I don't know where this goes - Photography & DevArt Thieves

[Lauryn Braveheart]

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong forum but I really need an answer to this.

Every once in a while, I'll run into an art store full of stolen photos from photographers and designers, mainly on deviant art but also some celebrity photos among other things. Is there any real thing being done about this? How exactly do we report them? I've notified artists and photographers on deviant art on how they can file a problem but even THIS has to be in WRITTEN form and no other way.

How do you report a store full of stolen art and get it shut down? Is this not as bad as stealing another users skins or clothing designs and selling it as your own?

[Chelsea Malibu]

If you created the work and own the copyright, if you are an attorney acting on behalf of the copyright owner (with power of attorney) or if you are an officer in the company that owns the copyright, you can file a DMCA through Linden Labs.

You must be able to prove that YOU own it. 

Deviant Art Does license content and though it may be from there or many of the other royalty free libraries, does not mean it is stolen however, if it is not yours than it's not yours to protect.

 

 

[Lauryn Braveheart]

I know a lot of the people that the pictures are from and they are NOT stock images and there is a plain to see 'DO NOT USE MY WORK' on most of their pages.

I do not believe in the "if it's not yours than it's not yours to protect." many of these people do not play second life and it's complete bull that anyone even sees this problem in that way. If I have to tell every single person about the photo that got stolen then I will do that. I'm asking is there any way other than telling them how to file a DMCA to get this taken care of. It's disgusting.

[koto Nizna]

I think you can report abuse that to LL  and also provide the the web site source of the copied art work .  

There is a gallery association inworld ( My own art space is not part of them) called Galleries in secondlife (or something like that). If the Gallery that you just saw with stolen images from Deviant art or any other site and a member of this gallery association, I think the Head/Leader of the group should take action about this matter.

[koto Nizna]

---

Chelsea Malibu wrote:

If you created the work and own the copyright, if you are an attorney acting on behalf of the copyright owner (with power of attorney) or if you are an officer in the company that owns the copyright, you can file a DMCA through Linden Labs.

You must be able to prove that YOU own it. 

Deviant Art Does license content and though it may be from there or many of the other royalty free libraries, does not mean it is stolen however, if it is not yours than it's not yours to protect.

 

 

---

 

Then those kind of "art galleries" should change their category to "filing cabinet"..

*I just hate people pretending to be an artist or a visual artist  and commercial spaces with  stolen art images/ reproduction without permission  calling them as Art Gallery.

[Lauryn Braveheart]

Thank you, koto. I will definitely look this group up and go back on an alt to the store in question. (I got booted for saying outloud about the stolen work to my mom who was standing beside me.. she got booted as well). I wasn't sure if reporting abuse to LL would actually work or not.

[Lauryn Braveheart]

I agree. If I want to look at someone else's art that wasn't created on second life I will either save it to my computer to look at or put it in my favorites if it's on dA.

[slowtime Rang]

Are you seriously saying that you would allow someone to steal from your mom, grandmother, brother just because it's not YOURS?

The work I do on Deviant Art takes hours, weeks, even MONTHS to create sometimes. I DO give permission for people to use it in PERSONAL artwork, but they still have to link back so that I can see what they have done with it, but NEVER for commercial works. And selling on SL even for just a few pennies IS considered commercial.

For someone to actually say that other people can't protect my rights shows what kind of low some of the people on this planet can be. What happens when it's something YOU have created and no one protects you? What will you be screaming then?

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Lauryn Braveheart]

Technically, I didn't mention your mother. MY mom did. You're replying to her not me ^^

[Griffin Ceawlin]

You've been in SL since '08 and your "mom" since '07, and one or both of you on DA since... well... whenever. DA has the same process to report copyright infringement as SL... and pretty much every other web site, game, file sharing service, etc., etc., etc.:

Notification of Copyright Infringement
This section contains the formal requirements of the Copyright Act with respect to the rights of copyright owners whose content appears on deviantART without authorization.
To file a copyright infringement notification with deviantART, the copyright owner or an agent acting on his or her behalf will need to send a written communication...
(from http://about.deviantart.com/policy/copyright/)

Get used to it.

[slowtime Rang]

Qwaly, I don't steal and I will do my best to protect ANY artist that I feel is being ripped off.

You know when you walk into a store and can find EVERY picture there somewhere online that the person does not have rights. There is no protect IP rights poster, there is nothing say that they have any permission from this person or that to sell their items. When I had my store I ALWAYS had a sign up saying that I had the artist's permission to display their work, I had a notecard inside the sale folder telling them the same thing, and to whom the artwork belonged, and how to get in touch with them.

I am also friends with several artists on DA and know for a fact that they do not allow their work for commercial sale when the original photos that were tagged have had their tags removed and the THIS IS NOT FOR COMMERICAL OR PRIVATE USE statements ignored.

Let's put it simply. When I have permission to display an artist, I shout it to the world and make sure their name is well known because either A) I am in total awe of that person and their work, or B) they are generous enough to share and I want to the word out to help them in any way I can.

IF that person had all rights, or any rights, we would not have been kicked off or banned, but we would have been sent straight to the artist so that they could say yes, in a store full of stolen work, this is mine and the owner was given permission by myself to sell it.

[Lauryn Braveheart]

I've actually been here from February 2006. I made a different name for store purposes.

I'm very well aware of both the copyright / tos of both sites. I was simply asking if letting the original photographers/designer know how to file a DMCA on SL was the ONLY way to get anything done about this.

 

 

ALSO, dA is much quicker to take care of copyright infringement than SL is, regardless of written form or not. dA has plenty of people that actually read electronic messages... be it email or an onsite message to a moderator.

[slowtime Rang]

Get used to it? lol

The law is the law and it is still THEFT. I will tell any and all people I know who's art is stolen and sold as someone else's "work". What they choose to do after that is up to them.

IP theft is the worst kind because you cannot be everywhere at once, you do not have hidden cameras or security guards. All artists can rely on are honest people to help them.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

You're right. The law is the law. Only the owner (or his/her agent) of a copyrighted work can file a DMCA notice. That's the law.

If you want to play IP Police and root out IP theft from the whole of SL, and the rest of the Interwebs, by reporting everything that you think is "theft" to the copyright owners... go for it.

[slowtime Rang]

Dude, no offence but you are taking it wrong. The question was is there any other way to report it and have it taken care of. It is not every store, it is not every person. But this was blatent, it was obvious, and the person knew it because we were booted and banned when something was said.

There are a lot of people who don't realize the kind of trouble they can get into. Sometimes just saying something works enough to let them know and they start doing their own thing, original work. Sure it might not be the best at first, but it's theirs and I would watch out for their work just as I would look out for yours and report it to you if I found any of your stuff being sold by anyone else.

We are not playing IP police, but when we know some of the people whos work is being stolen... what do you expect us to do? Just let it go and let our friends be taken advantage of? I don't think so.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

slowtime Rang wrote:

... when we know some of the people whos work is being stolen... what do you expect us to do? Just let it go and let our friends be taken advantage of? I don't think so.

---

No. By all means. Tell them.

I don't think LL has the manpower or the resources to investigate every case of "I believe this object to be an infringement of my Aunt Tilly's Intellectual Property rights."

 

ETA: I've seen blogs dedicated to exposing IP theft in SL. You might consider starting your own. Shout it far and wide.

[slowtime Rang]

No, I believe you are right about that. And I am sure there are some false claims as well. But when it can be proven, when it is shown by not only a concerned SL citizen and the rightful owner, and if it happens enough to get a laywer involved.. LL isn't going to have much of a choice but to do something about it once and for all.

What they will do, if anything, is unknown, but I hope they are smart enough to not lose people by not doing anything.

[Chelsea Malibu]

This is not my assumption, this is how the US law works.  I know this because I am a copyright attorney and this is what I do every day. Protect content owners from piracy.

Simply put, the DMCA nor the original US copyright law does not provide for YOU, an unrelated party, to enforce another's copyright under the law.

The process requires that the owner of that content prove their right to ownership. When this is done, then the persons who do not have a right to ownership can be determined.  One has to establish the relationship between said content owner and the property before they can establish the misuse of said assets.  Only the content owner or persons acting on their behalf (with the knowledge and permission) can validate ownership.

I am not disputing that this is a problem however, the process that is in place, is there for very valid reasons.  If this was not the case, could you imaging the chaos?

Go ahead and try it for yourself and see how far you get. :matte-motes-big-grin:

[Chelsea Malibu]

---

slowtime Rang wrote:

Are you seriously saying that you would allow someone to steal from your mom, grandmother, brother just because it's not YOURS?

..................

For someone to actually say that other people can't protect my rights shows what kind of low some of the people on this planet can be. What happens when it's something YOU have created and no one protects you? What will you be screaming then?

---

To answer your first question, if you can determine the "relationship" between you and the content you can enforce it however, in the case of the proxy relationship you refer to, I would still need to prove ownership if by deed, co-ownership, will, trust, etc.

As for your last statement, I believe I did answer this and yes, I do scream with a valid DMCA and/or court order in hand along with my Library of Congress validation of my Copyright File to show that I have the right to treble damages. But only I can make a claim over my content, not you or anyone else and to tell you the truth, that's how I want it.

[Lauryn Braveheart]

I never said I wanted to make a claim for that person. Am I hard to understand or something? I think I've gotten my answers, however. Not from you but from someone else.

Done with the thread, thanks for all the responses.

[Lauryn Braveheart]

Seriously? someone tagged me as a troll? that's pretty laughable.

I have an idea who it was and that person needs to join the horde side of Tortheldrin on WoW and then see what real trolling is. I had a serious question and it's ludicrous that someone would even dare mention me as a troll. Excuse me for being concerned for my fellow photographers and designers on Deviant Art.

 

Did not mean to reply to anything but my original thread.. I don't know why it replied to you Chelsea.

[slowtime Rang]

 

I really considered this case closed earlier today when the original artists were informed of the theft. But since Chelsea responsed to me I feel I must respond yet again and waste my time to make myself clear.

Chelsea please learn to read and UNDERSTAND the material before you go spouting off and making yourself look bad. I do not care what you do for a "living" if you cannot even undertand the simple question of the original post.

The question was IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY to get this stopped. Neither Lauren nor I was suggesting we were going to file a claim. We said that we were informing the original artists of the theft, that's it. That's all.

The ONLY relationship was stated clearly in the posts. The DA artists are our friends, or at the very least aquaintences. It is a matter of RESPECT for them and their work that they were informed.

And Chelsea, don't worry, when your "original" artwork gets stolen, I will not be myself, I will not step up and speak out on your behalf, I will not come to you and tell you that someone is claiming your work as their own. I will let them keep selling your work, taking credit, and rob you blind.

Now, I am off of this thread, consider it case closed. But be warned. I will continue to report stolen art to the orginal owners and will happily apologize IF or WHEN it is made clear that the person selling it has gotten proper permission. I would rather people be safe than sorry.

[Misha Nikita]

ok...I'll stick my nose in here (and probably get it chewed off

 

I do appreciate your concern Lauryn, and applaud your desire to do something. I know this thread is a bit old, but there has been some misinformation in some of the responses here and the most important aspect of this has gone unmentioned. I would like to fill in a couple gaps if I may.

 

First, you do not need to prove ownership of copyright to file a DMCA. As a career artist and photographer I have filed several over the years. All you need is a sworn statement that you hold the rights. The 'offending' party will not get in trouble. By law, the ISP (LL in this case) must remove the contested work and inform the person posting it the reason for the removal. They can then submit a counter claim to have the work reinstated. The ISP then gives both parties the contact info of the other so they can settle it between themselves. As long as the ISP complies with the law they are a disinterested party. If they do take an interest either way it can drag them into a legal action. So it will be rare for any ISP to take any action other than to remove or restore items at the request of claimants. That is not by their own choice. The law itself restricts their actions. It is not their place to judge the legitimacy of copyright claims. That must be left to the courts. And this is why they cannot take action on the word of another disinterested party.

 

As far as proof in court, everything now is automatically copyrighted by the creator at the moment of conception. All you need to do is prove you created it to win a case and that is VERY easy with most digital art. When all the infringer has is a 600 x 800 JPG and the artist has a 4000 x 4000 pixel PSD, or even better an EPS, with the layers separated out as well as all original source files...case closed. If I post a really good photograph keep in mind that I probably have a series of pictures of the same subject and setting that could include hundreds of shots in my camera's raw format. I could easily prove copyright of any of my pictures in court. Also, most of my professional work is represented by large agencies with staff attorneys. But that is generally not wall art like I sell in SL.

 

SL is overflowing with obviously copyrighted works. I just saw a legitimate store selling 4 Beatles songs for 200L$. It is rare that I can walk into a store in SL and NOT see copyright infringement somewhere. It is even common in the in-world offices of Lindens. This is not malicious but simply lack of thought or understanding. With the new mesh you have to pass a copyright test before you can upload meshes, but one prominent Linden recently displayed a copyright infringing avatar as a great example of what you can do with mesh. This particular Linden also mentioned he failed the copyright test the first time. But look through the gestures in your own inventory and ask yourself about any sound files attached to them. It is a cultural thing that involves almost everyone, often even those who protest the loudest against it.

 

Many second life "artists" just grab pictures from anywhere on the web, slap a few photoshop or gimp filters on them and call them their own art. Or they "photograph" someone else's 3D art builds in SL, slap a grunge filter and frame on it (usually a frame picture from some frame site on the web), and call it their own art. Almost all of this is copyright infringement. (copyright includes rights to all derivative works). Even if it isn't copyright infringement it is artistic plagiarism at best. You can't just frame a Renoir and call it your own art.

 

Yes, this is stealing from the original artist but that is not the biggest issue here. Think about this...as an artist I must compete, using only my own skills, against the best work of the greatest artists in the world selling for pennies. I'm good...but not THAT good. No one is. I saw a gallery last week full of Thomas Kinkade paintings selling cheaper than I sell my art. Think about your own RL career and how you would feel if that was somehow done there, forcing you to work for pennies per day or do something else. If all artists chose to do something else... We certainly won't see any legitimate Kinkade works in here as long as this is going on. It isn't worth the time and effort. And that is a serious loss to SL.

 

If all the infringing work was removed from SL I would be making at least 10 times what I am making in here now. This is an issue facing nearly every artist in the world today and not just in SL. Even the likes of Thomas Kinkade cannot effectively compete with the very best images of the very best artists around the world being sold for pennies on the dollar. I ran into the same thing in web design when ALL my competitors just grabbed Vargas pinups when they needed an image like that. I had to either create something myself or pay heavy license fees to compete with that quality of work. When they did come to me for contract art it was often a request to edit a copyrighted work to better fit their site. (which I always refuse).

 

So ALL artists have a real loss of income here. But it is more a matter of general culture and education than a few people being bad guys. I can find offending works in pretty much anyone's inventory. That is the real problem. I appreciate the new policies Linden has for meshes. All they need to do is learn them and start following them themselves...like a certain semi official building tutorial supported by LL that uses a certain Mad Magazine character to advertize. They licensed that, right? When I need a comic character I have to create an original one. And if they were playing fair they would have to come to an artist like myself to have one created. So even that seemingly harmless use is hurting real artists.

 

You get what you pay for. If you pay artists you get more art. If you pay thieves you get more theft. It's a choice we all make together.