|
|
|
-
Remember the slideshow on my website with captions that talked about the best time to photograph kids? Lots of work and creativity put into that one, and it's become a great marketing hook for me.
Of course, the inevitable -- I caught a photographer I know who had taken the show, verbatim, in its entirety, with the exception of two slides with slight wording changes, removed my images and placed hers in it, and used it on her website for marketing purposes.
How sad is that?
- CJ
-
This is taught in HTML classses. Go up to the top of your screen and click on view. Scroll down to source. You can pull up most peoples source code. you make the little changes you want, and wonder of wonders you have a website. Doesn't make it any better for those who do the work. In todays world of the internet and everything should be free mentality, it is totally acceptable. I wish it wasn't.
-
It seems there are a few problems... In the US, we have copyright laws (as I am sure other countries do as well), but there are really no *laws* to govern what you may or may not do on the internet.
Plagiarism is Plagiarism is stealing, but at some point, the international community must determine some way of dealing with it!
IMHO
Jeanette
-
but there are really no *laws* to govern what you may or may not do on the internet.
Yes, there are. The same laws of copyright apply, and it is perfect possible to enforce them. In the situation I mentioned, a simple "cease and desist" letter was motivation enough to remedy the problem within two hours of my finding it.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, and copyright infringement is copyright infringement, even on the 'net.
-
it never ceases to amaze me how people just grab what they want and run with it. i found one of my website images on a howard stern fan-site. they didn't even bother to grab the jpg, they just coded their page to use my website for their image source. this sort of stuff goes on - on fEEbay all the time too, people are to pathetic to write their own selling page, or use images of their own, so they link their page to the source of someone else and *hope* that no one notices.
web-anarchy has its privileges
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
This never happens to me. A few years ago. a website had pulled down photo.net's photo of week photo/images and created a photo award website. They took just about every photo of the week but mine.
I was so put out!
-
I think a lot of this plagiarism is due to "the new morality" wherein the issue of importance is whether you are caught and/or punished, not what you did. How many times have you heard someone claim, in complete seriousness, "it's only illegal if you get caught".
During one of my NPR-listening sessions in the print room, I heard either Sec. Rumsfield or a joint chiefs staffer saying how much worse the Abu Ghraib issue would be if additional pictures and videos were released. Only one or two lawmakers took them to task for the fact the issue was the abuse itself, not the pictures of the abuse. I suppose this is what comes of being more concerned with being politically correct rather than just plain correct.
In an atmosphere where the test of morality is whether or not you get caught, it's easy to see how someone could sincerely think it was acceptable to grab someone's website content, manufacture news photos, etc.
There are, IMHO, acceptable forms of copying. Websites full of intentionally open source web scripts are there for the plucking. I'm sure many, if not most of us have taken pictures along themes we've seen used by other photographers, such as the old delapitated barn, a long line of street lamps/utility poles/fence posts either compressed by a long lens or expanded by a short one. The encyclopedia of successful portrait poses is a well-traveled volume as well. To varying degrees, I'd venture a guess that most of us find those forms of copying acceptable.
Conversely, I doubt that anyone on APUG would claim someone else's image as their own, copy the source to someone's website and use it as their own, etc.
In discussions like this, I keep coming back to the thought that behavior like this stems from the family dinner table, or the lack thereof. I'd be willing to bet people who grew up discussing right and wrong and why around the dinner table are less likely to gravitate to the plagiaristic pole of the copying continuum.
-
LOL..good catch Francesco. How embarrasing can it be to get caught like this. OTOH I understand his motive, he does lack a command of the english language and I am sure he felt "pressured" to have an "artist" statement. I have never understood this obsesion with an artist statement, IMO a photograph should stand on it's own, if you have to explain it, you have failed.
Anyhow, I bet this will do more harm than good now that he has been caught.
-
 Originally Posted by Aggie
This is taught in HTML classses. Go up to the top of your screen and click on view. Scroll down to source. You can pull up most peoples source code. you make the little changes you want, and wonder of wonders you have a website. Doesn't make it any better for those who do the work. In todays world of the internet and everything should be free mentality, it is totally acceptable. I wish it wasn't.
Actually the only source code you can see is the code downloaded by your browser. APUG is a good example of this. On the server there is a lot of code that is run (in the PHP package) that we can't see, and therefore can't steal. In the case of the stolen artist's statement this does not help, but if Cheryl did most of her processing on the server instead of the client it would be very difficult to just "lift" her site. The look and feel of it however could still easily be stolen.
-
I'm sure many, if not most of us have taken pictures along themes we've seen used by other photographers, such as the old delapitated barn, a long line of street lamps/utility poles/fence posts either compressed by a long lens or expanded by a short one. The encyclopedia of successful portrait poses is a well-traveled volume as well. To varying degrees, I'd venture a guess that most of us find those forms of copying acceptable.
But is that really *copying*??? There is a difference between emulating the style of someone (ZS...Ansel Adams) and copying them... copying them implies taking their image verbatim, not taking your own shot of the same thing, or posing a model in the same way. Think about art classes where the entire class draws the same thing. This is not copying, since each persons result will be different. Same goes with photography.
I have often written things that reflect the same sentiments; I think anyone who photographs nature feels that *connection*. But because we feel the same does not make that copying. In the examples posted, however, that WAS blatant copying! Shame on them!! The non-english speaking person should have expressed their own feelings. I think most of the world can handle understanding those feelings at the core rather than at the surface of the words.
Jeanette
|
|
Adv Reply
