MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: ShadySue on June 05, 2012, 15:43
-
http://curve.gettyimages.com/article/photography-the-killer-app (http://curve.gettyimages.com/article/photography-the-killer-app)
For someone like Erik Kessels, founder of Dutch agency KesselsKramer who printed out all the photos uploaded to Flickr in one 24 hour period for his Photography in Abundance installation at FOAM in Amsterdam, there is a sense that it is all too much. “We’re exposed to an overload of images nowadays,” Erik Kessels told Creative Review, “This glut is in large part the result of image-sharing sites like Flickr, networking sites like Facebook, and picture-based search engines. Their content mingles public and private, with the very personal being openly and unselfconsciously displayed. By printing all the images uploaded in a twenty-four hour period, I visualize the feeling of drowning in representations of other peoples’ experiences.”
Huh? I upload to Flickr. To keep me right with iStock, I put big watermarks over my images, tick 'all rights reserved', disable right-click, disable sharing, yet this Kessels bloke prints out "all the photos uploaded to Flickr in one 24 hour period" for an art installation.
And Getty is writing about this image theft without censure?
What are we coming to?
Presumably "all" the photos included those that are in the Flickr/Getty scheme. Maybe they paid Getty for these and the togs got their payment. Many Flickr togs make their pics available for CC, so that's fair enough, so long as Kessels kept any conditions, as to usage and attribution. But many do not make their photos available.
-
yeah, that guy is printing,stealing, getting free advertising, AND making money off it.
-
I'm sure he can hide behind some sort of fair use artistic commentary loophole.
-
It's kind of interesting to see the sheer volume of it (especially thrown on the floor like garbage). ;D
http://dailydesigndiscoveries.com/post/12668439688/photography-in-abundance-24-hours-of-flickr (http://dailydesigndiscoveries.com/post/12668439688/photography-in-abundance-24-hours-of-flickr)
-
The comments here are interesting. https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/november/24-hours-in-photos (https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/november/24-hours-in-photos)
As a few people point out, it's a massive waste of paper and ink toner. But I guess that's ok as the world's resources are infinite. ;)
-
Maybe their paper and ink place would have uploaded thousands of star pics on that day had they known this would happen.
-
Another lame 'performance artist'. These are circus gimmicks for people who haven't got any talent but crave being called some kind of an artist or at least perceived as an 'intellectual'. It's pointless, a virtual presentation would have been much more effective and to the point.
-
Sue, I don't use Flickr but I have heard that people download images from the site under a "creative commons" license. Could that have been the case?
-
Sue, I don't use Flickr but I have heard that people download images from the site under a "creative commons" license. Could that have been the case?
People can choose to make their images available under CC via Flickr, and this can further be modified to 'non-commericial', 'no modifications' and/or 'needs attribution'.
It is easily possible (and compulsory for iStock exclusives) not to make images available under CC, as I said in the OP, and also to disable right-click-saving and disable sharing.
However, this person claims to have printed and used ALL images uploaded to Flickr that day.
-
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
Are you saying works like this should't be done at all?
-
This thread should win some sort of special industry award. Getty is not "condoning image theft".
You are allowed to print out the Internet and arrange it in piles if you want.
-
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
No, Sean said the same above.
-
This thread should win some sort of special industry award. Getty is not "condoning image theft".
You are allowed to print out the Internet and arrange it in piles if you want.
Wonder how Getty would be if I did it with a batch of Getty images, without permission and without paying?
What I can't find out is whether there was a charge to see the 'installation', which would surely make it a commercial use.
-
No it wouldn't.
FYI nor does an Internet cafe need to buy a licence when people who have paid to use its services browse Flickr.
-
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
No, Sean said the same above.
He used words like "hiding" and "loophole".
-
a virtual presentation would have been much more effective and to the point.
So, do it then!
-
However, this person claims to have printed and used ALL images uploaded to Flickr that day.
Actually he doesn't
We have spoken directly to Kessels who said that around 350,000 photos of the total 950,000 appear in the show. Printing out all 950,000 proved prohibitively expensive. "But the volume represents these 950.000 images. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you with this, but hope this mail will clear things up a little bit," he goes on to say on Flickr ([url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/stml/6407463775/[/url] ([url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/stml/6407463775/[/url])).
Although that doesn't change anything as I doubt that he just used the ones of people that had given permission.
-
a virtual presentation would have been much more effective and to the point.
So, do it then!
why? I don't care about this cr¤p
-
However, this person claims to have printed and used ALL images uploaded to Flickr that day.
Actually he doesn't
[snip]
Although that doesn't change anything as I doubt that he just used the ones of people that had given permission.
OK, the Getty link that I quoted at the top said he'd printed out them 'all'.
-
No it wouldn't.
FYI nor does an Internet cafe need to buy a licence when people who have paid to use its services browse Flickr.
Totally irrelevant, they could even browse GettyImages.
-
No it wouldn't.
FYI nor does an Internet cafe need to buy a licence when people who have paid to use its services browse Flickr.
Totally irrelevant, they could even browse GettyImages.
Your comment just proves the point bhr is trying to make...
-
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
Are you saying works like this should't be done at all?
Fair Use only exist in the USA, there's nothing like fair use in Europe, the author of this junk-art installation is dutch so he shoud follow EU copyright laws and policies.
besides, fair use is only meant for NON commercial usage ! while here people is paying to go in an art gallery, it's not a fundraising for charities or a no profit project.
-
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
Are you saying works like this should't be done at all?
Fair Use only exist in the USA, there's nothing like fair use in Europe, the author of this junk-art installation is dutch so he shoud follow EU copyright laws and policies.
besides, fair use is only meant for NON commercial usage ! while here people is paying to go in an art gallery, it's not a fundraising for charities or a no profit project.
In the UK, we have 'fair dealing', which in brief is:
"UK copyright law has a set of exceptions to copyright known as fair dealing. Database right has a similar set of exceptions. Fair dealing is much more restricted than the American concept of fair use. It only applies in tightly defined situations, and outside those situations it is no defence at all against a lawsuit for copyright (or database right) infringement.
s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical, etc, work, for the purpose of research for a non-commercial[/url] purpose, does not infringe any copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement of the source.
s30.—(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work, or of a performance of a work, does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has actually been made available to the public. "
More details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Fair_dealing_and_other_exceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Fair_dealing_and_other_exceptions)
I realise that UK law (!) is irrelevant to the Netherlands, but I don't read Dutch.
Added: Oh, but I found this resource: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1563986 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1563986) whereby you can download a 7 page pdf, which says Dutch, and indeed EU, law falls between the US 'fair use' and the UK 'fair dealing'.
-
i'm not aware about EU having laws inbetween US and UK fair use/licence, as far as i can tell it's usually the judge ruling depending on many factors so you never really know the outcome in these cases, see for instance how youtube has been condemned in germany but not in france and spain while in italy they lost a round and won the other.
the most striking example of all this is youtube quickly removing videos of champions league matches, while not giving a sh-it about all the other stolen music videos ! so it's fair use to post stolen lady gaga stuff but not for SKY's champions league ?? talk about double standards ...
the moral of the story is to se get some money back you must be a large corporation willing to spend a lot in lawyers and with plenty of time in your hands.
-
the most striking example of all this is youtube quickly removing videos of champions league matches, while not giving a sh-it about all the other stolen music videos ! so it's fair use to post stolen lady gaga stuff but not for SKY's champions league ?? talk about double standards ...
You know that the music industry has done a bunch of deals with YouTube. The music industry loves YouTube.
YouTube is a great way of creating an audience - it's what MTV once was. And it's a global platform in an era when many people have almost given up watching old fashioned TV.
-
Am I the only here that thinks this is fair use because it's artistic commentary on a subject.
Are you saying works like this should't be done at all?
No you aren't the only one.
Like it or not, it's fair use because it's newsworthy just as much as it's art. Social commentary. It's not like he's selling these, he's just plastering them in an exhibit.
And for people who say it commercial, well, everything in the world is somehow commercial because without income, no financing, no support, nothing would exist.
Art? HA, I don't think so, but pointing out that people are exposing themselves at a overwhelming rate. That's a good point.
Done or not, that's an opinion. I think performance art and some of these projects, like draping bridges and buildings are a waste of time and money. Others think it's just "oh so Nouveau", get a federal grant to spread chocolate on your body and put some cherries on your head, that's art?
So do I appreciate it? NO Do I think it's art? No Do I think it's a waste of time and materials, YES. but so what. Other people have different opinions and they don't like ancient historical sites, auto racing or possibly jalapeno dill pickles. I do! :D
-
It's not a performance piece.
It's art. Whether you like it or not is a different and subjective issue. Personally I quite like it conceptually - and I definitely like how it looks.
Personally lots of crafty stuff and most contemporary watercolors bore the ***s off me. But other people like that kind of thing. Which is fine too.