Scanning is Theft

[The Noir Dude]

I have created a Facebook page to highlight the problem of copyright theft by the scanning of images. The idea is it to try and get as many photographers as possible to join, so their friends will see the link, maybe view the page and realise that they could be breaking the law. Many people will scan images knowing they are breaking the law and won't care, but very many also believe because they have bought a picture they have bought the rights to do what they want with it. I'm just trying to think of a way to raise the public awareness.

Please feel free to join if you wish

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120466621333069&v=wall

 

[onomatopoeia]

I have created a Facebook page to highlight the problem of copyright theft by the scanning of images.

The word "theft" is very clearly defined in law and the definition is narrow. Explain how scanning an image is theft under the terms of the Theft Act.

The only way I can see it is if the person doing the scanning attempts to claim copyright on the result (although there are some that would argue the scan constitutes a hybrid work so both parties have copyright).

 

[The Noir Dude]

As a professional photographer I am fed up of hundreds of people scanning in my images and putting them on Facebook, or selling to their mates without paying for the right to do it. I'm also annoyed without the processing companies in the high street or on-line that will scan my images then print them out and charge for it. Therefore making money from my images.

I recently photographed a presentation night for a local skittles league. I popped into a pub one night to find one guy selling copies to other players. When asked him what he was doing he said he wanted to raise some beer money for the team!!!


Regardless of the terminology, it's theft in my, and all of my other colleagues books.

 

[Skyline On Fire]

I think your "tagline", the whole "scanning is theft" is a tad excessive. It's putting all scanning in the same bracket. Now of course, someone scanning your work then selling it themselves is completely wrong. But scanning a newspaper article to show a friend, or scanning a photograph you've paid for to have a digital copy, nothing wrong with either of those examples, but they are included in your "scanning is theft" bracket. I think detailing what you mean, would be more beneficial to your cause, than a catchphrase as open ended as scanning is theft.

Just my two cents.

 

[munch]

I am just about to embark on a weekend of scanning photographs according to the thread tittle this is theft. Not so, as all the photographs have been taken by me or my wife. Even if they were not my photographs it would not be theft.

 

[SK617]

Actually, I'm with the noir dude here.
I kow exactly where he is coming from as demonstrated at a prom 2 weeks ago.

Her: hi can I get get a photo with all 10 of us in it?
Me: sure no problem, just to let you know, at least 50% of you have to buy the image.
her: why? we only want one copy, i'll scan it for the rest of them.
Me: (politely) I'm sorry, in that case I wont take the photo.
Her: why not, you're still selling one copy
me: (still politely) yes, but I'm losing out on another 9, and you are effectivley stealing the image
Her: well can we use the backdrop then?

at this point i called over the member of staff who was looking after our area, and let them explain.
The problem is that people think it is fine to just scan a photo, and save their mates some money.
I know that my images will be scanned and put on FB, thats why I insist on groups paying, or no photo!

 

[The Noir Dude]

or scanning a photograph you've paid for to have a digital copy, nothing wrong.

Excessive to get the point to the unknowing public, and obviously some photographers

This example is against the copyright law. It doesn't have to be for financial gain to be against the law.

 

[cambsno]

While in theory you are right, in the real world I think its a waste of time. True, some people are probably not aware of the copyright of pics but most people will copy it as they dont want to pay. We all copied the songs off radio1 when we were kids onto tape, people now download music/films etc... for free. So many people buy fake stuff online... Not saying its right or wrong, but thats the way things are.

I have not got a clue if any of my customers have scanned in pics themselves and guess in most cases I will never know. While people dont mind paying money for a professionally printed image (as the quality is much better than Tesco) I guess that scanning in a picture for FB is dead easy. Maybe people feel they are paying twice?

I think rather than try to raise awareness for something that people will take no notice of, you need to look at ways you can incentivise people to pay for a small FB image - maybe stick a couple of quid on each print price and give a free small jpg?

Hand on heart, have you NEVER done anything wrong, like downloading or copying something?

 

[Skyline On Fire]

I am just about to embark on a weekend of scanning photographs according to the thread tittle this is theft. Not so, as all the photographs have been taken by me or my wife. Even if they were not my photographs it would not be theft.

Exactly my issue with your "group"

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

I am just about to embark on a weekend of scanning photographs according to the thread tittle this is theft. Not so, as all the photographs have been taken by me or my wife. Even if they were not my photographs it would not be theft.

If they were taken by your wife and you scanned them and sold them then yes it would be theft, theft from your wife, unless of course you had written permission from your wife.

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

Just to clear things up regarding theft......Theft Act 1968 defines theft as:-

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Doesnt apply in this case as they are not permanently depriving etc etc etc

HOWEVER, the legal definition of something and how people percieve something in day to day life is completely different. How many times have people said "We've been robbed" when they were actually the victim of burglary - 2 entirely different offences.

I think the OP is using the tag line "Scanning is theft" no differently to headline writers at a newspaper and for one dont see what the problem is to be honest!!

I think the tag line "Scanning is theft - in certain circumstances" doesnt quite have the same impact!!

Regards

Neil

 

[The Noir Dude]

I offer Facebook size files on my website for £2 plus VAT.

 

[Skyline On Fire]

Excessive to get the point to the unknowing public, and obviously some photographers

This example is against the copyright law. It doesn't have to be for financial gain to be against the law.

Ever listened to music on youtube? Broke copyright law.

Ever watched a TV show or movie online? Broke copyright law.

Ever posted an article, partially or in full, on a forum etc? Broke copyright law.

I could go on. Copyright laws are there for a reason yes. But to persecute people for every single thing that goes against these outdated laws, would be insane. Yes someone scanning and reselling your images is wrong, both morally and legally. But someone who brought one of your photos, and wants to send a copy to their great aunt Edna in Siberia, just for the family scrapbook, that's hardly "morally wrong" is it.

Common sense should be applied here.

 

[Coaster]

The definition of theft: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

So, it certainly isn't theft but it is breach of copyright and you could take legal action against anyone copying your work.

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Ever listened to music on youtube? Broke copyright law.

Ever watched a TV show or movie online? Broke copyright law.

Ever posted an article, partially or in full, on a forum etc? Broke copyright law.

I could go on. Copyright laws are there for a reason yes. But to persecute people for every single thing that goes against these outdated laws, would be insane. Yes someone scanning and reselling your images is wrong, both morally and legally. But someone who brought one of your photos, and wants to send a copy to their great aunt Edna in Siberia, just for the family scrapbook, that's hardly "morally wrong" is it.

Common sense should be applied here.

I think you are slightly mixed up somewhere, listening to music on youtube or watching an online tv station is not theft in anyway or breaking copyright law, for one simple reason, they are sites dedicated to showing that material usually by the person or affiliated persons who created it, if they were breaking the law then the sites would be shut down minutes after they were created or someone would have taken them to court.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Just to clear things up regarding theft......Theft Act 1968 defines theft as:-

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Doesnt apply in this case as they are not permanently depriving etc etc etc

Which is why I said Theft is very clearly defined in law and asked the OP to explain how it was theft.

This hasn't happened so far, although a lot of people have complained about copyright violations.

 

[Canon Bob]

..... I'm just trying to think of a way to raise the public awareness.

Why not start legal proceedings against the guy that had scanned your image to raise beer money?
It would highlight that pro-togs are serious about this issue and the final outcome, if publicised, could serve as a warning to other would be "thieves".

Bob

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

I think your "tagline", the whole "scanning is theft" is a tad excessive. It's putting all scanning in the same bracket.

Ever watched a TV show or movie online? Broke copyright law.

I think your statement "Ever watched a TV show or movie online? Broke copyright law." is a tad excessive. It's putting all online TV viewing in the same bracket.........

BBC Iplayer anyone?

Neil

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

Which is why I said Theft is very clearly defined in law and asked the OP to explain how it was theft.

This hasn't happened so far, although a lot of people have complained about copyright violations.

I hardly think its fair to quote part of my post without also quoting the rest of it which I think explains the OP's usage.....

"HOWEVER, the legal definition of something and how people percieve something in day to day life is completely different. How many times have people said "We've been robbed" when they were actually the victim of burglary - 2 entirely different offences.

I think the OP is using the tag line "Scanning is theft" no differently to headline writers at a newspaper and for one dont see what the problem is to be honest!"

Neil

 

[itsdavedotnet]

I can see entirely where you're coming from, costs me a lot of event sales too (getting better and better at combatting it with pricing, but still...), but the tagline reminds me a bit of this (click for some 1990's flashback...)



or

 

[The Noir Dude]

But someone who brought one of your photos, and wants to send a copy to their great aunt Edna in Siberia, just for the family scrapbook, that's hardly "morally wrong" is it.

The odd one could be ok, but how are we to know what they are going to be used for? What if Aunt Edna then sent it on for some other reason?

If Aunt Edna loved Mel Gibson would you go to the cinema and take a photo on your phone and text it to her?? If so, the penalty is pretty severe.

This is my livelihood, not a hobby.

 

[Skyline On Fire]

The odd one could be ok, but how are we to know what they are going to be used for? What if Aunt Edna then sent it on for some other reason?

If Aunt Edna loved Mel Gibson would you go to the cinema and take a photo on your phone and text it to her?? If so, the penalty is pretty severe.

This is my livelihood, not a hobby.

Well aware of that, that's why I have every sympathy for you when people are re-selling your images. But If/when I ever make it in Photography to the extent I can make a living out of it, I'm not going to lose sleep over someone scanning a photograph I sold them, for personal use.

I do understand your point and I do sympathize with you. I just think the tagline is a little harsh.

 

[Lynton]

just playing Devil's advocate here................ and probably speaking out of turn.........

say you as a professional tog go and shoot some pics at the school prom night (I'll gloss over the "arrogance" of "if 5 of you don't promise to buy the image then I'm not taking the photo" - but will return to it later.)..... yes I understand that the photographer retains copyright of the images, but just what do you plan on doing with it? The photo has no commercial value whatsoever. There is also, more than likely nothing newsworthy about the image.

Summer 2010 - I reckon I can get just about any image into a digital format in a matter of minutes.........also pretty much I could, if I wanted probably find pretty much any album you could think of and from various Torrentz sites download it in minutes.........:shrug:

As an amateur I really don't see why not sell the pics with full copyright - after all you know / we know they'll more than likely be copied anyways......

Surely better to be a friendly happy togger with plenty of business cards and if your work is up to it, who knows what business it could generate in the future??????


Back to the comment of "5 of you need to buy it for me to take it." What a ludicrous suggestion........ I assume they walked away - as for all they know the pic could have been crap?????? Who would agree to that demand?

 

[onomatopoeia]

I hardly think its fair to quote part of my post without also quoting the rest of it which I think explains the OP's usage.....

"HOWEVER, the legal definition of something and how people percieve something in day to day life is completely different. How many times have people said "We've been robbed" when they were actually the victim of burglary - 2 entirely different offences.

I think the OP is using the tag line "Scanning is theft" no differently to headline writers at a newspaper and for one dont see what the problem is to be honest!"

Neil

I've quoted the whole thing this time.

I see a problem. The problem is that the statement "scanning is theft" is simply untrue.

No-one scanning will be prosecuted for theft. Allowing "scanning is theft" to stand without correction will only serve to re-inforce people's completely unfounded and mistaken perceptions.

 

[Kaouthia]

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Doesnt apply in this case as they are not permanently depriving etc etc etc

Actually, they're permanently depriving the copyright holder of the money (s)he would've had, had the recipient actually paid for the image.

 

[mike weeks]

or scanning a photograph you've paid for to have a digital copy, nothing wrong with either of those examples

When photographers demonstrate this level of naivety then it shows how deep the problem goes - that is a copyright infringement and when it deprives a photographer of income I am one of those that considers it to be theft.

Mike

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

I've quoted the whole thing this time.

I see a problem. The problem is that the statement "scanning is theft" is simply untrue.

No-one scanning will be prosecuted for theft. Allowing "scanning is theft" to stand without correction will only serve to re-inforce people's completely unfounded and mistaken perceptions.

ok, ok what about "Identity Theft" that we hear so much about - thats not theft either but its a well known phrase!

How about if the OP changed the name to "Scanning is copyright infringment"?? as a compromise?

Neil

 

[mastertrinity]

Actually, I'm with the noir dude here.
I kow exactly where he is coming from as demonstrated at a prom 2 weeks ago.

Her: hi can I get get a photo with all 10 of us in it?
Me: sure no problem, just to let you know, at least 50% of you have to buy the image.
her: why? we only want one copy, i'll scan it for the rest of them.
Me: (politely) I'm sorry, in that case I wont take the photo.
Her: why not, you're still selling one copy
me: (still politely) yes, but I'm losing out on another 9, and you are effectivley stealing the image
Her: well can we use the backdrop then?

at this point i called over the member of staff who was looking after our area, and let them explain.
The problem is that people think it is fine to just scan a photo, and save their mates some money.
I know that my images will be scanned and put on FB, thats why I insist on groups paying, or no photo!

i know where your coming from!

about three weeks ago my high school had prom (i didn't go because i think proms are too american) and the next day hundreds of images were posted on facebook showing my friends in the suits and dresses all professionally photographed with a huge watermark going diagonally on the image!

i feel like telling them about what they are doing wrong but they will probably ignore my advice anyway...

 

[neil_g]

When photographers demonstrate this level of naivety then it shows how deep the problem goes - that is a copyright infringement and when it deprives a photographer of income I am one of those that considers it to be theft.

Mike

indeed mike, unfortunately like that thread over on horse and hound this topic displays some basic misunderstanding of copyright and im surprised (probably like you) that even some photographers have no grasp on it either.

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

Actually, they're permanently depriving the copyright holder of the money (s)he would've had, had the recipient actually paid for the image.

That doesnt work I'm afraid. The property which is appropriated has to be something tangible, ie if they took the actual printed photograph without paying then you have theft - if it did cover it we wouldnt need copyright laws.

Neil

 

[The Noir Dude]

No-one scanning will be prosecuted for theft. Allowing "scanning is theft" to stand without correction will only serve to re-inforce people's completely unfounded and mistaken perceptions.

Which precisely the reason for trying to conjure up a prevention strategy. "Scanning is Theft" is meant to stir the public into at least thinking twice about scanning a photograph, and being made aware that if they buy a print they can't just do as they please with it. If as many photographers, who cared, put the logo on their website, and I put a website together to explain what can and can't be scanned legally, we may at least educate people. This isn't about nailing the so and so's, it about making the public sit up and notice!!!

If you have reservations then fine. I have no hidden agenda, I thought I was doing something good!

Incidentally i have had several photographers ask for the logo.

 

[Kaouthia]

That doesnt work I'm afraid. The property which is appropriated has to be something tangible

Cash is tangible?

 

[neil_g]

i feel like telling them about what they are doing wrong but they will probably ignore my advice anyway...

report it to the tog, if it was me id reward you in some way.. they can then take it up with facebook.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I can see the car window stickers already

 

[onomatopoeia]

ok, ok what about "Identity Theft" that we hear so much about - thats not theft either but its a well known phrase!

How about if the OP changed the name to "Scanning is copyright infringment"?? as a compromise?

Neil

"Scanning is copyright infringement" is fine, because it is true.

I've had people use my (not very good, it must be said) photos without permission, so it is something I am familiar with. However since as an amateur I don't sell anything I was hardly going to pursue them for damages.

I don't like the term identity theft as that's not accurate, you aren't trying to permenantly deprive someone else of their identity because then you'd end up with their debts. "Fraud" seems better because it seems the person using the false identity is attempting to defraud another party by using the false identity, but I'm not sure it's even that in law without doing research. I'm a nerd for a living, not a lawyer.

 

[mike weeks]

and probably speaking out of turn.........

The photo has no commercial value whatsoever.

If it is good enough to steal then you have deprived somebody of income - thats the value

As an amateur I really don't see why not sell the pics with full copyright - after all you know / we know they'll more than likely be copied anyways......

As a professional you would appreciate when people actually pay you for what you do instead of stealing it

Surely better to be a friendly happy togger with plenty of business cards and if your work is up to it, who knows what business it could generate in the future??????

Usually none - your work was good enough to be stolen, why not paid for?

Back to the comment of "5 of you need to buy it for me to take it." What a ludicrous suggestion........ I assume they walked away - as for all they know the pic could have been crap?????? Who would agree to that demand?

Pretty much standard practice amongst event photographers and lots of people agree to it

Mike

 

[Kaouthia]

Pretty much standard practice amongst event photographers and lots of people agree to it

Indeed, my finger doesn't hit the shutter at events if they haven't already paid.

 

[Roadkill_6mm]

Cash is tangible?

but they're not stealing the actual cash!!!

A person is guilty of theft if.......

"he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

By scanning a picture you have not done the above, providing you've not stolen the original.

You have to have done EVERYTHING in the above definition to be guilty of an offence.

You have to appropriate property (steal something)
That property has to belong to someone else
You have to permanently deprive someone of it (not give it back/destroy it)

So, you buy a print - this is tangible property. You scan it - the copy is also tangible property but only in so much as the paper and ink used to print it - NOT the image on the paper.

The cash that could have been earned by photographer selling the image is not property in the definition of the theft act.

Copyright infringment as an offence does not fall within the above mentioned legal definition of theft as an offence - thats why we have copyright laws

Neil

 

[Kaouthia]

Somebody better tell the movie industry they're wrong.

[youtube]fS6ncGEyszc[/youtube]

 

[BigSoy]

Actually, I'm with the noir dude here.
I kow exactly where he is coming from as demonstrated at a prom 2 weeks ago.

Her: hi can I get get a photo with all 10 of us in it?
Me: sure no problem, just to let you know, at least 50% of you have to buy the image.
her: why? we only want one copy, i'll scan it for the rest of them.
Me: (politely) I'm sorry, in that case I wont take the photo.
Her: why not, you're still selling one copy
me: (still politely) yes, but I'm losing out on another 9, and you are effectivley stealing the image
Her: well can we use the backdrop then?

at this point i called over the member of staff who was looking after our area, and let them explain.
The problem is that people think it is fine to just scan a photo, and save their mates some money.
I know that my images will be scanned and put on FB, thats why I insist on groups paying, or no photo!

And how many copies did you sell on this occasion... oh, erm.... zero right?

I'd genuinely like to see what would happen to a photographer who flipped this issue upside it's head and used scanning/copying/fb'ing as fantastic free publicity and built their business on that basis.