Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #9 · Image was appropriated , but credited, what to do? |
Not quite sure why you would be pissed about it. They took a photo, which you made public, and put it in their blog. They even were kind enough to give the source of the photo. As far as "not licensed for commercial use". They did not use your photo in a commercial scenario. They are not a business profiting from your photo being on their blog (as far as i know).
I'm no expert, but that's my take on your scenario. I'd be happy to see my work getting posted elsewhere with credit given.
This is folly & dangerous to the community at large ... it is perpetuating a fallacy regarding public display vs. authorized usage being okay just because no direct money changed hands.
The blog benefits from the usage of the image. Whether or not a dollar changed directly changed hands while they were using it, they still benefited from it.
The blog benefited from it:
They did not spend the time going to the site of the shoot.
They did not spend the time performing the shoot.
They did not spend the gas money to get to and from the shoot.
They did not spend the time on post production from the shoot.
Time is money ... they benefited from the OP's efforts ... and that has commercial value. It allows the blog to advance itself further than had it been required to expense the time & money to obtain the same image. The blog benefits from the usage of the image as it entices to retain and grow readership ... even if it is investment commercial value where the "money" comes later. It is allows the blogger to not spend that allotment of time on the blog and spend that time on some other "commercial" value entity. Time has commercial value.
It is not okay to take someone else's work for your usage without permission ... terms of permission are up to the OP. It is up to him to decide IF credit is agreeable to him or IF $$$ is agreeable to him or IF none is agreeable to him.
This attitude of "consider yourself lucky" if you get credit is absolute total BS. Yeah, I'm gonna feel really lucky if a thief comes into my house and steals one of my "wall hangers", puts it up in his business ... then tells everyone, "Hey, come over to my place and see this really cool pic I got from RustyBug. You like it, that's cool. Glad you came over and checked it out, my place is getting really popular (commercial gain @ traffic value) isn't it. No, I can't sell it to you, it's not mine to sell. That would be wrong."
You say, "But that's different. The blogger didn't ACTUALLY steal it off the wall. He just made a copy of it for his own use."
What do you think "copyright" laws are. You don't have the RIGHT to COPY someone else's work for your intended use WITHOUT their PERMISSION. Doing so deprives them of receiving compensation for the value of their work.
BUT ... AND THIS IS HUGE ... it not only devalues their work, but it DEVALUES ALL WORK. I mean why would anyone, anywhere, ever want to pay anything as long as there is always someone else's work that can be "not quite stolen" for FREE. It totally undermines the valuation of works by virtue of the simple laws of supply & demand. If people are allowed to access an extensive supply of free "not quite stolen" ... there is ZERO opportunity for the DEMAND side of the equation to even EXIST.
Fair market value is dependent upon BOTH sides (seller and buyer) coming to an agreed upon price. NOT QUITE STEALING never afforded the owner an opportunity to agree upon a price with the buyer (which the buyer may have rejected and been forced to look elsewhere) ... hence it totally denies the opportunity for an "agreed upon price", thus totally undermining the concept of free enterprise, predicated upon fair market value.
What part of FAIR is "NOT QUITE STEALING" ... to the owner or the original works or to the marketplace at large. It isn't in any way, shape or form "fair". It is simply a bunch of techno-thugs raping, pillaging and plundering at their will the uneducated and uninformed and "good-natured" individuals who were not prepared for either the marketplace or their own defense. Even though the OP states that he would have likely agreed to credit as agreeable to him, the fact of the matter is that not only did the blogger steal the works from the OP ... the blogger also stole the OP's rightful opportunity to engage in a fair market exchange, irrespective of what the agreed upon price may have been, or even if they had not come to an agreed upon price.
Nope, you still owe me. Okay, so you're a poor, struggling business (blog) trying to make it (future growth). I get that, but you still owe me. I'm flexible @ money vs. barter @ products or services ... but my work still has value ... you don't get it for free (next to free, maybe ) ... but not for free, unless I choose to do so. Give me the due respect @ value of my work. I mean, after all ... it had enough value to you to warrant you stealing it from all the others you could have stolen from or produced yourself. You didn't steal it because it was worthless ... you took it (stole) without permission, and you used it without permission ... because it was worth something to you. You took something that wasn't yours to take and you used it in a way that wasn't yours to decide how it could be used ... you stole it because it had value to you ... now, you owe me.
Think about it.
BTW, he's "pissed" because someone stole (two) something(s) from him ... his work & his right to engage in a fair market value transaction as the seller.
The blogger/thief/buyer "determined" the "fair market value" by himself without any input from the OP/seller ... as being "credit" only. This constitutes totally averting the marketplace and totally averting fair market value, since fair market value is defined as an "agreed upon price" between the buyer and seller ... no agreement was ever reached because the thief (buyer) never afforded such an opportunity to the owner (seller).
You can try and say that because the blogger didn't resell the image or derive "commercial gain" from it, it isn't stealing ... but if I come take your camera away from you and put in on a shelf in my den along with my massive collection of other "not quite stolen" cameras you'd be pissed that I did so ... even if I didn't derive any "commercial gain" and gave credit to you as the rightful owner.
The fact that the blogger "gave credit" to the rightful owner establishes the fact that the blogger knowingly is not the rightful owner. As such, he can only use the image IF it has been agreed upon by the rightful owner. The rightful owner never agreed to such usage and was never even afforded the opportunity to do so ... irregardless of what form & amount of "fair market value" he may have agreed upon, had he been afforded his rightful opportunity to do so.
I can steal your car and take it out for a "joy ride" ... pick up my friends, cruise around town, look really cool & popular and tell everyone "Yeah, its Joe's ride ... ain't it cool." Then when you notice it's missing, I can just "give it back". No matter how you slice it, giving credit WITHOUT AGREED UPON PERMISSION does NOT excuse stealing that which is not yours ... even if you "give it back" when you are done using it, or if it's "only a copy".
STEALING IS STEALING ... PERIOD.
While it is true that one definition of stealing is trying to pass off workmanship of others as your own and the practice of "giving credit" satisfies that aspect of the definition. However, there is the FIRST definition of stealing, which is simply taking that which is not yours and for which PERMISSION has not been granted. Just because you satisfy a secondary definition of stealing, it does NOT exonerate you from the primary definition of stealing ... taking another's property without right or permission. And if you say, he only made a copy ... he still took it in order to make the copy (albeit electronic), which he had no right to do ... be that physical property, creative works or intellectual property (including such as posted herein, et al).
CLEARLY the blogger has taken the the OP's property & right without permission. CLEARLY the blogger has stolen from the OP. Giving "credit" in lieu of obtaining permission from the rightful owner does NOT make it okay ... it is a fallacy and a detriment to the marketplace to suggest such a naive and self-serving perspective.