Ok, this kind of nonsense, which I will share with you in a moment, makes me wonder if there is anyway to turn off a person's oxygen support. If we can pull food tubes then dammit we need a way to prevent scum sucking thieves from wasting any more of our precious supply of oxygen. Like those heart-plug thingies from Dune, but for a person's air supply.
Consider that theft and forgery are a form of devolution and as I do not have a deep desire to head back to the trees and start grooming the hairy back of the monkey sitting next to me, I think it's our duty to fight these infringements upon the law, common sense, and decency.
Someone who goes by the handle allig8torx (that's Alligator X apparently) took it upon themselves to go to File magazine, copy, paste, and publish other people's photographs as their own. For example: Paul Russell's "Charity" and Alligator X's "Charity". Another: Byron Barrett's very lovely piece, "Untitled" and then Alligamouthbreather's curious doppleganger "astica3".
Sadly there are more, many more.
Unfortunately there is no option in Flickr to request that this person's sexual reproduction organs be removed so as to prevent the blood line from continuing but there should be, this is web 2.0 after-all.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
That is just ridiculous. Calling it "My Cool Ass Set" too. He is going to argue (if he replies at all) that he at no point claimed they were his. People like this just kill the whole trust that a community like Flickr tries so hard to create.
Is it not possible that they are using Flickr simply to store photographs they like from around the web, and do not intend to claim any ownership of them?
@David Barret: That would still not be allowed, you can't just take copyrighted material and publish them yourself.
Joost: I'm aware of that, but it is a different offence than actively claiming these photos as their own. It doesn't make it right, but it's not identical.
People should be educated better about intellectual ownership.
Calling them brain dead and asking for their genitals to be removed is juvenile and tasteless and won't change a thing. I'm dropping you from my feedreader for these remarks.
Flickr states that you should have ownership of the photos you post (or it did when I signed up anyway). There will always be some moron who thinks it's OK to steal other people's stuff, I just read a post at this site who were discussing several other 'creative' agencies stealing their copy! There's just no excuse.
I once sent a Basecamp login to someone who had no idea what it was, and I came to work the next day to find that she had started keeping dozens of her own personal to-do lists in the project because she thought it was a personal organizer. Personally, I don't understand how anyone could look at Basecamp and not think it's a project management app, but she did -- her self-absorbed luddite eyes looked at it and thought, "wow, I'll just ignore all these items about the project we're working on and start keeping my shopping list!" (She also had no idea I could see any of it.)
My point: it's possible that "allig8torx" is indeed trying to take credit for these images. It's also quite likely that he/she uploaded these things from a personal "cool shit" stash just to play around with Flickr, without really considering that _other people can in fact see them_. I mean, the dude(tte) has just 30 photos, most of which all seem to have been uploaded on one particular day in May 2007. That's not a usage pattern consistent with someone who's an unrepentant plagiarist. That seems more like someone who doesn't own a digital camera or scanner (yes, they exist) who decided to dabble with Flickr one day, then promptly got bored with it.
Do they deserve to be scolded? Yes, because publishing other people's work is wrong and ignorance doesn't magically make it right.
They do not, however, deserve to be euthanized, castrated, maimed, waterboarded or forced to eat worms. Just saying.
Aside from removing a penis or vagina from this individual, I'd feel pretty motivated with a baseball bat. Stuff like this really rubs me in many wrong directions. Unfortunately the Net is still a haven for anonymous thieves. Well, almost anonymous...
Update: Mr/Ms. Wonderful has a set titled "my cool ass set" ... yeah, we're dealing with much higher intelligence here.
> Is it not possible that they are using Flickr simply to store photographs they like from around the web, and do not intend to claim any ownership of them?
That seems to be the out that everyone is trying to give this person but it doesn't matter. That fact that s/he went to the trouble of renaming some of the photos indicates that no, that's not what they are trying to do. Joost is right, it's still not legal nor an Ok thing to do.
> Calling them brain dead and asking for their genitals to be removed is juvenile and tasteless and won't change a thing. I'm dropping you from my feedreader for these remarks
Lighten up Francis.
> It's also quite likely that he/she uploaded these things from a personal "cool shit" stash just to play around with Flickr
I don't buy the, they just didn't know arguement. Even if this was the case Flickr has a clear option to make your photos and sets private. This person chose to make them public.
> Update: Mr/Ms. Wonderful has a set titled "my cool ass set" ... yeah, we're dealing with much higher intelligence here.
Uh, Blake you did read the other comments yes? Just checking. *grin*
I have communicated with the artists involved in this, and none of them are pleased with this whatsoever. Are they happy someone appreciates their work? Yes. Are they irritated that someone has published it with out asking or attributing them? Yes.
Here's the thing. (1) If this dipshit was just trying to "store photographs they like from around the web", then he/she can do so on his own computer or in a Flickr gallery marked as "private", (2) he/she can call it "things I like from around the web" and not "my cool ass set" , the latter of which which implies, at the very least, that he/she was the photographer, (3) he can, if he/she must post these without asking permission, have the class to give the artist credit for their work, and (4) there are ways of sharing links to things you like: they are called weblogs or social bookmark managers, both of which still obligate you to provide credit to the artist who created the work.
Perhaps he does not deserve to have any organs removed, but he should be cast into a lake of fire or forced to watch ten consecutive episodes of Paula's Party, y'all.
Who even does this? It seems like the biggest waste of time ever to randomly claim someone else's photos on Flickr as your own. What a sad existence.
Maybe he is just collecting photos he enjoys istead of just bookmarking the link...
Maybe.
Or maybe he is just some BIG loser...
Must be very frustrating for the artists. I know that prior to my own work being ripped off, I subscribed to the "ignorance is bliss" mentality. After having my own work stolen, I now subscribe to the "castration" mentality. A bit harsh, but a just punishment, in my opinion :-P
Also, I think you're on the right track with...
> Like those heart-plug thingies from Dune, but for a person's air supply.
Before we all begin thinking like a cannonball shooting out a cannon (I stole that from some Ryan Adams lyrics,) we should hope that we all are teaching this young chap a lesson: That stealing in the creative community is not to be tolerated. It is much better to fail in one's creative endeavors than to claim others work as your own.
Wait. The mouth breather did save and upload the photos as his own. Mommy must not have bought him a bike helmet before daddy took the training wheels off.
It may be against flickr's policy, it's certainly not nice to leave the photo's uncredited, but there's absolutely nothing to prove or even really suggest this user is claiming they took the photos themselves.
In fact, since the photos they put up include the most famous picture ever taken of the supposed big foot I'd say it's highly unlikely that they are trying to lay claim to the photos they put up.
The title is "My cool ass set", not "the cool ass pictures I took". The title is saying the set that this person created is cool. This person did in fact create the set and they can call it cool if they want, (frankly I think a lot of the pictures are lousy but there's no accounting for taste).
Probably some kid who doesn't know any better and in the end, since this person isn't getting paid for them, who gives a crap? He's not taking the food out of anyone's mouth.
Jumping on this person for copyright infringement or laying claim to the photos in question is about as ignorant as putting up the photos without proper credit. People acting without thinking.
> Jumping on this person for copyright infringement or laying claim to the photos in question is about as ignorant as putting up the photos without proper credit.
Oh, how so?
Thomas:
I take issue to the claim that anyone is acting without thinking. This is simply not the case. When this whole problem was first brought to my attention, I checked with all of the artists I knew whose work had been used to make sure that it had been taken without permission. When I this was confirmed, I asked Greg -- as a person with strong beliefs about respecting copyright -- to check it out and sound the alarm if he thought it was a legitimate issue. He asked me to provide some examples and I did. Then he wrote this post. This took place over the period of several hours; hardly a knee-jerk reaction.
Who gives a crap? Well, I'm not necessarily expecting anyone but the artist themselves to be truly outraged, but...NONE of the artists I contacted were okay with the uncredited use of their photos. The reason I care is that it is clear that many of these images were simply yoinked from FILE. Since these were taken from my site, I feel it is my responsibility to protect the original artists.
As for the use of the word "my" and whether it refers to the set or the images, I agree, that can be read two ways, particularly in light of the Bigfoot image. But there is a strong implication, given that Flickr is typically used to post one's own work, that the photos are their own. Seen individually, the photos bear this person's name/pseudonym and have a "© All rights reserved" label when viewed in their gallery, further implying ownership. One photo has been viewed 430 times. How many of those people assumed the photo was his? If it's even 50%, it's too many in my book.
Given that this is 2007 and not 2000, the rules about what constitutes legitimate use and plagiarism of items posted to the Internets have been hashed out and made pretty clear, and one way of stamping out this practice is to make an example of offenders. I will grant you that this may be a case in which a person acted out of ignorance, but I would tell you that jeering at an anonymous Flickr user for this is less a beatdown and more of a spanking.
>In fact, since the photos they put up include the most famous picture ever taken of the supposed big foot I'd say it's highly unlikely that they are trying to lay claim to the photos they put up
This is a weak argument. What if you did not see this picture and made the assumption that s/he took the rest of the pictures in the "cool ass set"?
> Oh, how so?
Because there's no evidence this person is laying claim to those photos. All we know is some person put a photo on a flickr account. Anything else is an assumption. Jumping on a person based on an unsupported assumption shows a lack of insight. It's reactionary and extreme.
The most likely scenario is this person just made a set of a bunch of cool photos they liked, which is what the title of the set implies. There's really nothing wrong with doing that. And it's flickr, after all. It's a way of sharing pictures.
It's not like this is a website which stole a design from another website and it's not like this photo was republished on another digital magazine with someone else's name attributed. That would be an entirely different story. Hell, its not like this person even said anywhere that they took the picture.
If the artists in question don't want their work reproduced so readily they should rethink working on the web. That's just the nature of the domain.
Beerzie:
I respect your reply. It's thought out and actually lays down the issue. That is not a knee jerk response. As previously presented the argument showed little more than outrage and assailed this person with justification based solely on unsupported assumptions.
To your points I would say that if were knew were were talking about someone who was a graphic artist or worked in the digital arts domain I'd certainly hold them to a higher standard.
It's obvious that both Greg and yourself are looking at this from the professional perspective. For all we know the person in question is some 15 year old kid from Nebraska who found some cool photos on the web and wanted a way to put them all together. Also nature of flickr for you, someone who works on the web, is likely different than some kid somewhere who wants to have a place to save cool images.
I've been a web professional since the late '90s and not one to use flickr much at all. I had no idea that just because a picture was on that site that there was an implication as to being the originator fo that picture. (Particularly since I've seen flickr used for the specific purpose of aggregating images by others).
As I mention in response to Greg's question of, "How so?" if they were actively trying to use the images that would be an entirely different matter.
So I certainly retract any implications of a knee jerk type of reaction but I do think assailing this person with claims of theft remains a demonstration of undue assumptions and not thinking of the myriad of other likely scenarios that led to that image being placed into that flickr account.
Not sure, but, I looked at all of his/her photos, and I am beginning to believe that they are simply out to ruffle some feathers. Maybe they are sitting back and laughing at this very discussion. I mean, it is the only benefit-of-doubt I can offer to said person.
Thomas:
I understand where you are coming from. No hard feelings, to be sure. I consider this a discussion, not a shouting match. A couple of more thoughts and I'll shut up.
(1) Context. Michael hit the nail on the head. Given the proper cues, you may come to the conclusion that this is just a collection of the things this person finds cool, but then again, you are just as likely not to. Is this fair to the real artist?
(2) Responsibility. One of the things that I think is important for people to understand (particularly neophytes) is that when you create a public space on the Internet, whether it is a complex web publication, a blog, or Flickr gallery, you are publishing. This means you are held to a similar standard that any print publication is held to, including requesting the use of images and giving proper credit. Flickr requires this in their Terms and Conditions; I know it is easy to blast through these and sort of ignore them, (who hasn't done it?) but if we are going to make the Internet a viable publishing platform, we need to understand the rules and follow them. I agree, we should probably show some restraint when taking people to task, but the fact remains that a firm slap on the bottom can be temporarily humiliating, but ultimately instructive.
(3) "If the artists in question don't want their work reproduced so readily they should rethink working on the web. That's just the nature of the domain." The photo community has had no end of discussion on this point, and I agree with you in principle: there are risks (although there are ways of mitigating them). Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the problems. The fact is that the Internet is one of the best and most affordable mediums for people to display their work. But if someone abuses it, we can't just ignore it, we need to fight back. The web is a big sandbox, and some people will use it as their playground, and some will use it as their toilet. We are just throwing the turd back at the person who left it.
(4) Ubiquity. Two of the reasons people require being asked if their images can be used is overexposure and confusion. The first is simple -- perhaps, flattered as an artist may be in someone's enjoyment of their work, they don't want their art scattered all over like a video of a skateboarding dog? Scarcity adds value. Secondly, if I see, for example, Paul Russell's image after seeing it in allig8torx's Flickr gallery, I may go, hey...didn't I see somewhere else? Who really took that photo? The bottom line is that the artist needs every opportunity to control their work.
Hi,
I work at flickr.
The lack of organ-removal options has been added to our bug list. Until we get round to fixing that, you might want to know that we do have a process to handle copyright infringement:
http://flickr.com/help/website/#24
http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/details.html
Should we also tackle people coming out of the library with a folder of photocopied pages from the Encyclopedia?
I think a more sane response would be to just ask them if that they intended to use these photos only for their own use that they not make the photoset public, otherwise they need to go ask permission from each copyright holder for permission to reproduce the image.
Thomas just ate Greg's lunch.
Ironic that after his original post Greg is telling others to lighten up...
> If the artists in question don't want their work reproduced so readily they should rethink working on the web. That's just the nature of the domain.
What a crock.
> Thomas just ate Greg's lunch.
Not even close, "Bryan" (*wink*). His assumptions are as bad as mine, only in the opposite, unicorn loving way. And I mean that in the nicest sense.
allig8torx: testa da caz!
There are MUCH bigger problems in the world. Get a grip.
> Should we also tackle people coming out of the library with a folder of photocopied pages from the Encyclopedia?
No, the difference is the concept of fair use. This guy could put the pictures up, but without linking to them and giving full explicit credit to the original artist, he's violating copyright.
Rather than forming a lynch mob to destroy his guy, has anyone actually tried just contacting Flickr or Mr. Alligator himself?
I think there's a much broader issue here. There's an underlying hypocrisy and sense of entitlement among some people who on one hand say that offenders like this need to be punished to the fullest extent because they are violating copyright laws (whether they care to know it or not), and then they go on to protest the RIAA suing some teenager.
I think we'd be much better off educating people rather than castrating people. Middle ground not middle fingers, people.
> The lack of organ-removal options has been added to our bug list.
Awesome! Also, the logo still shows up blue and pink. Can we get that fixed while we're at it?
> There are MUCH bigger problems in the world. Get a grip.
You're absolutely right. For starters who let you use the Internet? If we can solve that one then we can all go back to solving every other little problem afflicting the world. I'll call the United Nations and get them, hell us, on this matter ASAP.
Unfortunately, Flickr is a two-edged sword - you can share your images, but you can have have your images 'shared' in ways you don't know about. I realize that these photos were taken from File magazine, but the same principle applies.
Even if these pictures were in a set of 'cool pictures I've found', not attributing them is wrong. Changing names reeks of theft. And unfortunately, more and more good photographers are finding that they can't post their best stuff on sites like Flickr because of finding those images used elsewhere.
I've had it done, but I've been lucky because everyone I've found has been good to apologize and remove the images if I asked. Others have not had that luck. I've seen people blatantly steal, I've seen the 'if this is your picture, let me know and I'll remove it' (which is B.S. because you know where you got it from, you asshat), and the best one - a intellectual property lawyer who took the tact that, 'she had sent emails out and assumed that no response indicated right to use the image'. A big "waaahhh" to her.
Quite simply stated - if you see an image you like, ask if you can use it/reprint it/idolize it. If the photographer says "yes", you're golden. All other answers - ranging from "No" to a non-response = DON'T USE IT. What's so hard to understand about that?
To me, this appears to be a case of someone bored with MySpace branching out into other social/community sites without understanding the rules of the site in particular and copyright laws in general.
I agree what they did is wrong and they should have their Flickr account shutdown with an explanation of why their actions were wrong. But to assume intent is a stretch here, IMHO. The world is full of stupid people breaking laws they know nothing about. Ignorance is not a valid excuse but it is prevalent.
I always love arguments that say "there are bigger problems in the world." It's the most idiotic take ever to have in my opinion. Trickle down problem solving!
We should be tackling issues that we can solve and have passion over. Copyright infringement/misuse is one Greg routinely brings up and has helped solved in the past and by his post, you can not argue he has no passion for the issue.
The fact of the matter is that this an issue no matter what the intent of the gator. Only Steve Irwin could figure those creatures out, and he is sadly gone. The point is that he made a mistake, should be called out for it and maybe even get ridiculed for it. Why not, gators have tough skin. They have chewy meat too and when battered and fried in a cajun style can be quite tasty.
QUESTION: Can we get an official ranking of the biggest problems in the world because I am not quite sure what I should be spending my time on? Somehow I think commenting on Airbag may not be in my future. I'll be playing Mario Party until it's nailed down.
Beerzie Boy:
You make some good points. In fact I'd say I have to agree with all your points aside from the first. I won't belabor the issue though. If I felt my work was being reproduced in such a manner I'd appreciate someone like yourself watching my back. Thanks for your replies; they've given me cause to reflect.
Greg:
> What a crock. (and other various comments throughout)
Maybe you're just being playful, not knowing you in person it's hard to say and there's not enough context here to say for sure. I can't help but think of what I read here though.
"No, the difference is the concept of fair use. This guy could put the pictures up, but without linking to them and giving full explicit credit to the original artist, he's violating copyright."
The issue here is a clash between modern technology and lawyers.
Did this person 'PUBLISH' these works as his own? Not really. In fact, one could argue about the term 'publish' in context of Flickr albums.
There's no doubt this person is violating the copyright of the artists that took the photos. Is this person being malicious about it? Was it intentional? Is any real harm done? I think these are issues that need to be thought through before one jumps into 'sue, sue, sue' mode ala the RI/MPAA folks.
Now, maybe this person is being malicious. In which case, fair game...tear'im up. On the other end of the spectrum, maybe the person didn't know they were publicly sharing it. Or that one should at least credit the sources out of common courtesy (let alone legal reasons). We barely teach our citizens civics in this country. It's hard to instantly chastise folks for not understanding copyright issues and fair use universally.
A LOT of folks use Flickr as an online clippings folder. I'd call this fair use. Is SHARING said clipping folder fair use? I imagine folks could argue both sides of that one with a lot of 'well, it depends...'
So giving someone the benefit of the doubt is just as wrong as chastising them before knowing all the facts? What country do you live in?
You are WAY over your skis on this one.
Sincerely,
Bigfoot
> I always love arguments that say "there are bigger problems in the world." It's the most idiotic take ever to have in my opinion. Trickle down problem solving!
I also love how half the people in the room get the humor and the other half are dramatized-for-life-offended.
OK, I know I said I'd shut up. I lied.
Darrel, there is no doubt that "A LOT of folks use Flickr as an online clippings folder. I'd call this fair use." However, this breaks one of Flickr's own guidelines, to wit:
"Don't upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photographs and/or stuff that you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time."
I'd say our gator-buddy has run afoul of this guideline. It looks like his whole collection is other folks' work.
"Do upload photos that you've taken.
Respect the copyright of others. This means don't steal photographs that other people have taken and pass them off as your own. (That�s what favorites are for.)"
I'd argue that our gator-buddy has run also afoul of this guideline.
And in the interest of full disclosure:
Copyright Infringement
"If you see your photographs in another member's photostream, don't panic. This is probably just a misunderstanding and not malicious. A good first step is to contact them and politely ask them to remove it. If that doesn't work, please file a Notice of Infringement with the Yahoo! Copyright Team who will take it from there.
You may be tempted to post an entry in our public forum about what's happening, but that's not the best way to resolve a possible copyright problem. We don't encourage singling out individuals or their photos in our public forum."
Mea culpa on this one. I have to admit, I may have panicked a bit on this, and I can see hope it looks like I have been too hasty blowing the whistle. In my defense, I will say again that I feel a responsibility to my contributors to defend them from plagiarism, and I feel more so when my site was used as the vehicle through which this act occurred. Also, Yahoo has been contacted about several of Gator's images and has yet to act. It may not seem urgent to Yahoo or anyone whose work was not yoinked by Master Gator, but the victims I am in contact with are quite distressed.
I also don't quite buy the RI/MPAA analogy. I recognize that "file sharing" is often "file stealing". But there is a critical difference here: the "shared" works were purchased at some point. And I have yet to see an instance of someone sharing copyrighted music and trying to pass it off as their own; Metallica isn't worried that someone is copying their albums and claiming them as their own work, they are worried that if I make a copy of an album for a friend, they will have lost an opportunity to make money.
As for whether posting photos to Flickr constitutes "publishing", you're right, that's arguable. "Publish" is, according to Dictionary.com:
1 issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2. to issue publicly the work of.
A Flickr gallery meets this criteria. The modest nature of a publishing platform or the scope of its distribution does not preclude one from considering it a publishing platform. If I create Xeroxed 'zine and distribute it, it is still -- however modest -- a publication.
I found it humorous that you went apesh*t on some dude without knowing all the facts.
Does that count?
*wink*
Bigfoot
> I found it humorous that you went apesh*t on some dude without knowing all the facts.
What facts? That someone poached work they didn't do and posted it as their own against Flickr guidelines?
One of my images was "stolen" from File Magazine, uploaded to allig8torx Flickr account, indicated as public and made available for free download. All metadata has been maintained in the file available for download on Flickr, so there is no question that the image is mine. However anyone in the world can publish it to his or her own site, personal or commercial and despite the embedded metadata, attribute it to allig8torx.
This Rights Managed Image has been licensed, exhibited and sold as a Limited Edition photograph. In terms of Rights Managed Licensing, the integrity of the image has been compromised. Since the image has been licensed several times, unauthorized use may affect future licensing; therefore, I am losing business. Will a Client license a Rights Managed Image if it posted all over the Internet and available for free? A typical US license for publishing on a commercial site is $300.00 and I make the decision.
In terms of Copyright, my legal right to copy my image has been violated. If the image appears on a commercial site, my digital tracker will find it and since it is registered with the US Copyright Office, I may pursue legal action, but for any unauthorized use on personal sites, I must rely on the good faith of the folks at File Magazine and everyone reading these comments. All of this courtesy allig8torx, who needs to be educated
Being an Artist is my livelihood and as part of my self employed earnings, I license the "right to copy" my images privately and via Getty images and Corbis. Images are licensed as Rights Managed Only and each reproduction is negotiated based on use. If the image is used to promote my work, permission, credit and Copyright Notice are mandatory. Metadata is always embedded in the digital file to ensure proper attribution and Copyright Notice.
When an Unauthorized Use is found, a Copyright Registered image is protected under US Copyright Laws, International Treaties and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In most cases, a Retroactive License is issued with Penalty Fees and the Infringer becomes a Client. It is a simple business transaction. On sites such as Flickr or Photo Bucket, a simple cease and desist letter or Notice of Copyright Infringement is sent and the service honors its policy to remove the image and usually terminates the account.
Whether allig8torx has uploaded the stolen File Magazine images to Flickr in a conscious act of Copyright Infringement or whether it was an unconscious act really doesnt matter. What matters is the principle. Whether he knows it or not, he has violated my Copyright, the Copyright policies of two sites, File Magazine and Flickr/Yahoo, and uploaded a Copyright Registered image, that is not his, to a public site that promotes file sharing and free downloads. This is not Fair Use.
Yes, I am honored that allig8torx likes my photograph. And since this is not the first time this image has been stolen, I am most honored, but being honored in this way only goes so far. After the fact, the only way to educate people about Intellectual Property, Copyright and Internet Etiquette, is to lay the law down. And if allig8torx really loves the image, perhaps he could write me a fan letter, or better yet, in the letter ask permission to reproduce the image and buy a print to support the arts and truly honor the image.
Please note: Flickr/Yahoo Legal Department has been notified of this infringement, however I have no way of contacting allig8torx other than through psychic communication...
> Please note: Flickr/Yahoo Legal Department has been notified of this infringement
Does that mean we can all move on to more pressing and cynical matters that actually spike our day with some humor and levity instead of bowline knots in our lacey things?
Booyah!
> Does that mean we can all move on to more pressing and cynical matters that actually spike our day with some humor and levity instead of bowline knots in our lacey things?
Indeed it does.