There’s a site called Daily Exhaust that makes me envy the illiterate and blind. When I was first notified by my wife of an, ahem, “article” criticizing her blog, I thought I would feel intense, bowel-twisting annoyance. Instead it seemed as though my bowels, and every other part of my body, were joining together in a collective yawn. The site’s layout resembles a typical blog template, which would be fine except it’s supposed to be an actual website, not a blog. Kudos to the designer. It’s beige background almost resembles the walls of an abandoned house stained with Syphilis infected piss and nicotine residue, but not quite. The site is too bland for that image to fit. Before I mention the writing, I should note the words. This is important to nobody but myself, however, the font color is gray and the text links are orange, which were the colors of my high school. I now have two reasons to hate the colors orange and gray.
In his article “Ownership & Copyright” Michael Mulvey blathers on for what seems like an eternity about what he perceives to be copyright infringement from Vintagegal. Later in the article he maunders into a boring, self-involved paragraph where he begins rambling about inline linking (the only part of the article he put a source for - a Wikipedia page).
How can I describe the writing without having to relive it? Imagine reading instructions in a vehicle repair manual from the 1960‘s that has no actual information and smacks of self-righteousness. Try tasting stale, unsalted tortilla chips wrapped in wax paper and you’ll get a clearer picture. Hear an automated machine reading the factory warranty of a VCR and you’ll be even closer. There is NO personality or original voice in his writing. Reading his flat, dry prose is like popping a handful of Thorazine, shotgunning a forty of NyQuil and watching a speck of dust float in the air. Here’s a sample sentence from the article:
“This is similar to a DJ who creates a carefully curated playlist of tracks by other
musicians and thinks it's ok to "watermark" a voiceover saying their DJ name on top of the tracks they've arranged.”
I hate every syllable in this sentence. Ever hear of a comma? How about a period? Nothing would make me happier than to erase this clumsily written analogy from my memory. A power drill to the frontal lobe of my brain sounds mighty refreshing at this moment.
Okay, that’s enough skylarking. Let’s get to the actual content of the article, shall we?
To kick things off, there is a “Short Version.” It’s a two sentence statement that precedes the actual article. At first it seems like he has enough courtesy to spare the world his opinionated diatribe. Unfortunately, the article keeps going from there into a longer version titled “TLDR Version.” Why aren’t internet acronyms ever truly applicable? It should have been called TDHL (Too Dull Had to Leave). Here’s the short version:
“You can't watermark images of artwork or photographs you don't own the copyrights to. No, even if you buy a book and scan the images.”
He’s referring to a post Vintagegal made entitled “Here We Go Again” where she responds to claims of copyright infringement. It’s important to note that many of those concerned citizens voicing their interest in protecting intellectual property have no problem downloading original content from other blogs and websites, nor do they take issue with reposting said content to their own blog as though it was theirs (this isn’t an assumption, I looked at their blogs).
I won’t post Vintagegal’s entire response, but I think this part gets to the heart of what she was saying and what Michael was referencing:
“I can physically hold these pictures, so yes I own them. I paid for them. I bid on them. I buy things and take the time to scan and edit them to share. And since people constantly re-post them, yes I will watermark them.”
Just for fun, let’s look once more at what Michael wrote in his short version. Back and to the left:
Not to overdo it, but let’s look at a key sentence in Vintagegal’s post. Back and to the left:
“I buy things and take the time to scan and edit them to share.”
Notice anything? It seems that Michael forgot (or just plain ignored) the part of the sentence where Vintagegal mentions editing. How much editing does it take to make an image into a different work of art than from when it started? There seems to be a lot of debate about this online. From what I’ve seen, the consensus is that there needs to be a drastic difference from the original image to the newly edited work. Since Vintagegal and I inhabit the same cubicle, I can say without hesitation that there is a very drastic difference. The photo may be the same person in the same pose wearing the same outfit, but by the time she’s finished editing the images look as though they were taken by a different photographer. At least to me they do, but that’s just my opinion and up for debate. What isn’t an opinion is the fact that they are different from when they started. The variations of brightness, sharpness, re-colorization, re-sizing, cropping and contrast bring a new life into the picture.
Of course, if the copyright of the image is still in play, all this is moot, right? Yes, definitely. However, if you assume that all copyright is currently active you must be a 20th Century Man with a 1st century brain. The standard rule in the United States is that copyright is held for the duration of the creator’s life plus an additional seventy years after their death. There are exceptions, however.
Unlike Michael, I think if you’re going to claim something you should have some facts to back up your statements. Even just a few. Something...it’s better than nothing. Also, unlike Michael, I don’t believe Wikipedia is a reliable source to link to, nor does any other serious writer in the known universe. On the Cornell University website there is an excellent timeline of copyright and expiration. Please click the link to see the entire copyright timeline. Here are just a few of the time periods pertaining to copyright expiration:
- Works from before 1923 have no copyright and are part of the public domain.
- Works published from 1923 to 1989 without copyright notice are part of the public domain.
- Works published from 1923 to 1963 with copyright notice, but no copyright renewal are part of the public domain.
If someone makes drastic edits to an image whose copyright is expired, does that warrant them the authority to watermark said image? And what if the publication from which the edited image originated has been defunct for years and has NO active copyright? Would that make it okay? I would say so. In fact, given that there are so many thieves online, I would even go so far as to encourage it, so long as the copyright is inactive and the image has been edited/altered. This should go without saying. Contrary to the popular assumptions of lemming-brained Tumblr users and Michael Mulvey, Vintagegal DOES NOT watermark everything she posts. In fact, most of what she posts doesn’t have her watermark on it. This should tell you something, but I’m sure it doesn’t. Arguing basic points with imbeciles can yield little or no results. So instead of hammering the point further, I’ve decided to make fun of Michael some more. Check out these dumb quotes from his article:
“You do not own the copyrights to those images. The right to copy is not yours. Is this sinking in?”
Neither does anyone else, Michael. Not if the copyright has been expired. And once these VINTAGE images are edited, they become a new work of art. Is THIS sinking in?
“I'll even be the first one to admit I have a lot to learn on the subject.”
And yet you’ll prattle on about something you, at best, have a rudimentary understanding of? Maybe next time you don’t know much about something, you should do research on it before exhausting your non-informed opinions. Or don’t write about it. Or don’t write at all. That would be awesome!
“In my experience, if your intentions are good and you properly credit and link back to your sources, most people don't have a problem when you repost their content.”
Please explain the good intentions involved in being smug and condescending towards someone you don’t know regarding a subject you’ve proven yourself to have a very limited knowledge of.
I’d like to close by mentioning that Tumblr is bursting with thieves and plagiarists who violate copyright laws in ways Vintagegal has never even come close to. So why was she singled out? It could be because Michael saw a quick reply to a stupid question as the launching point for his bitchy, fact-free discharge of an article. Or it could be that he knows her blog gets tons of hits. Maybe he thought his own ho hum site would get more attention if he wrote about her and tagged his article with her name. I honestly can’t say, but I think it’s funny that like so many of Vintagegal’s nay-sayers he has to concede that the blog has interesting content and is engaging to look at (unlike his site). Too bad Michael and the rest of the the herd don’t have the manners keep their passive aggressive nit-picking to themselves and simply enjoy the pretty pictures. Like everyone else in the world, he seems to think his opinion matters, completely unaware that an opinion is just a piece of shit that lives inside of your head. Try keeping it there.
Note: Unfortunately, the U.S. Copyright website was down for holiday maintenance during the creation of this article, so I wasn’t able to get a direct quote. I did get a chance to peruse it before it went down and it is the best resource for copyright law. If interested, check out the website once it’s back up http://www.copyright.gov/laws/
No comments:
Post a Comment