Start 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.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 12:05 pm by Patrick Ross and is filed under Obama, advertising, blogging, copyright law, copyright opponents, creators, piracy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.