Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now

Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now

Richard Prince, art thief

Richard Prince is not an artist, he’s a con-artist.

Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK

How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets?  Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.”  Then ask them what they did about it.  The answer will likely be, “nothing.”

Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others.   Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print.  Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.

Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission.  As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”

So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud?  Well, not really. You see, quite simply,  Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.

Prince’s scam, disguised as art, is nothing new.  Over his career he’s developed a reputation as a serial thief and has ended up in court before. Two years ago he prevailed (partially) on appeal in a suit brought by photographer Patrick Cariou who claimed copyright infringement when Prince produced a series of photographs based on Cariou’s  work.  Ultimately a settlement was reached.

For his part Prince purports not to care much about copyright, telling Russhumazine.com:

…sometimes it’s better not to be successful and well known and you can get away with much more. I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.

Why should he care?  With millions in the bank Prince can afford not to.  Does his past legal success mean he’d win this round?  Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out since filing a lawsuit costs mega money–money that most everyday creators don’t have.

Doe Deere, one of the Instagram artists whose work was stolen, posted this response on the social media site aside the photo Prince filched:

Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! ? #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture

Once again we’re left with a scenario where a rich charlatan can get away with stealing from the little guy.

It’s a scenario that’s played out many times.  We’ve witnessed similar rip-offs by corporate interests that routinely steal the work of artists.  Sam Levin wrote an expose for the East Bay Express last year documenting the ways in which artists are routinely victimized by such theft:

Visual artists and designers throughout the Bay Area and across the country are, at alarming rates, facing copyright infringements from large retail and wholesale companies stealing their intellectual property for their own products and profit. As artists increasingly promote their work and crafts online — through Etsy or their own websites and Facebook pages — corporations are stealing their designs and mass-producing them for sale.

Here too, an artist whose work is stolen has little recourse when it comes to fighting back.  Even if they do, Levin points out that any settlement is likely to be paltry and include a non-disclosure agreement, thereby shielding the thief from any negative public shaming.

The time has come for Congress to establish a small claims court for copyright

Perhaps the time has come to get serious about establishing a copyright small claims court. It’s an idea the U.S. Copyright Office spent several years studying. A report summarizing its findings was sent to Congress in September of 2013.  It outlined potential bureaucratic hurdles and ultimately recommended “the creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to be administered by the Copyright Office.”  In any case, the report’s findings reinforce the need for some type of action on this issue.  From the introduction:

While infringement is nothing new when it comes to the world of creative works, there is no question that it has proliferated with the ascendance of digital culture and the unprecedented desire for content. Today it is not only easy to make unauthorized copies, but to do so at virtually no cost, much to the detriment of authors and the market for their works. …Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, as the rate of infringement has increased, so too have the barriers to pursuing copyright claims in the federal courts. These barriers are largely practical: federal litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and therefore out of reach for many copyright owners…If exclusive rights are unenforceable, they are weakened as the pillars of the copyright law, and public respect for our nation’s creativity is eroded in turn.

Other documentation gathered for the report included this startling nugget:.

In fact, one recent survey found that, as of 2011, the median cost for litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk was $350,000.

More analysis of the report can be found by Jonathan Bailey’s post on  Plagiarism Today.

Yet here we are.  More than a year and a half has passed since the Copyright Office published its recommendations, Congress has yet to act.  I realize the wheels of progress move at a glacial pass in Washington, and there are other copyright-related issues being bandied about, but let’s hope this idea will move to the front burner soon.

Bottom line, establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit.  Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.

Prince can afford to go to court.  The Instagram users he stole from cannot.  There has got to be a better way don’t you think?

 

Update 5/29/15:  I think this article by posted at fstoppers.com is a good overview of the copyright issues involved: The Latest Richard Prince Controversy, Clarified by Patent and Copyright Attorney John Arsenault

Etsy uses DMCA “safe harbor” to protect photography pirates

Etsy uses DMCA “safe harbor” to protect photography pirates

etsy_pirates

The DMCA Protects Thieves at the Expense of Creators

Photographer Daniel Foster has written a great post on petapixel.com in which he documents (once again) how creators–in this instance photographers–are at a real disadvantage when it comes to protecting their work from online thieves.  In his piece, “Is Etsy the New Silk Road for Copyright Infringement?” Foster explains how Etsy (an e-commerce site where users can sell hand-made and vintage merchandise) looks the other way when it comes to cracking down on copyright abuse.

Etsy is selling thousands of stolen photos and doesn’t seem to care. Their system lets sellers hide their contact information, and Etsy will not disclose the identities of sellers stealing work even after being presented with clear evidence.

Etsy is in essence the new Silk Road for copyright infringement

Foster arrives at this conclusion after discovering an Etsy entrepreneur was using one of his photographs on mouse pad she was selling.  After wending his way through the legal maze that is the DMCA process, and successfully having the infringing item removed from Etsy, Foster wanted to go a step further.  He wanted to contact the seller who was, apparently, offering numerous other products that include stolen photographs.  Foster notes, “…she seems to be stealing thousands of photos from other photographers, and Etsy is letting her get away with it.”  The seller, Kharma Lu, was selling her products as “Liilproducts” and offered no contact information.  While Etsy removed the infringing mousepad, it refused to provide Foster with any additional information regarding the seller, saying it would do so only if a subpoena is issued.

This is the same problem that arises when a copyright holder receives a false counter-notice, say on YouTube.  YouTube will repost the infringing content and the rights holders are forced to go to court to enforce their rights.  We constantly hear about DMCA abuse, but no one mentions the fact that the DMCA process is tilted in favor of thieves as ultimately those without the deep pockets required to go to court cannot enforce (valid) claims.

Fosters summarized his frustrations this way:

In order to simply find out who is stealing my photo, I would have to a) hire an attorney, b) go to court and c) request a subpoena for Etsy. Assuming Etsy did not challenge the subpoena, it would cost at least $3,000- $5,000 just to get Kharma Lu’s address.

LiilProducts’ shop is still active, even after I reported the copyright infringement to Etsy. Kharma Lu appears to have gotten away scot-free thanks to Etsy’s protection. This just isn’t right.

Etsy, of course, is not alone in its response.  YouTube, or any other site profiting off stolen content, will cite the DMCA and refuse to provide contact information for its users, even when they are clearly violating the law.  These sites do nothing to ensure that its users comply with copyright law prior to uploading or sharing content.  The DMCA does provide web hosts with this glaring loophole thanks to its “safe harbor” provision.   As explained on the Google-funded Chilling Effects website:

The safe harbor provisions permit a copyright owner to subpoena the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for the infringing activities. [512(h)] Such a subpoena is granted on the condition that the information about the individual’s identity will only be used in relation to the protection of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner. [512(h)(2)(C)]

Until the law is changed creators are stuck with this scenario.  I suggest you read Foster’s full piece here to get the full picture as to how this can impact individual creators.  His narrative provides just one more example of an online eco-system where the rights of creators are subsumed by the rights of thieves.  I should note that Foster has also recently founded  PIXSY, a much-needed service that promises to help photographers safeguard their work against copyright infringement.  You can find out more about Pixy here.

Note: When I checked LiilProducts page on Etsy this morning it seems that Foster may have (indirectly) gotten his wish.  According to the site, “Liilproducts is taking a short break.” 🙂Screen Shot 2014-10-06 at 10.50.55 AM

 

Digital Damage – Women up for Grabs

Digital Damage – Women up for Grabs

Vanity_Fair_Hollywood_Issue

Reddit and Vanity Fair are both owned by Condé Nast

The Internet’s dark side, how much is enough?

The recent theft and online release of a number of female celebrities’ private photographs is only the most recent link in a chain of online abuse that stretches across the globe. In this instance, the only reason it grabbed headlines and gained its own juvenile hashtag (#Fappening2014) was because the victim list was a who’s who of high-profile Hollywood actresses.  Some characterized the release of the stolen photos as being an isolated incident, a product of the dark recesses of the Internet, of a lone sick-o hacker. If only that were true. The sad fact is that women (and men) are subjected to online attacks like this everyday.

This type of digital damage, a form of virtual sexual assault, a type of revenge porn, needs to be seen for what it is–a crime.  Unfortunately it’s one that, more often than not, goes unpunished.  Most women (and men) who are victimized by these networks of anonymous cowards don’t have the resources to fight back.  Even when they do–as in the case of Jennifer Lawrence, this episode’s most prominent victim–mechanisms to combat this type of digital abuse are limited.  The FBI claims to be investigating, but what are its agents doing about the not-so-famous women whose photos end up shared and used as click-bait on seamy forums (and sub-forums) hosted by sites like Reddit?  Do victims of these crimes have any options to fight back?

In the short term Lawrence and the hacker’s other victims are employing the only tool available to them, the tired old DMCA notice.  The DMCA allows copyright holders to demand that content removed from a hosting website by claiming copyright infringement.  Of course, only sites beholden to U.S. law are obligated to remove “infringing” content and most of the sites that traffic in stolen content are hosted offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law.

In the past Reddit, owned by publishing giant Condé Nast, often deflected DMCA notices, instead advising senders to contact the actual host of the link to request takedowns.  Yet in the wake of this latest onslaught, site administrators have changed their tune.  Why now?  Why are stolen nude selfies of famous actresses more worthy than similar images stolen (and posted) from private citizens?  I also wonder how receptive these actresses will be next time Vanity Fair comes a calling for them to do their annual Hollywood issue? Could that have influenced Reddit’s decision-making?

Reddit administrators of course made no mention of Condé Nast’s corporate interests in explaining their decision to disable the /r/TheFappening (hacked image thread) and related subreddits:

These subreddits were of course the focal point for the sharing of these stolen photos. The images which were DMCAd were continually being reposted constantly on the subreddit. We would takedown images (thumbnails) in response to those DMCAs, but it quickly devolved into a game of whack-a-mole. We’d execute a takedown, someone would adjust, reupload, and then repeat. This same practice was occurring with the underage photos, requiring our constant intervention. The mods were doing their best to keep things under control and in line with the site rules, but problems were still constantly overflowing back to us. Additionally, many nefarious parties recognized the popularity of these images, and started spamming them in various ways and attempting to infect or scam users viewing them. It became obvious that we were either going to have to watch these subreddits constantly, or shut them down. We chose the latter. It’s obviously not going to solve the problem entirely, but it will at least mitigate the constant issues we were facing. This was an extreme circumstance, and we used the best judgement we could in response.

As of now, this explanatory post on Reddit has more than 9,o00 responses, pro and con. In another blog post on the issue that featured a lofty headline, “Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul” a Reddit administrator named Yishan explained their reasoning this way.

While current US law does not prohibit linking to stolen materials, we deplore the theft of these images and we do not condone their widespread distribution.  Nevertheless, reddit’s platform is structurally based on the ability for people to distribute, promote, and highlight textual materials as well as links to images and other media. We understand the harm that misusing our site does to the victims of this theft, and we deeply sympathize. Having said that, we are unlikely to make changes to our existing site content policies in response to this specific event.
The reason is because we consider ourselves not just a company running a website where one can post links and discuss them, but the government of a new type of community. The role and responsibility of a government differs from that of a private corporation, in that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers.

So, hands off until really, really famous people are involved?   Only “change our content policies” when people can afford to hire legal representation with teeth?  Reddit operators claim that above all else, they are in the business of protecting “free speech.”  That is, apparently, until said “free speech” gets them in hot water and attracts unwanted scrutiny.  Timothy B. Lee explored this contradiction in a post on Vox, “Why Reddit just banned a community devoted to sharing celebrity nudes”:

Reddit critics also accuse the site of being unduly influenced by media attention. For example, Reddit used to have a subreddit called /r/jailbait that — unsurprisingly — attracted pornographic images of underage women. It was popular enough to win a “subreddit of the year” vote in 2008. It was shut down only after it was the subject of unflattering coverage on CNN. Reddit also banned a subreddit called /r/creepshots, dedicated to “upskirt” photographs, after a Gawker expose on its founder. But other subreddits with equally disturbing content but less media attention remain open for business.

It’s important to note that Reddit’s “business” is ad-based.  And,  like so many enterprises on the web, attracting users by offering access to tainted goods.  T.C. Sottek writing for The Verge pulls no punches, characterizes Reddit as a “failed state:”

…Reddit feels really bad that your stolen nude photos are being shared all over its website, but won’t do anything about it unless you’re privileged enough to understand the copyright system or able to afford a lawyer who does. And unlike (many) governments, Reddit has profit motives — it makes money when people share nude photos because men are pervs and there’s a huge audience out there for naked women, perhaps especially for naked women who haven’t given us consent to share their bodies.

…If Reddit wants to be thought of as a government, we’ll call it what it is: a failed state, unable to control what happens within its borders. At minimum, Reddit is a kleptocracy that speaks to lofty virtues while profiting from vice. It might be forgivable if we were talking about taxing cigarettes and booze, but we’re not talking about that. What we’re talking about is more like sexual assault, condoned by a state that earns revenue from it. “Reddit doesn’t have much of an interest in banning questionable content,” Wong wrote last year. “‘Family-friendly’ is out, ‘edgy’ is in.” Are those the words of a president, or a pimp?

Yishan‘s pompous post offers the notion that Reddit should be thought of as “the government of a new type of community…that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers,”  Of course those lofty, utopian guiding principles are quickly abandoned when bad publicity threatens to undermine the site’s net-worth. Funny how quickly the illusion of (ill-conceived) idealism can be shattered by cold, hard cash. The truth is that Reddit’s days as a freewheeling cesspool may be numbered if hopes to succeed with efforts to transform itself into a larger (legitimate) moneymaking enterprise. As  Mike Issac  explains in a piece for today’s New York Times:

…The site has lately redoubled its efforts to become a thriving, profitable business, stepping up its advertising efforts and going on a hiring spree.

“The Achilles’ heel for a lot of these sites is that their plans to monetize themselves often directly affect how they structure their platforms,” said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy advocacy group.

Reddit is also reportedly in the process of raising more than $50 million in venture capital, according to the technology site Re/code, which could value the company at upward of half a billion dollars.

Reddit, then, may have to rethink its classic laissez-faire approach to content, especially if it wants to be courted by big-budget advertisers.

Reddit online sewerWhile market influences may be one factor in influencing a limited clean up of websites like Reddit, isn’t it time to ask whether our laws need to be updated to better manage this type of online crime?  Free speech is often touted as the reason we must allow these sites to exist (and thrive) often at the expense of victims not as well known as Jennifer Lawrence.   Yet theft and dissemination of stolen photographs is not speech, it’s abuse, and it’s time to acknowledge as much. Free speech absolutists, like Reddit’s operators, argue that any push back would stifle “innovation,” but what’s really innovative about sharing stolen selfies?

While it’s impossible to scrub the web of seedy threads like those on Reddit, can’t we at least try to make progress in limiting the damage?  If sites like Reddit take pride in being user-driven, why not put more legal liability on those users? Also, why not put more pressure on parent companies like Condé Nast to stem this illegal and abusive behavior on its properties?

Supporting and sustaining a healthy Internet and ridding it of abusive and illegal content need not be mutually exclusive.  At the very least lawmakers at the federal level should confront this issue as some of their state counterparts have done in enacting laws against “revenge porn.”

 

 

 

How to Ensure Your Watermarks are Secure

How to Ensure Your Watermarks are Secure

How to Ensure Your Watermarks are Secure (via Plagiarism Today)

Historically, putting a visual watermark on an image has been something of a trade off. In exchange for harming some of the aesthetics of an image, the photographer can rest reasonably assured that it will be more difficult to misuse the image and that, if it is copied, it will carry with it their information.

This has been especially true of watermarks that were prominent and located at or near the center of the work, where they can’t easily be cropped off. Though such watermarks can be removed, the process historically has been difficult and has left behind less-than-optimal results.

But technology, as it is wont to do, has marched on and a spate of new tools claim to make it trivial to remove watermarks from images. Though many of these tools were not designed with watermarks in mind, they instead focus on removing other unwanted elements in a photo such as extra people or cars, they’re usefulness for removing watermarks has certainly not gone unnoticed.

So how does a photographer or artist prevent their watermarks from being easily removed? It turns out that much of the traditional advice is still valid though there are a few new things to look out for…

To read full story go to Plagiarism Today.