MAYO HOTEL, Reborn.....

[we vs us]

Hopefully your marquee strategy will finally solve the problem. 

[PepePeru]

look at the photos WtA posted on imageshack vs the originals on flickr.
He altered the original work.
That clearly violates the CC license.

Sure, this happens all the time and people get away with it all the time.
If I were the photographer I'd be trying to protect my work (livelihood) as well.

I don't think this would be an issue had WtA linked directly to flickr.

The issue as I see it, is the fact he altered the photos (cropped, perhaps contrast?) and then put them on a different site.  Ryan Smart might have this photo hanging in his gallery for sale.

Would WtA the artist be allowed to grab the photo off the wall, draw some "improvements" on it, cut half of it off and give it to a friend without paying the photographer for it? 

B/c that's essentially what he's done, except in digital form.

[TheArtist]

how much did you "adjust" the photos?

What does that mean exactly?

I can see that you cropped his photos and that you perhaps altered the colors.

do you think that might have something to do with it?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en

No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

so basically, you saved his photos, altered them, hosted them somewhere else and didn't give him credit.

yeah...

I may have cropped them, I would have to look, and I do think I "brightened" them as well. Its easy when you have photoshop to simply go, "hmm that looks a little dark, and then hit the curves setting to lighten things a bit".  When I saved the pics I did write on the "save as" ryansmartphotography so that I would know who took them.  I do that with all the photos I save anymore so that I can attribute them, or if I want to use one in a painting I can go back and ask permission. I got lazy and didnt post that on the thread, or go back and look up his info on flickr to see if he allowed sharing or what. But if you go to save the pic I have on here of his, or look at the info about the pic on image shack, you will still see the "ryansmartphotography" on them.  Click on the first pic of his to try and save it and see what comes up. That has always been there.  I have thousands and thousands of pics on my computer to use as inspiration for artwork. See my last post on the Decopolis thread where I took an architectural element from a photo then used the design on the building as inspiration for the logo/poster. Since I changed the image "more than 25%" which I think is the legal amount lol. and also my artwork is so entirely different that it can not be said to be derivative of the photo or competing with the photo,,, its ok.

But yes, imo, I was wrong on 2 accounts.  Making the adjustments, then not clearly attributing them like I should have.  I also get the point on linking back to the place where you got the photos so that others can then look and see what his policies as to sharing, are. So I have added the link to his flickr account. Or would I have to post by each photo what his policies are?

[jne]

yep, you were wrong, but I don't see how that entitles him to the damages that he's asking. You violated the contract and your rights were terminated so you took them down.  How is that not done.  I'd make him prove that you profited or that he incurred damages. Sounds like he's just trying to hard sell you a license.

[dbacks fan]

Just my $.02, I think, and I am not an expert, if you are a professional, and you put images out on the net that you want to share and protect you should take the time to find a way to post it so that it can not be copied/save as form, or at least watermark it so as to remove the water mark would altar the image enough to warrant it useless.

There are so many sites that you can copy pictures from, and by sites I includes alot of news media sites, that you can copy from, and some that even have linke so you can download as a wallpaper for free.

[TheArtist]

yep, you were wrong, but I don't see how that entitles him to the damages that he's asking. You violated the contract and your rights were terminated so you took them down.  How is that not done.  I'd make him prove that you profited or that he incurred damages. Sounds like he's just trying to hard sell you a license.

Actually I havent taken them down lol. If I have to pay I will keep them up. If I didnt pay, I would still have to delete them since merely attributing them wont solve the fact that I adjusted them. But even with deleting them I would still have to pay because he hasnt given me the option to delete them and not pay.

[cannon_fodder]

Would WtA the artist be allowed to grab the photo off the wall, draw some "improvements" on it, cut half of it off and give it to a friend without paying the photographer for it? 

B/c that's essentially what he's done, except in digital form.

Says the man using a copyrighted Simpson character with no attribution and presumably no payment as an Avatar.  Or is it OK for you to take someone else's artwork and use it in digital form while not pretending it is your and in a manner not generating personal gain? Just asking, because some would argue that Krusty the Klown's image is used purely to generate profit and as such damages for the use thereof could be more significant.

Sent your $350 to NewsCorp, c/o Rupert Murdoch, NYC, NY.

[dbacks fan]

Says the man using a copyrighted Simpson character with no attribution and presumably no payment as an Avatar.  Or is it OK for you to take someone else's artwork and use it in digital form while not pretending it is your and in a manner not generating personal gain? Just asking, because some would argue that Krusty the Klown's image is used purely to generate profit and as such damages for the use thereof could be more significant.

Sent your $350 to NewsCorp, c/o Rupert Murdoch, NYC, NY.

So how much did you pay TU?     And college tuition does not count!

[jne]

Actually I havent taken them down lol. If I have to pay I will keep them up. If I didnt pay, I would still have to delete them since merely attributing them wont solve the fact that I adjusted them. But even with deleting them I would still have to pay because he hasnt given me the option to delete them and not pay.

In that case, he's blowing it. He should have billed you for oh......$35,000.  Yep that sounds about right.  Make that per photo.  And that is if you take them down immediately.

[cannon_fodder]

So how much did you pay TU?     And college tuition does not count!

I'm blatantly using the logo without paying for it.  I admit it.  I also painted it on various things without paying for it.  I intend to make a TU logo to attach to my sail too.  I'm bad, I know it.  TU can send me their ultimatum and I'll just scan in my season tickets (I own the tickets, right?) and use that as a logo. 

Then again, my stance kinda fits in with my argument.  Not using it for personal gain.  Not harming the interest of the party that owns it.  Not claiming it as my own.  No harm no foul!

[PepePeru]

there is a whole set of 'simpsons avatars' to chose from.
so i choo-choo-choosed one.
i guess its part of the 'simple machines forum' code.

I am not saying I agree with the apparent strongarm tactics and feel bad that William has suffered financially b/c of a mistake.

Personally, I would have asked the photos be taken down first.  If I didn't get a proper response to my request, then I would have went w/ some more aggressive tactics.  

However, I can see the photographer's point as well, in his attempt to protect his work and livelihood.

[dbacks fan]

I wonder how long it will be before this issue blows up like it did with Napster over music? I realize that we are not talking file sharing, but it does present an issue over copryrighted/trade mark material. If I sell an image to an entity, do I give up my rights as to how the image is used? (Or in the case of facebook you have no rights to the image after it's posted)

[cannon_fodder]

so i choo-choo-choosed one.

Nice.  Just harassing you . . .

[Conan71]

I'm blatantly using the logo without paying for it.  I admit it.  I also painted it on various things without paying for it.  I intend to make a TU logo to attach to my sail too.  I'm bad, I know it.  TU can send me their ultimatum and I'll just scan in my season tickets (I own the tickets, right?) and use that as a logo. 

Then again, my stance kinda fits in with my argument.  Not using it for personal gain.  Not harming the interest of the party that owns it.  Not claiming it as my own.  No harm no foul!

I think you should stencil:

"LABOR DISPUTE"

on your sail

[TheArtist]

 Well, I called Ryan and talked to him.  I apologized once again and told him that I put the "attributed to" stuff on the pics. He seemed like a really nice guy, thanked me for being so prompt in correcting the problem and said "just tear up the bill".  We talked for a bit, he said something similar had happened to him once and it taught him to be more careful as well.

Lesson learned. From now on I will always attribute when I need to. Plus I should have done it anyway just to be supportive of other local artists.

So no dissing the guy. He was just teaching me a lesson.    At least he let me go, from the sound of his story, could have been worse.