What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
44 Comments
- thomashawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Update, Forbes issued me a public apology.
http://thomashawk.com/2007/01/forbes-thinks-web-photographers-dont.html - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27News: Forbes thinks Web Photographers don't matter, Web Photographers know Forbes won't matter in a few years.
- accesory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Go Thomas! Forbes is clearly in the wrong here and should make things right. All photographers, amateur or otherwise, should have the same rights and fair treatment.
- DeathBorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I'm in ur website, stealing ur pictures
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I've heard that some people even download music and listen to it without paying for it. Bastards.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"For those of you who suggested I make Forbes pay money to use the image, reparations, etc. that's just not my style. I like sharing my photos with the entire world."
Mad props. I agree with the author completely.
As a fine art photographer content with the money I make with my day job, I have never asked for a dime for my photography. I've gotten some of my photos on mazdausa.com and a couple months ago ford wrote an article about two of my photos. Stuff like that is less likely to happen to someone if they hide their work behind a price tag. - finite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Yeah, I always credit the artist when downloading music.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12because copyright infringement is only ok when we do it, right?
- DVRDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You got their attention, TH! They replaced your photo with a screengrab. Your photo is a great one - I hope they ask permission to use it because it enhances their coverage and gives you some well deserved exposure.
- unsharp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Hey, I'm a professional photographer and some of my photographs have been used by websites without attribution/payment.
It seems that people think they can grab anything they want and re-purpose it for their own use. It's called stealing!
Some credit would be nice, at a minimum. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Please. Digg readers don't give a rat's ass about copyright.
- finite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You should have insisted that your viral license already had irreversibly infected all of Forbes' publication, past, present, and future! Imagine them asking their lawyers if it were true and you can't say it wouldn't have been fun :)
But seriously, that was well handled. And a good photo too. - Morsetlis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That was rather quick.
- tim7423, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Being on both sides of the copyright fence here I would agree that credit is a must.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bury my last comment, I'm an idiot, saw the bold text as "where the comments start", and took TFA so far as the whole thing.
I'm crap with reading the "blog" style page, sorry Forbes, my apologies. I am a complete moron.
Hey me, RTFA you ass! - Peralton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2At least a request is nice before using someone else's image to be sure it's alright. It's good that they set things straight...at least with the photographer that outed them. I'm curious if the other photographers not from Getty got emails as well. Mostly, it's a matter of at least respecting the work of another.
Of course there is the standard attitude here that if you steal from a big company it's OK, but if you steal from a digger or a little guy, then it's "Call the lawyers!" and do a DOS attack on their website! Content is content whether it is a photographers image or a music track. Try to think how you would feel if someone took your content and used it without your permission.
Episode #3 of This Week In Law (from twit.tv) covers this sort of thing while discussing RSS copyright and fair use. yes, there is gray area, but most of the time, not really.
I'm glad this had a good outcome and props to the photographer for being a class act about it. If only the lawyers at the big firms would be as classy and simply ask before sending threatening C&Ds to bloggers.
Peralton - mtxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that list is way off (in my opinion)
- lucid270, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5because we make a profit off of it? oh wait...
- jmickey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That guy has a lot of great photographs. I'm glad forbes screwed up so I could stumble upon this article.
- RTourn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Happy ending.
- wordfreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Way to stick it to the man! I'm glad you found out and did something about it. Kudos to you for standing up for yourself and even more so for not demanding payment. Perhaps they'll pay you for the next image they use. Karma goes both ways, baby.
— Word! - Falldog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dugg for that quote alone.
- DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You're an idiot who didn't RTFA. (Obviously an *American* idiot, because "sue" was your kneejerfk first course of action)
- sacherjj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am-Pros can use sites like iStockPhoto.com to get their photos out there as well, while making a small profit. The market is changing.
- Dustyb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This kind of stuff makes me so incredibly mad, I've said it a bunch of times on digg, but I'll say it again. This kind of stuff ruins artists, I had to shut down my site because my work was getting stolen so often. This kind of stuff drives me nuts and I refuse to do business with anyone that steals work from artists.
- MeatBiProduct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1not just digg - barely anyone cares about copyrights - the only people that do care are the ones wanting to cash in.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's really dumb to steal images for publication. It just creates trouble. Publishers are far more likely to get found out than they realize.
Photographers can be a pretty tight knit bunch, even if they've never met in person. They share their images with each other and good images are memorable because that's the way art works. Learn from others and build on that.
When a publisher gets caught doing this, it's not just the money they are going to have to pay to make it right with the photographer (it's actually far cheaper to pay much more than a photo is worth when you get caught because getting caught is relatively rare) it's getting your publication and/or business drug through the mud for lack of ethics. - ddegner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amateur photographers are great. But if a large company wants to use your photos charge them for it. If you don't charge them you are flooding the market with a free product making it impossible for professional photographers like me to feed ourselves.
- dingdingding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But copying from the internet is what the news & magazine business is all about?
/sarcasm - magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i am a designer and photographer, i also happen to make living by doing so. people who feal they should be paid for every little piece of "work" they do need to be shot because frankly we are getting tired of listening to people bitch about Ooooo i took a picture of my son playing in sand and posted on flicker now i want 300 bucks for you to use it in a online news story... O ***** PLEASE. yes i do sell prints of my work .. but guess what, i also provide the high res versions online for anyone who wants them. to create "art" and not allow people access and total free use of it is just plain dirty.
shut up and go steal some music/porn/movies/tvshows/porn/games/porn.. i know i am! - MeatBiProduct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yah i can see all the photographers that subscribe to their magazine dropping their subscriptions and forbes going out of business.
you my friend should begin thinking past the tip of your nose. - rworne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I had a run-in with the website of a news organization. They did an article on collectors of old (1970's era) video games and lifted all their graphics from my website without permission and without credit - they didn't even ask.
When I called them on it in their comments section, they deleted my post and sent me a nasty email claiming that all their artwork was original and if I had said artwork on my website, then I stole it from *them*.
I didn't really pursue it further after letting the Internet collector community know about it. - t3dd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are two problems with this guy and the way creative commons and "web copyright" in general is being implemented.
"For those of you who suggested I make Forbes pay money to use the image, reparations, etc. that's just not my style. I like sharing my photos with the entire world. I make a little money on them from time to time but that is not the primary motivation."
So, he's not willing to enforce his license, AND he's agreeing that his work is, essentially, worthless.
You're a talented photographer Thomas -- take the money, enforce your licensing, and stop devaluing the market for the rest of us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0forbes will be a history soon if it continues this attitude.
- lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's the digital age for bank-robbers - part of the neo-moral compass that not only facilitates personal thefts, but also condones and often enough celebrates it.
That is, until someone smarter than the *passive* thief has their personal, digitised details stolen by someone much higher up this net-lifting hierarchy. Especially if said higher-thief abuses the ill-gotten access to credit card details and the like.
Then the passive thief is easily and readily identifiable - by their howling wolf-like cries of outrage at the injustice of their newly acquired status of victim-hood.
Really: it's ***** hilarious. A virtual bitch-slap of irony. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Commercial use of other people's copyright material without consent or remuneration.
They need to pay up or get sued off the planet.
Don't think I'm harsh - this isn't people using stuff as avatars on forums or showing each other out of interest - when you make a profit from it you need to answer to your obligations. - MeatBiProduct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1meatbiproduct thinks no photographers matter - how do you like that.
- delta013, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Pics or it didn't... Oh... Never mind...
- MeatBiProduct, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1well pin a rose on your perfect little nose. i bet you speed when you drive so get bent and quit preaching like breaking a copyright is soooo bad. last time i checked peter jackson and steven spielberg weren't missing any meals.
besides that - if your a photographer and don't want your work jacked heres a suggestion - don't post it on the net.
it happens to everyone - period. if you want to make money off it well start getting contracts for work. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I really don't get all the sarcastic comments like, for example: "because copyright infringement is only ok when we do it, right?".
Yes, I concede that many tech-savvy and experienced netizens do infringe copyright by regularly downloading music, movies and whatnot. But suggesting - or even implying - that *all* diggers infringe copyright is an unfair generalization that makes you look foolish as much as you think it makes you look clever by pointing out some imagined hypocrisy.
As tricky as this concept may be for you to comprehend, there are some of us out there who choose to avoid infringing the intellectual property rights of others by *buying* our music and software, or using free alternatives.
In any event, even if the guy does have a stash of pirated Vista CD's, I fail to see how it invalidates his own right to attribution. - michelbites, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I'm a photographer and they need to be sued big time for that.
- Falldog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The sad reality of the system is that if you can’t stand for someone to take your photos without your permission, don’t post it online in the first place. For better or worse.
- crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1very nice shot of Om. not the typical World Leader/Magnate portrait stance.
good job, Forbes. Buried this article as inaccurate. reason: Problem fixed.
i like this comment on the blog:
"Beside, perhaps you could persuade them to do an article on Creative Commons in recompense!" - magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2"Forbes Thinks Web Photographers Don't Matter"
Yea, thats because they dont.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is