I had no intention of hurting anyone.

My own personal attitude: I don't want advertising by Elon Musk.

I don't like to be promoted by someone who allows my pictures to be stolen and uploaded to him and he enriches himself with it (even though he is already rich enough), just because I could - purely theoretically - get more attention by doing so, which I highly doubt in this context.

Above all, I don't like that he defines what happens to my pictures. I want him to follow the laws and not act like many autocrats do.

And, sorry, I don't consider myself to be Coca Cola. It's the most famous brand in the world that you can buy anywhere - and everybody know where. But I am not Coca Cola.

Quote from: eyewave on March 08, 2023, 03:31

Quote from: SVH on March 07, 2023, 16:27

You are getting a bit to emotional here and political as well. Totally unnecessary. The only point I'm making here is that if anyone with such a great audience place your art work it's worth thousands of dollars of promotion. Sure he doesn't pay for using your art but lot's of people will because he promoted your work and you will get a lot of attention of paying customers. And yes you can nag about things not being right but I personally would welcome something like this. And I will bet the artist in question will not be so unhappy as well. Even though she complains about not getting paid by Musk himself or being credited. C'mon think twice
But then still you can have another opinion. It's a free world still where we live, isn't it?

Can you tell me how in the world a microstock artist profits, when their work is stolen and published without mentioning the artist and linking to  their portfolio?

Let me try one last time

If you want to be succesful, with any product you sell, you have to reach a large audience. In that audience there are potential buyers. That is why we have advertisement on almost all media you use. You can make Coca Cola but if you don't tell people you have made this product nobody will buy your product.

So, if some lame ass with millions of followers tweets your photo then you get an enormous exposure.
In this audience you will have people that like this photo and will want to use it.
Among these people you have small players that might rip the photo of the tweet and use it and you get nothing. Not correct and a pity.

There will also be people that work for companies that have responsible policies and that obey the law of copyright. They will go and purchase the photo from the artist itself, or, in our case, from one of the agencies that sell our photo. Your photo will not be difficult to find and sales will be coming in.
Sales that never would have happened unless you would have spent a lot of money promoting your own work.

So that's why, even if it's fraudelent, wrong or whatever you want to call it, I (and again this is my personal opinion and you keep yours) would welcome any person that has millions of followers to expose my photo to his/her/it's audience, without them having bought the photo or credited me in the tweet.

Ask the artists in question if their revenues have gone up or down because of this. I am pretty sure that they will respond, if there are truthful, that it has gone up big time, even though they are whining about the wrongdoing.

edit:
So if this happens. You may want to sue the person, ask for a DMCA and get your photo as soon as possible of Twitter. I, on the other hand would let it stay there as long as possible. I might cause some trouble, to get even more exposure, but I would see it as a God given present.

The difference is, Coke doesn't get paid every time a photo of its soda is licensed. They make their money selling the actual can of soda. We make ours by licensing our photos, so "free advertising" and stealing/copyright infringement are one and the same. And they are not advertising our work for sale when they post it without consequences. They are using our work to get eyeballs on their own social media, and more likely encouraging others to repost with no $ to the photographer, and it sounds like no credit either, so there's really no way to call it "free advertising."

The guy isn't posting an image he bought to hang on his wall and saying, "Look at this art that I just bought" with a link to the artist's website. Even then, it may technically be a copyright violation to use the image, but it would also be a promotion for the artist and acceptable, to me.

Musk's tweets and attitude and actions are dangerous to our livelihood as photographers who make a part of our living from licensing. If there's a silver lining for this photographer, it will be because he's gotten a lawyer and sued. If he stayed quiet and said nothing, no one would know who he was nor would they buy or license his work, they'd just repost it if they liked it.

My opinion. Problem is, photographers who are happy for "the exposure" make it that much harder for the rest of us.

Quote from: SVH on March 08, 2023, 14:45

Quote from: eyewave on March 08, 2023, 03:31

Quote from: SVH on March 07, 2023, 16:27

You are getting a bit to emotional here and political as well. Totally unnecessary. The only point I'm making here is that if anyone with such a great audience place your art work it's worth thousands of dollars of promotion. Sure he doesn't pay for using your art but lot's of people will because he promoted your work and you will get a lot of attention of paying customers. And yes you can nag about things not being right but I personally would welcome something like this. And I will bet the artist in question will not be so unhappy as well. Even though she complains about not getting paid by Musk himself or being credited. C'mon think twice
But then still you can have another opinion. It's a free world still where we live, isn't it?

Can you tell me how in the world a microstock artist profits, when their work is stolen and published without mentioning the artist and linking to  their portfolio?

Let me try one last time

If you want to be succesful, with any product you sell, you have to reach a large audience. In that audience there are potential buyers. That is why we have advertisement on almost all media you use. You can make Coca Cola but if you don't tell people you have made this product nobody will buy your product.

So, if some lame ass with millions of followers tweets your photo then you get an enormous exposure.
In this audience you will have people that like this photo and will want to use it.
Among these people you have small players that might rip the photo of the tweet and use it and you get nothing. Not correct and a pity.

There will also be people that work for companies that have responsible policies and that obey the law of copyright. They will go and purchase the photo from the artist itself, or, in our case, from one of the agencies that sell our photo. Your photo will not be difficult to find and sales will be coming in.
Sales that never would have happened unless you would have spent a lot of money promoting your own work.

So that's why, even if it's fraudelent, wrong or whatever you want to call it, I (and again this is my personal opinion and you keep yours) would welcome any person that has millions of followers to expose my photo to his/her/it's audience, without them having bought the photo or credited me in the tweet.

Ask the artists in question if their revenues have gone up or down because of this. I am pretty sure that they will respond, if there are truthful, that it has gone up big time, even though they are whining about the wrongdoing.

edit:
So if this happens. You may want to sue the person, ask for a DMCA and get your photo as soon as possible of Twitter. I, on the other hand would let it stay there as long as possible. I might cause some trouble, to get even more exposure, but I would see it as a God given present.

The difference is, Coke doesn't get paid every time a photo of its soda is licensed. They make their money selling the actual can of soda. We make ours by licensing our photos, so "free advertising" and stealing/copyright infringement are one and the same. And they are not advertising our work for sale when they post it without consequences. They are using our work to get eyeballs on their own social media, and more likely encouraging others to repost with no $ to the photographer, and it sounds like no credit either, so there's really no way to call it "free advertising."

The guy isn't posting an image he bought to hang on his wall and saying, "Look at this art that I just bought" with a link to the artist's website. Even then, it may technically be a copyright violation to use the image, but it would also be a promotion for the artist and acceptable, to me.

Musk's tweets and attitude and actions are dangerous to our livelihood as photographers who make a part of our living from licensing. If there's a silver lining for this photographer, it will be because he's gotten a lawyer and sued. If he stayed quiet and said nothing, no one would know who he was nor would they buy or license his work, they'd just repost it if they liked it.

My opinion. Problem is, photographers who are happy for "the exposure" make it that much harder for the rest of us.

Musk didn't tweet the picture as saying he made this art. It's not stealing, like ripping something from Adobe and selling it as your own content at Shutterstock for example. Everybody these days are using images, sounds, in their social media that is not theirs and they don't pay for it, let alone credit it. Even celebrities. It's common life.

You as a microstock photograher would be happy to see your photo at the first page. That is the agency promoting you, willingly or because of their algorithm. It is exposure. For a good reason, honest reason or not. They do the advertisement for you towards the clients, if you deserve it or not.

Being on the first page will deliver you way more sales then being on the last page. You do not have any exposure if you are on the last page.

Anyone that helps getting you exposure will help your sales, if he is a prick or not.

Did you check by the way all of your buyers if they measure up to your moral standards so they are allowed, according to you, to use your image? Do you really care?

It's pretty simple math, the world isn't fair but it will have certainly helped these, poorly treated, artists to get their revenue up. Right or wrong, this is how the world works these days.

And that is why you should be glad if someone with a large audience posts your picture to an audience of millions instead of someone elses photo/art.

You can disagree with the world but I am trying to sell photo's and anyone that will help trying to expose my photo's to a larger audience and get me more sales, right or wrong, is a blessing in the sky.

And I really don't care I make it harder for you. My picture is either better then yours or not. But if my picture sells better because it is placed higher by the agency (even if there is no reason at all for it) or someone promotes my photo, though luck for you then. That is how it works these days apperently.

Roll with the dice and make use of it or you will be left behind with all of your good intentions.

SVH is trolling. The best response is to go back to working on your own portfolio and ignoring them.

Musk didn't tweet the picture as saying he made this art. It's not stealing, like ripping something from Adobe and selling it as your own content at Shutterstock for example. Everybody these days are using images, sounds, in their social media that is not theirs and they don't pay for it, let alone credit it. Even celebrities. It's common life.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL OR RIGHT.

You understand the problem perfectly - I�m sure about that, but you pretend not to understand it.

You are right about one thing: the lack of awareness about copyright is a sign of the times.

But the fact that one of the most famous and influential people of our decade supports this, even pushes it, cannot be accepted with any argument in the world. On the contrary - and this is what has been criticized so many times in this post: just a person with such influence is the most harmful thing that can happen to us, musicians, journalists, writers, directors, screenwriters and many others, when criticizing and undermining copyright.

You can be quite sure: it won't be good for your pictures and your finances either.

Thank you Wilm for a substansive responsive instead of a personal one. Offcourse you are right, a lot of things are incorrect as for example people buying a standard license and go and use it commercially, so you miss out of the extended license and money that comes with that. Or people ripping your photo and selling it on another agency as their own. And then offcourse all the people that use your photo on social media, in schoolpapers, work presentations without any license at all or credit to you. All wrong but it would be fighting windmills if you would go after each and everyone. At some point it's better to accept it and make the most of it with the cards you are dealt.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL OR RIGHT.

Fully agree that it is not legal or right. Never said it did. Only thing I said is that I believe if someone promotes your artwork (with credit or without, and both are illegal actually) it will boost your sales indirectly.

Sorry but he did steal the art and did steal the concept and did use the image, illegally in at least three instances. This isn't about a re-tweet or Pinterest. Musk and his company put it into an app. Musk and his company stole and used the image on a website. He used the image for profit, commercially.

Everybody does it is not a legal defense or logical at all. And no it's not common life and yes people have sued and won. Fair Use is the claim of the thieves and they have paid many times for this mistake.

You can give away you images for free for exposure, that's your decision. But someone stealing images, is not MY decision. Which is illegal.

Let's agree to disagree on the stealing part. Illegal it is. I do agree that everyone should do what they like with their art, I was only expressing my own opinion.

And for everyone else. Since I am not able to make my point that the artists in question most likely have benefited from this whole wrongdoing, I will seize to bother your with my opinion on this matter (yes, claps and cheers, I know ) Do feel free to respond once more if you need to, I will read it, give it a thought but will not react on it in order not to bore you once more. Have a nice Sunday

It's a free world still where we live, isn't it?

No, it's not.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 12, 2023, 11:13

...
As for the thread title? Twitter banned ONE person a potter and designer Not "photographers"

? I posted a link to the website of the banned professional photographer and the tweet where Elon says he is banned because of asking for a license fee ("blackmail" by EM's definition), and the tweet where Elon says people filing DMCAs he deems as frivolous will be banned

It soon diverted into the farting unicorn guy. Yes it was one photographer. I made the mistake of thinking of the two pages about the Unicorn Mug.

"Elon Musk
@elonmusk
�
Mar 6
Replying to
@Rainmaker1973

Any account engaging in blackmail will be suspended. Yours will not."

I must have missed who the photographers are that were banned for asking for money. (called blackmail which is an insult to our property rights)

No I don't support Musk in any way, especially his arrogance about appropriation of others work, infringing, and then blaming his employees for what he approves of, which is illegal use.

Maybe you can bring me up to date on who they are?

"Yesterday, Twitter CEO Elon Musk declared that Twitter will now be temporarily suspending any accounts found to be �engaging in repeated, egregious weaponization� of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). "

Or maybe you mean this?  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/musk-suspends-overzealous-rightsholders-for-weaponizing-dmca-on-twitter/

"He later tweeted that supporting content creators is still a �major priority,� saying that he understands that �people need to make a living and prosper from their work.�"