If It’s On The Internet It’s Free! Didn’t You Get The Memo?

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Last week I put a good amount of miles behind me driving a Hybrid Toyota Camry across the Mid & Northwest which for all intents and purposes could have also doubled as an oasis of silence, shielding me from the constant flow of information that we are all bombarded with on a constant basis through various media outlets. There is a lot to be said for tuning out, but I opted not to as I jumped from destination to destination. On my long drives, some as long as 850 miles in a single day, I passed the time enjoying extended stretches of silence to brainstorm creative ideas while intermitently listening to NPR radio and other local stations. The funny thing about having a little more time to think while traveling as I did is that subtle events and not so subtle events have a way of adding up to more clearly take form as a larger thought or issue.

Just before I left on my trip I received a comment on Flickr from Patrick Smith, a photographer here in Northern California, commenting on the merit of my watermark and how image theft is overblown. I shared my experience and moved on. After all even I would rather talk about other things than taking safeguards against image theft. Then while on my trip news broke of a family photo sent out as a Christmas card that somehow was taken off a family blog and used in a large commercial advertisement in Europe

NPR report – Text and Audio
Dear Social Media – the photographs take on the situation
A Mom Goes Viral, Attracts Haters – more photos of the store front

Then days later I heard DJ’s on a pop radio station in Utah discussing this, one DJ noting that “if it’s on the Internet it’s free.” Lastly to come full circle I read a blog entry titled Creativity! by Patrick Smith upon my return about how one of his photos was being used in a “Photoshop This” thread on Fark.com.

So my question to you, “Did you get the memo that your online content is free?”

Clearly I’m a believer that my content is not free if it is placed online and I’m consistently appalled that people continue to claim others content online as being free. For some reason I find that people who do not create content whether an article, a photograph, etc. have a tough time wrapping their head around the concept of “Intellectual Property”. It’s much easier to just assume the world is their oyster… it’s all there for the taking. One other observation I’ve made is that those who are broadcasting types (TV and Radio) do think of online content as being free far more than say writers or photographers.

I’ve written plenty on this subject and I think all of you know very well how I fall on this subject. For those of you that are new to my blog you can find my past thoughts on the following topics here: copyright infringement and photo watermarking.

What is your take on this mythical culture of free that people seem to errantly propogate in relation to your online photographs or writing?

I almost forgot… this came out on Sunday:

Use Their Work Free? Some Artists Say No to Google – NY Times

Technorati Tags: Photography, Copyright, Photo, Watermark

Stay Connected with Jim
	Join Me On Twitter	Become a Fan on Facebook
	Listen to EXIF & Beyond	My Latest on YouTube

Posted by Jim on 06.16.2009 at 11:23 am
Tagged: Copyright, Photography, Social Media, Technology, Web , Copyright, Photography, Social Media

Related Posts

Andy

I have a close friend involved in a large lawsuit concerning some of her art that she does and sells for a huge profit online. People have been stealing it and even selling it as their own. It's sad.

and did you want a cookie for driving a hybrid? What you were driving had nothing to do with the article, and it came across as pompous.

Larry Gordon

In a perfect world everyone would be educated. We would all have decent morals, values and ethics. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world so it’s necessary to have safeguards in place.

Why do stores have theft detectors, security guards, cameras and glass cases? Because they want to control loss prevention.

When our stores are on the internet and we can’t guard them with security guards, cameras and glass cases. We have to take other measures to safeguard our property.

To assume people are not going to take your property with a mouse click in the privacy of their home wouldn’t be very realistic. After all, no one got hurt and chances are good the owner will never know a theft occurred. Maybe the mouse clicker assumes they didn't commit a crime.

Photographers do have tools to safeguard their property. Personally I find large watermarks annoying because a photograph can’t be appreciated the way it was meant to be.
Digimarc is one option for tracking photos on the net however it can be costly.
http://www.digimarc.com
My personal favorite is a site that you can disable the right click and save option along with clicking and dragging to the desktop. This has nothing to do with the functional shopping cart.

Low res webready photos with small watermarks or no water marks and the right click & save option disabled are effective along with not being able to drag it to the desktop. There are web hosts out there with those wonderful options. SmugMug is a great example and you can personalize the site so it doesn't look like a cookie cutter page.

You can make low res photos look great on line for the purpose of selling it with the webready option on photoshop and protect your property too.

Education and prevention are the answers.

Gary Denness

Just to play devil's advocate, a little. Yes, anything you put on the internet is free. If it's there, someone can take it, and a lot of the time you won't find out who, or have little recourse to take. So they have your image, you don't have their money. That's a pretty good description of 'free' right?

Yes it's theft, no it's not right, but usually it's not a huge deal. Some two bit blogger on some two bit blog. If you really, really, really do not want an image taken, then there is a solution. Don't put it on the net.

D. Travis North

As an artist (photography in recent years, but about 12 years of digital music online), I certainly don't feel that if it's online, it's free. I have regularly posted my intellectual property online and I don't wish for anyone to claim it as their own or to use any of it without my authorization. However, I don't really work too much to protect my stuff because for me, it's all hobby stuff.

I am actually considering watermarking my photos - but not because I have fear that someone will use my stuff. It's more-so because there are some honest people out there that may want to solicit one of my photographs - and having the watermark in place would provide an easy way for them to track me if they perhaps acquired a copy of the image through inappropriate channels. For example: Jim - your watermark is almost like branding. A legitimate businessman would likely contact you because of your watermark.

But I"m small potatoes compared to many of you. My hobby isn't really a source of substantial income - at least not for now.

Ivan Makarov

I'm with Patrick on this one. I don't watermark my images (although I embed plenty of copyright information into Exif of files when I import into Lightroom), I upload them at large sizes and with 100 percent Jpeg resolution for one simple reason - I want people to enjoy my work at the reasonable quality, because let's face it, in today's world most of the 99% of the views that our photos will get will be through the internet and I want others to appreciate the image the same way I appreciate it. I don't care as much about money my work generates as I care about other people appreciating it.

Here is the thing. If you upload images online with large watermarks and at poor Jpeg quality, the image, as you, the artist, intended it to look, remains on your own hard drive and will likely never be appreciated by others in the same way you intend it to be appreciated.

Yes, it is a pain to find your work at places where you don't want to be displayed without any kind of attribution or permission, but it's a price we all pay in today's world. On the other hand, images in high quality tend to get better online feedback, views, comments etc and they end up at the top of Flickr searches, which often time leads to increase in sales, the point Patrick is making.

The image that sold the best for me is still sitting near the top of all searches on Flickr (two years after I took it) when you type in "Moab" or "Utah". If I uploaded it in poor quality and with a big watermark, it'd never be there, and I'd lose a good amount of money. Yet today that photograph is used to advertise Utah national parks in "Welcome to Utah" brochure you can find any SLC airport and at any Utah hotel. I found it on wrong web-sites many times, and yet it did lead to other sales as well.

Diane

Yes, it drives me nuts that so many people think that images and text online are "free-for-all"! A few months ago I wrote a blog entry about it as well:
http://www.dianeschuller.com/blog/?p=239

Roberta

Bravo. The more voices that stand up for this issue the better. I've written a number of posts on the same subject, especially in regards to one particular website that seems to encourage image theft. The result has been attacks against me personally from people who legitimately believe they are in the right; and that if you post anything on the Internet you are consenting to it being used for free.

The other line of reasoning is that they are doing you a favor by promoting you and your work. Ahh......RIGHT. Thanks. No, I didn't get that memo either.

And I just love the people who criticize other photographers/artist who "ruin their work by placing such large ugly watermarks on their images". Those people drive me crazy. I'm capable of looking beyond the watermark, why can't they? Or are they ticked off because they can't now steal and use the image?

Gary Crabbe / Enlightened Imag

Eric:

You seem to be criticizing me for the same thing you say you do. I also don't dump all infringers into a single category. Point in fact, anytime I find an infringed use of my images, I offer the person a one-time good faith offer to settle at the same standard rate had they called me first. That is usually a three day window. Next point in fact, this was a local editorial web site, who I am sure try to source as many free images as they can. It turned out they had taken my image off flickr, no doubt thinking it was free to use provide they attributed a credit line; a common mistake thinking flickr images are all available as a Creative Commons License. Next, I can guarantee the several hundred dollars came as a fairly decent slap on the wrist, and likely 'someone' got in a bit of trouble over this. To their credit, the publisher contacted me directly. She was very professional, and apologetic, and acted quickly to make sure the issue was resolved to my satisfaction. Even though this was not a huge amount, I can guarantee that it did "make them care", and I feel assured in saying they will certainly be more careful and responsible in the future as a result of this incident.

If this had been a commercial use, it well could have been that my standard fee would be four figures instead of three, and for companies used to paying RF or Micro rates, that can hit them upside the head like a baseball bat. I, however, do not feel the need to clobber someone into the sidewalk on first communication regarding an unauthorized use. But if they opt for making things more difficult, I can certainly rise to the "less-than-amicable" resolution, but prefer that as a course of last resort.

Cheers,

Gary.

Eric W

Gary: my apologies, I wasn't trying to criticize you at all. I'm afraid I did use your situation to try to prove a point, but it was... well, obviously wrong for your situation.

To phrase my poorly made point more generally: comments stating that some people need education covers part of the problem, but I do believe that the other part is that people need to care about the infringment. In your situation, a few hundred is doubtlessly painful for those guys, so it'll probably work: they'll keep things in check, will be educated and will care.

Apologies for any unintended offense.

Gary Crabbe / Enlightened Imag

Eric:

Thanks for the reply, and no offense taken. I can see where your comment did call for further clarification on my part to show that I just wasn't letting everyone or anyone slide on an infringed use with a big wet sloppy kiss. Given chasing someone down for $150k of statutory damages for an unlicensed use, I can see how a few hundred bucks might seem like a slap with a wet noodle. And in that frameork, I think your (non-)"criticism" was fair. Just needed some straight'n out is all. :)

Cheers & all's well that ends well.

Gary.

Eric W

Personally, I'm not willing to clump all infringers into a single group. I definitely don't think that the problem is education, though - sure, in a few instances it is. But the majority of the time? I think it's apathy. There's a low risk of being caught, and even if you are the consequences aren't that steep. Gary mentioned above, it only cost that site a couple of hundred dollars.

Why should they care?

Patrick Smith

I think that there is a bell-shaped curved involved with this issue. On one hand, I like to share my work on Flickr and the large size and quality of the images get me 8,000 views per day on average when I'm not uploading. So I have to offset that positive aspect with the risk of being ripped off. If it is a significant net-positive for me to have large nice-looking images on the web, I'll do it.

Of course, I've had to harass a couple of people who tried to make money off an image but overall, the advantage of having nice-looking photos on the net FAR outweigh the sucking sound of the scumbags out there.

This is not a black and white issue! Think of it this way: Would you shop in a store where the shopkeeper follows 3 feet behind you watching your every move? Of course not. It's better to install a few cameras and hope for the best, which is what most retailers do.

Patrick

Bec Thomas

NIce post, this is an issue I have been harping about for sometime. People do not seem to equate stealing from a store the same at taking something off the net. Watermark and try to educate people but I don't know if we'll ever win this one.

Gary Crabbe / Enlightened Imag

Yeah, use my stuff for free, and you too can expect a knock on your door. I just settled w/ the web site I found using one of my images for a couple hundred bucks. Again, underlying the importance of watermarks, metadata, and clearly asserting your rights and restrictions. I certainly wouldn't want to find the whole www. running wild with my photos, making all sorts of carte blanche alterations and derivations. To ignore the inherent value in the work you create at any level is certainly the artists choice, but the sad fact is that so many users appear to have gotten the same memo. As an aside, I always note one photographer who happily asserts his copyright, but any time he wants to reference something on the web, he copies and sends out the entire text of an article vs just sending out a link or snippet of text. Some get it, some don't. Some will learn the hard way, while some will never learn. I guess I need to put out my own memo.

Cheers,

Gary

Maria

Great post. This is of serious interest to me as a writer, too.

The problem is clearly EDUCATION. When you hear DJs saying that anything on the Web is free, it's just an example of how misinformation is being spread. We need to remind people that our content is copyrighted and may not be used without our permission. Copyright notices and watermarks are the first step in this process; writing blog posts like this is a good second step.

Thanks for helping to fight the fight!

Jim

Maria glad you enjoyed the post. I actually started talking out loud to myself in the car when I heard the DJ state this. :) Luckily for me not many people were around to see me having a conversation by myself.

Sherri Meyer

Excellent post Jim! Look what great things come out of a boring drive through the desert!

No, I never got the memo. These people just play the ignorance role, when they should be taking the responsibility to ask permission to use an image before assuming it's their right.

This past weekend, I found one of Ron Niebrugge's images used on someones blog. Last week, Gary Crabbe dealt with an infringement case. I guess we have to keep educating these thieves and keep spreading the truth.

Another "retweet" for you!

Jim

I often find myself assuming the worst... we all educate and educate and things don't change. Then what? My watermarking strategy as ugly as it is assumes the worst and it pains me to do watermarks this way. Unfortunately I don't see any other option. I can only assume that people will not learn and photographers will continue to either accept unauthorized use/distribution (which I think is unsustainable for a pro) or "uglify" their work with watermarks & perhaps even use it as a marketing tool as I've written about.

Where is the line to keep fighting or think out of the box embracing the behavior?

Tracey Holinka

Intellectual property rights aside, people got to eat! I think the free models of commerce only work if EVERYTHING is free. I doubt the people who stole your family photo would take kindly to your raiding their refrigerator and taking some electronics on the way out.

Jim

I have to admit I find the mantra of "free" to be rather Eutopian. I'm not against it, but the current socio-economic model we live in makes "free" an unsustainable business model. I do find it beyond comprehension how people justify using creative content for free. I always ask myself, "Do they even hear what they're saying?"