How many times has an art buyer called to me to negotiate a fee for the above: MAYBE ONCE.

So if the creative class continues to do this on a daily basis — find photos anywhere they can and print or PDF them for “personal viewing” — then why shouldn’t some gadget-hack writer who wants to decorate her pathetic world be able to?

What else did you expect the NYT to say when called on the carpet? How many people will never again print a photo for free after this outrage?

If you want to catch a thief to make yourself rest a bit easier tonight, head on down to your local ad agency or magazine art department and demand to see proof of specific license FOR THAT USAGE for every photo on every wall and desk in the building.

Go on! Make this your #1 cause because photographers are going to shrivel up and die if you don’t.

“Flickr Images and Copyright

Q. Do you endorse the view of Sonia Zjawinski that it is perfectly acceptable to steal copyrighted images from the Internet? Do you think it’s a good idea for The New York Times to seemingly endorse such views by publishing them? Or do you think it is as disgusting and outrageous as I do?
— Rod Irvine

A. I have received a number of queries about Ms. Zjawinski’s recent post on Gadgetwise, a New York Times blog about personal technology, in which she discussed downloading and printing Flickr images for use as home décor. Here is where The Times stands on the issues that have been raised about the post:

We are strong proponents of copyright protection. The New York Times does not endorse, nor is it our policy to engage in, the infringement of copyrighted work. We apologize for any suggestion to the contrary.”

It is not illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night. It is illegal to publish the pictures without permission. There’s a big difference there.

Having gotten paid a great deal of money as an expert witness in copyright infringement cases, it is unnecessary for me to Google anything in order to find out that copyright abuse exists. Again, you have too much time on your hands.

Your statement: “You will never be able to discuss intellectual property in terms of real property until you have replicators.” implies that you do not consider intellectual property to be real property. That’s why I posted the legal definition of tangible. If you cannot comprehend that, then you are hopelessly lost here.

I will guess that you will type one more reply, trying to be clever or twisting my words around, or simply dodging the issues. Ever wonder why you have no support here? Don’t go away mad, just go away.

As for my attempts to tear down copyright law, please cite me where I said that. Because I would love to know what specific part of copyright law I said should be completely abolished.

As for talking about downloading a picture to be used as a desktop wall paper, that in point of fact IS something we are talking about, and there have been plenty here who have screamed about how immoral and wrong doing that is, that in absolutely all cases of technical copyright violation it is always wrong. There is no gray areas I am told.
That is where I disagree with them, I believe there are rights and wrongs, and some seriously fuzzy stuff in the middle.

I’m sorry, but why are we discussing the legal definition of tangible? I don’t think we have had any disagreement on that.
Here as far as I can tell are the differences we have. I think there are gray areas and that one can not broadly generalize that all technical violations of copyright are immoral, wrong or unethical. Further I recognize that theft and copyright violations are functionally different things, that can however in some cases produce similar or like results. You seem to think they are the same thing. Also I think there are flaws in copyright and patent law that often lead to abuse, even abuse against content creators in some cases. Others here, maybe you also, think the law is perfect in all it’s ways.

Is it wrong or immoral to photograph the Eiffel tower beautifully lit against the sky at night? It is immoral or wrong to sell the image if you think you captured a great image? Because according the SNTE, that light design on the tower is copyrighted. As such photographing the tower lit at night it a violation of copyright.

Yes copyright law IS broken. Copyright currently lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years. What the fuck is that?! Copyright should expire with the creator. We need to quit stifling the public domain. Public domain is a very important part of culture and art.
Do yourself a favor, Google “copyright abuse”, it can and does happen.
Copyright laws are not intended to create and enforce monopolies. They are intended to protect individuals investment in creative works, so that they may for sometime attempt to collect some profit from their invested time and materials.

Now that those are clarified, let us address tangible property. Current international copyright law stipulates that created works must be in a tangible form in order to be copyrightable. Seems you have a problem of what defines “tangible” property, and perhaps a problem of ownership. Does the image not belong to my, despite that I created it? Does it instead belong to Nikon, Canon, Kodak, Fuji, Apple, Seagate, or some other company that enabled me to fix those images into a tangible form? What measure would you consider a “tangible” form, and why do you feel that way?

By the simple fact that you cannot see that copyright infringement is in fact theft, proves that somewhere a village mourns for their idiot. Write them a letter so they’ll know you’re okay. The rest of us will fight the good fight. The defense rests.

Should read personal or commercial use.

“…it doesn’t belong to the personal downloading”

should read person downloading.

Yes you can. There are no situations that make it acceptable to download someone’s images without permission regardless of whether it is for personal and commercial use. It doesn’t belong to you. And because it doesn’t belong to the personal downloading the image without permission, it is theft.

You previously stated “Copyright law, tho broken and needs reform, does serve a purpose.”

Actually, it works just fine. The Founding Fathers were extremely prescient in their creation of these laws and they are turning over in their graves on an hourly basis.

When someone copies an image file, in some cases it may potentially harm the perceived value of someone’s work, and may in turn then have an impact on someone’s income. I have never said otherwise. I will not say unequivocally in all cases that downloading and even printing out an image that you do not have copyright to is wrong or right. To do so would be the epitome of closed minded hubris.
Nothing exists or happens in a vacuum. There are many and varied situations and circumstances, you simply can not account for them all with overly broad statements like “(in all cases) downloading and printing copyrighted images is morally and ethically wrong”.
I may have a contrary point of view or I may have a nuanced point of view. There are more than two points of view.

Semantics, especially in written debate are important and even essential to proper communication. Make a valid counter-point to prove that copyright infringement is in fact the same thing as theft, or shut up.

In your golf club example you are talking about a business profiting off of the current copyrighted R&D of another business. The law and most people would agree that is wrong. However if some guy machines a club for himself, copying Callaway’s design you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that what he did is wrong. Certainly you will not convince anyone that it is actionable.
No one is advocating downloading your photos, printing them out and selling them for less than you charge to undercut you and profit from it.
As for your call for vigilantism, that’s a little hyperbolic don’t you think? If you are really tweaked out over the idea that someone might print out a copy of a photo you put on Flickr and hang it on their bulletin board, then for god’s sake don’t upload print resolution images onto Flickr in a public account. Seriously it’s called loss prevention, look into it.

Wrong.

You may be a photographer. But you are clearly not a professional photographer.

When someone takes an image that robs a photographer of income that could have been earned from the sale of said image, that is stealing. Stealing of income. Whether editorially or for personal use. Whether potential or real.

You can indeed have a contrarian viewpoint. But that further removes you from the viewpoint of working photographers.

Enough with your semantics. Fight or sit down sir.

“rob a photographer of potential earned income”
the fifth word here is very critical. Potential, as soon as you bring that word in you are guessing. It might or might not be hurting you.
If some kid who is not a wage earner prints off a copy of an image that he does not have rights to the image and tacks it up in his locker for some decoration, I would place serious doubt on any claims that he is hurting the value of someone’s product.
It is possible but not likely. Even if it does somehow impact the perceived value of your photo, it is still not stealing. In either case it is probably copyright infringement.
It may or may not be wrong depending on the case.

As for your final line, what are you a Republican? What is this false dilemma bullshit? I am a photographer tho not as a primary income. I have had to enforce my copyright in the past when it was misused. Copyright law, tho broken and needs reform, does serve a purpose. I can have a different view with being anti-photographer or what the fuck ever you think the single other stance is.

Figures, just goes to show, those who can’t, steal. She’s a loser.

Amen

There is a big difference between a copyright infringement and stealing an image via download for personal use. However, both rob a photographer of potential earned income. And both are wrong. Either be with us or against us.

“as long as flickers and snapshooters post online their best hires pictures for free just tell me ONE good reason people should not profit from it.”

Ignorance by end users (photographers posting images on Flickr), does not make it acceptable or right for people to take that photo and profit from it.

It’s a bit like me going to your web site, taking screen grabs of your photos and then selling them via istockphoto at web resolution sizes. Just because I could do it, does not make it right or acceptable.

“the problem here is Flickr was never designed with security and copyright in mind”

Actually, that pretty much sums up the internet and images, full stop.