Copyright infringement, it's everywhere

[NicoleScraps]

There's been a lot of talk about it lately as far as the photography industries, music industries, even that thread about that mag stealing recipes and articles. Just thought I would point out another area where it has become a big problem as well. I do a lot of digital scrapbooking and in case you aren't familiar with it, let me explain how it works. Designers who are basically graphic artists design backgrounds, word art, embellishments and so forth in a theme/color scheme and bundle it up for sale in their shops. When I make a purchase, I get a download link and can use these items for my personal scrapbook pages.
Somehow in this industry, copyright infringement has become horrible.
In one way, they illegally share files. Like one person will buy a kit then put it on a torrent site. Or I have heard of problems with stores getting hacked, everything downloaded, then all the files ending up for sale somewhere else or on a torrent. Or someone will come along, buy a kit, change the colors, relabel the files and then resell them under a different name. This is actually pirating more than infringement, but still very wrong.

The other way is like this.

My boys dressed up as mario and luigi for Halloween so I was looking for a kit related to that theme to scrap the pages. Most of the time, what I would find would be something very loosely based on a particular theme by color scheme and similar elements. Characters such as this are licensed and cannot be used this way. It would have cost this designer an arm and a leg to legally purchase a license to use these characters. He/she would have to be charging a lot more than $15 to sell this, I am sure.

The real designers know this is the rule. For example, everything Disney related is licensed, so the designers that are legal will make something like this that works well with Disney photos but does infringe on their copyrighted/icensed characters.

So yeah, it is everywhere. Not just here. Very sad!

Just my little vent for the day. now to resume my search for a legal Mario related kit.

[Jim Bryant]

Sad state of affairs. Just because the image is posted on the web, uneducated people think they can grab them for free.

[navcom]

Jim hit the nail on the head...uneducated. Not to be confused with stupid...they just don't think it's wrong. Let's face it. With proliferation (wide use of digital media) comes the assumption that it's somehow "free for the taking". And the lack of real enforcement doesn't help.

Remember Napster and online file sharing? The perfect example of how proliferation seems to lessen the sin. While online file sharing of copyrighted music is still rampant, I guarantee you there are fewer than there used to be as it has now entered the collective consciousness that it's wrong because of a major lawsuit and the publicity that ensued. It hasn't stopped it but it's now in the public mind so prosecution is considered easier.

And one can make the assumption that the music industry has adapted to the assault of file sharing. Instead of forcing the consumer to buy the entire album, they are making music singles available in MP3 format dirt cheap so it is less attractive to steal them. The photography world is starting to follow suit to a point, but it only applies to photography if you are talking about the stock photo market.

Nothing will prevent digital theft, but until there are major prosecutions with real penalties that everyone can see, most will simply not consider it wrong or immoral. No consequence, no sin. Even to those that know it's wrong it's akin to a "little white lie".

Unfortunately, most of us in the photography world that are having our images stolen are not as known as a major recording artist and thus don't get the media attention.

What the photography world needs is for Lindsay Lohan to steel one of our photos.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by navcom

Jim hit the nail on the head...uneducated. Not to be confused with stupid...they just don't think it's wrong. Let's face it. With proliferation (wide use of digital media) comes the assumption that it's somehow "free for the taking". And the lack of real enforcement doesn't help.

Remember Napster and online file sharing? The perfect example of how proliferation seems to lessen the sin. While online file sharing of copyrighted music is still rampant, I guarantee you there are fewer than there used to be as it has now entered the collective consciousness that it's wrong because of a major lawsuit and the publicity that ensued. It hasn't stopped it but it's now in the public mind so prosecution is considered easier.

And one can make the assumption that the music industry has adapted to the assault of file sharing. Instead of forcing the consumer to buy the entire album, they are making music singles available in MP3 format dirt cheap so it is less attractive to steal them. The photography world is starting to follow suit to a point, but it only applies to photography if you are talking about the stock photo market.

Nothing will prevent digital theft, but until there are major prosecutions with real penalties that everyone can see, most will simply not consider it wrong or immoral. No consequence, no sin. Even to those that know it's wrong it's akin to a "little white lie".

Unfortunately, most of us in the photography world that are having our images stolen are not as known as a major recording artist and thus don't get the media attention.

What the photography world needs is for Lindsay Lohan to steel one of our photos.

We need to educate our clients that stealing is wrong. When I give photo lectures at high school and colleges I make it a point to bring up and ask just how many people are doing grabbing photos. Then, I proceed to tell them just how much I can send a bill to them for usages. Believe it or not...the word does get around.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by navcom

What the photography world needs is for Lindsay Lohan to steel one of our photos.

Well Metallica (number one DMCA complainer and ultimate demise of napster) stole one of Sime's photos.

I would have made heads roll.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Well Metallica (number one DMCA complainer and ultimate demise of napster) stole one of Sime's photos.

I would have made heads roll.

...and they probably thought there was nothing wrong with it! LOL!!

Unbelievable! But yet totally believable!

[Photologyst]

This is very much a western-cultural thing.

The Chinese believe that copying is the sincerest form of flattery for an artist. It is encouraged in that culture.

One can see “influence” of those who went before in virtually everything: Art, music, science. At the very base of it, man copies from Nature.

Perhaps we need a new way of addressing the issue, because it is not going away.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by Photologyst

This is very much a western-cultural thing.

The Chinese believe that copying is the sincerest form of flattery for an artist. It is encouraged in that culture.

One can see “influence” of those who went before in virtually everything: Art, music, science. At the very base of it, man copies from Nature.

Perhaps we need a new way of addressing the issue, because it is not going away.

True, I can see why so many bootleg, knockoff items are made in Taiwan.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

True, I can see why so many bootleg, knockoff items are made in Taiwan.

I was going to say the same thing! Somehow I take comfort in knowing that the reason the Chinese copy and re-market our products dirt cheap and with inferior quality is because they are trying to flatter us. I am also flattered at the Chinese professional product espionage market too.

I'm wondering if Nike is flattered by the ever-increasing amount of knock-off shoes showing up on Ebay and elsewhere.

You are right about one thing Lumico...it ain't going away. And I do agree with you that a different approach may be in order.

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by navcom

I was going to say the same thing! Somehow I take comfort in knowing that the reason the Chinese copy and re-market our products dirt cheap and with inferior quality is because they are trying to flatter us. I am also flattered at the Chinese professional product espionage market too.

I'm wondering if Nike is flattered by the ever-increasing amount of knock-off shoes showing up on Ebay and elsewhere.

You are right about one thing Lumico...it ain't going away. And I do agree with you that a different approach may be in order.

I am not “flattered” that so many dangerous products come out of China including foods and medicines. I do my best to not purchase anything Chinese, which is rather difficult these days. I also resent that they do not give anyone else a chance to compete.

However, one of the things that knock-offs do is to lower prices. I mean, why should a pair of trainers cost well over $100.-? Or some other “designer” piece of cr@p—the sky’s the limit with price, just because the sheeple need to sport a designer label on their person? The quality of designer goods is not very good. If one turns an Escada suit inside out, it looks the same as something from a lesser fashion house—poorly finished.

Software is a great example of being highly overpriced. That said, the freeing up of markets via open source is a very good thing.

Seeking out quality is a smart thing to do. Purchasing previously owned, quality items also works well.

See, there is a silver-lining to the economic downturn.