> > they are obviously producing a profit from advertisments, ads which
> > wouldn't
> > be there without the hundreds of referenced images from artists who
> > aren't
> > receiving a dime.  Granted, it may not be a huge concern but let's
> > look at
> > this think from all angles first.
> >

This isn't a very valid point, since they are not taking away a source of
revenue from the artist. They can sell adds because the site is a
comprehensive index of images, not because of the images of one particular
artist.

The artist is losing nothing, just gaining another link to his/her site.

Post a reply to this message

> The artist is losing nothing, just gaining another link to his/her site.

The artist loses the right to determine where and how her work will/will not
be displayed.

The artist loses the right to determine the quality of representation her
work will receive. When these services create thumbnail images of an
artist's work, they have modified, duplicated, and bastardized a copyrighted
piece of work without payment and without permission.  And judge for
yourself the quality of those thumbnails.

Believe it or not, not all artists are on the web just looking to up their
hit counter.  And some artists don't want their work displayed in the midst
of Aunt Gert's Vacation-in-Florida photos or Uncle Henry's "art photos" of
Aunt Gert mowing the lawn in her string bikini.

Claire

Post a reply to this message