In Memorium [benlehman]

You're viewing

benlehman's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Privilege denying dude, brought down by fake copyright violation claims. RIP.

←

→

There are 8 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

The image was originally from iStockphoto. You cannot post pics featuring iStock images on the internet without paying the license fee. Every time someone downloaded the meme picture to alter it, an indie business owner was cheated out of the small amount of money they charge for it.

I find it funny that the same Internet that was up in arms about Cooks Source is grumped out by shutting down a meme, using basically the same argument Judith did: "But it's on the Internet! It's free!"

[link] [reply]

Uh, the photo was from iStockPhoto and paid for.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Right. The first time.

But everyone who remixed it on their own, the huge amount of additional PDDs, none of those were paid for. As a license owner, you cannot transfer your license to others, and it is clearly stated in the EULA that you cannot re-distribute files that use a stock image as the focal point.

[link] [parent] [reply]

So, no istockphoto image can ever be used on any website which might alter it? c'mon.

There's pretty clearly a new work created here with the image. The alterations, after that, are minor at best. To make an argument that this was used for an endorsement or testimonial, or that the message was a particularly controversial one, you'd have to make an argument that a sane person could believe that the actual model holds these views. Which it's pretty clear he doesn't, and that no one did.

The huge number of PODs should be paid for, however. Given the original author's stance towards the model, I cannot imagine that they wouldn't have paid.

As it goes, this conversation is a moot point. I was mistaken. The actual legal claim was defamation, which is pretty bogus (see above.) Apparently the copyright and licensing claims weren't strong enough to merit inclusion.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

So, no istockphoto image can ever be used on any website which might alter it? c'mon.

You CAN alter an image and put it on a website. You CAN'T offer it for other people to alter and put on their website - that's distribution. You can do it if you pay for a very significant rider on the license ($500? $750? I forget.)

And the author was selling prints? Jesus. That's another $500 rider. You can't just slap some text on it. The guy is an integral part of the image.

This fucking article is linked every time you buy an image from iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=616

This is clearly violations 2, 3, and 4.

Defamation suit by the photographer/model aside: those statements are clearly in violation of #4. The rape one alone. Come on, look at the things you yourself linked.

And have you looked at any of the comments left by people outside the community on knowyourmeme or other, non "safe space" sites? They're mostly "I don't get it" and "Who is this guy?" Just because a bunch of ironic, socially-attuned social liberals get what's going on doesn't mean they're the only people who use the internet.

Stock models, more often than not, don't get paid. They're the photographer's friends and family and loved ones and acquaintances. They read the model agreement, know what they're signing up for and what is NOT ALLOWED to be done with their photo. I feel for that guy. I thought the meme was funny as shit when I assumed it was a picture of the author or a public figure. Now I see it and all I can think is "God, what a bunch of assholes."

Awesome to see communities who fight against racism and sexism take some dude they've never met and make him the scapegoat for all of the white man's ills, and then pout because the guy "couldn't take a joke." Never seen that in action before. Oh wait.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Author wasn't selling prints. Not sure where you got that idea.

The author's stance was always, that I could tell "I want to make sure this is cool with the photographer and model." But the photographer and model didn't actually discuss things with the author. They took a pretty sketchy claim and went to the author's webhost, who panicked and took everything down.

I bet dollars to donuts that the iStockPhoto license has a dispute resolution method involved in it and that it wasn't used.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Also appropriate to note that the copyright claim was, IIRC, from the photographer and not iStockphoto (yet). The photographer and model can claim whatever they want, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the author has flagrant disrespect for the license they tried to hide behind, or they're so incredibly stupid that they decided to base an entire meme project around an image whose license agreement they couldn't be bothered to even glance through the CLIFF'S NOTES for.

[link] [parent] [reply]

On TOP of which, there's also a clause in the iStockphoto EULA that forbids and prohibits stock photo use for "sensitive," political, or controversial topics, as well as endorsements, testamonials or first-person statements.

So the first guy was out of his depth anyway.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14 1	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

benlehman

In Memorium

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

May