John,
There are several issue here, some legal, some ethical, some practical.
Like you, my first reaction is that most images on the Internet are not
high quality enough to do this with. That's an issue between him and his
buyers of the calanders, but he is also selling screensavers which would
have at least passable images.
Whether he checked for copyright notices is a moot point, because it's
doesn't make any difference, he's still stealing. Writers can't do it, it's
called plagiarism [to steal and use the writings or ideas of another) as
one's own.] (notice monetary gain is not a factor in the definition).
Musicians can't do it and it's no different for visual arts. You can't
bootleg musical recording or video tape and reproduce and sell them either.
I have worked professionally as an artist, so this becomes an issue close
to home. Any image whether by camera or by brush is the property of the
creator, I put copyright notes on my web page and deliberately do something
to the image to thwart this practice, but just because someone else doesn't
anticipate the situation doesn't mean they forfeit the right. That aside,
most people like yourself would be happy to say "help yourself" if only
they were asked. THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS IS THAT THERE
ISN'T THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF COURTESTY INVOLVED. Artist or not, at least
credit should be given to the photograpy or owner (as you state). So any
way you look at it, he's deceptive and dishonest. I frequently get people
asking if they can have permission to use an image for a web site or
enthusiast magazine, and I have always said yes. That doesn't mean they
shouldn't ask. I remember when somebody copied Frank C's tech tips and
published them in a magazine without asking him and without credit. He was
pissed... this is no different. Others have caught the calander guy doing
this, but it has not stopped him from doing continuing, so he can't say he
"didn't know". Worse, he's making himself a business from it and calls
himself "M Loft Productions". Do you know he has around 400 user feedback
comments on ebay... do the math.
I have had my artwork reproduced on book covers and been paid for the "use"
of the artwork without having to give exclusive rights to the publisher. I
can use or sell the same work another time. Why? because I retain ownership
of the original work. This is not an unusual practice. If he wants to
profit from other people's works, he should be giving them a share of his
profits, or go out and hire his own photogarphers to complile his calendar.
Do you know why he doesn't? Because it costs money for film, processing,
creativity and time, and he couldn't make any money doing it that way. Ask
me how I know...
Gerard
Below is a reprint from a message from Bob Kitterer which I think
accurately reflects the reality of the situation.
============================================================================
Bob Kitterer wrote:
The Federal Copyright laws as amended in the 1970's made "works of art"
copyrighted at the time of creation, removing the need to go through formal
copyright procedures before an item was copywritten. This change was quite
explicit in that items were copyrighted when pen was taken to paper, brush to
canvas, and the moment the shutter was pressed in photography. These changes
also applied to software. At the time I was doing professional photography
and the change in the laws were very helpful and created some problems. In
particular, if you had lost the film of your family photos you could not get
them copied because it was considered a copyright infrigement without the
original film. I think some changes have been made for this latter item
since then, but it is still a problem.
The internet has presented new problems and questions of which I am not
current. A good copyright lawyer should be able to answer this and they used
to be willing to give you 15-30 minutes of time at no charge or minimal
charge.
============================================================================
At 3:55 PM -0400 6/30/02, JCarey4NGs@cs.com wrote:
>Gerard,
>
>I was following that thread, but somehow did not (yet?) get that post....
>thnx.
>
>I doubt seriously that any of the photos on my site are high enough
>quality for hard copy printing (ala the web hosting thread that has blown
>out of proportion) much less calendar quality. Still, it would be
>interesting to see what the quy is doing. I admit, some files (when you
>click on the thumbnail) are on the verge of better than web quality, but
>most ar + or - 50KB
>
>I guess my take is 1) unless he is using images on the Internet that I
>feel are proprietary such as custom backgrounds (I nailed one guy for
>that), the "look" of a front-page, etc. I don't have a problem. 2) I'm in
>this for the fun, exposure, and improvement of the world image of the
>Bugeye. So any "lifting" of car photos for whatever is OK by me. 3) I
>would demand not a calendar, but credit as the owner of a car used (or
>both).
>
>I have received many encouraging E-s that claim to be motivated by
>pictures of my car that are used for print-outs, screen savers, or to show
>un-beliving relatives how good their projrect may be someday. I'm sure you
>understand that that has got to be one of the most rewarding aspects of
>web hosting.
>
>Enjoy, John (PS, a lot of folks mistake me for Jim).
>
>BTW, constructive criticism on web posting/hosting might be received
>better in private than on the list. I know many need education on file
>size/quality, but they might need it one on one, or a general education
>post on the Spridget list might help folks who are getting into web
>posting.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|