The killing blow for "hottie of the week" blogs
Copyright is serious business. It is. Authors want to get paid for their work. We waste many perfectly good writing hours sending DMCA takedowns to sites that pirate our work. Every author in our genre is passionate about piracy (leading to some meltdowns and some diatribes and some indignant rants, some of which I've written).
And I believe firmly we're in the right if we reserve the right to decide *which* story we charge for. I've given away years of work for free in Special Forces, so people who only want "free" can have those one million words. I believe it's an attitude that's largely consensus in our industry. We want to get paid. Some of us rely on royalty cheques for groceries, utilities or making car/house payments. So, many of us *need* to get paid.
A while ago (= years), I came across the freshly-relaunched website of an erotic romance writer. The first thing I saw was that the blog was peppered with, among others, images by Luis Royo - who, you can see on his official page (do go!), is pretty sexy and pretty awesome. She must have had like 30-40 images on there. And her newest blog post was a vicious rant on piracy - surrounded by all the stolen Luis Royo images that I can guarantee she did not acquire licenses for, because at Royo's level, that's really expensive. I mean "display those images or buy a house"-kind of expensive. It shot her credibility to pieces. How can she expect to have her copyright respected when she doesn't respect the rights of one of the most easily recognizable visual artists alive?
Now, for a long time, I was told that those "pictures are public domain" - they aren't. High-end erotic nudes are not public domain, at least not in 99% of all cases. To look that good, models want to be paid, photographers are spending thousands of dollars on equipment, fees, and it takes hundred of hours to get that good. Years. If you like looking at it, it's most likely the work of a pro, and pros like to get paid.
Another argument was "well, everybody does it" (yeah, and everybody can get fined for it).
Another was "but the man candy pics are the most-viewed entries, I *need* them, and it's just harmless fun" - well, look at all the e-book piracy sites who live off traffic selling advertising - people come for pirated content they can't get elsewhere, and they, too, believe it's "harmless fun".
I don't want to get all sanctimonious. I, too, like looking at "man candy" images. Who doesn't. But recently, I hear more and more stories of photographers suing and fining blogs (that includes the owners of Tumblrs and Pinterests) - and the fines are not small. If you think you get slapped with a $50 fine for one Royo, well, add a few zeroes. Keep adding. I'll tell you when to stop.
Back in the days when I was covering start-ups as a biz journalist (4-5 years ago), I covered some tech start-ups that were developing programmes that crawl the internet and do pattern recognition. Basically, they can compare images and find unauthorized content and then point the copyright owner at it. The "reblogging" tail in Tumblr? Very easy way to track everybody who reblogged a photographer's image. Every single display can be fined. We're talking hundreds and thousands of dollars for every single image. Those IT programmes are out there, and I hear more and more stories of fines and taken-own sites and blogs and I think this is really just the start. Music piracy was first, now it's e-book piracy, and piracy of images is coming right after.
As authors, the very laws that protect our copyrights also protect the rights of photographers. Please respect them. I'd strongly advise every single blogger to go through their entries and very carefully consider whether you actually own the image or have the right to display it (hint: your book covers should be OK). If you keep images of unclear source, be prepared to pay top whack for every single one. Personally, I think the risk is not worth it. This is money most of us can't afford - or at least spend on much nicer things.
And here's the link that prompted it all. Do take the time to read the comments from the photographers. Please respect their work in the same way you want others to respect yours. Thank you!
And I believe firmly we're in the right if we reserve the right to decide *which* story we charge for. I've given away years of work for free in Special Forces, so people who only want "free" can have those one million words. I believe it's an attitude that's largely consensus in our industry. We want to get paid. Some of us rely on royalty cheques for groceries, utilities or making car/house payments. So, many of us *need* to get paid.
A while ago (= years), I came across the freshly-relaunched website of an erotic romance writer. The first thing I saw was that the blog was peppered with, among others, images by Luis Royo - who, you can see on his official page (do go!), is pretty sexy and pretty awesome. She must have had like 30-40 images on there. And her newest blog post was a vicious rant on piracy - surrounded by all the stolen Luis Royo images that I can guarantee she did not acquire licenses for, because at Royo's level, that's really expensive. I mean "display those images or buy a house"-kind of expensive. It shot her credibility to pieces. How can she expect to have her copyright respected when she doesn't respect the rights of one of the most easily recognizable visual artists alive?
Now, for a long time, I was told that those "pictures are public domain" - they aren't. High-end erotic nudes are not public domain, at least not in 99% of all cases. To look that good, models want to be paid, photographers are spending thousands of dollars on equipment, fees, and it takes hundred of hours to get that good. Years. If you like looking at it, it's most likely the work of a pro, and pros like to get paid.
Another argument was "well, everybody does it" (yeah, and everybody can get fined for it).
Another was "but the man candy pics are the most-viewed entries, I *need* them, and it's just harmless fun" - well, look at all the e-book piracy sites who live off traffic selling advertising - people come for pirated content they can't get elsewhere, and they, too, believe it's "harmless fun".
I don't want to get all sanctimonious. I, too, like looking at "man candy" images. Who doesn't. But recently, I hear more and more stories of photographers suing and fining blogs (that includes the owners of Tumblrs and Pinterests) - and the fines are not small. If you think you get slapped with a $50 fine for one Royo, well, add a few zeroes. Keep adding. I'll tell you when to stop.
Back in the days when I was covering start-ups as a biz journalist (4-5 years ago), I covered some tech start-ups that were developing programmes that crawl the internet and do pattern recognition. Basically, they can compare images and find unauthorized content and then point the copyright owner at it. The "reblogging" tail in Tumblr? Very easy way to track everybody who reblogged a photographer's image. Every single display can be fined. We're talking hundreds and thousands of dollars for every single image. Those IT programmes are out there, and I hear more and more stories of fines and taken-own sites and blogs and I think this is really just the start. Music piracy was first, now it's e-book piracy, and piracy of images is coming right after.
As authors, the very laws that protect our copyrights also protect the rights of photographers. Please respect them. I'd strongly advise every single blogger to go through their entries and very carefully consider whether you actually own the image or have the right to display it (hint: your book covers should be OK). If you keep images of unclear source, be prepared to pay top whack for every single one. Personally, I think the risk is not worth it. This is money most of us can't afford - or at least spend on much nicer things.
And here's the link that prompted it all. Do take the time to read the comments from the photographers. Please respect their work in the same way you want others to respect yours. Thank you!
date
newest »
newest »
I don't know if I consider a person using a copyrighted image on their website/blog and a person posting it to Tumblr/Pinterest to be the same issue. A traditional blog could be seen as publishing, in my opinion, but the other platforms are just moving normal human interactions on to a digital landscape. If I cut a photo out of a magazine and send it to my friend ... have I published it? Do I now need to pay a licensing fee? Is the number of people who will see the image the difference maker or the context in which the image is used (ie: as part of a overall design -vs- stand along sharing)? If I keep the watermark and link back to the micro/macro stock site selling the image have I stolen it or am I sharing it?If reblogs count as publishing ... doesn't ALL social sharing also become a form of publishing?
Nobody knows the answers yet, and in my mind it's not really comparable to ebook piracy because a person who downloads a ebook might have theoretically paid for it, a web designer who uses an unlicensed image in a layout or even to accompany an article might have paid for it ... but a person on Pinterest adding something pretty to her interior design inspiration board .... I dunno, is that the same thing? Is there any benefit to pursuing that as a form of infringement?
I mean if people cannot discuss and share content legally among their social circles, I'm not sure there's any point to anyone creating any kind of content in the first place. Creative people might have to come to terms with the reality that using art to pay the bills was just a quirk of our time period that's gone back to being no longer viable.
Even private pictures are protected by law. I learned that the hard way a couple of months ago when I downloaded a picture from Google Pictures and used it in an add for an event at our bookstore. The photographer sent us an angry mail and demanded to get paid. Which we did of course. Man, did I feel embarrased. I could say in my defense that I did it in good faith and that the event was a pro bono show for the Children's Hospital, to raise money to fight cancer. Didn't help much in the long run though. Copy right is copy right.
Well worse than that it's APPALLING to me how often designers do not check the licensing conditions of their
fonts
. Just because you downloaded it for free on dafont.com does not mean you can use it on book covers. One has to be very careful about this stuff.
Isa wrote: "Creative people might have to come to terms with the reality that using art to pay the bills was just a quirk of our time period that's gone back to being no longer viable. "Oh good, I don't think present life revolves enough around accounting and law--please encourage people not to waste their time.
Btw...there are many sites that have non-copyright images that others encourage use of as well as acceptable use for creative work. They are marked. Check them out.
Vivian wrote: "Oh good, I don't think present life revolves enough around accounting and law--please encourage people not to waste their time."This may be a difference of opinion but the purpose of the arts to me is communication, not survival. If artists are going to suppress that communication because they need to pay their phone bill ... what's the point? That's not to say there shouldn't be any protection at all-- I definitely support sane anti-piracy/plagiarism measures-- but I think if you're more interested in getting paid than having people discuss and share your work then ... yeah, you'd probably be better off as an accountant.
Isa - regarding your question: do check out the link. The photographers are giving advice on their rights and how to do it right.As a writer, I've been told that torrenting my work was a fact of life, that the Internet basically had a right to my work if I publish at all, and that I should just shut up and keep writing so people can keep sharing my work. (Needless to say, I disagree heartily.) Few artists work for free. Once you reach a certain point of skill (and it takes many years), pros like to get paid. Royo doesn't make images because he's bored, he makes them to earn a living doing what he loves. :) So, the purpose of the arts is to make a living for the artist by creating stuff that is so good that people want it enough to pay for it. (Obviously there are artists on government and private grants, but that is just a new form of patronage.)
^^^^That!!
We should probably expect ballet dancers to perform for free too. And see movies without buying a ticket… if it's all art, and art should be free!
I’ve become so much more aware of this issue in the last week or so, and have deleted a number of pictures from my Tumblr. I’m considering deleting it entirely, because there’s so much that’s wrong about people not even crediting images – and stealing them in the first place.
Even my avatar here is an image I paid for the use of. I wouldn’t want someone stealing from me, and I’m starting to realise there’re times I’ve been stealing from others.
Basia - I think everybody has done it - we didn't know better. It's much like, thirty years ago, everybody was using hairspray and deodorant sprays with stuff that killed the ozone layer. We've stopped since then, pretty much. I'm hoping that the awareness that this chokes off authors and other creatives (like photographers) will lead to different behaviour. In any case, the threat of fines is very serious. Few of my friends could afford to license what they are sharing on their blogs.
Aleks - I think you misunderstand me. I was not asking what artists think should be done, I was questioning whether including Pinterest/Tumblr activity in essentially a discussion about licensing and piracy makes sense. It doesn't to me.I also don't think that anyone should be forced to give their work away for free if they don't want to, but I DO think that people's priorities have to be in line with what their profession realistically can offer. People who are *so* concerned about making money that they're willing to crush any and all discussion about their work that doesn't start with them getting paid should not be artists.
I'm not telling you to just accept your books on torrent sites because that is piracy, but (like I said before) piracy =/= posting to Pinterest. I do think artists who go after users on Pinterest are out of line.
Isa - I'm not a copyright specialist (copyright varies wildly from country to country), and in any case I can't make a judgment call on fair use. I've been trained as a journalist in the use of images, but most images we used were explicitly creative commons or supplied by the firms I interviewed, so I was on the safe side. In my previous previous job, it was made crystal clear that if I expose my media company to a lawsuit - regarding plagiarism, libel/slander, or unauthorized use of images - that's a sackable offense and I would be let go with immediate effect. This is stuff that is pretty deeply ingrained if you have a mortgage, so I always played things extremely safe. So, I'm not qualified to make any call on the legality of Tumblr/Pinterest, but because I don't have a few ten thousand dollar lying around that I wnt to invest in images, I've taken down everything that was potentially a problem (in my case, that was something like 5 images, as I've never been particularly active there anyway). Personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution.Also, I don't know any artist whatsoever whose priority is not on making art but monetizing it. Though I do sacrifice prime writing time to sending DMCAs, and every one of those hours eventually piles up into the time it would take me to write a novel. Over my lifetime, it's pretty likely that those hours spent sending DMCAs takedowns will result in a significant amount of novels not being written, and that depresses me to hell, but it depresses me worse (and kills my motivation to write worse) to have people run around on those "sharing sites" posting about how much they love me and my style and my characters and then in the next breath request whether the others would be so "kind" to upload everything I've ever done. Some way to show me love, I have to admit.
I'm a writer who sends a lot of free copies to friends and people who can't afford books, and I know reviewers who are broke but write very insightful reviews, and those people get free copies as reviewers. But I see your point that the discussion very often focuses on money - I see it as a "push back" against the widely-held attitude that "art is free" and "should be free" and artists are holding their work "hostage", because everybody on the internet is naturally entitled to it. Of course the front lines get hardened and drawn with barbed wire at some point. Artists of any stripe have been mocked so much for trying to make a living at all that many of us have had to justify why we're asking for money at all!
Personally, I can see both positions, and I see the "slippery slope" argument, too.
It's a really complex thing, but in this case, it's really quite easy: more and more photographers are fed up with the "free use" of their photos, and they are sending bills and get websites fined, and I see more and more of those instances, so keeping illegal content (as described by the current law) is potentially dangerous because it can lead to huge fines, and I know many people who cannot afford those fines. I'm not making a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of it or whether Tumblr or Pinterest are illegal per se. I'm just saying that as an artist who is also not happy about being illegally shared, I can totally see the photographer's point.
Also, who is an artist is thankfully not something that is decided by anybody who is not him/her. :) You had very commercially savvy painters like Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol, who, yes, were concerned about getting paid and reverse the idea of the "starving artist = noble/real artist" that is still prevalent in our culture. Personally, if I made not a cent from my work, I'd share it with my fifty or so friends, in private, because that already gives me all the kicks regarding discussion I need.
Like WeaselBox says, there's a difference between "Sharing through a medium which has no renumerative value to the sharer or a blog through which someone earns some money. Then there are shades inbetween." It seems reasonable to me that fan use and commercial use are two different things. A lot of copyright law is stupid, and more is misapplied. We need to have these discussions, because we're trying to live 21st century lives based on 19th century laws.
Just in the e-book area it is completely ridiculous that I can accept a Kindle loan of a book but not make one, because I live outside of the US. If I could loan my Kindle copy to someone if I did live in the US, why shouldn't I email someone a pdf copy? Why should that be wrong?
It is stupid that some titles are geoblocked to me because the company who owns the rights to my region isn't going to release the book. It is bloody ridiculous that a parent with four children legally has to buy four copies of an e-textbook; they can't be handed down to the younger children. And it is not tenable that I'm allowed to clip photos from a paper magazine and place them on my pinboard at work, but I'm breaking the law by having a pinterest board.
To be clear I don't personally ever pirate ebooks, movies, music, or anything else. But the way our culture is handling this offends my sense of justice.
Emma - I agree with the broad thrust of your argument (though a Kindle loan is limited in use and time - I've never made one, I don't have the right either, being in the UK, whereas sending a PDF isn't; nobody can control whether the receiver actually deletes the copy after use). A sense of fairness and justice is one of the reasons why I'm doing my bit at Riptide ensuring that we don't do geo restrictrions - or DRM, for that matter. Regarding the image - do read the photographer's reasoning that an image that is widely shared on the internet is worthless, whereas an image cut on from a magazine means a) photographer got paid (by the magazine) and b) only you and your colleague see it, which means that the image itself is not de-valuated. (At least this according to my understanding.)
Thanks so much for posting this, I'm a complete stickler for paying for music and books (I once insulted a singer friend of mine by insisting that I pay her for a demo CD that she gave me), but online images - nope. I repost like it's my job. Absolutely my bad and I'm going back and deleting the ones I have.
As for e-books, I agree completely with Aleks, there's no way of controlling where e-books go unless you use a lending service like Kindle. I recently had someone friend me here on GR and then immediately ask me to lend her several books on my list. I ignored her first request, then she emailed me and I had to flat out say that I wasn't comfortable doing that with people I don't know. Very awkward.
As for e-books, I agree completely with Aleks, there's no way of controlling where e-books go unless you use a lending service like Kindle. I recently had someone friend me here on GR and then immediately ask me to lend her several books on my list. I ignored her first request, then she emailed me and I had to flat out say that I wasn't comfortable doing that with people I don't know. Very awkward.
Cris - There are several people on Goodreads that use "shelves" and "friending" exactly in the way described. I have review blogger friends who constantly get "gimme, gimme" requests. That has to be really awkward (and thanks for not giving in to those!). But do accept free stuff from artists if we give it ourselves - that's fine. That is actually a gift. :)
Thank you for posting this, Aleks.I talk about this A LOT practically every week with my art students (about 14-17 years old) who, no doubt, are used to downloading a huge amount of music, movies, pictures and other stuff from the internet illegally. A very important issue, indeed.
Aleksandr wrote: "But do accept free stuff from artists if we give it ourselves - that's fine. That is actually a gift. :) "
:) I know that now *sigh*, but it had to be spelled out in great detail by a mutual friend that, while my intentions were honorable, I was actually being insulting and refusing a gift.
It just really bothers me the way that so many people refuse to assign real value to the creative contributions of others, and I really don't want to be one of those, so I tend to bend too far the other way trying to be fair.
Again, which is why I'm a more than a little irritated at myself for not recognizing what I was doing with the online photos.
:) I know that now *sigh*, but it had to be spelled out in great detail by a mutual friend that, while my intentions were honorable, I was actually being insulting and refusing a gift.
It just really bothers me the way that so many people refuse to assign real value to the creative contributions of others, and I really don't want to be one of those, so I tend to bend too far the other way trying to be fair.
Again, which is why I'm a more than a little irritated at myself for not recognizing what I was doing with the online photos.
Cris - maybe just tell her/him and, dunno, buy some other stuff from them? No use dragging that embarrassment around with you. Be kind to yourself. :)
Aleksandr wrote: "Cris - maybe just tell her/him and, dunno, buy some other stuff from them? No use dragging that embarrassment around with you. Be kind to yourself. :)"
Thanks Aleks :) That's exactly what I do. Any time one of my friends' demos are released (they're songwriters, so others usually release the songs publicly), I buy them on iTunes, even if I don't like the performing artist (*ahem* Montgomery Gentry *ahem*).
I've definitely moved past the initial embarrassment, it's now a couple of years (and many free demos) later. At this point, it's just a good story of misguided good intentions :)
Thanks Aleks :) That's exactly what I do. Any time one of my friends' demos are released (they're songwriters, so others usually release the songs publicly), I buy them on iTunes, even if I don't like the performing artist (*ahem* Montgomery Gentry *ahem*).
I've definitely moved past the initial embarrassment, it's now a couple of years (and many free demos) later. At this point, it's just a good story of misguided good intentions :)
Johanna wrote: "Thank you for posting this, Aleks.I talk about this A LOT practically every week with my art students (about 14-17 years old) who, no doubt, are used to downloading a huge amount of music, movies..."
Hi Johanna, I'm really curious what you tell your students in terms of copyright. Because art inherently involves remix: nothing can be 100% original.
Emma Sea wrote: "Hi Johanna, I'm really curious what you tell your students in terms of copyright. Because art inherently involves remix: nothing can be 100% original."Hi, Emma. :) Yeah, you are right. Making art is kind of blending things together and coming up with something new - taking influence from all and everything. So I'll try to answer your question really shortly just about photographs:
One can use a photograph as an inspiration for a totally new artwork. So, if a student finds a cool photograph in the internet and wants to make for example a drawing or a painting based on it, that's ok (although there are exceptions depending on the fact if the photo is a private photograph or an art photograph). But if the student wants to take the same photo and do just some photoshopping to it, to change it a bit, that's definitely a no-no. With photographs used as a part of a collage the law is more complicated. In this case one should always ask permission for the use from the person who own's the copyright of the photograph. Even if one is only using the photo (or parts of the photo) as a small part of the collage.
Making a copy (paper or digital) of a photograph that is legally put in the internet is ok. But only for private use. Not to show it anywhere. And there are lots of regulations for example concerning the use of a photograph for example in a power point -presentation (whether to use only link or so on), but overall the thing is that one has to be very careful when using pictures in presentations like that. Copyrights expire only after 70 years after artist's death so there are some sites that have a lot of pictures of artwork older than that (and other photographs that can be used freely too). One of those is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cat...
Anyway, some of the copyright laws make my work as a teacher a bit complicated, but as an art teacher I simply think that all this is very necessary. Let's give the respect and the money to the person who deserves it. And I also always try to take care of the fact that my students' artworks (and photographs of them) are treated legally too.
ETA: I also always encourage my students to take their own pictures. Almost all their cell phones have a bild in camera with a reasonble quality. And they do have their cell phones in their hands all the time! LOL. So it's easy enough for them to also photograph anything they find interesting at any time. And I've noticed that more and more families own a digital camera (or are willing to buy it to their child). We (not only me, but the students too) are also doing quite a lot of documenting during the process of art making, not only taking pictures of the final result.
Here are only some of my thoughts about the matter (and only from a teacher's point of view). I'm not an expert about the law itself, but I try to learn more about it as I go. And my students do have some tricky questions about all this from time to time, so I try to find the answers for them as best as I can. But overall I think this is a subject that isn't talked about enough. And I do admire Aleks for bringing it up.
I couldn't agree more with your post and would like to share a story with everyone that is relevant.My first book, Fates, needed a cover and on the advice of several other authors, I searched public domain. Now, the main character of my book was a woman who used both a sword and a bow. I thought I would never find a cover that 'fit'. Then a miracle happened. I came across Mark Coulson's piece called The Path I Choose. It was the perfect piece of art for my first book but it was just too good to be public domain. I just didn't trust that it was online for just anyone to grab and use for whatever so I hunted down Mr. Coulson. It took me three different emails and over a week to finally get in touch with him.
I told him who I was, what piece of his art I was interested in using for my cover, and I asked him about a licencing fee (which I had the sinking feeling I would not be able to afford!). To my surprise, he gave me permission to use the piece... FREE of charge as long as I included his copyright in the book (which I was going to do anyways) and his website.
I screamed so loud when I received that email that I scared my husband half to death but I could not believe my luck. After I ordered the first batch of print copies, I sent one to Mr. Coulson as a thank you.
I just wanted to share this with everyone because of the moral here. Sometimes if you ask, you will get permission and you won't use an image illegally and get hit with a copyright fine. I have had plenty of artists quote me a licencing fee or outright refuse to allow their images to be used but... It never hurts to ask!
Oh yes, many artists are happy for the exposure, or flattered. I know several photographers who allow the use of a photo for free, a link back, and I think maybe doing an interview with them would be the polite thing to do, too. :)
Letters from the Front
Aleksandr Voinov's blog on reading and writing.
...more
- Aleksandr Voinov's profile
- 2497 followers
In fact, my books I paid for two copies of the photographs of each model. One for the ebook and one for the print version. I wasn't entirely sure it was necessary, but I'd rather not take the risk. Since there are sometimes clauses in microstock and macrostock which state, specifically, the difference in print and digital distribution. Macrostock even has different charges for print/digital stock photos.
People really need to be more circumspect about the use of digital images.
It's art.