Also, it is obvious that some people need to take the time to look into copyright law and fair use information. Gah.

Haha, somehow I doubt it. I suspect he’d want to get paid a little more than 20% of $3.

The problem with the interest stock sites (not just microstock) is that it is almost impossible to monitor this to stop it happening.

Hopefully you will get an update on this

hmmmmm… interesting Owen. I’ve found inaccuracies coming from Owen Thomas as much as Nick Douglas. I’m not a big fan of the shoot first verify facts later approach to the publication.

Thomas,

Theft is theft. Thomas Hawk doesn’t get to decide. There is no difference…when a work is marked “all rights reserved” it means the author wishes to decide on how the imagery is used.

I disagree. There is such a concept as “fair use.” It’s long been upheld by the courts. Yes, Major League Baseball holds copyright and gets to decide how their work may be used. But… I also have a right to record their game on my TiVo at my house *and gasp* zap the commercials out of their broadcast that represents their very livelyhood. Do you think that they want me to zap the commercials out of their broadcast, their fine work of sports/art? Of course not. And yet the courts have ruled that I can modify their work for my own private viewing pleasure.

The point is that it is near to impossible to completely live within the letter of the law with regards to copyright. Every logo, every advertisement, etc. etc. is copyrighted. And yet I don’t go out of my way to get approval of a copyright owner before I shoot and publish my own versions of their copyrighted material.

This is not theft. The world is not as black and white as you think it is anonymous.

What happened to Rebekka *is* theft and it’s something very different than parody or other fair use.

If Weird Al decides that he thinks it’s funny to rip off Michael Jackson’s tune to “Beat It” and change the words instead to “Eat It” (all the while keeping the same notes and melody), this is in fact legally permitted as fair use. It doesn’t matter if Michael Jackson hates the song and hates the fact that his original work of art has been mauled by some nut job named Weird Al.

I think especially when works of art are derivative or even better social commentary on popular culture that copyright doesn’t mean dick. Andy Warhol ripped copyright all the time. His most famous work of art ripped Campbell’s soup. Richard Prince rips Marlboro and the photographers that shot for Marlboro ads when he creates his art. These are not theft in my opinion. These are repackaging and social commentary on our culture.

What happened to Rebekka is very different. This is outright theft with no redemption socially or artistically to speak of.

I have a set of images called “So This is America.” Most of the images in this set violate copyright. The set is a commentary on how invasive advertising and popular culture is in our lives as Americans. It doesn’t bother me one bit that I’ve violated hundreds of copyrights with this set. I don’t consider it theft at all. I consider it art.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/sets/72157594491975505/

Uhhh … You’re not talking about the law here. You’re talking about Thomas Hawk’s integrity which is quite different from what the law says about copyright. Of course, I’m not suggesting that Thomas Hawk does not have integrity. I’m sure he does, but that is not the issue here. =D

Thomas Hawk is correct to state that the guiding principle here is fair use, and that changes according to the intent and damage to commercial value by the user. If whatever I use is for the purposes of education, comedy, parody, news reporting, research, criticism, or commentary (like the ones Anonymous conveniently cited from Hawk’s blog), that’s all covered under fair use. It provides people, photographers, and especially teachers like myself, a shortcut to avoid the obstacles regarding copyright protection.

I can even take the recent posts by Anonymous and discuss his/her sentence structure, grammar, logic, coherence, and argumentative style in my classes, and that will be fair use. I can even psychoanalyze, theorize, and deconstruct it to my heart’s delight and it will still be fair use.

However, my defense of “fair use” is abrogated IF I start charging money without paying credit. For instance,

1) I charge students for a personal course reader that includes your posts, and keep all the profits.
2) I start charging people access to my website that features your posts and keep the profits.

These two examples are not covered under fair use. Here’s another example. I take a photograph of the Starbuck’s logo. Is fair use applied when: 1) I post the logo on my website and blog how I had a wonderfully productive writing session at Starbuck’s, or 2) I post the logo on my website to advertise a new coffee shop that I’m opening for cool smart hip people? Without a doubt, the second one is not protected under fair use.

The dude who appropriated Rebekka’s photographs is attempting or has sold her photographs for profit, and has done so without her explicit permission. She can: 1) demand that the photographs be taken down, or 2) allow the site to sell her photographs so long as Rebekka gets the profits.

Anyways, I’m pretty sure what I say is pretty obvious and there’s probably a bunch of other scenarios, but it is an issue that can be solved. At least, one can hope for the best. =D