MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Book authors suffering the same fate as stock photographers.  (Read 4704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OM

« on: July 27, 2011, 15:38 »
0
Interesting article on a book blog about the counterfeiting of books and re-selling as e-books.

http://blog.bookmarket.com/2010/05/amazon-kindle-swindle-authors-people.html


« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2011, 19:28 »
0
Looking at this example on Amazon of the Kindle version of a book vs. old paperbacks & new shows you the direction the printed word will be taking. Much like images. I do believe that the author in this case will share in the small price of the Kindle version. I further believe that the author will do very well at this low price because he wouldn't share any royalty from his books sold in half-price book stores or flea markets.

« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2011, 20:04 »
0
I liked the comment by steeleweed, about his author friend who abandoned e-publishing because "he was spending all his time filing take-down notices."   As it is today, when stolen content is sold on the web, the legal recourses available to photographers and authors are worthless.  A "takedown" notice is based on the quaint idea that "putting up" such content takes time and effort.  That may have been true 15 years ago but today it can just be moved to another server - in another country - in seconds.

« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2011, 21:05 »
0
I further believe that the author will do very well at this low price because he wouldn't share any royalty from his books sold in half-price book stores or flea markets.
True. Or when the book is checked out, for free, from a library.

We microstockers feel alone in our victimization, but think about the author who spent years writing one book, only to see that most of the people reading it - as used copies or from libraries - are not paying him a single cent. And how many of the people who hear a popular song ever pay the songwriter or musicans a penny?

It's the nature of intellectual property. IP, as something you had a legal right to own, did not exist until the late 1600's, now millions of people make a good living by selling it. Progress is slow, but it is happening.

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 21:26 »
0
Protecting IP in today's world of the internet will require new international law and cooperative policing - in essence, the beginnings of a world government.  I don't think that's just hype.  When law enforcement becomes uniform and perpetrators can't hide behind national boundaries, those boundaries no longer mean what they used to mean. And it can't happen soon enough for me.  It's one world and the sooner we acknowledge that the better for all of us.  

« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2011, 00:08 »
0
^^ Well said!

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2011, 00:13 »
0
I liked the comment by steeleweed, about his author friend who abandoned e-publishing because "he was spending all his time filing take-down notices."   As it is today, when stolen content is sold on the web, the legal recourses available to photographers and authors are worthless.  A "takedown" notice is based on the quaint idea that "putting up" such content takes time and effort.  That may have been true 15 years ago but today it can just be moved to another server - in another country - in seconds.

That's the point I've been trying to express. We can get a take down, DMCA and Oh Boy, I feel good, because it's gone and 100 more people will have stolen the image or content and we can spend the rest of our lives on take down notices and get nothing in return. There needs to be some change in the laws of infringing, or it's a waste of time and the crooks win and ignorant innocent people never get a clue.

A toothless dog chasing it's tail. That's what DMCA is.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2011, 03:25 »
0
Protecting IP in today's world of the internet will require new international law and cooperative policing - in essence, the beginnings of a world government.  I don't think that's just hype.  When law enforcement becomes uniform and perpetrators can't hide behind national boundaries, those boundaries no longer mean what they used to mean. And it can't happen soon enough for me.  It's one world and the sooner we acknowledge that the better for all of us.  

If we ever end up with a 'world government', petty IP issues will be the least of your worries, beleive me.

« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2011, 03:44 »
0
I liked the comment by steeleweed, about his author friend who abandoned e-publishing because "he was spending all his time filing take-down notices."   As it is today, when stolen content is sold on the web, the legal recourses available to photographers and authors are worthless.  A "takedown" notice is based on the quaint idea that "putting up" such content takes time and effort.  That may have been true 15 years ago but today it can just be moved to another server - in another country - in seconds.

That's the point I've been trying to express. We can get a take down, DMCA and Oh Boy, I feel good, because it's gone and 100 more people will have stolen the image or content and we can spend the rest of our lives on take down notices and get nothing in return. There needs to be some change in the laws of infringing, or it's a waste of time and the crooks win and ignorant innocent people never get a clue.

A toothless dog chasing it's tail. That's what DMCA is.

When Amazon starts selling your work the appropriate remedy isn't a takedown notice its a demand for restitution for a breach of copyright. This isn't a case where they're simply acting as a host for material - they have a direct financial benefit - the safe harbor provisions have no application. If what is in the article is true, Amazon is acting like a shop selling stolen goods - they can't just plead ignorance and keep the money - they'll have to cough it up if someone takes them to task.

The initial response from copyright holders in this situation needs to be a letter demanding the material is taken down, a full account of all money received and damages for breach of copyright. Sending a DCMA is a flag that tells the recipient you are an amateur and have no idea about your rights.

The remedies exist, its just the enforcement that's lacking - often because the wrong message is spread online.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2011, 03:55 »
0
I liked the comment by steeleweed, about his author friend who abandoned e-publishing because "he was spending all his time filing take-down notices."   As it is today, when stolen content is sold on the web, the legal recourses available to photographers and authors are worthless.  A "takedown" notice is based on the quaint idea that "putting up" such content takes time and effort.  That may have been true 15 years ago but today it can just be moved to another server - in another country - in seconds.

That's the point I've been trying to express. We can get a take down, DMCA and Oh Boy, I feel good, because it's gone and 100 more people will have stolen the image or content and we can spend the rest of our lives on take down notices and get nothing in return. There needs to be some change in the laws of infringing, or it's a waste of time and the crooks win and ignorant innocent people never get a clue.

A toothless dog chasing it's tail. That's what DMCA is.

When Amazon starts selling your work the appropriate remedy isn't a takedown notice its a demand for restitution for a breach of copyright. This isn't a case where they're simply acting as a host for material - they have a direct financial benefit - the safe harbor provisions have no application. If what is in the article is true, Amazon is acting like a shop selling stolen goods - they can't just plead ignorance and keep the money - they'll have to cough it up if someone takes them to task.

The initial response from copyright holders in this situation needs to be a letter demanding the material is taken down, a full account of all money received and damages for breach of copyright. Sending a DCMA is a flag that tells the recipient you are an amateur and have no idea about your rights.

The remedies exist, its just the enforcement that's lacking - often because the wrong message is spread online.

Who pays for all these remedies, and who pays to take this to court if we are ignored? How do we collect the money received (after forcing them to account for it?) and how are damages assessed?

99% aren't Amazon or someone big and responsible, they are other types of sites. While it would be nice if Amazon or USA Today was the offender, charging Bob's Blog is a waste of time and energy, because they will have to pay nothing for using our images, even when caught.

That's the problem. We can file DMCA and get nothing, or go to court and win less than it costs to file the charges, which in effect says "please steal these photos, we are powerless to protect our rights." At least that's the way it stands right now.

« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2011, 05:23 »
0

Who pays for all these remedies, and who pays to take this to court if we are ignored? How do we collect the money received (after forcing them to account for it?) and how are damages assessed?

99% aren't Amazon or someone big and responsible, they are other types of sites. While it would be nice if Amazon or USA Today was the offender, charging Bob's Blog is a waste of time and energy, because they will have to pay nothing for using our images, even when caught.

That's the problem. We can file DMCA and get nothing, or go to court and win less than it costs to file the charges, which in effect says "please steal these photos, we are powerless to protect our rights." At least that's the way it stands right now.


Well the article is referring to Amazon selling the work. In this case its not like Amazon is an innocent bystander - if you formulate the approach properly then they need to respond appropriately. A lot of their business depends on confidence in their product and that they have the rights to sell it. Its not in their interest to sell in breach of copyright at all - their whole business depends on selling legitimately copyrighted work. If this sort of thing went to court and Amazon were found to be wilfully selling material in breach of copyright the damages would be significant - particularly because they're a large corporation. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't take a complaint seriously.

For example if their sales relate to Australian copyrighted material then the Australian copyright act applies: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s132ae.html FWIW a conviction in the case of a company for this sort of thing carries a maximum statutory penalty in Australia of about A$450,000.

If its some blogger, what actions you take depends on where you are and where the offender is. Its worth noting that in many jurisdictions selling this material isn't a civil issue, its a crime, so the remedies are similar to stealing physical goods, so the remedies include fines and prison sentences.

« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2011, 06:06 »
0
That's the point I've been trying to express. We can get a take down, DMCA and Oh Boy, I feel good, because it's gone and 100 more people will have stolen the image or content and we can spend the rest of our lives on take down notices and get nothing in return. There needs to be some change in the laws of infringing, or it's a waste of time and the crooks win and ignorant innocent people never get a clue.

A toothless dog chasing it's tail. That's what DMCA is.

I agree there should be changing of the laws, but I don't agree with you that I should just throw my hands up in the air and quit. Even if 100 more people have stolen the image, getting 1 removed still counts as not sitting on one's arse and doing nothing but complaining. It is a losing battle, I totally understand that. But somebody has to stand up and fight.

velocicarpo

« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2011, 06:56 »
0
The free and international distribution of IP is a Problem for all creative people. I thought already a lot about this, but I do not believe that any "punishing" law can be a solution. I think there should be charged a certain amount of money - maybe as a flatrate - with every Internet access account as a fee for IP and this money should be distributed to the copyright holders at the end of the month. Sure there are some logical difficulties but I think this would be the way to go. The End user could simply consume whatever he wants without worrying about legal issues and the Copyright holder would get his money in any case.

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2011, 11:39 »
0
Has anyone else heard about the legislation that could be in the pipeline to make internet providers screen out certain warez sites, like they already do with child pornography?

ETA never mind:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/bt-ordered-to-block-links-to-newzbin-2-website/
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 14:11 by Microbius »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
46 Replies
12485 Views
Last post August 27, 2009, 17:15
by madelaide
12 Replies
7495 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 16:02
by MikLav
3 Replies
1820 Views
Last post June 19, 2012, 13:33
by Karimala
352 Replies
62167 Views
Last post March 18, 2013, 02:07
by leaf
0 Replies
1258 Views
Last post January 07, 2017, 10:19
by oscarcwilliams

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle