|
Forums >
General Industry >
Posting images witho0ut photographers' consent
Apparently someone posted other photographers' work on a website (already vaporized or otherwise removed). Lots of folks were pissed, and rightly so, as their images were posted and used without their consent for purposes other than their original usage. Here is the poster's validation of his actions: "To clarify. This was not a public website or forum. The images that were posted were for private viewing of a MUA and it was done remotely for her to study them. Again, there was no intent or malice of any kind as I know the rules and hold permanent credentials from UPI. Like in any other case studies you bring to the imagination of the new in the field the work of others to help develop the skill. You should feel proud that this was the case and there was no other intent. Still I apologized for what just happen and the misunderstanding. There was nothing. All the images were posted carrying their original owners signature. As I mention like in any other school or case studies, you pick from the professionals to learn and develop the skill and later with experience the person will find their own style. It has been done for centuries and amazed me the reaction or who ever started this. My best bet is the MUA that asked for help and passed along to someone else and now it is a whole mess. WOW It is just unbelievable. I don't know were all this is coming from as something so simple and something to feel proud of has become a harrasing issue. Here I am trying to help a person and became a victim of harrasment. Thanks for stoping the attack. And if you contacted someone else please correct what just happen here. Again I am amazed of all this. JB" You tell me. Aug 31 06 12:33 am Link My opinion... If he posted them, with the copyrights still on them, in no way claiming to own them. I don't see the problem.... People make fan sites for models, and use photos taken from other sites, without permission, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. And from what he said, it seemed harmless... again, just my opinion... Aug 31 06 03:26 am Link he should have posted links to the original images... or asked. Aug 31 06 04:45 am Link damn my space Aug 31 06 04:50 am Link I don't understand, did a photographer steal images and create a publi page or did he create a private, non-public page to show a make-up artist examples of the "look" he was going for? The former is wrong, the latter may or may be "fair use" if it was put up quickly on a non-public page and immediately taken down. It may well also be crossing the line, absent more facts, I don't know, but I am just missing something here. If his only purpose was to say to the make-up artist "Check out these photos, this is the style I am looking for" it really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Something tells me there is more to the story than the OP is posting. In all probability, what is being posted is a self-serving explaination by the offender meant to diffuse criticism. He also may have posted to explain what he thought he was doing, but really ended up posting them publicly which pissed people off. However, if his intent was what he said, I think we would all be better served, not by attacking him but by explaining the right way to do it. The guy sounds insensitive to me, but he doesn't sound like a crook. Aug 31 06 08:54 am Link If this story serves as the Modeltag.com website explanation, there are too many inconsistencies with the facts. The photographers and models were not credited. If it refers to some other website, I do not see why the images were not simply linked. Downloading an image, storing it on your own server and then reserving it to someone else is still a violation of the copyright holder's ownership rights to the images (unless of course, if the copyright owner gave permission). Aug 31 06 09:03 am Link Aug 31 06 09:05 am Link Interesting.. The stylists, when asked how best to "communicate" with their delicate artistic sensibilities about the look you wish them to convey with their art, repeatedly declared "show us a picture". The agreement was their was no lexicon that could consistently convey "more red".. And thus a portfolio of looks torn from books and magazines was required.. I'm pretty sure no one can sue you for pulling pictures out of a magazine.. So we're talking the digital equivalent... Except.. Is reposting these images on a web page considered re-publishing? OP said something about it being a private page only for the eyes of the mua.. Which begs the question of how it was found out about to be complained about by whoever did the complaining.. Sticky widget. Aug 31 06 09:17 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: No problem with that. That's so-called fair use. Although the RIAA has some problems even with that. You could make a color copy of it also, for your own use or including it a school report. The problem comes when you take over the publication right of the image, even while giving credit. That's why this site has no problem. The copyright owner uploads her/his image and gives ModelMayhem the publication right. Aug 31 06 09:31 am Link dfstudios wrote: I found the original thread after I made your post. It is still confusing to me. It does appear that all he did was to assemble examples of styles he wanted the MUA to look at. It also looks like it was put up on a non-linked page. Aug 31 06 11:05 am Link W.G. Rowland wrote: In many cases, yes, but there are more factors. As an example, you can post an image to critique it or for review. There are rules and guidelines that go with that use and it isn't a blanket privilege. However, copyright doesn't prevent all kinds of publication. Aug 31 06 11:11 am Link |
