New Approach to Photo PiracyAdded: Wednesday, November 21st, 2012
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Right To Share
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extratorrent.com
Copyright infringement is usually associated with movies, games or music, but photos can also be infringed, particularly with services like Instagram kicking in hard. Today there’s a new service out there, called Dreamstime, which forwards a solution to this problem.
The new service offers stock photos, all packed into different genres, like Abstract, Nature, People, and so on. The entire database is currently accounts for more than 15.000.000 images. The problem of copyrighted photos is still huge, particularly when popular social networks like Facebook or Tumblr allow their members to publish almost any photo they like. This doesn’t make professional photographers very happy when they see their works posted without permission or payment. Of course, the first reaction of the lawyers was to find users who infringed copyright and squeeze thousands of dollars out of them.
Actually, this strategy has already become a serious source of revenues. The only problem here is that those thousands of dollars are not actually reflecting the damage done by the pirates.
That’s why Dreamstime offers another solution: the service sends a notice to take the image down or buy a license for only $8. According to the company, the new approach does bring some profit. Dreamstime says that they want to respond to copyrighted images, but in a different, non-heavy-handed way. Their solution is considered very successful in turning illegal users into customers: once those learn of the license, they tend to obtain larger licenses.
However, Getty (similar service using image recognition software to identify the illegal use of their images) doesn’t approve of this method, pointing out that the DMCA takedown process can’t be regarded as an adequate remedy, as it doesn’t ensure that the content creators receive compensation. In reality, this compensation isn’t always the case, because most users don’t receive it whatsoever out of their sharing. This is why Getty might consider the idea offered by Dreamstime.
November 21st,2012Posted by:
Wednesday, November 21st, 2012
|it takes years for celebs to get fans it takes seconds for them to lose them.if they think i need there movies and music for entertainment there heavily mistaken.If all they care about is the money and not the fans why should we pay for silly things like photos and let them role around in money while everybody else is struggling to find a job.a [email protected] 5 year old can do what they do for a living and theres probably a singer somewhere in the world better than lady gaga|
|Dreamstime is a stock photo site. This has nothing to do with celebrities, they don't have pics of celebs. It is the photographers that lose out because people use their pics without buying the rights to re-print them. Photography is difficult to make a living at, and I'd hate to see photos I took become public domain.|
|I'd like to see god comedown and sue everyone who ever painted a picture of a tree. Cuz those are HIS trees...|
|One word for photographers interested in putting a photograph of theirs online. Watermark. Tah-dah! And if they don't want the original image floating around only sell it to a commercial outfit for posterization or t-shirts or mouse pads or coffee mugs, not to a private buyer that will most likely post it on facebook.|
It's rather sad this world is all about making money. Like seriously. Some people think they earned $5 just for wiping their own ass. C'mon. Whatever happened to doing things just because you like to do them?
|Watermarks can, and are easily removed by those willing to do so.|
|posted by (2012-11-22 06:54:46)|
Unfortunately it is a sad world and all about money.....In the 60's I had a photography business and use to stamp copyright on the back of the photos but I couldn't have given a damn if they were used without my permission....Hey it was the 60's....this was in the day when you had to print and develop by hand using chemicals, so it involved more work then just point,shoot and upload....These so called photographers should be grateful and honoured that someone wants to reproduce their "snaps"...IDIOTS!
|posted by (2012-11-23 21:33:28)|
|As zac said this is not about the content of the picture, but of who the copyright belongs to. The law can be that the photographer has the copyright unless special arrangements take place.|
On here I often see people pointing the finger and saying 'Its all about *their* money' but I say too its all about *your* money, otherwise ET would not exist because you are not willing to part with your money for the book, the app, the movie.
At the end of the day its often all about money and for good reason...people have bills to pay. So how is a semi/pro-photographer to pay their bills if people copy their pictures instead of paying money for them? Being 'honoured' won't keep you in housing longer than your landlord will wait.
I think many posts on here are made by kids who have no perspective on things such as ...everyday life.
|posted by (2012-11-23 21:38:16)|
|And (yes he goes on!!!) it can be applied universally. If you ran a garage and I brought you my Ducati because ' I want you you work on it because you have a good reputation, but I won't be paying you a bean'. What would you say? 'I'm honoured, thank you!' or ' On your bike!'. Let me guess.|
|Brilliant analogy eNdEmiOn. I may have to pirate that down the track...pardon the pun!!|
|posted by (2012-11-24 17:35:52)|
|Touche nice comparison NOT. Talk about twisting words. By your logic I'd have said in the Garage scenario the worker would be paid for every mile I rode the bike after the service which is Not What I Said!!! I was showing how Honour vs Cash idea could be applied elsewhere, and in doing so I hoped to make it more obvious how bad an idea it was.|
The garage and your plumber are service based industries. Generally they can do a variety of jobs and will want to do x hours work at y pay per hour.
If you are production based you generally will want to sell x units of your product at y price over z timeframe to keep your head above water financially. Yes Get Paid For Copies!!! This seems to shock you?
The overheads are less per print, be it a book or a photo, in the digital age because production can obviate some costs such as darkroom work or the cost of paper or shipping. With reduced overheads the digital print IS cheaper than the film print, the e-book IS cheaper than the paper copy. But the basic need to sell units remains and your target income after expenses will not differ. If you need to generate $200USD per week that is what you need, be it $200 as a hand made silver print or 10 x $20 digital prints.
You wouldn't be able to ask 4 times the price of a normal print because 'you took 4 times longer than normal respotting it'.
And it is rare that a photographer gets a shot so good another party pays a substantial amount for that one shot and its copyright. So rare that you cannot base your business on that achievement ever happening.
Mass production has always been there, digital or not. 1 film negative could lead to 1 print or a multitude or a limited edition. It happens. And the prices charged reflect that.
Why not DYOR right now and compare Amazon book and e-book prices?
Further analysis? We don't have the numbers. But to claim it is senseless to sell digital copies is IMO crazy especially if that is all you have to sell.
|posted by (2012-11-24 21:03:14)|
|skreamer is only here on ET so that he can educate everyone about copyrights and stuffs...and no..he dont go anywhere near the copyrighted stuffs being shared here...come on...that would be something a hypocrite would do...NOT skremer |
skremer.. i hope u can see the funny side of it
|posted by (2012-11-25 05:41:04)|
|Being a photographer means people hire you to come take photos of whatever, then you get paid.|
but if your out taking random pics of random shit for free, then post it online,
and if someone posts a link to share this pic, they want money.?
better change jobs if that's how you plan on making a living.
|posted by (2012-11-25 15:55:23)|
|Thynome please review all my comments on news articles. You will Not see me talking only about copyright. You will see you are 100% Wrong.|
And an explanation does not mean I need to take a side. However, on the point of me and ET I have always said I will torrent what I would not buy. If I would buy it, I will buy it. Its all there if you care to Educate Yourself rather than talking arse. And yes I have paid for photographs direct from the photographers concerned. I will steal from 20th Century Fox but won't from an individual / small business trying to make a living for themselves in a difficult sector (yes most photographers I've known have been unable to make much money and those I have not known but known about have the same fate).
And at #13 Yes maybe hired but paid for results. I'm not going to give too much away about myself but I have been associated with photographic work and photographers for over 20 yrs. I know how hard it was in the days of film and now I can only imagine how hard it will be with the attitudes shown on this thread.
Question. How is a freelance photographer to support themselves if 'Its OK to copy their work rather than pay for it because they had it on the web?'.
Most Popular Stories