Comments on: Fstoppers Original: The Stolen Scream

By: Andrew Mercer

Andrew Mercer — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:00:00 +0000

I would find the biggest company using my image and sue them.. you would win and it would establish your ownership in a court of law. A lawyer working on a no win no fee basis could spend a few years going after illegal company use and claiming compensation… and would probably be happy to get guaranteed work.
I think you’d still come out at the end with millions.

By: Luke Johnson

Luke Johnson — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:45:00 +0000

All he needs is one good lawyer and he will be raking in major $$$.

By: JosephRT

JosephRT — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:05:00 +0000

I completely agree with you Lee. I think that even though he hasn’t been paid a whole lot thus far, the attention the image has garnered is worth more than the licensing fees. The image has had a real political impact, and a cultural one as well.

By: JosephRT

JosephRT — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:05:00 +0000

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:45:00 +0000

I’m on your side with this Chase, I have gotten into quite a few ‘discussions’ with ppl online about it. I would simply be proud to see an image used, and would hope people would just like it.
I am NOT a professional, but amateur photog, I dont want or need to make a living from it.
Therefore I come from the angle that art should be free for the viewing, as looking at a piece can change someone slightly, and that is an honor beyond monetary systems.
As you can imagine, I have been slammed hard by pro’s and amateurs alike for this view, too bad.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:45:00 +0000

By: Laurien Renckens

Laurien Renckens — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:39:00 +0000

see also the stolen screamgift of @laurienrenckens to Noam Galai in New York.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhlderVQlg

By: Nathan O'Kane

Nathan O'Kane — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:03:00 +0000

While I agree that it was wrong for others to use the work of Noam, all of the people on here saying, “oh how dare they, those bandits!” If you have ever downloaded a song or movie, you are just as at fault. I’m not accusing anyone, but there is sure a lot of piracy going on and I’m sure some of the thread contributors have pirated at least something in their lifetime.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2011 00:13:00 +0000

sue them

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:55:00 +0000

I of course totally agree, as most would, that ANYONE making money off of your image(s) has both a moral and legal obligation to work WITH you (moneywise or at least permission & attribution-wise) BUT…

Through your feelings about money-makers using your image being not-ok in parallel with your saying that non-money-makers/artistic-use is “cool” (you’re ok with that) aren’t you muddying the argument about copyright-violation being bad; Aren’t you setting a double-standard? You’re condoning a behavior on the one hand and reprehending it on the other, solely on the basis of whether or not the user has money; Isn’t this attitude wrong and bad for photography? I’m not saying that you can’t give your permission to the penniless artists… but that I think it’s unhealthy for photography to feel that copyright violation is ok in some situations… in ANY situation.

There’s nothing wrong with being happy that poor moneyless artists use your image, but saying that you’re ok with them having done so in the absence of your permission is condoning the very behavior that you reproach the rich of having. So call it as it is… you have no problem with your image being used without your permission and without attribution… Your only problem is that you didn’t/don’t share in any money that’s involved when there is some to be had (and I agree). But I think that as much as ‘having money’ shouldn’t give people the ‘right’ to violate your copyright… ‘not having money’ shouldn’t give people that right either.

Posturing as altruistic towards the penniless and victimistic towards the penniful, based on the same behavior, sends a confusing message about what that behavior should be… condoning an act based on the size of the wallet strikes me as wrong.

http://uncertainregard.ch/
http://flickr.shawnkoppenhoefer.com/