A few weeks ago some friends made me aware that images of mine are used 
within Tumblr without any notice about the "artist" (that would be me in 
this case even if I do not call myself like that) and (yes, actually 
quite funny) obviously mistaken for photos.

I'll have to admit that I've never heard about Tumblr before (but I knew 
something like Facebook exists) so I did a bit of search and research. 
It seems that completely ignoring any copyright and intellectual 
property is part of the whole Tumblr idea. And BTW I also did find quite 
a lot images that are known to me as the work of other POV-Ray artists. 
As I am just a hobbyist my first reaction was to simply forget about it 
and as my wife did put it:
"Re-blogging other people's stuff is the whole purpose of Tumblr.
Go after them and you'll incur the angst of millions of teenage girls,
who'll be forced to produce original content - millions of duckface
self portraits and emo poems."

But a week ago I did have some spare time and I picked a few of them (5 
exactly and only the ones where it was easy to find an email address as 
the within Tumblr preferred "Ask me anything" method does not work when 
you want to put a web-link (to my own homepage where the image in 
question resides) and a email (to make it easy to answer me) there.
Well, this was a very friendly and polite mail just that I would like to 
get credit when some work of mine is used, No threads about copyright 
laws and I didn't even insist that it would be nice to be asked before-head.
This happened exactly one week ago and I did get exactly zero response 
not to mention that none of the images did get proper credit.

Now I'm really pissed. Somehow.
What do you people think about it? Any suggestions?

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2011 15:50, Ive wrote:
> Now I'm really pissed. Somehow.

And this is why creative people hate pirates, even if "they wouldn't have 
bought the content anyway."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Now I'm really pissed. Somehow.

who wouldn't?

> What do you people think about it?

I feel your pain.  I think your wife put it best, though.  And yeah, it's a
shame most teens are clueless and curiousless consumer bastards.

> Any suggestions?

Subtle watermarks?  Meta information in the image file?  They just pass it on,
don't even bother with editing, I guess.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:50:45 +0200, Ive wrote:

> Now I'm really pissed. Somehow.
> What do you people think about it? Any suggestions?

Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of 
your work and ask that they deal with it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2011 21:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of
> your work and ask that they deal with it.

Yep. Look up the form for a DMCA takedown request.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 06:16, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of
> your work and ask that they deal with it.
>

Yes. It is just not my way to run to the authorities when I have a 
problem with someone. I am considering it but I'm still hesitating.

Also I'm wondering, if the people responsible for (and earning money 
with)  Tumblr would be serious about copyright infringement they had to 
shut down 99% of all Tumblr-blogs and this is obviously NOT part of the 
business-model.
And from what I've seen so far I already know what will happen:
The blog-owner gets a mail notifying him about the issue including a 
thread to shutdown his/her account.
He/she publishes this mail on his/her blog (so well, finally something 
new and unique to blog about) and this is followed by a loud outburst of 
the Tumblr-"community" about some stupid guy (this would be me) who 
instead of being proud to be recognized by the Tumblr-community insists 
in censorship and internet fascism. Guess I could live with that and a 
few hours later the whole issue within Tumblr-folks is forgotten anyway.
But seriously, what is he point?

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 05:50, schrieb nemesis:

> Subtle watermarks?  Meta information in the image file?  They just pass it on,
> don't even bother with editing, I guess.
>
The Tumblr-people re-blogging stuff do not care, but the original poster 
who has found it "somewhere" in the internet does sometimes. I've seen a 
picture from Gilles where the copyright notice was cropped away.
Meta tags is something I'm already using (but they get usually lost if 
the image is e.g. resized) and (what I've learned so far) in the future 
I will always add a notice on the image itself. Well, this can be 
cropped, but this act does actually show something about the person.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 01:48, schrieb Darren New:

> And this is why creative people hate pirates, even if "they wouldn't
> have bought the content anyway."

This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."-argument is something I was 
always wondering about. Does it mean that someone prefers (take music as 
example) to listen to songs he actually doesn't like just because he was 
able to get them for free.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 08.08.2011 01:48, schrieb Darren New:

> > And this is why creative people hate pirates, even if "they wouldn't
> > have bought the content anyway."

> This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."-argument is something I was 
> always wondering about. Does it mean that someone prefers (take music as 
> example) to listen to songs he actually doesn't like just because he was 
> able to get them for free.

  Some time ago I was at a friend's home, and another friend of his gave
him a pirated and cracked version of Assassin's Creed 2 on DVD-R. I asked
why. It's not like his life depended on the 50 euros that it would have
costed to buy the game.

  His answer: "What if I don't have 50 euros?"

  I was perplexed. I asked what exactly forces him to play the game in
question if he can't afford it.

  He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
of sense does that make?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:04:51 +0200, Ive wrote:

> This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."-argument is something I was
> always wondering about. Does it mean that someone prefers (take music as
> example) to listen to songs he actually doesn't like just because he was
> able to get them for free.

Usually it has more to do with "I don't know what I'd be buying, and if I 
open it and don't like it, I can't return it".  I know a few people who 
approach it that way - they want to 'try before they buy'.

Of course, these days there are plenty of ways to actually do that 
legally without resorting to piracy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:40:22 +0200, Ive wrote:

> Am 08.08.2011 06:16, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of
>> your work and ask that they deal with it.
>>
>>
> Yes. It is just not my way to run to the authorities when I have a
> problem with someone. I am considering it but I'm still hesitating.

Well, it seems to me you have two choices.

1.  Do nothing and just continue to be pissed about it
2.  Since you've contacted those who have violated your copyrights, you 
can escalate to the site owners or to law enforcement.

Law enforcement is by its very nature a complaints-driven business.  They 
don't tend to enforce laws that nobody has complained about.  (That's 
something I've been told by people who work in law enforcement)

You did a reasonable thing by trying to discuss the situation with those 
who actually engaged in the copying.  Since they've been non-responsive, 
you're really left with just those two choices (or you could 'get over' 
being pissed about it, which is just a variant of #1).

> Also I'm wondering, if the people responsible for (and earning money
> with)  Tumblr would be serious about copyright infringement they had to
> shut down 99% of all Tumblr-blogs and this is obviously NOT part of the
> business-model.
> And from what I've seen so far I already know what will happen: The
> blog-owner gets a mail notifying him about the issue including a thread
> to shutdown his/her account.
> He/she publishes this mail on his/her blog (so well, finally something
> new and unique to blog about) and this is followed by a loud outburst of
> the Tumblr-"community" about some stupid guy (this would be me) who
> instead of being proud to be recognized by the Tumblr-community insists
> in censorship and internet fascism. Guess I could live with that and a
> few hours later the whole issue within Tumblr-folks is forgotten anyway.
> But seriously, what is he point?

The point is that you've protected your copyright, as is your right.

Of course, there's another possible outcome as well - that of someone who 
has violated copyrights learning something about them.

There's a legal principle (I've heard) as well that says that if you do 
nothing to enforce your copyright, you may lose the ability to enforce it 
for that work down the road.  Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I have 
heard of this happening.

You have to decide what the value is to you for your copyrighted work and 
whether the aggravation of having to deal with it is worth the value you 
assign to your work.  Only you can make that decision.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2011 7:40, Ive wrote:
> Am 08.08.2011 06:16, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of
>> your work and ask that they deal with it.
>>
>
> Yes. It is just not my way to run to the authorities when I have a problem
> with someone. I am considering it but I'm still hesitating.

http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html

(Not my site - yes, it's crappy design - use readability. :-)

You don't have to go to the authorities. You go to the ISP, who is not 
responsible for the content *until* you tell them its yours. Then they turn 
off access to the image and give the people using it a chance to prove they 
own the copyright.

It's not the authorities. It's just the ISP, or probably tumblr in this case.

Assuming this is in the USA that is. I don't know how it works other places.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:40:22 -0400, Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> ... followed by a loud outburst of the Tumblr-"community" about some  
> stupid guy (this would be me) who instead of being proud to be  
> recognized by the Tumblr-community insists in censorship and internet  
> fascism.

So insisting that people not steal your stuff is "censorship" and  
"fascism"?  How does that work?  Are they communists over there?

-- 
<Insert witty .sig here>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:43:50 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:40:22 -0400, Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
>> ... followed by a loud outburst of the Tumblr-"community" about some
>> stupid guy (this would be me) who instead of being proud to be
>> recognized by the Tumblr-community insists in censorship and internet
>> fascism.
> 
> So insisting that people not steal your stuff is "censorship" and
> "fascism"?  How does that work?  Are they communists over there?

Some people feel that if it's on the 'net, they should be able to use it 
in any way they wish regardless of the creators' wishes.

ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2011 11:56 AM, Ive wrote:
> Am 08.08.2011 05:50, schrieb nemesis:
>
>> Subtle watermarks? Meta information in the image file? They just pass
>> it on,
>> don't even bother with editing, I guess.
>>
> The Tumblr-people re-blogging stuff do not care, but the original poster
> who has found it "somewhere" in the internet does sometimes. I've seen a
> picture from Gilles where the copyright notice was cropped away.
> Meta tags is something I'm already using (but they get usually lost if
> the image is e.g. resized) and (what I've learned so far) in the future
> I will always add a notice on the image itself. Well, this can be
> cropped, but this act does actually show something about the person.
>
> -Ive
>
>
>
>
>
you know it's more about people not caring or respecting boundaries 
anymore ... as an example: how many shops have you been in that allow 
the customer behind counters? Yet I almost daily have to politely ask 
people not to go behind the counter. I even have signs with a traffic 
cop ... has his hand up in the stop position with "Employees Only" in 
two languages, but that doesn't stop them. Also interesting that 8 out 
of 10 times the customer seems put out that I've ask them out from 
behind the counter ... couple of years ago even had one chap inform me 
that I have major control issues (lol) ... so like I said most people 
don't care who they trample on to further whatever agenda they might have

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2011 10:09, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> ... as an example: how many shops have you been in that allow the customer
> behind counters?

Yeah, when I was young we had the same problem at the gas station I worked 
at. The cash register was there, the accounting books, etc. We found that a 
german shepherd under the desk worked wonders tho.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:35:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 8/8/2011 10:09, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> ... as an example: how many shops have you been in that allow the
>> customer behind counters?
> 
> Yeah, when I was young we had the same problem at the gas station I
> worked at. The cash register was there, the accounting books, etc. We
> found that a german shepherd under the desk worked wonders tho.

Oddly, I never had that problem at the software store I worked at when I 
was in high school - the counter was raised, so perhaps having a step up 
made a 'barrier' that people wouldn't cross when they didn't work there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

not related to Tumblr.

Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and 
the very first try lead me to this:

www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm

Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses 
POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an 
image of mine some others by well known povers and no need to mention 
that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images 
are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 18:29, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> Well, it seems to me you have two choices.
>
> ...
>
> You have to decide what the value is to you for your copyrighted work and
> whether the aggravation of having to deal with it is worth the value you
> assign to your work.  Only you can make that decision.
>

Thanks Jim, this pretty well summarizes it for me. Indeed if just one 
out of five would have responded positive I'd have no problem with it 
but now I'm gone this far (really should have listened to my wife - as 
usual - and ignore the whole thing) and will continue. I'll keep you 
informed if something interesting happens ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 18:39, schrieb Darren New:
> http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html
>

Thanks Darren, great link, makes it much easier for me to think about 
persuading the whole issue.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 2011-08-08 10:33, Warp wrote:
>    He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
> some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
> playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
> by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
> of sense does that make?

I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the 
game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It 
throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes 
infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.

It's part of why it's so hard to get any money for a digital drawing 
you've made; value lies in uniqueness.  Even if you make 1,000,000 
prints of a drawing, those are numbered and you can sell the physical 
item for more than a copy of the digital file, even though the image is 
the same (and, for all intents and purposes, what is supposedly being 
bought).

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:
> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".

Do the lawyers know this?


-- 
<Insert witty .sig here>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
> 
> Do the lawyers know this?

Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other 
intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 17:33, Warp wrote:
> Ive<ive### [at] lilysoftorg>  wrote:
>> Am 08.08.2011 01:48, schrieb Darren New:
>
>>> And this is why creative people hate pirates, even if "they wouldn't
>>> have bought the content anyway."
>
>> This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."-argument is something I was
>> always wondering about. Does it mean that someone prefers (take music as
>> example) to listen to songs he actually doesn't like just because he was
>> able to get them for free.

Often it means that people do like things, but not enough to buy them. 
One potential flaw in this argument is that they don't like them enough 
to buy, *because* they can get it and similar things for 'free'.

I also know people that collect music. Even the sort of music they don't 
like themselves. Just for the sake of collecting. They might simply be 
addicted to collecting, I don't know.

>    Some time ago I was at a friend's home, and another friend of his gave
> him a pirated and cracked version of Assassin's Creed 2 on DVD-R. I asked
> why. It's not like his life depended on the 50 euros that it would have
> costed to buy the game.

I have been given copies of music CD's for my birthday. Most people know 
that I try to keep my music collection clean from content that I did not 
buy. Even knowing that does not stop them. I simply can not understand 
that. Why would you give somebody something you know he doesn't want and 
certainly is not going to keep?

(OK, you might do that to introduce me to some music that I might like, 
so I would buy it myself if I liked it, but I am pretty sure that was 
not the intention)

BTW I find it hard to throw these disks away, because they were gifts. 
But I never listen to them again. (just once, see above).


>
>    His answer: "What if I don't have 50 euros?"
>
>    I was perplexed. I asked what exactly forces him to play the game in
> question if he can't afford it.
>
>    He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
> some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
> playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
> by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
> of sense does that make?

None at all (to us).



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 20:05, Ive wrote:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>
> www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm
>
> Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses
> POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an
> image of mine some others by well known povers

I see about 7 images that I recognize without going to the hof, some 
were just in the pba newsgroup, I think.


> and no need to mention
> that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images
> are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?
>
> -Ive


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 20:05, Ive wrote:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>

I can only find one image of mine included in two blogs, so that is not 
too bad. And they were of a ceramic thing (the death of rats in this 
case), so in a sense it is not even what I would consider original work. 
(it is, but the proces of making and baking it was what took most of the 
time, whereas a POV image is the direct result of spending time, so i 
would feel more infringed if they took a POV image from me).


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> > wrote:
> >> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
> >
> > Do the lawyers know this?
>
> Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other
> intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think that.

People don't give a fuck.

We've had previously a gigantic thread on mobileread forums with many readers
arguing against copyright:

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122033

This in a supposedly sane environment of readers with some intelectual prowess.
The OP is an anarcho-socialist lunatic, but he seems to echo quite well the
thoughts of the millions of freaks downloading their daily doses of life from
torrents and darknets.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.

Precisely.  It doesn't matter it took you years of your life to develop a high
level of artistry and publish something that quite certainly rings a chord with
people:  they won't give you a dime after they downloaded their free copy of
your work pressed against the thousands of others in a single night.

We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
(specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
their very own press.

Society should rethink the way artists get their income.  I think online content
providers should be the ones nurturing new talents, but sadly that only means
demented garbage to please a crackhead audience.  Indies are out of luck, no
success with the masses and no way to limit the work of several years quickly
spreading through decentralized torrents at no dime.  DRM is a joke that limits
no one but honest buyers.  Perhaps a few generous souls will turn out to at
least send the guy an email with "thanks"?

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
>> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
>> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
>> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
>
> We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
> their very own press.
>

Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post 
and this one really made me LOL:

"Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their 
creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to 
create will never go away."

Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a 
punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs & 
rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new 
strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and 
starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me 
sick.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> > Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> >> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
> >> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> >> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
> >
> > We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> > (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> > not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
> > their very own press.
> >
>
> Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post
> and this one really made me LOL:
>
> "Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their
> creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to
> create will never go away."
>
> Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a
> punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs &
> rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new
> strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
> This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and
> starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me
> sick.

Precisely so.  But the nutjob there was advocating also for a society where
everyone could exchange services.  So, hey, you'd be able to get a beer in
exchange for a soul-soothing song at the end of the day.

I still have some faith in manking because that thread got so long from many of
us with some common sense trying to counter that bull.

Post a reply to this message

On 2011-08-08 21:06, nemesis wrote:
> We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
> their very own press.

I am reminded of the outcry from the live-musicians over player-pianos, 
back in the day (ok, ok...not evoking a personal memory, I've /read/ 
about it).  The people who made their living going around and playing 
the piano for people to sing along with weren't faced with a diminished 
market.  So...we've come full-circle.  There's no income in the /idea/ 
of the music, you have to make it a limited commodity.  By doing a live 
performance.

XD

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:51:57 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>> > wrote:
>> >> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
>> >
>> > Do the lawyers know this?
>>
>> Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other
>> intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think
>> that.
> 
> People don't give a fuck.

Which is precisely the point.  People (in general) tend to care about one 
thing:  themselves.  Or rather, they don't think any further than the 
instant gratification they get from downloading a song rather than paying 
for it.

The artist not getting paid is not their problem.  In fact, the artist 
getting paid, a lot of times, is not because of piracy (though that 
certainly reduces the revenue stream to $0), but because of the 
moneygrubbing **AA-like organisations that keep 90% of the profits for 
themselves and pay the artist a pittance.....and then deduct "expenses" 
from it for things like "advertising" or "marketing" - you know, 
nonessential services that those bastard artists think is important so 
they might as well do it, but it's not coming out of the **AA's pockets.

I understand the **AA's reasons for fighting online piracy (it is 
ostensibly to cut off the supply for those who actually do make 
counterfeit CDs and DVDs; I saw a very interesting presentation by the 
general counsel of the RIAA a few years ago about this topic).

But in the context of "you're doing it wrong"...."YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!" 
- taking down someone who has nothing doesn't send a message other than 
you're a bunch of moneygrubbing lawyers who don't pay their artists. They 
should talk more about the physical media counterfeiters they've busted 
and make some noise about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But in the context of "you're doing it wrong"...."YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
> - taking down someone who has nothing doesn't send a message other than
> you're a bunch of moneygrubbing lawyers who don't pay their artists. They
> should talk more about the physical media counterfeiters they've busted
> and make some noise about that.
>
> Jim

Definitely. However, I *do* have one argument against copyright as it 
tends to exist today. Back when people wanted to make it basically 
perpetual (thanks Twain, you really where a twit about some things...), 
the argument was that most things would pass from the world anyway, so 
that wasn't an issue, what was is the ability of people to not have some 
publisher in Britain, or even Canada, selling your own book, without any 
money coming back to you for it. The problem today is that we have 30 
years of stuff in warehouses that *will* pass out of existence, without 
recovery, people holding on to it, not to protect the money they get 
from it, but just because it *might be* valuable, at some point, and the 
potential for almost everything to remain, even beyond the life of the 
artist, or the company that actually owns their works. So.. The result 
of this? If someone finds it interesting, even for no comprehensible 
reason, it might survive on some server on the internet, otherwise, it 
dies, just like more than half of *both* the valuable *and* crap works, 
from all prior generations.

And that, imho, is completely bloody stupid.

Its not an excuse to steal anything, but a lot of it is based on 
precisely the sort of thing that some people use to justify doing so. 
That the people who, in general, actually *own* the product, which is 
not to say the artist themselves, only give a shit about grinding as 
much money out of it as possible, then reserving the right, to *maybe* 
use the name, if not one single scrap of the original work, in some 
cases, to sell more shit later on. A proposition that leaves "everyone" 
screwed, including the person that wrote the book or song, made the 
painting, created a game, etc. And, if that isn't bad enough, in some 
cases, like those games, the originals "vanish". Abandoned games, as 
they are called, being one case. Nearly everything from the early days 
of arcades being the other (and more often than not also falling into 
the "we decided to use the name, but completely change the game, instead 
of reproducing the original work!", category).

Needless to say, these trends piss me off to no end. Not the least 
because it means that, in some cases, theft may actually be the only way 
to actually *get* one of them, at all, there being no legit method to 
pay for the damn thing.

Post a reply to this message

I say:

1) DMCA request

2) Adopt a policy where you:

   i) Don't lose sleep over the world having 640x480 pics of your stuff.
   ii) Keep the 4000x3000 versions for zazzle only.

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 20:05, schrieb Ive:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>
> www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm
>
> Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses
> POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an
> image of mine some others by well known povers and no need to mention
> that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images
> are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?

If I'm not totally mistaken this is the web page of that POVer 
occasionally showing up in the newsgroups and asking about how to model 
this or that part of kitchen furniture.

You might want to ask him what the text on the page translates to. To me 
it's all Dutch (erm, Turkish I guess).

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I say:
>
> 1) DMCA request
>
> 2) Adopt a policy where you:
>
>    i) Don't lose sleep over the world having 640x480 pics of your stuff.
>    ii) Keep the 4000x3000 versions for zazzle only.


iii) Put your name as a text object (like an etch on the coffee table) in all
the versions you release that you're not getting cash for (i.e., non-zazzle).

Post a reply to this message