|
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: dsjeffries on September 23, 2008, 02:24:36 am I've refrained from posting this until now, but my aggravation has gotten the better of me.
Several weeks ago, when I went to the PlaniTulsa website to register for last night's workshop, I discovered that one of my photos had been used without permission. It's a photo of St John Medical Center, and is on the Register page. I used the 'contact us' button and sent the URL to my photo. I received an apology and an assurance that my name would be listed below the photo. That did happen. Well, at the workshop tonight, I noticed that another photo looked a little too familiar, so I looked through the presentations online and discovered that at least four other of my photos had been taken, cropped to fit their uses, and used without my permission or notification. I could have (and did) excuse the first photo as a simple mistake, but this is ridiculous. I would have gladly agreed to their use if I had been approached about it... but that never happened. The following photos are mine and have been used without permission in presentations: In PLANiTULSA: Tulsa Comprehensive Plan Update July 14, 2008: (Links to the URL from which these photos were taken are included to the right of the photo description) Slide 31/122. Utica Place. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/1079916107/in/photostream/ Slide 29/122. Greenwood. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/723614821/ Slide 65/122. Downtown Tulsa from Javine Hill in Skiatook. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/1711409540/ Master Slide (appears on ALL slides). Arkansas River aerial. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/405460230/in/set-72157600948877994/ The Greenwood shot has also been used on the June 16 Presentations, "Tulsa Comprehensive Plan Update" (Slide 21) and "Implementing the Community’s Vision" (slide 34). It would seem to me that a City trying to build a coalition and a spirit of collaboration among its citizens in order to create a vision for the City would try to establish a trust that it's not going to arbitrarily steal its own citizens' intellectual property. I'm all for PlaniTulsa and had a wonderful time at the workshop, but my enthusiasm is definitely diminished if this is how things are going to be done concerning something as simple as asking for permission to use someone's photographs. It's unacceptable. //end rant Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: sgrizzle on September 23, 2008, 07:40:10 am I assume they will read this and correct the issue.
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: TheArtist on September 23, 2008, 08:16:45 am I feel slighted, nobody stole any of mine. [V] Actually have been meaning to put up a post on my flickr page to say that anyone who wants to use a pic or even take them to print and sell can do so. At first I had started posting pics with watermarks so people wouldnt do so. But then after I did the Blue Dome festival one year and had some of my photographs out there for sale... well I sold most of what I had brought but the problem was that it was so much work getting the things printed, figuring out what size each should be printed in, then matting and framing them, then hauling them out there, setting up, sitting there all day watching them, etc. I decided that it wasnt worth it lol. So I figure if anyone has the gumption to go to all that work or even figure out a way to sell them online,,, have at it, would be glad to help out. Taking pics is the easy part, the work comes in selling them lol. Plus to me its also about promoting Tulsa. If my photos put Tulsa in a good light, and someone else gets them out there in the public eye, that can only be good for Tulsa. And if someone else makes a buck for their effort in doing so. Bravo, more power to them.
Btw, dsjeffries... what is the intent of your photos? Are you taking them to make money from, to sell? Or do you just want the recognition? I noticed Bates doesnt even allow you to save any of his photos on flickr. I suppose he must want to sell them. Either that or he thinks they are veeeeeeery special and shouldnt be for common use lol.[8D] There has been many a time when I have seen a nice photo that he has taken and would have liked to have shared it with people on other forums to show off Tulsa. But its usually as I am looking through lots of pics for something and dont want to take the time to go through the time and hassle of asking for permission for every single decent photo someone has. So I just bypass them and use other peoples photos. Shame though, he does get some good shots. When I do use someone elses photos in that way, I always put the persons name and that it was found on flickr. Most other forums and websites have a policy that you must do that anyway. Likewise, the PlaniTulsa people should have at least put "by dsjeffries/flickr" on the pics they used. Dont think they realize how small a town Tulsa is and that it would be noticed if someone used someone elses photos lol.[:P] Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Renaissance on September 23, 2008, 08:22:39 am Watermark them. Any photo app will let you do this.
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Gaspar on September 23, 2008, 08:53:15 am If you post on a photoshare site and do not include a copyright statement, your photos are free game.
You have some very nice images, and it is common courtesy for people using scalped images to at least post a "by line" but I looked at your flickr site and I don't see a copyright statement, signature on your images, or any watermarks. Google has already indexed your images and they have been searched and downloaded by hundreds of people. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Hoss on September 23, 2008, 09:10:57 am quote: He does use Flickr's Creative Commons system, which lets users know in what way the photos can be used. His are set up as Attribution No-Derivative Works, which essentially means you are free to use them provided that you don't modify the work (which they did) and that you attribute the author of the work (which they initially didn't). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en So in a way, he's partially saying they needed to ask him permission. That would be true since they modified the work. If they had used it not modified and attributed the work to him, they would NOT have needed to contact him because they would have held true to the spirit of the CC license the photo was under. If you want people to ask your permission to use the photos, you need to change your CC license to reflect it. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: sgrizzle on September 23, 2008, 09:20:02 am I think tha main thing is credit which they gave once when asked, but still kept doing.
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: PonderInc on September 23, 2008, 09:44:45 am In all fairness, ds, your photos do say "creative commons," not "all rights reserved."
I've definitely used other people's photos on flickr. If they say "all rights reserved" I contact the photographer to get permission. If they have a creative commons license, I assume they're ok with sharing as long as it's not for my commercial gain. Since I'm always using the pictures for non-profit projects, everyone's always said yes....even the professional photographers. Your photos are amazing. Consider it a compliment that you have created some of the most beautiful photos --professional or amateur-- of Tulsa. Your pictures put the Chamber and the CVB to shame, when it comes to showcasing Tulsa's treasures...and sharing them with the world. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: dsjeffries on September 23, 2008, 10:36:31 am Mine are Creative Commons. But not all Creative Commons licenses are the same. Mine says that attribution to the photographer must be made.
I'm glad they liked mine well enough to choose them, but it's just common courtesy to ask beforehand or put my name below them. I don't want money from my photographs, just an attribution. Since they actually did ask permission of other Tulsa photographers and added an attribution to their photos, they obviously knew what to do. quote: Thank you, Ponder. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: rwarn17588 on September 23, 2008, 11:02:46 am I have to admit that Creative Commons is confusing at times, which I suspect is what happened here.
They probably had some flunkie throwing together the presentation, saw the "Creative Commons" tag on it and said, "Cool! I can just grab these!" I suspect he/she didn't know there are at least three Creative Commons "divisions," so to speak. For the sake of simplicity, I wish CC had it as all or none. But it's not, so ... Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Conan71 on September 23, 2008, 11:32:23 am I think they were doing Google grabs of photos for the slide show. Did anyone else notice Fregonese kind of chuckled when they showed the "yuppie" with the brick phone? He said that's all they could find when they searched "yuppie".
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: dsjeffries on September 23, 2008, 12:38:38 pm Issue resolved. They've apologized profusely and are crediting the photos as I type this.
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Hoss on September 23, 2008, 12:45:40 pm quote: I don't think it's confusing at all. What happens though is you set a default on Flickr and can get hammered by it. I don't mind people using my stuff as long as they link back and attribute it and as long as they don't modify it. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: MDepr2007 on September 23, 2008, 02:03:52 pm It's not like this is there first time to run this program. You can bet it ain't the first time they've been contacted about a photo.
Keeps my beleif that they have our best interest in mind and not their own.[B)] Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: tim huntzinger on September 23, 2008, 02:32:44 pm quote: BS. That was sheer laziness. I liked the (sub)Urban Tulsa sidebar introducing this circle jerk, in which the writer complained that despite numerous attempts to get in touch with the jerkmaster had no luck. I have had numerous photos used in advertising and in each case I received a heads-up from the entity. DS sez no more problem, so no big deal. It just sez a lot about the whole shooting match, IMO. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Ttowndad on September 23, 2008, 03:24:37 pm dsjeffries- Glad you got this resolved. Happened to me once on the other side--oops. Nice shots though
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: TheArtist on September 23, 2008, 05:24:30 pm "provided that you don't modify the work"...
Now wait a minute. I always thought that if you took something and modified it sufficiently you in essence created a new work. A 25% change, whatever that means, would suffice to make it a completely original work. Think Warhol taking the Campbells Soup Can and using it to make a new work. Or if an artist took a photo or famous painting then made it look like a cartoon or an impressionistic version. If I post this pic and label it flickr photo by dsjeffries (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3898/bydsjeffriesru1.jpg) Is that ok? How bout if I make it smaller like this... Isnt that a modification? Would I have to ask permission to modify it in that way or to use it now? Photo by dsjeffries, from flickr. (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7002/bydsjeffrieswebvz1.jpg) How bout if I made 2 modifications, crop and distort? Is it mine or his? Do I have to ask permission to do so and to post it? (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7030/bydsjeffriesmodifiedyr5.jpg) Could I now do this...? "Spanish Tile" by William The Artist... (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3654/bydsjeffriesmodified2io7.jpg) Or would I have to credit dsjeffries with the photo and ask permission? How bout this contemporary version of a Warhol type thing? Same image color changed and used multiple times? Would look neat done large over a couch in a contemporary loft lol. Should I have asked permission to modify the image lol, to have posted this image, or sell it? (http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9830/bydsjeffriescontempokm7.jpg) Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Hoss on September 23, 2008, 07:50:30 pm quote: You're still deriving it, hence the 'derivative' part of the commons license. If you were to cut that part of the Mona Lisa that were recognizable (which most is anyway) and try to call it your own, would you get away with it? Doubtful. That's MY point. And modification doesn't mean internet resizing. Any html code can resize an image, but ultimately can be tracked back to the base image. You're even more in the wrong if you take the image and put it in another location and resize it that way. I see where he gets upset over this. In the long run, it might be better for him to watermark all his images, that way there's NEVER any doubt who it belongs to. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Porky on September 23, 2008, 07:50:48 pm quote: It's common place here but just look upon it as pride in what you shoot. "AMP" just did it to me a couple of weeks ago. http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11165 When people do this it shows what liars they are and just gives you more respect in what you offer. [;)] Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: TheArtist on September 23, 2008, 09:35:19 pm " You're still deriving it, hence the 'derivative' part of the commons license.
If you were to cut that part of the Mona Lisa that were recognizable (which most is anyway) and try to call it your own, would you get away with it? Doubtful. That's MY point. " You could absolutely call it your own. And thats MY point lol. This is a very famous work by Duchamp (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/665/originalduchampmonalisain8.jpg) How bout this one by Warhol... (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5908/originalwarholmonalisahj2.jpg) How many times have you seen this famous image redone? Dozens of times in lots of different ways. (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/863/originalamericangothicwha7.jpg) This is an original work of art. (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9411/originalamerican20gothivt5.gif) And these... (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5821/original3py3.jpg) (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4956/originalmh4.jpg) (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2240/original2sk1.jpg) I would say that the "cropped and distorted" image was Transformative, not Derivative. I would absolutely say that of the "Spanish Tile" work as well. This from... http://wise-old-sage.blog-city.com/gaiman_joint_authorship_and_transformative_works.htm "The question of transformative works is whether a truly derivative work- one that actually uses an original work as a basis for a new work- has transcended the influence of the original and established a presence and importance all its own, nearly independent of the original work. The derivative rights of an author are to protect the exploitation of their efforts, but, when a transformative work distances itself from the original with sufficient force, there is no exploitation to protect. It becomes a truly independent work in the minds of the public. The case that gives the best example of “transformative use” took the term from copyright and applied it in a case of right of publicity. (Comedy III Prods. Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001).) That case used a pure example of transformative use in the world recognized artwork of Marilyn Monroe done by Andy Warhol. Clearly, the photocopied and colorized images of Marilyn were directly taken from the copyrighted photograph owned by the photographer who took them. By rights, the photographer should be able to protect his property from unauthorized derivative works made from his originals in as far as they impact his economic rights. But the artistry and “Pop Art” quality of the new creations was so original and unique that Mr. Warhol transcended the arena where the copyrights of the photograph could extend and entered a completely different realm. Someone looking at or buying a Warhol print is in no way intending to buy that photo of Marilyn. It's a wholly different object and so isn't an infringement of the photographer's copyright. " From... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art) "The painting's use does not 'supersede' or duplicate the objective of the original," the judge wrote, "but uses it as raw material in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative." The "Crop and distort" and "Spanish Tile", uses the original photo in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights.... Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: MDepr2007 on September 26, 2008, 01:21:07 pm Sad that the photographer is actually paying this guy to use his pictures.
Don't forget who is drawing a paycheck with PlaniTulsa. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: dsjeffries on September 26, 2008, 02:22:09 pm quote: Huh? Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: Hoss on September 26, 2008, 02:29:29 pm quote: Nevermind MDdepr2007; this poster rarely makes sense... [:O] Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: carltonplace on September 26, 2008, 02:32:04 pm You never know what you are gonna learn on this crazy forum.
Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: MDepr2007 on September 26, 2008, 02:55:18 pm quote: You= Photographer You let PlainiTulsa use photos for free. PlaniTulsa uses said free photos to make a presentation . Tulsa pays PlaniTulsa for their work including the presentation. I could understand if it was really a meeting that was just made up of Tulsans and you would donate the use but someone is getting paid and that person should pay for items they use to perform the job they get paid for. IMO Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: dsjeffries on September 26, 2008, 04:22:03 pm Ok, I guess you're saying as a taxpayer, I'm paying them to use my photos... Gotcha. I think.
They offered me a licensing fee, so I'm not paying for it.. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: MichaelBates on September 26, 2008, 06:24:34 pm quote: William, my photos on Flickr are saveable and linkable. I just logged out of Flickr and tried it. You can access all sizes, including the original resolution. What's the problem? Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: TheArtist on September 27, 2008, 10:50:53 am quote: Ok, perhaps I am completely loopy. Didnt you have a bunch of neat skyline photos of Downtown Tulsa? I thought I even remembered some that had lightning in them? They were some really well done photos and I thought I remembered they were yours and that I couldnt download them and was like "drats!"... I actually remembered running across them several times. I just did a quick look at your photos and couldnt find anything remotely like what I remember lol. Egads, I must be losing it. "Whats the problem?" You tell me lol. [8D] However, some days I can search through literally tens of thousands of images, so getting who did what mixed up might happen. But I am usually pretty accurate in remembering images and who did them. My apologies. Title: Misuse of My Photos in PlaniTulsa Presentations Post by: TheArtist on September 28, 2008, 05:42:46 pm Just ran across the guy and the pics I was mistaking you for Michael. I have no idea how I was thinking David Schuttler was you lol.
He takes some really interesting pics. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourtulsaworld/796412863/in/set-72157604205285138/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourtulsaworld/2769224863/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourtulsaworld/2445420699/ |