A Black(ish) Day for RedBubble
Some of the comments in this this journal entry really annoy the hell out of me. Why can’t people be reasonable when dealing with copyright violations?
I joined up to Polyvore so I could a) send a firm but polite message to the person who had misused one of my images by including it in a derivative work (something my choice of licence doesn’t permit without express permission) and b) report the behaviour of that person to the owners of the site, again, in a firm but polite way.
Even though I was initially annoyed I also realised that just blasting off at people wasn’t going to solve anything. Moreover, this sort of thing happens all the time. While it’s obvious that Polyvore is one of those sites that sails a little close to the wind in terms of ensuring their users respect copyright, and do so thanks to parts of the DCMA (which makes them no different from things like YouTube, Flickr, Photobucket, or any number of other sites that allow people to upload stuff, RedBubble included), that’s no reason to simply brand them as a site that promotes such an activity and is solely and explicitly about such an activity.
Sadly, however, I get the impression that others haven’t been quite so reasonable (I get that impression from comments I’ve seen on RedBubble and also from one of the people behind the “offending” site, someone who I must say has been very polite in the face of quite a bit of abuse). Why? What good does abusing people do? Most people are totally ignorant of copyright issues (including, it seems, many people on here who got really annoyed). Many people think “if it’s on the net, I can have it” and do so with no ill-intent at all. Many people think “I’m not going to sell it so that’s okay”. Most people learn when told. I’ve found (no names, I’m not going to unleash the mob on people here) works on RedBubble that have done the same thing to other people and all it has taken is a polite message to the individual who created the infringing work to make them aware of what they’re doing.
A polite request will probably result in action. If action isn’t taken you’ll generally find that being abusive won’t help anyway. Blaming the site won’t help. Starting petitions generally won’t help either (although it might help focus a baying mob and whip them up further).
In no particular order, and with no particular direct point, here’s some things that some people might want to consider:
- Misunderstanding about copyright and licence issues can be turned into repeated “facts” very quickly. Check your facts. You need only read this thread from a while ago to see how easily people can mistake rumour for fact.
- Just because I’ve got copyright on my work it doesn’t mean I don’t permit certain uses. Please don’t try and speak for “everyone at RedBubble” because there’s a good chance you don’t speak for me.
- If you upload an image to a website there’s a good chance it will be copied and used elsewhere. Prepare yourself for this fact so that you don’t get annoyed or upset.
- No, that last point isn’t an excuse for people copying your images in an infringing way so please don’t go pointing out to me that it’s “still wrong”. I know what’s right and wrong here.
- Any site that allows uploading will, to some degree or another, find itself hosting works that violate someone’s rights under copyright. Even RedBubble are “guilty” of this. Are you going to start abusing the RedBubble staff now? No? Why not?
- Seriously, I’ve found works on RedBubble that infringe copyright in the exact same way images on Polyvore did. Are you feeling angry at the RedBubble staff now?
- Also, doesn’t anyone remember that RedBubble competition not so long back when it turned out that the winner had cheated? Are you angry at the RedBubble staff about that too?
RedBubble needs that community manager sooner than later. ;-)
Naomi Mawson
Well put Dave – easy for me to say though because they didn’t choose any of my work anyway :P I can think of plenty more things to get uptight about.
betelnut
Hopefully calm heads prevail Dave.
Dominic Melfi
Dave while I agree on civility the point isnt that some teeni bopper abused your copyright, the point is that poyvore terms then claim rights to non-exclusive licenses ans sublicensing to the work or dirivatives, one of the dirivatives is your piece. This terms of use isnt usual in my experience.
Dave Pearson
I disagree Dominic. The primary issue is that someone chose not to abide by my licence. That the site in question has such terms of use isn’t a surprise, you’ll see such terms on many sites. Recognise the following?
“In order to receive the RedBubble services you grant RedBubble a non-exclusive royalty free license to use and archive the content in accordance with or as reasonably contemplated by this agreement.”
So, if someone uploads work to RedBubble that they have no right to upload, especially a derivative work that contains someone else’s work (yes, I’ve seen this happen a couple of times), who is more in the wrong here? RedBubble, for asseting a non-exclusive right to royalty-free use of the work, or the person who uploaded it in the first place?
Bobbie
Well said Dave. I wrote a response but it grew into such a long rant that I moved it into my journal so I don’t have much left to say other than I agree with you.
Dominic Melfi
Dave I guess you dont see any difference here
You understand that any items you import, and sets you create on the Website will be made available to the public. Further, you hereby grant us, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish the sets you have created using the Website.
Dominic Melfi
sublicensable means they can use it for unspecified uses and resell it or anything they choose, Redbubble limits to uses we have agreed upon.
Dave Pearson
Sorry Dominic but you’re mistaken. I do see the technical differences in the minutia of the agreements, but the general principle is the same. RedBubble have an agreement that you abide by when you upload a work. Polyvore have an agreement when you upload a work. If someone creates a derivative work that includes one or more of your works it is that person who is at fault, not the site that they upload to when it comes to any agreement to any terms.
Note the last part you say: “we have agreed upon”. How can someone who doesn’t know RedBubble exists, and whose works has been “stolen”, agree to RedBubble’s terms? Seriously, think about it:
Are you then bound to abide by RedBubble’s terms, because I agreed to them? Would RedBubble be at fault instead of me? Who would you blame in this instance and in those circumstances?
Now, here’s the thing: this has actually happened. I’ve seen one person do this on RedBubble.
It’s simple: the problem isn’t the terms that Polyvore use. The problem is that someone used one of my works in a work of theirs, without a right to do so, and made that work available under terms I don’t agree with. That’s that person’s fault, it’s not Polyvore’s fault.
Stephen Colquitt
I couldnt agree more Dave – Fair enought to be angered about it all but what happened to the please play nice principle that we enjoy on this site? Some horrible comments/language seemed to be unleashed by RB members in the heat of battle.
Dominic Melfi
I think Napster lost that argument
Dave Pearson
I think you’ll find that bringing up Napster is a straw man argument.
Dominic Melfi
Tell you what Dave, you can reply to this and get the last word, I thought maybe we could have a reasonable discussion but apparently your only interested in the debate not the facts.
Dave Pearson
Sorry Dominic but you’ve lost me now. I was referring to the facts as they pertain to my situation in all of this, hence the longish comment I made to which you replied with a single line.
Can I suggest you try not to stray into the realms of ad hominem arguments? I wasn’t so I don’t think you need to. It might also be helpful if you don’t see a discussion or a debate as the act of “trying to have the last word”. I have no interest in playing that game, how about you?
Stephen Mitchell
Gentlemen, after perusing both your profiles, it would appear you are evenly matched in life-skills, intelligence and as word-smiths! So I read this thread with great interest. Until a few minutes ago I had never heard the term ‘straw man’, but now I’ve read more about it I realise where I have seen it used both effectively and ineffectively.
Although your discussion appears to have taken a tangent, I am impressed with the language-choice, the sentence structure and the time-taken to be sure of one’s facts.
I take no sides in this conversation, I am reading all replies and learning a lot from them! Please gentlemen, as an avid reader of many different subjects, please continue this discussion.
Dave, your analysis of the RB-Agreement we all ‘signed’ should make a lot of RB-artists stop and realise their actions. Well, I hope.
Stephen Mitchell
Dave. Your initial post links to your “copyright page”http://www.davep.org/photographs/copyright/ . Would you mind if I copied this (and re-worded accordingly) for use on my website ? Although I don’t have a lot of problem in this area (I get a lot of considerate requests from legitimate sites to use my photographs), your page reads so well that it would simplify the process.
Dave Pearson
Stephen, by all means, feel free to do that. While I’m sure you will I would, of course, advise that you first get to know the various Creative Commons licence options before doing anything else.