Iconclast

[amari_z]

I keep forgetting to post this:


I don't make graphics and I have only the faintest idea of how people who actually know what they're doing make icons (I just push buttons until it looks square), but I thought I would pass along this link. And, also, see this older article from the Wall Street Journal.

Basically, Getty Images seems to be using software to scour the web for sites using their pictures without licenses. (Apparently this is not a new development, although the aggressive tactics Getty is now employing appear to be.)

I admit that I've never really given much thought to where iconmakers who make all the lovely images I gleefully save for use on my LJ get their source pictures, but it appears that a lot of these images do come from places like Getty Images and Corbis. (From what I understand, these sites post images that you can download and use if you pay to license them, but it looks like people download and use the sample images without buying a license.) While I have not heard anything suggesting that Getty or any other company has contacted anyone for posting something on LJ (although I haven't exactly looked that hard) people with blogs have been contacted by Getty--not about userpics, but about images posted in the blog, i.e., here). But I should stress I HAVE NO IDEA if whatever software they are using to search for usages of their pictures would pick up things on LJ, much less userpics.

Nevertheless, this has made me paranoid enough to begin to go through my userpics and replace them with pictures I believe I know are not from one of these licensing sources. It's a pretty impossible task, since even if I can find the post where I got the icon, it's rarely clear where exactly the iconmaker got the picture, so most of my icons are going into a "do not use" folder. And right now I'm assuming that all icons from tv shows/movies are screencaps and are not from these types of sources--which for all I know is wrong.

I don't hang out in graphics-type places, but since I haven't seen any mention of this on LJ, I though I'd pass it on. Make of it as you will. But if you do make icons and you want even the paranoid-minded to enjoy them, you might want to be clear on the exact source of a picture you've used. A lot of icons merely link to a list of sources (which usually includes Getty and Corbis), and, I, personally, am now avoiding those icons--no matter how pretty and shiny they are. :(

If I've gotten something wrong here, let me know. (But I don't really want to get into a discussion of morality of copyright issues per se, since, well, I write fanfiction and there's no higher ground here, only prudence. Nor am I all that interested in getting into the issue of fair use, but I will discuss if you want.)

Comments

[shelley-stone.livejournal.com]

I am in agreement with you on the icons. It is better to be safe than sorry. Unfortunately, even though we may not agree with Getty Images and their rabid approach, they do have copyright so the law is on their side. Since I'm not wealthy enough to battle Goliath I'll take the safe road.

We have a whole issue, here in Canada, about copyright. I work at a library, and technically people cannot photocopy from text books or government documents. However, reality is..... and I certainly don't play copyright police person.

Shelley

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

They certainly have the right to protect their copyrights, it's their tactics that make them piggish. Since, after all, this is a hobby, meant to be fun, I don't need the anxiety, so yeah, paranoia all the way.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

I've heard this before, and every once in a while it goes around LJ. I wouldn't worry too much. And you know, it's not like anyone's using them for profit. All of my movie icons are taken from screen caps which I then save in a folder that's on my hard drive....so it's not like I'm out there selling them or something.

I as well write fanfiction - and thus preface each piece with a "not mine, don't sue" thing. *shrug* I wouldn't worry too much.

How's your day been?

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

Profit doesn't really matter; it's still a copyright violation. The difference for me comes down to the fact that currently media holders such as movie studios are basically ignoring nonprofit fan activity (or when they don't, sending cease and desist letters). With this Getty thing, they are actually sending out bills. If they're truly bent on pursuing you, then you can either pay or then be harassed by them, potentially be turned over to a collection agency and potentially end up in court. If you go to court, and you have used their image even without profit, you don't have much of a defense--and even if you win, well, I do that for a living and I can tell you I certainly don't want to end up in a lawsuit, and definitely not as a defendant even if on the winning side. It is probably nothing to worry about, but I am a paranoid person, and therefore no Getty images for me.

Until and only if movie studios decide to piss off their fanbase, you and I are probably fairly safe with screencaps and fanfiction--for Getty and its ilk it's different. They're more like the record companies in that rather than viewing fan activity boasting their publicity, they view each use of their pictures by non-payers as hurting them.

My day? Sooo unproductive. Hope you are feeling better.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

And that, my friend, is the most boorish and stupid way to spend time and money I've ever heard of. *spits*

I'm okay. I'm going to eat something and then collapse again.

Did I mention I love TH White's L? He's such an emo mopey bastard! I love him. *squee*

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

There's corporate America for you.

White's L is awesome. I love how he took that pseudonym Malory!L uses, reinterprets it and totally runs with it. (It's fanfiction!) And what a difference from movie!L. :p

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

Totally. That book was how I was introduced to Lancelot - the White book and Steinbeck's version. Have you ever read it? Fantastic.

I do love White's version. I may have to fic him later.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

I did read Steinbeck, but my memory of it was pretty much that it's a fairly straight retelling of Malory--but maybe I'm misremembering. I read every single version of the myths in the library myths and legend section as a kid, and get mixed up.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

It is pretty straight forward, but when I was eight, Malory was hard to understand. I just liked his characterizations a lot.

I haven't read White since I was about 12, so it's really fun to rediscover him.

I like that icon, too. Lancelot and one of the four Queens?

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

Actually, believe or not, it's Arthur and the Lady of the Lake. I did make an icon of Beardsley's Lancelot asleep with the four queens, but it's not loaded right now. This one is Lancelot and Hellawes. I love Beardsley, and it reminds me of my childhood meanderings, since one of the versions I read had his illos.

I haven't read White in ages, but I used to reread it so much, I think I still remember it pretty well. I'll admit, though, that the first part, the sword in the stone, didn't hold my interest much--it's always been Lancelot.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

I'm not really familiar with that artist - but I like the icons you've used with his work. I'll have to check them out.

I always liked the love triangle the best when I was young. However, as I've grown older, I'm more entranced with Lancelot and Arthur's relationship - not just the slash element, so hush - and I really like different people's interpretations of it. The Arthur I love the best now is Cornwell's. Fantastic. And I would guess I'm still fascinated so much with Lancelot is because I am so like Arthur in a way - I'm drawn to L, same as A was.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

He's an interesting artist--died at the age of 25 around 1898 or so. If you hunt him up, be careful since he also did some fairly obscene art (which I can't say appeals to me). Very shocking for his day!

As a kid, I liked the Arthur stories despite the love triangle. I liked the idea of noble suffering and all that, but the fact that they acted on it didn't work for me. I had far less problem with the Tris triangle, since Mark was such an unappealing character, and I think also because Tris and Is fell in love (if you can call drinking a love potion that) before she marries Mark and well, also, love potion. The whole slash thing didn't occur to me until far later--not exactly sure when. I think I liked L (and Tris and Gareth) because they went out and had adventures. Arthur, not so much, since he had to sit up on dias and just be king most of the time.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

25 is young. And I did look him up - I've seen some of those things before. I'm a huge fan of Alphonse Mucha, who's very art deco but kind of reminds me of this art too.

I've seen some of the obscene stuff. It's funny but I like the Malory art much better. Beautiful.

My true obsession with King Arthur grew recently - although I loved the tales as a child. My favorite stories as a kid were Grimm's Fairy Tales - my German ancestors were actually the first ones to publish them in bound format. :) Pretty cool.

I've been to Glastonbury and Salisbury and was entranced and haunted by how old and powerful the places are. Regardless of who Arthur was, you can feel the presence of the myth there at least.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

: ) I think I've forgotten more than four times as much stuff about the legend as I remember now. I loved mythology and legends as a kid--Arthur, Robin Hood, Norse, Greek and Egyptian mythology, you name it. Back then, I knew every single story backward and forward.

I did read fairy tales as well, but not quite as obsessively. So books are in your blood, huh? :p

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

When I was in 4th Grade at a private school my mother taught a class to us on Norse and Greek mythology. I've been interested ever since. :p Aside from the "Argo" factor. *laughs*

Did you have The D'Aulaires Book of Greek Myths when you were a kid? God, I still love that book.

And yes, I am/was a tad Fairy Tale obsessed. *g*

And another thing about books in my family - are you familiar with the movie/book Enchanted April? My great-great-great-great something Aunt/Cousin (some relation :p) Elizabeth Von Arnim wrote that. My mother's family is the Von Arnim's - which they shortened to Arnim coming to the US. That's her maiden name.

/boring.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

The book doesn't ring a bell, but then again, I'm growing senile.

Such a famous family. : )

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

Uh...not. *laughs*

I'll have to send you a copy. I think you'd really love it.

[darklyscarlett.livejournal.com]

From what I know, they can sue you for copyright infringement for displaying an unaltered image (such as footie picspam from matches and training sessions, which is why all the smart photo posts are flocked). Tweaking stuff with graphic design software, etc, leaves you with a bit of a loophole, since once an image has been altered, it's very hard to prove the source (unless the source is unequivocally singular, say, artwork only available on the artist's own website).

I think you're safe with your stash of 100x100 images.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

That's probably true for the most part--except that I'm be wary of relying on the idea that alteration makes you safe. Even if at the end of the day they can't prove you used their image, that doesn't stop them from suing you, it just means that they might not win. I don't know anything about it, but there has also been some discussion of getty and other companies being able to identify their images based on something invisible embedded in the image--a digital watermark--that will survive even if you alter the image. It's that digital mark that the scanning software looks for, and they do seem to be able to identify images that have been altered in a webdesign. So who knows?