Wed, May 3rd, 2006 by Miles
Another case of image theft.
Kruiswijk is posting images from photoblogs with some type placed across the top. He seems to be claiming that this might be art.... Either way the images are posted without attribution and there's some rejoicing on his part that he's "abusing" photobloggers' images.
I suggest you take a look and see if any of your images are amongst those stolen. If they are send a polite email to aat@derebbel.nl and ask for them to be removed.
Comments on proceeding are welcome.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Thanks for putting this up Miles.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I'm not positive, and I'm by no means a lawyer, but wouldn't this fall under the criticism or comment fair use laws since he's changing the work and the context of the work?
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
My understanding is that you can use images under 'fair use' as long as you attribute the original image and are not making it appear that the images are yours. From what I can make out on his site there's nothing explaining where the images come from or who the original creator/copyright holder is. His subtitle "i use and abuse other photoblogs to serve my creativity" doesn't change that.
I would like to see if a Dutch (?) speaker can make more sense of what's on the site.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I think that you're taking this a bit too seriously. I can't speak dutch and Google translate doesn't do dutch, but as far as I can see he's just having a bit of fun. I like "the curtains" Goddammit why hasn't he used one of mine.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Sarah: no disrepect, but using copyrighted images without permission is illegal, and to argue that theft is just "a bit of fun" seems a rather odd position to adopt.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
eventhough i don't think his "work" is particularly interesting at all, i'm reluctant to call what he's doing actually theft just the same way i wouldn't call a musician that samples without permission a thief.
he's not taking credit for the photos. he's not making any profit from the photos. yeh, he should probably link back to the originating blog and that's his bad, but is it theft? i think mostly it's just poor netiquette.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Thanks indeed for this posting, Miles. Sorry to have threadjacked the Photoblogs Magazine post to vent my spleen on this gentleman. Feel free to delete my previous ranting and/or raving as you wish.
Dave - and any other victims - please keep us all updated.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
schmee: I'm not all that familiar with sampling (and its legality, or not), but in the case of photography (and other works of art) there isn't any doubt that this is illegal. Copyright owners have the right to prohibit this form of reproduction and have a range of civil remedies available to them including:
* injunctions served against the infringer or alleged infringer (to stop that person making further infringing use of the material);
* damages for infringement awarded to the copyright owner.
So yes, maybe 'theft' was the wrong word to use, but this isn't just "poor netiquette".
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
1. My pics suck, he hasn't used any of them
2. I agree I would be pissed at him. If he did the same thing with attribution, I wouldn't mind--that falls within my Creative Commons license. But the way it is, I would be angry at him. Maybe even try a nastygram. He's probably breating Blogger's terms of use, so you might want to pursue it with them.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Dave. I wholeheartedly agree that theft is bad. Passing off images that you have not taken as your own is both creatively pathetic and downright dishonest. But in this instance he has not passed them off as his own but has added something to them. I don't get the jokes but to me it's a bit like someone drawing a groucho moustache on the mona lisa. It doesn't improve it but it lends another angle to it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Sarah for president and Dave your right.
Here is the thief speaking.
Dave i place mine blog here myself with the question art of robbery.
and that's not in the tekst above could be better for discussion.
i like to play with tekst and image.
like mona lisa with moustage by marcel duchamp. not that i am even 10% for marcel duchamp. But it gave an nice discussion and two nice paintings.
dave i will remove the pics or..?
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Sarah: lol. I suspect that the penalties for drawing a moustache on the mona lisa would far exceed anything we could dish out in this cas
On which note, and this may be a temporary glitch, it appears as though http://kruiswijk.blogspot.com/ has problems and is currently unreachable. Personally, I hope it's permanent.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
david; is this illegal?: http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/0601211954_clean.php
i doubt you created and sprayed that stencil and i don't see that you credited the person that did so what exactly is the difference? you took one person's art and put your own spin on it. Kruiswijk did the same with your photos... not very well, but that's not the point.
rarely is art entirely an original creation regardless of what medium you use and if you put your artwork out there for the public to see then this is the risk you take.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
schmee: graffiti, by definition, has been placed in the public domain. Images on my website, clearly labelled with a copyright notice which links to a page that states that none of my "images may be reproduced, downloaded, copied, stored, manipulated, or used whole or in part of a derivative work, without" my written permission, are not. There's a huge difference.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
aad: sorry, missed your post. You asked:
"dave i will remove the pics or..?"
I'll contact blogspot.com and ask them to close down your account for contravening their terms and conditions.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Dave i know copyright i am a creative my self that not the question.
Mona Lisa the two of them
http://www.kunsterbunt.de/kurse/monalisa/bilder/marcel_duchamp.jpg
you know what duchamp painted againt with out moustage and called it saven mona lisa. i think that is briliant.
and schmee has a point aslong you put somthing public in a safe it yours.
yours thief
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
aad: the "you put your artwork out there for the public to see then this is the risk you take" argument is a spurious one; i.e. it doesn't negate the fact that an artist has the right to determine how his or her work might be used. In my case I've stated that my work can't be reproduced or altered without my permission. That's my right under copyright law, and it's a right you've chosen to infringe.
So, the choice is yours: remove my images or I'll contact blogspot.com and ask that they close your account.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:55 pm
dave i will
i got your mail with in 48 hour it wil be done.
and it will aks for promission by all 233 photo's minus your six
i like the image of the king somking sorry for using it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I deal with Fair Use issues every day (I work at a university and Fair Use is employed in classrooms daily).
This is a good site to explain Fair Use:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html#1
These don't fall under Fair Use because this doesn't take a piece of it or recreate it to make a parody. This takes the original image and uses it for the basis of the project.
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:41 pm
As far as I see it, he's using images without crediting, and without asking permission for it. I don't see the point in making a comparison with graffiti's shot, because grafittis are made so everybody can see them. Photographing a grafitti it's not exactly the same than getting an image posted by someone who made a Creative Commons Licence for it, or who tries to get some commercial use for it.
And please, the Mona Lisa thing. I'm pretty sure that Marcel Duchamp asked for any permission he had to ask so he could expose that piece of art.
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
adrian
leonardo da vinci lived around 1450 till 1500 and something
marcel duchamp 1900 till ?
difficult to ask i think
so then
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I don't see anything creative about stealing someone else's work and slapping a word or two on it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Interesting...
One of mine is used and I'm asking he remove it.
If he'd asked permission or provided a link it would be different.
As it is, the attitude of his header says enough.
I don't think any of it is right, and it only complicates things when people and model releases are involved.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the creator. Anybody here can do whatever they want to the Mona Lisa without needing to ask permission, pay royalties, or what have you to Leonardo Da Vinci. The guy's been dead for half of eternity.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 pm
It's an interesting and difficult question, but I actually think these are fun, and aad has excellent taste. I'd have been happy for any of my pictures to have been used like this. Would a link to the original website for each photo have hurt? Of course not. But remixing and resampling is a valid artform - as John Oswald famously said, a photograph of a photograph is still a photograph.
And please, those of you that are flinging around the T-word - THEFT is when you take something of mine such that I no longer have it. You can steal my camera, but you can't ever steal my online photos. Because whatever you do to them, they'll still be on my site. It's copyright violation, sure, and ok, it's also technically illegal, same as sharing mp3s, but IT'S NOT THEFT. You have to ask yourselves how much damage is being done to you personally, or to your reputation by these being online. What are you losing? And what is aad gaining? He's not selling these, you're not losing revenue. It's not even as if the photos were only previously available in a book that you had to buy to see. They're freely available online. In this case, there's no pretence that aad took the photos - that's clearly stated. I have a problem with people that claim to have taken photos that others took, but this is different.
As I say though, crediting the original photographer would have been courteous.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
this is pretty hilarious.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
aad,
while you are comtemplating your actions against a community you obviously respect in a strange sort of way, might i suggest also changing your site design? the ungodly long page of images crashed my browser three times which constitutes almost a greater abuse--a waste of my time! almost.
oh yeah, if you used any of my images please kindly remove them. i'm too tired to go through them all right now and yet, i don't want any chance of even more of my images elsewhere without proper attribution. the 'kids' at stumbleupon and livejournal do more than enough of that for my taste these days. grr...
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
The guy has been stealing from anyone he could and you are worried some may have use the "T" word?!!!!!
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Simon the previous msg was for you : )
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Those who are trying to make a living with their photography, or those who are just starting into the business, are all serious about infringement of their creative works.
Those who think that it is okay to download a photographer's images without their consent and to do as they please with them "in any fashion", will forever lose all respect in the photographic community, as it shows that they certainly are not even remotely serious about their own work or serious in becoming a professional themselves!
You have every right not to persue it as a career and let your images out to anybody and everybody if you choose to do so. It can be just a hobby for you which is just fine, but you must show some respect for others and their work in order to get any respect in return.
I would be very careful about downloading another individual's images today.
Without warning, there are those who will gladly send you a bill in the mail when they find a image of theirs on your site.
Usually, if not paid within 15 days on average, you then will receive another letter from their attorney.
They already have their screen shots of your site and the unauthorized images, the page source has been copied, your ISP info has been noted, ... basically you are screwed, and pleading "innocent infringement" does not work that often in a court room!
There are those who make money in the low 5 figure range every year from doing this, and I support them all!
Be careful, as there are some who will not hesitate to take every single thing that you own, ... if they can.
True professional photographers who are running a business are starting to fight back.
Are you willing to take a chance at downloading their images and doing as you please?
I have seen the bomb dropped on another very stupid individual down in Florida a few years back with an infringement case, (he lost his business), and I laugh at some of the very foolish statements above in this thread!!
It's really simple actually.
There are infringment laws in place.
Now, ... deal with it!
May 4th, 2006 at 1:45 am
At regards the loaded word "theft" in this case:
Dowling v. United States (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that copyright infringement does not "easily equate" to theft and unauthorized copies are not stolen property.
I think "theft" and "victim" are very loaded words and should be more clearly thougt about. I download songs, I photocopy things, I use bit-torrent. I know that it is wrong but it is something that nearly all of us do without thinking seriously that we are theives.
Anyway every country has different laws and different ways of applying them. I don't think that there is any clear cut "world" law defining copyright but I would be interested to know.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:17 am
@Miles: I can do some translating for you. His headers says "I use and abuse other photoblogs to serve my creativity. Ipicked is my image diary. With ipicked I do my morning exercise, the day begins with searching for images and/or text. In short, images make the man."
Further down the page he says something about the site being his image notebook where he works out thoughts through images and/or words. A kind of "Parking Space" for concepts.
Hope that helps...
May 4th, 2006 at 3:02 am
Michael, you've got to be kidding me.
This all is starting to seem pretty silly,
especially requests to remove photographs that may or may not be there, but just in case.
I'm still trying to figure out what the big fear is. Perhaps that more people are exposed to your photograph,
and in some of those instances you wont get your due credit?
I think we should start fighting the real issues, like how to keep people from downloading our images and using them as their desktop wallpaper.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:24 am
well i finally got the page to load and am pleased that none of my images were used. it seems he has a fondness for certain shots of body parts i don't take. i don't think my request was silly, sarcastic perhaps as i am a bit jaded after having so many others pull similar stunts, but never silly. hopefully now he will think twice before using one of mine or anyone else's images in the community again.
without proper attribution others can use the work in more sinister ways like selling them. i coud care less if you used one of my images on your desktop. however if you publish one of mine without permission and if no copyright is to be found there is the possibility that others can use it as well again in possible sinister or commerical contexts. the fact is that it is just plain wrong to use others work without permission and can land you in court regardless of whether others find it 'silly' or not.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:11 am
so much has been said...
but the fact is simple: nobody can use a copywrite protected work without the copywrite owner's pemission, and that's it. all other interpretations (like the guy is having a bit of fun, etc) are not contemplated by the law.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:37 am
Gatopardo. I am afraid that you may be wrong in saying that it is "not contemplated by the law". I had a trawl through copyright articles online and here is an example link:
firstamendmentcenter.org
The fact remains that while you may not like what he has done he is NOT passing them of as his own. I think most people would term it satire and if it ever did go to court then it would be judged on it's own merits. There is no one decreed method of dealing with it.
Anyway it is all food for thought and a very interesting subject to muse on.
May 4th, 2006 at 5:17 am
Ok, I know I'm veering off topic here, and copyright issues regarding digital photography have been done to death, but following Gatopardo's No Grey Areas approach above, I ask the following in all seriousness: how many of you have ever made a mix tape or mix CD for a friend? How many of you have ripped CDs to mp3s? Or videotaped something from TV and not erased it after 45 days? Or ever used Soulseek? Or posted an album/book/movie cover/poster/still to Flickr? I'm not attempting to suggest equivalence between Kruiswijk and taping The Simpsons (the true equivalent would be if you put full length mp3s of an album you'd written and recorded online for everyone to listen to, and then discovered a site with one of your mp3s on it that featured some Dutch guy rapping over the top of the music, with the disclaimer at the top of the page that he's just rapping over other people's music), but what I am doing is questioning the validity of the 'the fact is simple: nobody can use a copywrite protected work without the copywrite owner's pemission' argument when it adversely affects you, and dropping it when it's convenient.
And Michael, you go to great pains to tell the public that they're forbidden from downloading any of your photos. What does download mean in this case? Should I clear my cache after I've visited your site? Will you send me a bill for having your images in my temporary internet folder? Could someone send you a bill for having their photos in your temp cache?
I'm perhaps getting a bit carried away with the last point there, but I do think there are a lot of inconsistencies and double standards here. If you take a hardline approach, then you should stick to it. If you're consistent, fair enough - whether I fundamentally agree with you or not, I can respect your decisions.
May 4th, 2006 at 5:29 am
He probably stole one of Rock Kauser's pictures
http://rskphotography.com/photoblog/
It is day 205 a self-portrait of Rock wrapped in tape. I warned Rock. I don't know what he will do about it.
I do understand Dutch.
Translated heading:
Ipicked is my picture diary. With ipicked I am doing my morning gym. My day starts with looking after a picture and/or text. In short a picture makes the man.
He claims to be creative. He plays with images and words. His blog is a "parking space" for his conceptual art and ideas.
He is involved in "store concepts", TV-formats, old and new media.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Good to see the spirit of Dada is still alive.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:34 am
@sarah: you said, "I download songs, I photocopy things, I use bit-torrent. I know that it is wrong but it is something that nearly all of us do without thinking seriously that we are theives."
downloading music you would otherwise have to pay for is most certainly theft. someone is losing money that they should rightfully be getting in return for that song. it doesn't matter if that someone is the musician or the record label - you are stealing from them, and i think seriously that you are a thief. tons of people do it... does that make it acceptable?
of course, what this guy is doing isn't as clearly defined as that. i would say that there IS a grey area when dealing with this sort of thing. is he displaying other peoples work on his website without permission? yes. is he modifying that work to make his own art... emmmm, yes - but just barely (in my opinion). does that matter - since people have clearly stated that ANY alteration of their images is prohibited? i have no idea. just because people say you can't do this or that, and have a fancy creative commons badge, doesn't necessarily mean what he is doing is ILLEGAL. does it? of course it's totally uncool, but would he lose in court?
i would love to get some definitive answers on all of this... a line must be drawn somewhere - but where?
May 4th, 2006 at 8:41 am
i wrote a script which scrapes the images off of each of the top 100 sites on photoblogs.org and posts them to a secret site that i host on my dreamcast. under each photo it posts the caption "i'm the best, i'm better than bart!"
i put the script into /etc/cron/daily.
is it wrong to be so rad?
May 4th, 2006 at 8:43 am
i'm also with sarah - why does no one *ever* steal any of mine? am i not taking enough posterior shots?
May 4th, 2006 at 9:22 am
He has used one of my image. I don't know if I must be flattered or angry... After all, I think it doesn't bother me.
Thanks for pointing this out.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:56 am
At the base level it is just hack work masked as some sort of Dada experiment...bottom line it is up to the photographer to say what they want done to/with their images. Someone effing with a public domain piece of culture or sharpie-ing a urinal may very well be proclaimed "art" by the dumb ass doing it but it really doesn't hold much water...well the urinal actually does hold some water...wait, damn, I'm confused...anyway, I could get more excited if I was at least impressed but the execution or goal of it all...looks like a low-tech version of ad-busters.
I'm with Michael, sue everybody...
May 4th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I have the unfortunate priviledge of being the subject of one of the images that was stolen and I am not amused. The thermopane tag evokes no reaction at all. Art envy on the part of those without any talent of their own should probably be classified as a disease.
May 4th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Not funny
May 4th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Guess my pictures are too blurry for this guy. Ah, well..
I've been the unfortunate victim of this type of theft several times now and sympathize with the folks who have had their pictures stolen.
If this man would have asked to borrow the photos that would have been one thing. But he didn't. So it becomes a question of etiquette and respect for the original creator--not to mention this is in fact illegal if there is a copyright warning on the individual blogs or sites. What's almost as bad is that there are people that lack the same respect and approve of what he's doing.
Thanks Miles -- glad you pointed this out.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
P.S.
Someone attempted to make the point that this man isn't trying to pass these off as his own. But he did not credit the original photographer.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I think that it is paragraph #4 in Blogger's "BlogSpot" Terms Of Service section that speaks of instances such as this.
They have been notified numerous times already, and will eventually shut him down if the right steps are taken.
They have to, because as far as the DMCA is concerned, they also can be held liable.
But, the "owner of the copyright images" are the ones who have to contact Blogger in order for that process to begin of shutting this particular blog down!
att states:
i use and abuse other photoblogs to serve my creativity.
So, he takes from others to create his own.
What kind of artists is that?
And then, there are those who will pat him on the back?
They will never receive my respect!
Simply amazing at how people have changed in the last few decades!!!
May 4th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
So many people on here are saying they would be flattered if somebody took their images and recreated a new image from the original.
Fine.
But the appropriate way of doing this is for the the person who is wanting to change an original, copyright-protected piece to make his/her own is to recieve permission from the original copyright owner.
It's not only the proper etiquette, it's the law.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
For me the bottom line is that the images are 'orphaned' from their creators, there's no attribution and no link back. Whether or not he's claiming the images as his own is debatable, I don't see anything on there that explicitly says the images aren't his.
The orphaning of images is going to be a big concern in America in the future, as already discussed here, and remember that other countries have stronger, narrower copyright laws.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
If "Orphan Works" law passes unchanged, as a photographer, it will stop me from blogging or force me to add a watermark/copyright right dead in the middle of the image!
May 4th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
re: "So, he takes from others to create his own.
What kind of artists is that?"
well, often a very great artist. the obvious one being marcel duchamp who's already been mentioned in this thread. just cause aad's posts aren't particularly interesting does not disqualify it from falling under the umbrella of art... crap art.. but art nonetheless
if you're going to take objection with what he's done then stay on course with the argument that he took the images without permission which he obviously shouldn't have done. arguing that what he did isn't art just cause it's not any good only outs your own narrow view of what art is and isn't.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Read a bit more carefully "schmee".
(And maybe I could have worded it slightly different)
Did not say anything about his "art".
When asking, "what kind of artist is that", ... I am talking about the person himself.
Never would I crap on another's work, even if I don't like their work!
May 4th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I find it funny that this thread has moved from discussing Duchamp's urinal to the statement "Never would I crap on another's work."
May 4th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
LoL!
Good take on that one Lane!!
Seriously though, I could never bash away at another individual's work even if I do not like it.
It is their vision, perceptions, their feelings, etc., and who am I to question anything?
The person themselves is fair game when certain issues come into play, such as using another's work for their own benefit.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
I'm just starting out with my photoblog and happened upon this thread, which I'm finding very interesting. I know almost nothing about copyrights but it seems to me that if this guy can do what he's doing and its ok, then what is to stop me from superimposing a headshot of someone (taken by someone else) on a nude pic and use it on a porn site? It's just an example, but it seems much like the same thing (copyright-wise) to me.
While his use might be fairly benign, it opens the door for much worse don't you think? Good argument though, I'm enjoying the thread.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Ha. I just found this thread.
I'm happy to report that he Dutcherized several of my images. That's good, because I've been feeling a little unloved. I have attention issues.
I'm not sure if this makes me a bad citizen of the photoblogosphere, but I really don't care that some giddy punk wrote unfunny things in Dutch on my images. I know it's stealing. I know that fully completely. But in this particular case it doesn't offend me in the least, and I would never personally bother to do anything about it. I'd hassle him for stealing other people's images before I'd say anything about mine.
But, yeah. I guess even silly rude pranksters should be held accountable. Afterall, he's running down the street yelling "Hey! I'm a theif! And a vandal!" And let's face it, his sense of humour is pretty hit and miss.
I'm just not very motivated to make examples of people when it comes to non-commercial appropriation of my images I guess. The possible Orphan law sucks though, and maybe I should change my tune.
May 5th, 2006 at 6:41 am
I tried to translate the dutch text and motivation
also on blog
i use and abuse other photo logs to serve my creativity. it a picture daily. it is my morning gym the day starts by hunting for a picture on the web. tags on the images are most times in Dutch. the are just my first impression .
image of the day
ne stupid I did this without asking or linking the owners of the images.
on .photoblogs.org/ i asked art or robbery see discussion on
http://blog.photoblogs.org/2006/05/03/image-theft-kruiswijk/
i think it's starts up an interesting discussion.
i know i did wrong but funny to see used photo-blog are angry and unused photoblogs are disappointed. Some critics are hard and if i see there work a real big tags would not been misplaced.
Ipicked was a small blog with 2 till 6 views a day just a small project. But now 190 views a day.
if you see my viewing rates than the word thief pays off.
i am just a nice creative guy using every thing he is seeing i thing you are doing the same.
May 5th, 2006 at 6:45 am
ps sorry for my English!
May 5th, 2006 at 11:33 am
This is the response from Blogger when I questioned them about how they handle issues such as this, and DMCA.
It can be a pain, I know, but it is the steps that they require in order for them to act.
_____
It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply
with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found
at the U.S. Copyright Office website: http://lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/ )
and other applicable intellectual property laws, which may include
removing or disabling access to material claimed to be the subject of
infringing activity.
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written
communication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth the
items specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may be
liable to the alleged infringer for damages (including costs and
attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item when
you in fact do not. Indeed, in a recent case (please see
http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more
information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking
removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine
was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to
pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material
available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first
contact an attorney.
To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following
format (including section numbers):
1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has
been infringed upon. This must include identification of specific posts,
as opposed to entire sites. Posts must be referenced by either the dates
in which they appear or the permalink of the post. For example,
http://example.blogspot.com/archives/2003_01_21_example_archive.html#2104575.
2. Identify the material that you claim is infringing upon the copyrighted
work listed in item #1 above.
YOU MUST IDENTIFY EACH POST BY PERMALINK OR DATE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS
INFRINGING MATERIAL. The permalink for a post is usually found by clicking
on the timestamp of the post.
3. Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Blogger to contact
you (email address is preferred).
4. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use
of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing
web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the
law."
5. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury,
that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the
copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
6. Sign the paper.
7. Send the written communication to the following address:
Google, Inc.
Attn: Blogger Legal Support, DMCA complaints
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
OR Fax to:
(650) 618-2680, Attn: Blogger Legal Support, DMCA complaints
Sincerely,
Blogger Support
May 5th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
All of you can sleep soundly tonight, because I have restored balance to the universe.
How?
I have stolen Kruiswijk's words and am putting my images on top of them.
You can't see the words (due to the fact that there are pictures on top of them, naturally), but believe me, they're there.
There, there.
May 5th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I can feel them though, Matt. Cut to the quick!
May 7th, 2006 at 8:43 am
At first sight I was happy to see one of mine there, as I'm allways happy to see someone likes what I'm doing
Then Sad, that it has not been asked and not even a link back. Not Fair.
You can't name your "art" everything that coming out from Photoshop even for fun.
Take your own pictures and put your words on.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:27 am
I see my soap dispenser image is on there with PI written on it, that's cool, any chance of a credit next to it and a link to my site for people that might want to find out who took the photo?
May 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
I have also noticed an image of mine on this site (day 206). I would have been happy to participate in this project if only I had BEEN ASKED AND CREDITED. I run an online magazine of my own and have found that most folks are willing to participate in group projects if they are given the opportunity to say "yes" and are give the cortesy of credit. A clumsy job, and you are right for calling this guy out on it.
May 13th, 2006 at 4:42 am
It was/is a pity that the name/place/site of the origine of the photo's wasn't/isn't mentioned, that I find the biggest "crime".
What I don't understand is this; you put your photo's on a site so the whole world can see them (and take them), and then you get angry that someone takes them. It's like leaving your car with running engine while you go shopping and someone takes it. Yes its theft, but you as owner if you don't want your work to be taken, then you should protect your property also a little bit, watermarks f.e., or don't put your photo's on a BLOG.
But Aad (and anuone else) should put at least the origine of the photo's he uses with his "excercises".
En Aad, ik vind het altijd leuk om naar je dagblog te kijken!
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
It seems to me he is just making 'social commentary' by using others' fotos and adding his opinion to them about what he sees in them. To me, it's the equivalent of looking at fotos in a newspaper and verbally making comments about them. The images that he has used aren't that great, so no loss, IMHO! At the bottom of a series of pix, he does actually state where he got them from, by showing the URL. The rest of the set has no such info. attached to it. Copyright issues in this instance? Not too sure about this one.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
juanito te amo!