Unfortunately I do not imagine that technology will ever create a universal standard in how images are viewed digitally. Unless everyone is using the same hardware that is all calibrated the same, we just have to hope for the best. I don’t think that even with common standards or calibration techniques will we find a $100 Acer monitor to look the same (better or worse) than a $5000 Flanders Scientific monitor. This will hold true with photography, video and any web content and is just one of those frustrating things we will always deal with.

But, in addition to destroying both of the packages I’ve sent through them recently, the company took the further step of refusing to honor their obligation to pay for their damage (which, of course, I paid extra to guarantee they would), without even bothering to provide an excuse.

Destroying two consecutive packages (not to mention then “losing” the second) is awful service and suggests grossly poor business practices – but, if one were to be charitable, could be chalked up to simply local shoddiness.

But refusing to pay for their damage? That’s corporate policy… and is why I’ll never choose to use FedEx again.

Saying “never, ever” use them is a bit over the top…like I said, I get you are upset, but perhaps it’s more indicative of your local distribution center and driver…I dunno.

In other words, if somebody used Vimeo’s sharing function to repost one of my timelapse videos somewhere then I wouldn’t mind a bit (because in posting the video to that site I’m saying that I’m intending for it to be shared); but if someone took that same video off of my website and re-posted it somewhere else? I wouldn’t be happy about that.

Do you think it’s any different, though, than posting a video you like (or don’t like) on Facebook or Twitter? You don’t contact the person who put it on Vimeo or YouTube and ask that you post it somewhere else, right? Those sites are just as publicly accessible as your site, right?

So, I guess in the case of just “sharing” works you find on the internet, is the need for permission expected or necessary?

I think in general the seriousness of the permission/licensing/whatever should be commensurate with the seriousness of the usage… so for example, if you just want to use an image you find on the web on your personal, non-for-profit blog, then a quick email to the author saying, “hey, I like this image, mind if I use it and credit you?” should suffice vs. a company using an image to sell products (or pageviews for their ads) for profit should pay licensing fees for that image.

So sorry to hear that happened, it is so invasive and awful! I literally just did some research on this via Artist Think because I noticed Facebook had changed their rules and I think its a huge grey area online in terms of image use and lack of consequence for illegal choices. I hope you have worked most of it out and let me know if I could help in any way.

All the best,
Carrie

I know you were using this as an example of how copyright can be a much bigger or more costly issue, but I guess in this example I don’t see that it’s a big deal.

Yes, they are linking back to the source, and they did the same with my photos as well. While it is true that it doesn’t appear that they’re claiming the various works on the site as their own (nor did they with mine), that doesn’t change the fact that they used (and continue to use, apparently) other people’s work without permission (my images weren’t watermarked, by the way, but that doesn’t even really matter… although certainly from now on anything that I upload publicly will be watermarked).

I guess to answer your question, if the individual had asked first to use the photos, and if the images were properly credited, and if the person wasn’t intentionally trying to hide their identity, then yes, I probably wouldn’t have minded if the images were used (the particular photos in question didn’t really have much market value, in this case nobody was really going to be making or losing any money by these images).

But the reality is that none of that was ever going to be the case because the very existence of the site I was dealing with was predicated on the theft of other people’s work (there is literally NO original material on the site), and it was intentional (note the complete lack of any contact info on the site, for example, in addition to the paid identity concealment).

But the biggest thing for me was that the person didn’t ask permission, and knew what they were doing was wrong. Under those circumstances, free advertising or not I wouldn’t want my images used.

While I understand your point, I guess my question is, that if it were in fact, easy enough to communicate with the poster, would you actually want your pictures removed, or would you see it as good, free advertisement?