Are you accusing them all of seeding? Ridiculous.
I'm not accusing them of
intentionally seeding. But as a practical matter, the way Webshots operates facilitates access by people who run wallpaper sites. So, I consider this seeding.
I suspect when they first sign up, photographers don't know how easy it is for material to get from Webshots to a free wallpaper site. But once a photographer knows it can happens and is happening, and the photographer begins making substantial amounts of money suing people who got the images off the free wallpaper sites
I consider the the behavior to be intentional seeding.
Now: I've answered your question. Could you elaborate on why you think my idea is ridiculous? My impression is you are suggesting that if the client list of Webshots is famous, they somehow can't be accidentally seeding. I would suggest that is a ridiculous notion and will assume that is not what you are suggesting. But that leaves me entirely unable to guess any sane or rational reason what you think is ridiculous about the notion that offering images on Webshots is seeding.
If you start with the fact that the images were used in the same way most things are on the internet, what alternative does Mr. Tylor have?
Goodness! He has many alternatives. Here is one: If he wants to sell an individual photo at a premium price for limited distribution and still sell over the web he can make them on the web as thumbnails (or at least small versions) only. Then only those who fill out a license and pay the full fee would be permitted access to the full digital version.
Here's another: He could just live off the money he makes from Webshots and recognize that some unlicensed work will also occur in parallel, and not sue the pants off people who honestly thought they were using free images.
I'm sure if you got a little creative, you could think of other possibilities.
My alternatives would not require Tylor (or any similarly situated photographer) to abandon his collection because of unauthorized copying. It would only recognize that
if he
elects to make a particular high resolution image available practically for free in an environment where unauthorized copying by people who will advertize them as "free" occurs then he will not be able to collect from people who obtained the images them from the "free" sites. (Or actually, what I have in mind is he would not be able to collect fees for use that occurred before he sent a C&D letter informing them of their error.)
(BTW: Does trying to resort to rhetorical questions that suggest your client has
no other option than to operate that the way he is operating work in court? Because it tends not to work at blogs of forums?)
Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites?
Let me respond to your argument by rhetorical question with my own rhetorical question:
Once a photographer
knows that the method of sale at Webshot guarantees that his images will be represented as being available for "free" by "free wallpaper sites" and he
knows that people are duped into believing these images are free and -- knowing this-- he does
not one thing to remove the image from Webshots, but instead, continues to collect revenue from Webshots should he be permitted to reap excess financial rewards -- and extract price levels a customer would never have paid-- by suing or threatening to sue people who unwittingly used the images? And suing multiple people?
Why should the this business model not be seen as "baiting"?
So now my answer to your rhetorical question is: I don't think businesses should have free rein. I think Tylor should be permitted to send a C&D to these businesses informing them of their error. Once the business has been made aware they images are not free, they should either have to take down the images or negotiate a fee for continued use.
This is not giving businesses free rein and presumably you should know that.
None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor.
Maybe it not acceptable to you or Mr. Tylor. But you claim you want to know what other people think. I'm telling you
my opinion of how the law should stand.
At what point does the infringing party have ANY responsibility in what they do with any images they find on the internet?
I believe several people have answered this before.
At the risk of being repetitive, let me repeat: I think the infringing party has responsibility when they profit directly from the image or, in the case of indirect profit, when they have good reason to even suspect that the images belong to someone else.
The former-- direct profit--occurs if the infringing party is doing something like selling the image itself. For example: If I were to upload Mr. Tylors image to CafePress and sell mugs with the pretty pictures, I think I should be liable for infringement even before Tylor sends a C&D and I should be liable even if I thought the use was "free". How much I should be liable for might depend on the image, the mugs and so on. But in this case, the image itself forms my product. And I should be liable.
The latter- indirect profit-- occurs when someone uses an image to 'decorate' their site. For example, they might use a pretty picture as a background. In this case, though it is a business use, the business is not really making a profit from the image. Because images used in this way are fungible-- the cost any business would pay for such use is miniscule. Business people know that free images
do exist, and -- whether you like it or not-- there is no easy way to verify an image is free. (Oddly enough, there isn't even an easy way to discover an image is copyrighted!)
So, businesses who come across "free wallpaper sites" actually
have no reason to suspect those images are not free. And there is little way to check.
In my opinion, they have little to no ethical or moral responsibility to pay the photographer for any use prior to receiving a C&D letter informing them the photographer owns the image. None.
That means-- in my opinion-- with respect to the Tylor situation: because he earns revenue on his images through a venue that makes it easy for "free wallpaper sites" to get them for free, and they appear on "free wallpaper sites" and he knows they appear on "free wallpaper sites" and he knows the people exhibiting his images actually have been duped into believing they are "free", I think the businesses who are duped by these "free wallpaper sites" should not own him anything unless they are sent a C&D and refuse to take the images down.
In some other situations where a photographer does not earn revenue making high resolution images available for free on the internet, an infringing party might have good reason to suspect the images belong to someone else at an earlier point in time and a business might have responsibility for display prior to getting a C&D letter. That these other situations may exists-- and almost certainly do exist-- is irrelevant to my opinion of what your Mr. Tylor is morally or ethically due for use prior to his sending a C&D.
(Note: What he is legally due may or may not align with copyright law. But it seems to me you are asking my opinion of what is fair, not what is legal. Anyway, I'm an engineer. I'm not going to tell you my interpretation of what copyright law permits you.)
I don't simply use any image I find on the internet,
What
you, a person who makes your living selling images and whose bread and butter is knowing copyright law would do if you wanted to use an image is not particularly relevant to what
my view on whether VK Tylor should be permitted to extract from people who-- partly due to VK Tylors business model-- were duped into using his images for free.
I as well as Mr. Tylor feel strongly that the use should be compensated wither the business owner cared enough to ensure that they could use the image or not.
Sure. You two feel strongly that people should go to great trouble to do something almost impossible-- check if an image advertized for free is really free. But evidently, my suggestions your client take action to inadvertently seeding you seem to view with utter incredulity!
My opinion of you and Mr. Tylor is low because you elect to follow the business model you seem to have elected to follow.
Most the businesses you criticize for using your images would have looked for other suitable photos had the images not been represented for free-- and the fact they were represented as free arose as a direct result of your business model. Instead, because as a result of what appears to be a 'Webshots->free wall paper sites->sue the mopes' business model, they are being sent letters demanding fees these they would never have paid and which, quite honestly, I think are exorbitant given the rather limited incremental value these images garner websites where they are used as decorations. (Albeit pretty decorations. But lots of pretty decorations exist.)
That's my opinion. Feel free to respond by posing additional rather loaded rhetorical questions (whose answers you will probably not like) or telling me how you and your client "feel" or telling me what you find acceptable or not. But I don't "feel" my opinions need to be adjusted to be acceptable to you or your client or make you and your client "feel" good. So, we might waste less time if you refrained from sharing your feelings with me and just stick to discussion what you do think might be fair and I'll tell you what I think is fair. It may turn out that we can't see eye to eye-- so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it. But I will write to my congress critter when people are considering modifications of copyright law. And you can bet that I'll express what I think is fair. You can do the same.
Topic: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor? (Read 42966 times)