously an extreme, but your apologies needs a bit of a slap in the face)
This is not only a copyright issue, it?s a moral rights issue. I didn?t even read your article because of how mad you?ve made me and all these people. The only reason why we are discussing anything here, is because you?ve admitted that you?ve done something wrong and you?re talking to us as if we are children and need your ?tech-savvy? advise on keeping our work safe...from people like yourself.
?I don't care if you think the law is on your side. It's not practical
and it's not happening.?
it?s not a matter of ?thinking? the law is on our side. It is and when you do something against the law, it?s called breaking the law and you did. You?re fortunate that the artist is not taking you to court where I?m sure the judge would love to hear you say :?we agree to disagree? and have you pay up in the other room.
?But those who leave their doors unlocked and then call the police
when someone takes a book and leaves a note are making more of this
than there is. Especially when the book is returned immediately upon
asking. ?
Wow... Hope I don?t live in your neighborhood. I love sitting at the dinner table and having a strange man come into my house, take a book from my shelf and leave a small note saying he?ll bring it back. I just hope he leaves his name next time so that I can invite him over for poker...of course that?s if he didn?t take my deck of cards that night and left a note. Maybe I should leave a note or a watermark on everything in my house so that X doesn?t ?borrow? anything because I might decide to lend it to a friend who asked for it.
Dana, just stick to writing about what your really know about, whatever that is. You really should have just said :?Sorry, won?t happen again.? See that little dot? The period? Yea end it. This article will not get you a job at the Post.
Cheers
Paul Ainsworth
Illustrator
PS I know this is a way to get people to join in order to submit, but I will be
-
152
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
wow my quotation marks didn't paste properly
-
153
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Google does not "take" any images. Or websites. Or anything. It
indexes them. Automatically. It's a machine. It's in no way
comparable to what you did.
Artists have portfolios on the web so that potential commissioners
can look at their work. It's handy if art directors can save your
image in a folder for reference, so they think of you when they look
for an illustrator. Watermarks are ugly. Why should an artist
wanting to promote his work want to uglify it. It's comparable to
making your articles unreadable. It harms artists more than it
serves them.
Why can't you simply remember that you mustn't use artwork you have
no license for? Do you really need a watermark to remind you? You
have no business in other peoples houses - locked or unlocked -
unless you're invited.
Artists also have no problem with the web, as you're now trying to
make out. Artists love the web, it offers endless opportunities. One
excellent feature you may know is e-mail! And oh, how wonderfully
fast it is. You can use it to email an artist and ask for their
permission, doesn't take more than a second. Do it! I know you can
write, so you can email.
-
154
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Wow, so many people pissed off because they want to use computers as something they are not. Copyright is wrong. Copyright business model is wrong. So many patents are plain stupid. It's the network, it belongs to all and nobody. You "post" it, it's no longer yours. You can get credit for it, but once on the cloud you cannot take it back. It's the new trend and people must embrace it as the wonderful technological miracle it is.
Ranting off like this at Mr Blankenhorn for talking his mind just demonstrates your technological ignorance. YES! I'VE SAID IT! Ignorants!
You are shouting at the cloud, something ethereal that you all don't even understand. You are spitting at the sky. The good thing is, in a few years you will all die and your sons and grandsons who grew their whole lifes on the cloud will get it, so your voices really don't matter now.
Please Mr. Blankenhorn ignore the fuzz and keep writing (and using images, and crediting their authors (because it is polite, note because you must), whether they like it or not).
-
155
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Reply 154 is a complete arse!
-
156
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
can someone please sue him already? he obviously needs a lesson
only the law can teach.
-
157
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
But if you want to protect your work, please excuse my tone and explanations. Please use the tools provided.
uh yeah, it's called copyright law, and I'm pretty sure you get to "use" it whether or not you watermark your images.
Have you even read anything about copyright law?
Also, THANK YOU brianstauffer.
The apology is nice but quit passing the buck. You screwed up, you're lucky you're not being legally pursued for this.
-
158
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Two problems with the thinking of the author here:
1. using someone else's work without their permission is uncool no matter how you explain it to yourself. If you, a person who writes for a living, use the work of another person who creates images for a living without their permission, you're in the wrong, period.
2. crediting them, linking to their site, etc, may seem to be a form of 'payment', or a 'benefit', but what you are leaving out of the equation is that perhaps this person did not wish to go into business with you. Maybe they don't like your articles, your aftershave, the cut of your jib, whatever. It's presumptuous to think this way- you do what seems to you like a favor, and expect someone else is going to appreciate it.
Yes, once an image is online, anyone can have it. That is to say, artists put themselves in a vulnerable position when they leave their work where people might steal it, because, ostensibly, they want someone to see their work. Does that mean they want people to see their work at any cost, that they all seek profit, exposure and fame? NO, it does not.
Now, as long as they are down, why not kick them? Kick them and not only take their work without asking, but use it in your for-profit online article- your career advancement is a profit to you, even if you are not paid for your work.
You should get explicit permission to use people's work, and you know it, deep inside somewhere.
-Will Von Wizzlepig
-
159
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
HEY CBS,
WE all think you should PAY Chris for the image NOW! At least to
show good faith. I hope this story gets out and major papers get
wind of this.
-
160
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
...ah, and I go off half cocked- apparently the issue has been resolved. Good move, Smart Planet.
Reading comments is so often like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, please excuse me for skipping that part.
-
161
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Good God! When did a simple "I'm sorry" become so difficult? Could it be because this is a practice that you have no intention of discontinuing? If not I would expect there to be a never ending deluge of legal notices to pour down on both you and CBS.
Joe Jusko
www.joejusko.com
-
162
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
154 you have no clue what you're talking about.
Copyright protects creativity. If copyright ceases to exist, artists
will not be able to make a living. This means that the artists you
admire now - writers, illustrators, fine artists, film makers and
musicians will not be able to do what they do. They will have other,
mundane jobs.
This may now trouble you, because you won't know that your favourite
music never got recorded, your favourite books never got written,
your favourite artworks never got drawn. By expecting to get
everything for free, your robbing yourself of the variety and
abundance of things out there. You're just shooting yourself in the
foot with this attitude.
-
163
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I knew it was just a matter or time until the technological utopian "culture of free" lunatics showed up to defend this guy.
Apparently, if you just don't believe in laws, they cease to exist! And the invention of the Internet has made the idea of intellectual property obsolete! The future will be a place where entitled teenagers will be able to download music and movies, guilt-free! Also, underwear models will hand out money on the street!
-
164
04/08/10 | Report as spam
My thoughts on this
"You won't write robots.txt. You won't watermark. You won't copy
protect. Yet you expect everyone on the Web to ask your written
permission before using your images, even with credit. "
No, I dont expect everyone to do it... I do however expect people who
abide by the law to do it. I'm not naive enough to believe there isnt
thieves online.
-
165
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Hey Dana.
I am both an illustrator and a (sometimes paid) blogger so I am
often on both sides of this situation.
#1- I ALWAYS ask permission before using ANY image, even
photos, not doing so is LAZY and UNPROFESSIONAL whether
you are an amateur or professional.
How long does it take to send an email? Not asking permission
is basically admitting that you know you are stealing.
#2- The "I'm promoting your work" bit is used all the time and
it's NONSENSE. I've had websites write about my work and ask
for images of my illustration, and that is a wonderful thing.
Having your work used to Illustrate an article that is not about
you, without your permission, is THEFT. Illustrators have plenty
of "Exposure" what we need is MONEY.
#3- It's one thing if some housewife uses an image for her
knitting blog, but when major media outlets, WHO HAVE
BUDGETS for illustration and design do it, it's something
different entirely.
#4- as someone who does both for a living.. creating an
illustration career is about 10,000 times more work than
writing blog posts, taking years and years of hard work and
sacrifice.
#5- when people like you steal my work, will I blog about it?
No, I will call a f**king lawyer. Forget "taking it down". CBS
should be paying the illustrator royalties for every page view
these articles got.
-
166
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
As someone who both illustrates and writes for the web for a
living, here's my 2 cents.
#1- I ALWAYS ask permission before using ANY image, even
photos, not doing so is LAZY and UNPROFESSIONAL whether
you are an amateur or otherwise.
How long does it take to send an email? Not asking permission
is basically admitting that you know you are stealing.
#2- The "I'm promoting your work" bit is used all the time and
it's NONSENSE. I've had websites write about my work and ask
for images of my illustration, totally different from having your
work used to Illustrate an article that is not about you, without
your permission, this is THEFT.
Illustrators have plenty of "Exposure". When you use someone's
work, you have to give them MONEY. This is how it works. END
OF STORY.
"FAIR USE" is NONSENSE and a way for lazy, crappy, 2-year tech
school graphic "designers" to avoid taking their own photos or
hiring freelancers.
#3- It's one thing if some housewife uses an image for her
knitting blog, but when major media outlets, WHO HAVE
BUDGETS for illustration and photography do it, it's something
different entirely.
#4- as someone who does both for a living.. creating an
illustration career is about 10,000 times more work than
writing blog posts, taking years and years of hard work and
sacrifice.
#5- when people like you steal my work, will I blog about it?
No, I will call a lawyer. Forget "taking it down". CBS should be
paying the illustrator royalties for every single page view these
articles got. When we start hitting websites with lawsuits like
that this garbage will stop.
-
167
04/08/10 | Report as spam
Non-watermarked artworks are AUTOMATICALLY copyright-protected
Dear Mr. Blankenhorn,
Images on the internet (or any other medium) are actually
copyright-protected by default. Even when they don't
contain a watermark or copyright notice, they are still the
intellectual property of their creators, and cannot be posted or
used without their creators' consent. An artist doesn't have to
do anything to copyright his or her work; in fact, the only time
an artist needs to display a special notice is when he or she
wants to RELINQUISH his/her copyright, and make the work
available for public use. (for example, submitting art under a
Creative Commons license)
It's an artist's right to refrain from watermarking their work. I
watermark my images, but there are people who refuse to do
this because they feel that the watermark detracts from the
appeal of the image. Copyright law doesn't say that those
artworks aren't protected just because the artists choose not to
use watermarks. Copyright applies automatically to
an artwork the moment it's created-- any extra measures such
as watermarking or posting a copyright notice are optional.
Additional information can be found in this article, "10 Big
Myths About Copyright Explained": http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
-
168
04/08/10 | Report as spam
Dana Blankenhorn...
I don't understand how you've shoe-horned this entire situation into you being the noble defender of the web. It's rather disgusting. But there is one thing that you cannot do, regardless of whatever law you think you have on your side. You cannot tell artists what to do with their work. Artists meaning writers, painters, designers etc. You can't tell us how to promote or protect it. In fact the examples you give are known, by probably 95% of the artists that have a web presence. But, I want to be very clear, you are not doing us any favors. Don't pretend like you have our best interests at heart, because if that were true, you would be apologizing completely without an asterix at the end telling us that it's our fault and it will continue to happen. This is no apology at all and we are not morons. Please do not insult us further.
As professional illustrators, you have to realize that it's not like we're just thrown into the world straight out of school or whatever work experience we've had in art, without learning about copyright law. In most art schools you're required to learn it in and out. After all it's our livelihood. We know the law and you do not. It is as simple as that. The law you keep referring to is essentially what is known as the law of scholarly review. A work of art can be reproduced without need of copyright approval for the purpose of review, meaning the work itself is the subject of a report, critique, lesson, news, you get the idea. The law does not protect you, because you are using it beyond those exceptions as a supplement to your own work. Again I realize you appologized, but you ought to stop trying to behave as if you "know better" than us. Because you do not. And also, google searches are known as registries of information, and are not publishing the images with a search.
Finally, once an artist publishes their work on the web-forum of their choice it acts as another record of copyright to that person. Sure people might take the image, but they legally cannot publish it, which is what you did. We don't mind so much a fan of our work saving the image, but when someone takes our image and distributes it without our knowledge or approval, well they are publishing it without consent, whether or not credit is given. When we put something out there in the public, it is basically protected by the public. By the community. Everyone sees it out there, that it is ours, and then when someone from that community chooses to take it, and use it, then the community triggers the alarm, and everyone, EVERYONE knows about it.
Your suggestions are idealistic, and not effective, the greatest protection of our work is what you are experiencing right now, our community. So again, you wouldn't be receiving such a mass influx of attenttion, if you would just appologize, and concede, because beyond the prior fact that you used the image, we are over that, you are insulting us by pretending that you have a better understanding of how to run our careers than we do. So please stop dis-respecting us.
- J
-
169
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
As both a writer and an illustrator, I shouldn't have to explicitly indicate copyright on every single one of my images, and placing a watermark over my webcomics would be intrusive and detract from the design. All of my images (save a few that are Creative Commons US 3.0 License) are copyrighted. It may not be indicated on every image, but I hold a database record of every image I own. I determine where and when my images can be displayed, and the fact that they are on the web doesn't mean they're fair game. By that logic, the fact that your car is on a public street means that I can borrow it, change its color and return it to you whenever I choose.
-
170
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Way to go, Chris, and all my other fellow creators for calling
this guy out on his blatant ignorance of copyright law and lack
of common sense.
I've had my work printed without my permission and it really
makes you angry when it happens. Because like Chris said, this
is how we make our living.
And It really cracks me up how Dana thought he was doing
Chris a favor by giving him credit. Um, news flash sir, some of
us don't really care about free publicity and don't need it
anymore. What we care about is protecting our work and
getting paid for the work we do.
A huge thanks to Larry for chiming in and giving the apology
that should have come from Dana in the first place. I'm sure
many have learned a lot from this incident.
Jeff Miracola
Artist/Illustrator
-
171
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Am I the only one here noticing that a very important bullet point of this issue is being completely avoided??
Y'know, the real issue isn't JUST about copyright. It's not JUST about art theft. It's that the copyrighted art in question was already paid for by another publication!
That you stole it was bad enough. That you've acknowledged that you did wrong is admirable and all. But, all you've apologized for was the action itself. No mention of your realization that this wrong could have resulted in serious legal issues.
You almost act as if it "wasn't a big deal or anything". I can almost see the dismissive shrug accompanying that kind of statement, too.
Look, I'm an artist. Not a famous one. Hell, in the past 6 years I've sold MAYBE about 50 pieces of artwork, totaling no more than perhaps $1500 collectively. But, I still value the thought of credit where it's due. That does, however, require an understanding on the part of all parties involved. "Compensating" by saying nice things about the artist doesn't cut it when the art is being used in an article that you're getting paid for and he/she isn't.
What REALLY gets me the most about this is THIS ARTICLE.
"Hey, sorry I stole your art. My bad. Know what'd help? Not being a dumbass and posting it on the 'net to begin with, kid."
Seriously? How 'bout this?
"Hey, sorry I stole your art. My bad. Know what'd help? An article that brings this kind of situation to light so that others who thought like I did would know better than to just take artwork in the future without asking the artists' permission first!"
See what I did there? Y'know... making it sound more like it wasn't the artists' fault for making their artwork so easy to take? Because while that might be the case, it's still the THIEF that's responsible for the actual theft.
"Hmmmm..." <- I really hope that's the sound you're making right now in a reflective sort of way. Because, if you're not, and the hundreds of posts prior to this one haven't already gotten through to you, there's no way in hell this one will. I'm simply posting it to vent my own frustrations over this.
That's all I have to say at this point. Take what you will from it, if you choose to take anything from it at all.
And for the record, the above statement was not intended with any irony.
-
172
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"But if you want to protect your work, please excuse my tone and explanations. Please use the tools provided."
My work is protected under copyright law immediately I create it. I am already using the 'tools provided' under copyright law.
You should assume this is so of all images, and only use those that have clearly been identified as copyright free and available for your use.
Do not put the onus on creators to further protect or identify their work when it is your job to check before aquiring any image to use for your own gain.
-
173
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Hello my fellow artists!
The way our profession is treated at times is sickening. No one would dare to claim a free meal at a restaurant in exchange for telling friends that it was tasty and yet in our industry some people do not even bother to ask. Artworks get stolen on a daily basis as if this was a natural thing to do, as if art grows on trees or is generated with a single button click in mysterious apps like Photoshop.
Illustrators, designer, concept artists, animator and many others are the backbone and face of one of the biggest industries on this planet, Film, games, toys, you name it, most products need a design and milliards are made every year.
We are not talking about some kids who use artworks to beautify their homepages, no, we are talking about other industry professionals who steal our artworks for commercial purposes. Stolen artworks are being used as Book covers, in games, illustration articles, being used as a reference for new concepts, poster prints, t-shirts and so on, endless list.
We discuss and reveal some of the facts regarding
- Copyright
- baiting with free exposure
- Art theft
- Protecting your work
- Contracts
- pricing
- fooling artists with asking for help to develop 'free' projects
A big number of artists, especially young artists are constantly being ripped off, underplayed or not played at all, lured into contract traps, lured with exposure, get their artworks stolen.
Having a great number of members we can do many things about it and be sure, things DO need to be done unless you want to find yourself one day working at a gas station in order to support your ?dream? job as Artist. Having a great number means having a strong voice, a international infrastructure, access to information on various subjects around the world and legal advice . We can help each other dealing with various issues, collect and share information and facts and deal with art theft.
Every artist is free to join and post up some experience here, issues, links to stolen art, warnings, tips.
This is a good thing! Let us all try to heal each other! Invite your fellow artist friends to join.
Trust me, it will make a huge difference writing a little mail of complaint on your own or having a gigantic family of thousand of artists behind you.
join the international artist group against art theft
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116235051725808&ref=mf
-
174
04/09/10 | Report as spam
re:8007342
Seriously? You call us ignorant? We know how to use the tools he outlined so "graciously" for us. The thing is, most of them are more harmful to our career than they are helpful. We want our work to be seen by as many people as possible. Search engines help us in that quest and regardless of what Dana say, an image appearing in a search engine result is not that search engine publishing our art. The disabling of the right click feature is useless due to screen capture, and almost all watermarks can be lifted. More on the watermark- we don't want our image to be compromisd by an ugly watermark. We're artists and we think of the entire composition of the image and slaping a watermark on top is equal to defacing the work. Plus, someone could still use the image regardless, with the watermark still there and, yes, it is still illegal. Plus, we as artists send out packets to publishers of our most current work featuring watermark free work, to give their art directors the proper feel for what said work looks like, if they choose to use it, they get a license that clearly states HOW and WHERE and for HOW LONG they can use it. They contact us and compensate us because they are professional and know the law. We aren't shouting at the sky, we are RIGHT. Look at comment 147, it's from Dana's editor in chief. You my anonymous friend are the ignorant one.
-
175
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Oddly enough, in Mr. Dana's book, The Blankenhorn Effect, the following
text is found: "Copyright 2002 by Dana Blankenhorn. All rights
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
the written prior permission of the author."
Seems a little hypocritical dont'cha think? All that legal mumbo jumbo
from someone who has made the comments Mr. Dana has made.
-
176
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana Blankenhorn, your views on copyright are appalling.
I hope you will come to your senses and issue a public apology and monetary compensation where it is due, the sooner the better.
Mark Vatsel
Vatsel.com
-
177
04/09/10 | Report as spam
WOW, what a joke! The Criminal Mind at Work...
Wow, what an idiot you are. You take absolutely no responsibility for your Copyright infringement at all. The bottom line is that you stole another person's work and very obviously did not have permission, nor did you bother to get it.
That is the very definition of a thief.
You can make all the excuses you want, but that's all they are, excuses, and poor ones at that.
Watermarks corrupt the image. An artist wants to show his work as envisioned. Hidden watermarks cost money, usually it is a subscription. And starving artists can't always plan on a regular income to meet bills.
You can disable the right mouse button, but all a guy has to do is save the document as a complete web page. So it does nothing to protect the image and in the process it disables all sorts of functionality for the web user who web designers want to be accommodating and friendly to.
WOW, what a sick, twisted criminal mind you have.
In the end, the only thing we have to protect our own work is to sue those that will rip us off.
-
178
04/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Arggghhh!
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2010/04/how-i-stole-the-mona-lisa.html
Unbe-f*cking-lievable.
-
179
04/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana, YOU ARE NOT A DAMN SEARCH ENGINE!!
You do not have the same rights as a Search Engine when using Intellectual Property, for Reasons that are easily
understood by most.
-
180
04/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Your argument is basically this. You can walk into your neighbors house if the door is unlocked, and take his TV, providing there isn't a sign attached to it that says "Don't steal me".
Yes. You could very easily do that. It doesn't make it right. And leaving a note that says "Thanks for the TV" doesn't make it right, either. Nor does saying "finders, keepers."
There are sources all over the place that contain stock images that are free for public use. As a journalist, you should know that. If you don't, that's even more pathetic.
-
181
04/10/10 | Report as spam
Wow.
This is absolutely incredible to read.
Sorry, Dana, you were (and if you continue doing such things as in the original article, are) a thief.
"Y'all may not accept the apology, or the explanations, or my
interpretation of the law, but there it is. On some things we must
agree to disagree." You could have stopped at apology and explanations. Interpretation of the law, though? You used someone's work without their permission (either directly or via something like the creative commons - "it's just sitting there" is not "everyone has permission," and yes, the artist coming up and saying "Remove my work, you do not have permission" is protecting his copyright, that which is granted *on creation to every piece of art,* written, visual, or otherwise.
You give "technological measures" that are easily worked around.
You give analogies such as:
"But those who leave their doors unlocked and then call the police
when someone takes a book and leaves a note are making more of this
than there is. Especially when the book is returned immediately upon
asking. "
Know what someone coming in - whether my doors are locked or not - and taking my property is called, whether it's returned or not, whether they leave a NOTE or not? They're called a "Thief." The cops may say "Lock your doors" after - but they'll still take the person away in the back of the squad car.
I'll let you think about that while you go to the break room and "creatively acquire" a coworker's lunch while leaving a note. Do tell us what their reaction is.
-
182
04/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Dana, your stupidity knows no bounds... :/
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2010/04/a-web-permission-engine.html?asset_id=6a00d83451da3169e20133ec97669c970b
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2010/04/how-i-stole-the-mona-lisa.html
-
183
04/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I would personally like to thank Mr Blankenhorn for providing me with the tools to protect myself from............Mr Blankenhorn. Whether or not I utilize any of these tools, stealing copyrighted imagery is still illegal. ie What you did is still illegal.
Eric Fortune
-
184
04/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
However....If Mr Blankenhorn bypasses said tools provided by Mr Blankenhorn than that's... my fault? No, it's not. And yes, it's still illegal.
-
185
04/11/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"Final Thoughts: I want to thank all who participated in this thread
for their input. It has taught me a lot. I apologize for my tone,
apologize for my actions, apologize for any offense my words caused
anyone. But if you want to protect your work, please excuse my tone
and explanations. Please use the tools provided."
Dana,
It's not really an apology if there's a "but" involved. How about a
little due diligence and an HONEST apology, if you're capable. Not
cool, sir, not cool.
Rob Clifford
Nein Spies Illustration & Design
bigrobot.deviantart.com
-
186
04/12/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
If you still hang on to those "Protection Tools" after
all the comments letting you know that these harm our profession as
artists more than help them, I doubt you have learnt anything.
-
187
04/12/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
@Larry Dignan
"If I were writing Dana's big mother/health care post I probably would have just used Martin Lawrence's Big Momma movie promo pix or something. That may have not been the perfect image, but you get the idea. If it's something unique you just have to have ask for permission. One man's favor via a link is another man's theft. That's why generally speaking I rely on distributed publicly pix."
It's nice that you've chosen to voice an opinion on this issue.
This statement, however, brands you as ignorant as Mr. Blankenhorn.
Yes, movie stills are freely distributed publicity photos. To be used to promote the movie. Using these images to illustrate a completely unrelated health care article without approval or authorization is just as much a violation of the rights of the artist (or the studio) as Mr. Blankenhorn's initial infringement.
-
188
04/12/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
The ease with which a crime can be committed does not remove the criminality. To the argue the opposite, as you're doing, is mind-numbingly idiotic. It's amazing that anyone has seen fit to give you a platform with thinking like this and saddening to think of the mind that actually follows and considers the blog of such a mentally deficient twat as yourself, Dana.
-
189
04/13/10 | Report as spam
You people shoudll be ashamed
CBS??? Are you serious????
As a professional illustrator who makes a living off of his artwork, I find it absolutely appalling that you, CBS, is allowing this nonsense response from your writers and editors to continue, how fast would it end if say, Chris Buzelli was to go forward with a lawsuit against you? Which at this point I hope he does in a big way. However something tells me he will not as he can't take anytime away from his artwork.
You have to be kidding me right now.
Nicholas Wright
Glens Falls, NY
http://www.sharppencilcreative.com
-
190
04/14/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
So basically, it's okay to lift images if you don't get caught? And if
the creator DOES call you out, then you're simply offering them
free "publicity"? I find your vanity laughable. Call a spade a spade,
you're advocating theft and misrepresentation. What a joke.
-
191
04/15/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Blocking Right Click or the Context Menu
One of the simplest ways to help prevent your images from being downloaded without your permission is to put up a no right-click script. When people right click on your page, they will either get no options to download the image, or they will get a pop-up error message (depending upon how you code the script).
This is very easy to do, but also easy to get around.
Shrink Wrapping Images
Shrink wrapping an image is a JavaScript technique where you display your image with another, transparent image overlaid on top. Then when the thief tries to download the image, they get something else instead - usually a blank image.
For someone who is determined, this method can be circumvented as well.
Watermarking Is Fairly Effective
Watermarking is where you place an overlay directly on the image. This usually impacts the quality of the image such that potential thieves don't want to steal it. This is a very effective way to protect your online images if you don't mind the text across the top of them.
Using Flash Can Protect Your Images
It is also possible to set up a slideshow in Flash to display your images. This makes it impossible for thieves to download the images directly.
But, Fully Protecting Your Images is Impossible
If you post your images online, it is possible for someone to steal them and use them somewhere else. No matter what you do to protect them.
Peddu
hostcats.com
-
192
04/20/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
I have taken the liberty of quoting your comments in italics below, and responding...
Artists who leave their work on the Web, in the clear, with no watermark, easily copied, expect it to be copied.
No we don't. Again, you assume with absolutely no research at all. Which artist do you point to? Give us a name. This statement, like all the rest that you have written, is pure bull.
It is copied, by Google, by other search engines, ad infinitum.
Just because someone jumps off a bridge, you will to? You are correct, Google is illegally copying images. I actually do want the image to show-up in the page when Google displays a cached version of my page. What I do not want is for Google to place my images in Google's "Google Images" catalog. Even the very name speaks of ownership by the Google brand.
Why don't I want my images to appear in Google Images? It's simple, I want to be the solitary distribution point of my images. The fact that Google may (or may not) be using a thumbnail copy is irrelevant, they are using a copy.
If I try to keep Googlebot out of my images directory, it means don't crawl there. It doesn't mean don't display my images on my web pages if they come from there. But guess what Google does?
Since I am a graphic artist, illustrator and web designer I am very interested in protecting my images. But as a web designer, those images have to be displayed with my cached web pages. But when I block bots from going into and crawling the images directory, they block all my images with gray boxes.
How do you think that looks for a graphic artist, illustrator and web designer when people look at my site through Google's Wayback Machine at Archive.org? NOT GOOD.
Now, if you expect Google to not do that, you write a robots.txt file and Google won't do it.
And they take it out on you for even using a robots.txt file at all. Yes, it is pure evil what they do. And this makes it OK to do the same thing?
REALLY? Think about it, now. Corporate greed and bullying against the common man is one thing, but you are going to step in their footsteps under the guise of their corporate evil and power? Do you really think you can?
REALLY? C'mon. You know better, you apparently aren't interested in saying so.
If you don't want others to use it, with credit, you watermark it or copy protect it.
A watermark corrupts the image and all images are Copyrighted by default. My images are even marked as Copyrighted, but you need software to tell. Unfortunately, technology has not yet caught up with us and the readily available open source XMP format is not readily supported by browsers. I wonder why, as it is free.
Calling me a thief does not solve your problem.
Calling you a thief is simply trying to reach through to you and get you to understand what you have done and how blatantly wrong it is. This is Copyright infringement. You seem to refute that fact. I understand what you are doing, and its the same as any criminal, "Deny, deny, deny." It doesn't help. You are still wrong. Your ignorance is no excuse. You broke the law and refuse to admit it. And because you do, you are getting a huge response from artists trying to educate you. Some are irate, but wouldn't you be if I copied your articles and pasted them into my websites without lawfully gaining permission to do so? I can't do that because it is Copyright Infringement and so I don't bother.
I have told y'all how to solve your problem.
You have done no such thing. The technology of the web is still in its infancy. Google is still at fault for Copyright infringement and all the browsers make it easy to pirate art. It should not be this way, yet there is no such thing as "corporate responsibility" because the corporations have not been muscled into it by the courts. That is a sad commentary. We are in the dark ages of the Internet, and the web is not going to be the biggest thing, either.
Art is a visual media for visual communication, and visual Watermarks corrupt that message. Hidden watermarks are expensive and require a subscription, and they aren't supported by browsers. XMP Copyright marks are freely available open source that is neither supported by browsers or safe browsing applications.
The web is still very much in the dark ages. Thanks to Microsoft, who refuse to keep up, the technology of standardized web design code isn't even well supported. Every other browser in the world is supporting HTML & CSS standards much better. And there is all sorts of stuff that needs to be introduced (very badly). Things like Copyrights aren't even contemplated is simply one of them. And it remains on the bottom of the list because all original works are Copyright by default.
I have apologized, and will change my behavior in the future.
You have apologized? For what?
Exactly what have you owned up to? This article is still here. You are apparently still under the employ of Smart Planet.
Usually, you apologize for doing something wrong. "I apologize." just doesn't cut it. For what, exactly?
If you would actually own-up to what you have done wrong and become a convert, actually understanding our side of this simple argument, you might actually see a different attitude from the artists out there.
But frankly your personal insults, the level of invective, speaks to something else beyond me, and beyond this case. I'd like to hear what it is.
I think it is a response to a criminal who has taken a criminal stance. You never once admit wrong, and yet it is clear, even to you, that you Infringed on someone else's Copyright. And what does an artist have? His/her Copyrighted works. That's all we have to market and sell. To dilute that Copyright is a criminal offense.
Sure, you took the image down, great. That's a first step. You apologized, but we are not sure what for, because you refuse to admit any wrong doing at all. So, your apology not only rings hollow because it is so empty, but your attitude is that *WE*, the artists, should change. You so clearly spell out exactly how to do that and yet you hear from us all how ineffective that really is.
I know you don't like to hear that you are wrong. It is demonstrated and determined by your responses here.
The reason we are so upset with you is because you are in a public position of influence and are misguiding everyone. Your reasoning is flawed to a point of creating an attitude of lawlessness. We should be upset because a writer is usually considered an artist. If not, he/she is usually a journalist who bases articles on facts, and you haven't.
The whole article is bunk and could sway others into behaving like criminals with no respect for the arts.
You don't understand. That is the problem.
-
193
04/20/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
"...It has taught me a lot. I apologize for my tone, apologize for my actions, apologize for any offense my words caused anyone. But...."
What exactly has it taught you? I guess it taught you to keep your mouth shut, lest you be thought a fool (because opening it, here, removed all doubt).
I'm still amazed you have a job writing anywhere after this shameless display.
-
194
05/17/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
ACTUALLY, this is more like a chef making a meal to feed their patrons... and you climbing into an open window of his diner(hell, its open right?) and taking the food off of their table while they're not looking THEN going back to your OWN little diner and telling your customers you cooked it to go along with your lack-luster self-righteous side dishes... THEN when the chef calls you out about stealing his food you use the stage/podium/microphone of at your diner to belt out an unapologetic dissertation about the PROPER WINDOW LOCK HE SHOULD'VE USED to avoid you CLIMBING THROUGH IT AND RIPPING HIM OFF & how you were doing him a favor and "bringing him business" by serving it with a napkin with his diner's logo on it.
What if I took one of your articles that looks like it goes good with an illustration I did & sold it to the New York Times and was paid for it? I mean you left it right here on the internet WIDE OPEN ready to be copy and pasted, you didn't make the body of text and image and put your watermark across it so its fair game correct?
You are on a website called "Smart Planet". This whole ordeal is an oxymoron. Save the planet! But screw its inhabitants? Shake your finger at some random illustrator because he didnt have the insight in thinking his already licensed art-work would be stolen by YOU so its HIS fault? Google doesn't steal images. There's a big difference between having your image show up in a database of other related images and having an individual take an image, from its original place, alter its size, embed it at another site to accompany an article.... which he is being paid for.
You saying the personal attacks are unnecessary is hilarious. You know, a membership to iStockphoto.com is pretty cheap and its a lot faster than skimming through artists online portfolios and ripping them off. I mean how many replies here are in agreement with you & your claims? That should speak volumes about your innocence/negligence on copyright law and frankly; begin a decent human being.
-
195
07/29/10 | Report as spam
RE: Keeping your images off SmartPlanet or anywhere else
Artists are idiots. They make such a big fuss over protecting their "intellectual" property because they are deathly afraid that they'll never have another supposedly brilliant idea ever again and are desperate to milk everything they've ever done for all it's worth. I used to work at the Society of Illustrators. That place is a dump full of mediocre egos taking turns massaging each other. Dana apologized, give it a rest morons.
Author’s Note: The article that follows was inspired by a discussion thread at Rethinking Healthcare. Those interested in the provisions of the Fair Use exception to the Copyright Act will find the full text here, and a good discussion here.
