Pilfering Copyrighted Images, Mock Freedom, and Respect
Monday, February 1st, 2010 by Patrick RossStart with a web site that posts high-quality, professional-level visual arts works, with the intention of making them available easily and for free to all. Then imagine that it actively encourages people to upload works that are not theirs, but just “found” online. Then imagine it pokes creators in the eye by calling the monthly publication “Pilfered Magazine.” Then imagine that the cocky “creative director” of this magazine, after publishing an entire issue of about 50 images without any photographer credit at all, in a separate, cheeky blog post encourages readers to submit photographer credits. Then imagine one of the photographers comments, upset her image was used without her permission, chooses not to fight the publication (dating back to October) of her work but demands a hyperlinked credit. Then imagine the “creative director,” after resisting, cedes only to putting the hyperlink in a blog post affiliated with the magazine, where it won’t be found or in any way directly connected with the image. Imagine that when challenged on his blog by those defending creators’ rights, he likes to post: “The pre-occupation with ‘me’…will give way to the ideals of ‘we’.”
Finally, imagine that his most recent Twitter post is a link to a video on YouTube called “The Charter for Compassion,” that has people from all walks of life saying we should all act with compassion, such as: “Treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.”
You can’t make this up, can you?
That this site is not only infringing creators but insulting them is a given. That, as one commenter pointed out, the creative director of this magazine is clearly obsessed with “me,” as in himself, is a given. That it is ridiculous that his pro-infringement site is not, as he says, “web democracy,” but instead the complete destruction of the concept of ownership, is a given.
This isn’t Creative Commons, where rightsholders are encouraged to share their works with strangers. Here the works are shared without their consent or knowledge, with the infringement defended on moral grounds.
There is some hope, here, however. I’ll list that, then conclude with what I feel is the most dangerous aspect of this magazine.
One ray of hope is that I find it hard to believe this guy really, truly believes his crock of s#!t. It’s too cliched, too stereotypical of the Free Culture, Web 2.0, Digital Utopian vision of the Internet. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if those readers I have who are disgusted by my defense of creators’ rights believe that I’ve created this guy out of whole cloth, because I couldn’t construct a straw man this cliched.
Another source of hope is that it seems it would be pretty simple to get this site taken down. As loyal readers know, I am not a lawyer; I come to this movement as a creator. But from what I know, at least in the U.S. legal tradition, with the Grokster decision and its predecessors, you have no safe harbor under the law if you are knowledgeable of infringement and appear to be actively encouraging it. The photographers infringed on this site shouldn’t have to learn of the infringement and then send a DMCA notice, they should know that the site can be taken down by the proper authorities. After all, this site directly calls for infringement in its ABOUT section.
Now a WHOIS search reveals the magazine’s domain name to be registered in Toronto, Canada. This is a bit of a challenge, because the civil and criminal law in Canada is not as good as the U.S. But that “creative director” I referred to says on his personal web site that he lives in Brooklyn (and works in advertising, which makes it even more clear he knows what he is doing is illegal; few are more knowledgeable about licensing of visual works than an advertising executive). His Twitter page also lists him as living in the USA.
Unfortunately, the Copyright Alliance is not like EFF. We don’t have Silicon Valley billionaires seeking to build a Digital Utopia on the Internet by funding groups like the EFF, which files law suits as often as Lady Gaga changes outfits.
Let me put out a call to all of the IP attorneys who read this blog. Please, one of you, read the comments sections on this site. Identify some of the infringed photographers. File an individual or class-action law suit on their behalf against the “creative director” and the other founders. Not only does this seem like a slam-dunk case, but it is critical that a message be sent that infringement is bad enough, but actively encouraging it while painting yourself as Robin Hood is unacceptable.
You can learn more by skipping around the professional photography blogosphere and reading fully justified disgust. I learned about this magazine from sites like Photo Business News & Forum by John Harrington and “Mmminteresting” by David Ettinger. (Mr. Ettinger, thanks for the shoutout for the Copyright Alliance.)
In conclusion, here is why this site is so potentially dangerous for all rightsholders. The works depicted here are, at times, remarkable. And there is a reason why a very high proportion of the photos and illustrations depicted here are striking, artistic and at times commercially valuable. It is because they are professionally selected for publication (even if the editors aren’t currently seeking compensation).
Anyone who has spent time surfing Flickr for high-quality Creative Commons-licensed images knows how hard it is to find a gem. Anyone can upload images to Flickr. Most are not doing so with the hope that their image will be made use of by someone else; they are simply sharing their experiences and visions with friends. In addition, there is no upload limit, and thus no incentive to only upload one’s “best” images. A photographer on a nature shoot might take 1,000 photographs but only upload 20 or so to a licensing site, the ones most likely to be licensed.
What this magazine is doing is making it easy to infringe high-quality visual arts. They make that clear on their site; this is their goal, their way of bringing about a “web democracy.” But in fact they are striking at one of the only advantages professional photographers still maintain in a world where amateurs have affordable access to tools once only in the hands of professionals; a simple, easy way to find exactly what you want and need for your professional project. Heck, even microstock sites charge a few bucks.
Rights matter, whether printed on professional photo paper or digitized online. As Jaron Lanier writes in his book “You Are Not a Gadget,” there can be limitless copies of digital works online, but creative individuals are most definitely finite.
Photographers and illustrators don’t need “compassion,” except to the extent that the YouTube video defines compassion as “respect.” The 11,000+ artists and creators who signed the Copyright Alliance letter to President Obama and Vice President Biden, and many, many more artists and creators, demand that respect; respect for their craft and for their rights.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 am
Actually Canadian Civil and Criminal law is more advanced than that in the USA. The USA would be well advised to adopt the Canadian legal system and laws in toto.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 am
I’m most pleased to be taking part in any endeavor which quickly and efficiently brings Pilfered Magazine to an end. When I think of all the artists being attacked - NOT honored, flattered, admired or respected but ATTACKED - by Pilfered Magazine I feel obligated to stand beside them in solidarity. I am thankful that the Copyright Alliance is doing more than its fair share of trying to protect rights given to us under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
D.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
This shameless publication has been around for some time. UK website Copyright Action (another great resource) had a piece on them in December 2007: http://copyrightaction.com/forum/pilfered-magazine
Is this the same thing except that they admit they are publishing copyrighted images or am I reading it wrong? Shoot For Your Life: http://www.shootforyourlife.com/about/
Shoot For Your Life is a website with just one goal in mind: publish the best photos from the best photographers all over the world. But we just publish one photo a day. For 24 hours, that photo will be on the cover of the website until a new picture comes the next day.
That way, you have a whole day to enjoy what we think is a masterpiece in photography.
All the photos published in this website are copyrighted by their respective authors and we have no relation at all with them.
We do not sell neither own any of the pictures published in Shoot For Your Life. If you are a photographer and your picture has been published on this website and you want us to remove it, please let us know via the contact page. We will remove it immediately.
Best,
David
–
David Brabyn
Photojournalist – New York
http://www.davidbrabyn.com/
Web Presence for Photographers:
http://www.digitaltechparis.com/
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Does ASMP know about this?
Where is the Facebook “share” link? (I did post to mine)
Where is the petition to sign?
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
This is more proof of the ugly and dangerous trend of little respect for artist Copyrights. Artist need to fight this trend and support the efforts being made by the Copyright Alliance.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Correct me if i’m wrong - can’t the ISP of pilfered be contacted and they’re obligated to cancel service (to pilfered) if copyright violations occur without redress - have never tried but thought I’d seen that in ISP T&C fine print many times…
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
OK, I will go you one better. There is a major, recognized stock photo house that takes combat photos taken by Army combat photographers and puts the stock photo house’s copyright on the image. They do this in spite of the fact that the photos were put into the public domain by the US Government. Because the photos are public domain the stock photo house can sell the images but they can not claim copyright.
I am not a lawyer, but to my my mind this false copyright claim is a violation of antitrust law because putting the stock houses copyright on the photo discourages other from access to the image or others from also selling the image. This is “restraint of trade,” a key principle in antitrust law.
Because I am intimately familiar with this photo I know it provenance, but I would be surprised if this was the only photo vacuumed into the stock photo houses system.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I alerted the Parke Harrison studio - clearly a couple the those images are on the site. I’d assume they are lawyered up and know the value of their IP.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you! (Rant alert!!) I have been shouting in my (what seems like) closed room to deaf people for years. As a visual artist first, a photographer second (my choice of medium), it is clear that everyone who “cannot” - wants what we do for free. Having spent the better part of the past 10 years in the corporate world and being the only voice there to say “no we cannot use that image found on the internet because the license fee isn’t in our budget” I was finally gaining headway. All I can say is that in this culture - where we are bombarded with thousands of images on a daily basis - and whose job it was to feed the visual intranet beast with new and exciting images… why aren’t visual artists being paid more?? No one wants to publish anything without great images. And aren’t photographers and visual artists due a decent living? it does boil down to respect. Respect of talent and skill. Respect that everyone isn’t an artist or photographer. And no, not everyone can do this.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Ditto on Sebastiao Salgado/Amazonas.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
i have had this happen to me and was told “too bad” when i confronted the editor with an image i created, which he lifted off a website where my name was clearly shown.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I am a fine artist and the whole copyright infringment issue is enough not to post my best work on the web. Some artists are adopting digital portfolios that they only distibute to customers on request. That seems to me the way to go if you want to save your work from copyright pirates. Don’t post anything you want to keep under your own rights.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Thank you, Copyright Alliance, for bringing this to light!
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Just a minor correction to David Brabyn’s post -the post he refers to isn’t from Dec 2007, it’s from this year. I think David was looking at the date the poster joined the forum.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
HOLY Batman and Robbers!
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
It appears the “creative director” - and I use the term loosely - of Pilfered Magazine has: 1) no conscience; 2) no concept of right versus wrong; 3) no idea of what stealing means in terms of loss revenue, stature, business, etc.; 4) no concern about the numerous violations to Title 17 United States Copyright Act; and, 5) no perception of why he needs to cease and desist.
Has anyone filed a copyright infringement suit against the magazine and the principles? Is it possible the Copyright Alliance could file the suit and obtain a restraining order or cease and desist order? Having one studio do so will cost, and ultimately benefit, them. On the other hand, this appears to need a larger scale approach from a legal standpoint.
Likewise, I’ll keep telling my students at Brooks Institute to beware of cretins like this and protect their copyrights at all costs. We too will have to do the same. As always, more broadcasts about the magazines unlawful practices on venues and forums such as FB, LinkedIn, etc., might help as well.
Just thoughts.
Respectfully,
Richard S Hockett, MBA, DTM
SunRidge Photo
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Thanks for commenting, everyone, and for spreading the word on this to your own networks. Together we can keep the heat on.
To David Altman, yes, ASMP is looking into this. We do need to put a Facebook link on this blog, although we do have a Facebook page and you can be a fan there. And you can sign the petition by clicking on “letter to the President” at the very top right of this page.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Rich, I agree with your assessment of the “creative director.” AS to the suit, as I mention we’re not really set up to do suits here at the Copyright Alliance, but if you belong to a photo member organization that has litigated in the past you can suggest that to them. If someone does sue I will cheer them on with our megaphone.
If any readers know any of these guest editors the magazine is using, please reach out to them. I wonder if these individuals know that they’re guest-editing infringement. I wonder if they even know their names are being used; they could be suffering from their identities being pilfered.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Unreal!
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Glad to support all efforts to suffocate this pond-life “creative” and other thieves……this and government’s also eroding Copyright laws. Question is now - How to show your best work without giving it away?
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:59 am
I agree it is an infringment on our rights if we post images on our site or upload to other sites if they take our image and display it for profit even if the profit is in the way of ratings on their site popularity. I have perhaps thousands of images on PC, CD & DVDs. Of the thousands there are possibly hundreds that are good enough to sell for profit. I hope you can get something in this case against pilfering photos, pictures or videos.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:12 am
Contact the IP and tell them that if the site is not taken down, then the RCMP will be contacted. That should be sufficient to have it looked into, if not removed, especially if, and I question, the guy lives in the US. It crosses borders, therefore they would be the place to start.
Canada actively supports arts and creative rights much better than the US and usually the threat of turning it over to the Horsemen is sufficient to get action taken, or started…….
The US? We are hopeless. Any buck to be made……geez. It is a very sad commentary on what we have de-evolved into.
My sympathies to those who had work posted by this common thief.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:02 am
@Robert Poll
QuIte right, I read the wrong date. Sorry about that.
The Copyright Action post is dated May 22nd, 2009.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I just heard back from Salgado/Amazonas:
“Thank you very much for showing us this, this is really incredible, we are going to investigate and react.”
Surely they have some big guns.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I give model releases to people I work with in public places, in return for use of their image in my works. A person posted such a picture on her blog site, where it was stolen by the CHEROKEE NATION, no less, for use on a scandal-monger racial discriminating site (we of part blood are apparently not welcome among the Nation). I sent them email after email, and to no avail. I have not been paid, to date, nor has the model been compensated or apologized to in any way.
It’s insulting, degrading, and it’s THEFT.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Annaliese,
Great news! We’ll keep our fingers crossed.
Patrick
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:34 pm
i noticed the Georgia O’Keefe picture, credited to “Steiglitz”, they could not even spell the name right of Mr. Stieglitz. I think the hands picture is also by Stieglitz, without credit.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
[...] a magazine that ACTUALLY encourages stealing other people’s copyrighted works. The Copyright Alliance has posted a blog that tells you everything you need to know about this magazine. Please read their [...]
February 5th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
As of today the Pilfered site is down! Kudos to you, your site and the web community for their efforts. There is a brief note from “staff” that they are “re-imagining their perspective”.
I spent the day reading the US copyright law pdf. For anyone interested section 107 defines fair use of copyrighted material. I did not see any indication on the Pilfered site that its purpose for distributing copyrighted materials was “for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research”. Granted there were “comment boxes” but the downloadable and printable pdfs were just straight copyrighted material.
One last word. I doubt the image he is using next to his note (model posed with a lamb) is his. Someone should find out who the photographer was and have that removed as well.
Warm regards,
Mark
February 8th, 2010 at 10:47 am
[...] would appear to be a victory. Last week, we here at the Copyright Alliance reported on a brazenly infringing web site, a site that encouraged people to upload professional images over which they held no legal rights. [...]
February 9th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
i am thrilled to see something was accomplished! good work, all. this effort has given me the resolve to pursue those who stole my work and who continue to brush me off as small and insignificant.
February 13th, 2010 at 12:02 am
[...] our attention by various members, and there is a good write-up in the Copyright Alliance Blog </> . ASMP member John Harrington has also covered the matter in his blog [...]
February 13th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Good work! As a full time travel stock photographer, I find my images all the time on scattered on travel web sites & blog sites … often I find that some sub-agent “gave” it away. It is not only the obvious jerks like “Pilfer” but also professionals who in an effort to “cut a better deal” are increasingly starting to give away images. They are often used with no bi-line, and then right click grabbed again and again. With prices down 50% in one year and text book companies hiring full-time editors whose job it is to find “free” images on Flickr for God’s sake … what has happened to our business? This has motivated me to really go after the abusers … jerks and professionals alike!
February 15th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
[...] The latest dispute involved a website incredibly named Pilfered Magazine that openly stole and displayed visual art without permission of any kind. The name of the digital publication bragged of the theft and taunted the creative community. The alleged “creative director” and self-appointed “Robin Hood” for the masses argued that his unabashed theft of some 50 images was in service of “web democracy.” (See post at Copyright Alliance for more information). [...]
February 18th, 2010 at 11:13 am
“civil and criminal law in Canada is not as good as the U.S.”, perhaps but our copyright law is much stronger despite the myth
You might want to read “21 examples of how Canada’s copyright law is already stronger than the U.S. ” http://bit.ly/bjGeX9
Many U.S. Artists works are still protected in Canada but not in the U.S. such as the music of Irving Berlin
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:20 am
[...] More about the short but sweet fight here: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/02/pilfering-copyrighted-images-mock-freedom-and-respect/ [...]