>From what I've read in the "comments" sections related to this issue, she does
>not need publicity - she receives a very high number of viewers already. As I
>understand it, she did not post high resolution images; however, I am sure we
>are all aware of how good some 'upsampleing' software is and, the company in
>question apparently 'prints on canvass' so, how much resolution do you need
>for that?
As far as copyright goes: aren't we all aware that copyright automatically
resides with the photographer of an image? I read through the comments on the
Flickr site before it was deleted: not only were multiple images of hers taken
and used without her consent, but, the ownership was attributed to another
person: and when the company in question was called on this, they removed the
images belonging to Rebekka and then re-branded the other images that had been
under the same name used for Rebekka's images with another name. To me, that
pretty clearly shows intent.
In any case, it certainly was a crime that her images were stolen and sold
without her consent, with the profits going to someone she does not even know.
That is pretty much the bottom line. I think it is particularly hard on her
because she has two young sons and is currently a student; she hasn't come out
and said it but I am sure that the money which her images generated for someone
else would have paid for some basic necessities for her children. Her images
are really good, and it is obvious that they are not the sort of photographs
one casually shoots: it looks to me like lots of time and thought and probably
some hard effort went into just getting in position to take them. So, it really
is a sad situation overall.
In any event, I am certainly not going to be one to 'blame the victim'. I
looked through the photographs she has posted, and I really enjoyed the
opportunity to see Iceland through the eyes of a talented photographer who
lives there. It is nice that she has been sharing this with other people and it
really is a crime that someone took advantage of that so they could make some
easy money from someone else's efforts.
John M.
>>>><<<<
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ali Shah <alizookoman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: Stolen images for sale on eBay
Could be a publicity stunt on her part. You never know
these days. There are cases of stolen images but
nothing like this.
> I guess what amazes me is why she would place the
> full-sized images
> out there. What do you expect? In essence, without
> a copyright
> notice of some form with the images, she placed the
> images into the
> "public domain".
>
> AG
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|