And there is the answer right there. If what you say is true, then the photo companies don't really care if someone emails a picture to one or two relatives as the alternative would cost them more.
Brian
--
Brian
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
National Magazine Encourages Parents to Steal Photography
- Thread starter gbbiv
- Start date
dipics
Senior Member
And here's yours. The fact you personally approve of an action does not make it ethical. And the excuse "but everyone does it" has never carried any weight from an ethical standpoint. Pretending that thinking otherwise is naive has all the moral effectiveness of a cat scratcihing a tile floor to cover it's scat. That's as polite as I can put it.
DIPics
dipics
Senior Member
It's true. The odds of a school photo company actually caring one way or the other is very slim. The odds of them prosecuting is nil. That IS their choice though. They reserve their rights so they can prosecute the photofinishers etc that DO eat into their profits.
DIPics
DIPics
Describe the “action” you’re speaking of, DIPics. I specifically stated “sending a copy of one image to Granny via email…” see above. Is that it? You and Bob are a hoot.
Another knee-jerk reaction that I should have expected. I never said “but everyone does it”. Where did you come up with that? When did I infer that everyone does it?
Judging from your response, you appear very qualified to give such an analogy.
dipics
Senior Member
That is exactly the action to which I am referring. If you want granny to have a copy of the photo, the ethical ways to accomplish this is to purchase one or to shoot one yourself. Any other questions?
There are only five arguments for trying to fool yourself that it is ethical (your position). The first is that "it is only a little bit bad". The second is "well, everyone else does it". The third is "it's overpriced so that justifies it", the fourth one is "I don't understand the law". Five is "they don't lose any sales so it is obviously ok". If you can come up with a sixth, I would be happy to hear it.
One is obviously bogus. If something is unethical, then a smaller amount of it is still unethical.
Two is the one I addressed. Just being thorough.
Three is nothing more than transparent self-justification. I can't afford a Bugatti, this does not mean it is ok for me to take one.
Four is just ignorance. Go to findlaw or somesuch and educate yourselves (not addressed at anyone in specific, just to those who don't know the law.)
Five shows signs of missing the big picture. After all, we aren't just talking reprints here as some here have been trying to argue. We are also talking about purchasing an original package that includes enough photos for everyone you want to send them to. And, many if not most people do just that.
You think I am qualified to judge when someone is giving a bogus, misleading, self serving argument? Well, thank you.
DIPics
CharlieDIY
Veteran Member
I'm more familiar with copyrights on written materials, but there is a "fair use" provision. In some cases, that's one paragraph, in others a page, but seldom the whole work. I'm not sure how that would apply for photos, but as many others have said, it's exceptionally unlikely the companies would nail anyone for two or three copies handed round family and friends. What they don't want are photofinishers making dozens or hundreds of copies for whatever use they might be.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
CharlieDIY
Veteran Member
Very simple. In fact, until credit cards became ubiquitous, that's about what happened. The photographer sent a few different poses home, stamped "PROOF." The parents picked one or two or four (seldom more than four poses, all very similar) and picked sizes and prices from a list. The want list went back, with check or cash, and the photos arrived a couple weeks later.
Try for something new and outrageous, instead of something old and normal, eh?
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
igb
Senior Member
I think you meant the "legal" way. Whether it is ethical or not is apparently debatable (outside Texas anyway ;P)
Probably anyone would agree that making monetary profit on another's work without giving the proper compensation should be deemed unethical.
Working on something one has bought (for instance scanning, which is not such a trivial thing) and distributing it for free to friends and relatives may not currently be legal, but the consensus on that not being ethical might not be so easy to achieve.
And I'm sure everyone can see why: you paid, you worked, you give away for free. How's that for ethics?
The question is, IMHO, do we need/want laws that mess with these things (I mean non profit personal copies and such)?And,yes, I can see the need for laws preventing publishers/other photographers from using other's photos without paying.
Secondly, can such laws be effectively enforced? This has nothing to do with the ethics of the matter but with the overall efficiency of the legal system.
Finally, what would this laws be protecting? How much revenue has been generated by personal copies at a market level (aren't they free promotion, don't they help create demmand?)
My conclusion is that the copyright regulation is to a great extent anachronical and obsolete (please, don't tell me that I'm not allowed to use that word until I've created a complete legal system :0).
Regards
Stephen Schwartz115733
Senior Member
I was trying to be humorous.
I assume the granny referred to was no bothered by a Proof stamp.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com
I assume the granny referred to was no bothered by a Proof stamp.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com
dipics
Senior Member
Would it be ethical to take a copyrighted book, photocopy it and give thousands of copies away to everyone you meet?
In my opinion, it seems obvious that this would be unethical.
How about one copy?
Well, an argument of scale doesn't seem to nullify the ethical issue. So, again I would have to say, no, it isn't ethical.
You ask, "How much revenue has been generated by personal copies at a market level" ? That really isn't the question that should be asked. The proper question is "how much money did the photographer lose because someone illegally copied and distributed his work instead of paying him for the extra copies." And, the answer is somewhere between oodles and gobs.
You also state that "Probably anyone would agree that making monetary profit on another's work without giving the proper compensation should be deemed unethical." Well, as my Great Uncle Sanche used to tell me, there are two ways to have money, one is by earning it, the other is by not spending it. Profit is income minus outgo (oversimplified, I know). So, since they ARE profiting from this copying (by not having the outgo of paying the photographer for the extra copies) I have to assume that you agree that this is unethical.
As to what should the law be protecting. In my opinion, (and this is nothing but that) the civil law should protect against ALL unauthorized copying, distribution etc. of copyrighted material. This way it is up to the owner of the copyright to decide exactly where to draw the line on whether or not to sue someone. This instead of having the government decide "well, one copy to Aunt Edna is ok but not to Great Aunt Sophie, and NEVER more than 1.8 copies of a single work" or somesuch. It's civil law, so the government won't go after them for you. The copyright owner has to decide, and that is how it should be.
DIPics
In my opinion, it seems obvious that this would be unethical.
How about one copy?
Well, an argument of scale doesn't seem to nullify the ethical issue. So, again I would have to say, no, it isn't ethical.
You ask, "How much revenue has been generated by personal copies at a market level" ? That really isn't the question that should be asked. The proper question is "how much money did the photographer lose because someone illegally copied and distributed his work instead of paying him for the extra copies." And, the answer is somewhere between oodles and gobs.
You also state that "Probably anyone would agree that making monetary profit on another's work without giving the proper compensation should be deemed unethical." Well, as my Great Uncle Sanche used to tell me, there are two ways to have money, one is by earning it, the other is by not spending it. Profit is income minus outgo (oversimplified, I know). So, since they ARE profiting from this copying (by not having the outgo of paying the photographer for the extra copies) I have to assume that you agree that this is unethical.
As to what should the law be protecting. In my opinion, (and this is nothing but that) the civil law should protect against ALL unauthorized copying, distribution etc. of copyrighted material. This way it is up to the owner of the copyright to decide exactly where to draw the line on whether or not to sue someone. This instead of having the government decide "well, one copy to Aunt Edna is ok but not to Great Aunt Sophie, and NEVER more than 1.8 copies of a single work" or somesuch. It's civil law, so the government won't go after them for you. The copyright owner has to decide, and that is how it should be.
DIPics
I think you meant the "legal" way. Whether it is ethical or not is
apparently debatable (outside Texas anyway ;P)
Probably anyone would agree that making monetary profit on
another's work without giving the proper compensation should be
deemed unethical.
Working on something one has bought (for instance scanning, which
is not such a trivial thing) and distributing it for free to
friends and relatives may not currently be legal, but the consensus
on that not being ethical might not be so easy to achieve.
And I'm sure everyone can see why: you paid, you worked, you give
away for free. How's that for ethics?
The question is, IMHO, do we need/want laws that mess with these
things (I mean non profit personal copies and such)?And,yes, I can
see the need for laws preventing publishers/other photographers
from using other's photos without paying.
Secondly, can such laws be effectively enforced? This has nothing
to do with the ethics of the matter but with the overall efficiency
of the legal system.
Finally, what would this laws be protecting? How much revenue has
been generated by personal copies at a market level (aren't they
free promotion, don't they help create demmand?)
My conclusion is that the copyright regulation is to a great extent
anachronical and obsolete (please, don't tell me that I'm not
allowed to use that word until I've created a complete legal system
:0).
Regards
Your post makes no sense because you’re doing (in a way) the same thing Bob did when he responded to me. That is, going totally off topic and not addressing the real issue.
Let me make it clear that I despise those that steal images, which is why I never post any that I value. I will, however, post small low resolution images (and sometimes with watermarks). Do you see where I’m coming from now?
In regards to the OP’s position, I think it was an overreaction. I don’t give a darn about Granny receiving a simple scanned attachment in her email so let’s put things in perspective. Granny gets her pic and you don’t have to go through the school to contact the photographer so he can make you wait four weeks and charge you $20.00 to get a small print you could have just scanned and emailed in five minutes.
The nonsense in this thread should be put to sleep. Some of the participants should be to but that’s not up to me.
Let me make it clear that I despise those that steal images, which is why I never post any that I value. I will, however, post small low resolution images (and sometimes with watermarks). Do you see where I’m coming from now?
In regards to the OP’s position, I think it was an overreaction. I don’t give a darn about Granny receiving a simple scanned attachment in her email so let’s put things in perspective. Granny gets her pic and you don’t have to go through the school to contact the photographer so he can make you wait four weeks and charge you $20.00 to get a small print you could have just scanned and emailed in five minutes.
The nonsense in this thread should be put to sleep. Some of the participants should be to but that’s not up to me.
B
BobTrips
Guest
OK, let me see if I understand your points....
1) People should not steal from you.
2) It's OK for you to steal from others is not stealing would cost you some money or require some effort.
3) People who disagree with you should be executed.
Did I get that right? I'm really trying here.
BTW, you ever think about running for President? If so, check in with the Republicans. They're looking for someone for '08.
--
bob
Special Thai Ladies for You
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/SpecialThaiLadies
(Warning! Some full frontal nudity)
The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/
Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
igb
Senior Member
The question being would it be possible? If it were it'd be more of a "poetic act" , thus not ethical nor unethical
I think you have a point here but in practice:
- the existence of copyright agencies trying to maximize revenue and deciding to prosecute, rather than the actual creator (this may be not directly applicable to photography)
- the fact that illicit reproduction with profit spirit etc has recently become a crime in some countries
dipics
Senior Member
Honestly, nobody cares if you scan the photo for Granny. It is a small matter that nobody in their right mind would sue you for.
But, face it. It IS unethical (responding to your original "Anyone who views sending a copy of one image to Granny via email as somehow unethical is naive at best." comment). Is it justified in your eyes? That is something only you can answer. But you should not classify those with a higher ethical standard (not necessarily including me) as "naive". The fact of the matter is, you (the royal you, not you personally) could have originally purchased enough photos to send to everyone you wanted. No reprint hassle, no harm, no foul and no delay at all. But, the choice was made not to. Then the results of this choice are used to justify the scanning etc. Nope, not ethical at all.
Now, does anyone care? Well, not enough to sue.
Copyright is an important and interesting (at least to me) topic. If it annoys you, feel free to quit discussing it. If not, feel free to keep commenting. But, calling someone naive when they are actually just, well, correct, is bogus.
DIPics
But, face it. It IS unethical (responding to your original "Anyone who views sending a copy of one image to Granny via email as somehow unethical is naive at best." comment). Is it justified in your eyes? That is something only you can answer. But you should not classify those with a higher ethical standard (not necessarily including me) as "naive". The fact of the matter is, you (the royal you, not you personally) could have originally purchased enough photos to send to everyone you wanted. No reprint hassle, no harm, no foul and no delay at all. But, the choice was made not to. Then the results of this choice are used to justify the scanning etc. Nope, not ethical at all.
Now, does anyone care? Well, not enough to sue.
Copyright is an important and interesting (at least to me) topic. If it annoys you, feel free to quit discussing it. If not, feel free to keep commenting. But, calling someone naive when they are actually just, well, correct, is bogus.
DIPics
Tom_N
Forum Pro
Copyright infringement can be either a civil offense or a criminal offense, depending on the circumstances. Set up a store where you sell nothing but copied Hollywood DVDs, for profit, right down the street from MPAA lawyers, and see how long it is until you're paying a big fine and/or doing hard time. On the other hand, when Granny uses a color photocopier to copy a studio-made family photo, that would not be criminal infringement (and it might not even be against the law, period).
dipics
Senior Member
Would it be possible? Well, for the equivalent, just ask Napster. I bet your above post was the first time what they did was described as "poetic".The question being would it be possible? If it were it'd be more of
a "poetic act" , thus not ethical nor unethical
Annoying but it is their right. The original copyright holder can sell to whomever they like. But, honestly I think that this is a MUCH greater problem with patents than with copyrights.
Hmm, I have to admit that I don't see how this applies. Sorry. I'm a bit slow sometimes.
Most laws do in one way or another. Some laws should be ditched. I don't put copyright law in that category though.
DIPics
I know you are and I’m sorry you have to work so hard at it. If you give me your zip code, perhaps I can assist by connecting you with other individuals with similar disabilities.
B
BobTrips
Guest
I think that it applies in that is supports the belief that some people regard what they produce to belong to them.
For a long time little revenue was being lost in some countries due to the low volume but now potential sales are great enough to justify the effort needed to enact a law.
--
bob
Special Thai Ladies for You
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/SpecialThaiLadies
(Warning! Some full frontal nudity)
The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/
Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
B
BobTrips
Guest
Hummm.......
First time I ever heard of intelligence referred to as a disablilty.
BTW, I spent a lot of my career working with folks with "mental disadvantages".
So don't worry, I can most likely follow your convoluted arguements.
Come to think of it, I've worked a bit with the incarcerated, so I have a little insight into criminal rationalization. Strange worlds some people weave themselves....
But this is getting far from a reasoned discussion by reasonable people. If you've nothing of value to discuss I'll let you take the final shot and I'll go on to something more interesting.
--
bob
Special Thai Ladies for You
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/SpecialThaiLadies
(Warning! Some full frontal nudity)
The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/
Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum