Respect When It's Convenient
As some of you may or may not know, the recently opened Neonglow forums have a celebrity-based header. I criticised this not long after it was opened and the general response from the admin (Becky/Sarai/Brent) can be summarised as "we don't care". Y'all know I don't agree with copyright infringement but as I have no problems with the 3 in question I let it go.. no point causing a fuss when I didn't have time to join the forum anyway.
However, Chantelle's comment over on the latest Internet Police post is so full of win, and it brought the issue of the celebrity header back in to light. Conveniently, right smack bang in the middle of Becky/Sarai's public expression of annoyance at some idiot who'd jacked off Brent's theme (wha wha, drama drama, hypocrisy hypocrisy).
While this post isn't strictly speaking about the header, it is about the kind of attitude that drives a person to make the division between "my content, no stealing" and "someone else's content, ok to steal". On a personal level, I know that over the years I have been so angry about people taking my work and redistributing it under their own name, and it was that kind of disrespect that fueled my opinion — my passion — on it today. So why is it that other people can't embrace their passion for their own creation and use it to reason that hey, someone else might feel the same about their work being used without permission?
I asked a friend recently why she, as an artist, was OK with the distribution of illegal media. How would she feel if someone stole from her? "It's not the same".
I have asked on various Internet forums why amateur web designers are OK with lifting code, brushes, etc from other people but throw a temper tantrum when someone else does it to them? "It's not the same".
Why is it not the same to destroy someone's intellectual property as it is for someone to destroy yours? What kind of chaos would rule if we applied this logic to other aspects of society? Why do those who lack the respect I expect never have the answers to my questions?
Comments (43)
Leave a Comment
No HTML (it will be stripped); first time comments are moderated; comments left without a legitimate first name/nickname and e-mail will be deleted (no, your momma didn't call you "cheap quality wardrobes").
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 14:55, Louise said:
I agree with you. I forgot all about that header image fiasco.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 14:56, Rachael said:
I'm a big believer in "treat others how you wish to be treated", which is why I probably take it so personally when people aren't nice / civil to me. However, to put this into the context of copyrighted / illegal imagery and whathaveyou, it's a lot easier to take stuff from people when you don't know them personally. How many webmasters have actually *met* celebrity photographers? I don't imagine it'd be that many, which is why I think it's a lot easier to not feel guilty about stealing from them...
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:04, Sarai said:
lol @ this. I've never said it was okay for someone to steal intellectual property, which is why I don't do it. And for the record, I don't agree with your friend. Did she at least defend her opinion, or did you take her comment at face value? I also don't agree with this attitude: "it is about the kind of attitude that drives a person to make the division between "my content, no stealing" and "someone else's content, ok to steal" It is never okay to steal someone else's content.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:12, Jem said:
She had no answer when I asked why it wasn't the same.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:17, Sarai said:
Oh well, I stand by what I said then. I don't agree with that. I also resent the fact that I was grouped with two other people. We don't share the same brain, and I don't agree 100% with everything they do or say. Never did I defend the fact that Brent was using illegal images. I stated very clearly I had no control over the fact he did. Just saying.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:22, Jem said:
You're one of the admin, that's the only reason why you're "grouped" in my little parenthesis with Becky and Brent. I could change it to "the other admin girl" if that makes you happy.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:27, Sarai said:
No, it's fine, I'm just hoping people read the comments and don't take it the wrong way. "We don't care" is hardly how I feel about the entire thing.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:29, Jem said:
You defended the use of the header Sarai, so if you DO care that was hardly the "vibe" you gave off originally. It doesn't surprise me, therefore, that people are assuming you're content with copyright infringement and/or the use of other people's work.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:34, Sarai said:
All I said was that I couldn't do anything about it. I personally would never make one, but I'm not going to sit here and force someone else to take down something they created, since I can't control their actions and all.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 15:40, Jem said:
That wasn't all you said at all. You defended it based on the fact that it was "made in fun" -- I specifically remember that part because I made a smartass remark about people you highlight at IP doing their sites for fun
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 16:07, Sarai said:
That was a response to something else bb: Quote from: Rachosaurus on 02/14/08 at 08:19 AM "^ Do not the majority of people with celebrity headers do it in good taste and for fun?" Me: "You misunderstand me. What I meant by the sentence was that I would understand if people would be like "Ew" by a "celebrity-based" board theme, but this one is easy on the eyes so hopefully people like it and decide to stick around and browse the board."
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 16:24, Brent said:
Lol @ everyone taking this entire issue out of context. I never opened my mouth once about daniel's layout looking remarkably like mine, except maybe in passing with a quick lol to Sarai via instant messenger. So it's kind of ridiculous that Chantelle would group me in with him, considering I never bitched about him to begin with but whatever. Call me a hypocrite if you like, you're entitled. The header does indeed contain images copyrighted to someone else, so when the studio exec's legal department over at Canal+Espana contacts me and asks me to remove it, I'll comply because I fully acknowledge my use of it as being illegal. You however, or Chantelle for that matter, aren't corporate or copyright lawyers, so I'll continue to use it because I like it, and because it's the top-used theme on the board. Thanks for taking so much time out of your busy schedule to worry about me though! Perhaps this time could be better spent researching displaced career goals?
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 17:10, Asia said:
You know Jem, I definitely have to praise you for being so bold as to write something about this situation. I've never been the victim of any kind of theft that I'm aware of, but I acknowledge that it is so tiring to go after people again and again. I kind of wish these celebrity companies would employ Copyright Police, because I feel like that's the only way anything is ever going to be accomplished, if they care about it to begin with, you know, like the music industry's approach. They should totally sign me up. These snide remarks, totally unnecessary, just make me sick to my stomach. So thank you, for always being that single voice with your head above water. Never give up! Never surrender. (Too much film criticism classes.)
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 17:24, Rachel said:
Alls I have to say is that it's pretty pathetic that people hide behind the "I don't care" excuse when they're doing something wrong and being amusingly hypocritical (And that is to say it's amusing because they're so very, very ignorant). And then, on top of that, trying to twist your own words around to somehow seem less guilty than the other two. Hmm, hypocrisy, being apathetic and now backstabbing? It must suck to be so passive about being an asshole. Definitely not the kind of person worthy of my time. Oh, and uh...lol about that and all. Lol... Oh, and by the way Jem...watch out for those...what was it? Misguided career goals...D: You'll never own your own home! Oh wait, you do. Hmmm...
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 17:34, Cine said:
While I agree that pages using celebrity blends generally look like shit, and it definitely isn't a style I like, it's not the copyright issue that bugs me. Generally, I think that while it's technically illegal, it can't be compared to stealing on a more "personal" level, such as using an illustration from someone's DeviantArt gallery without asking. After all, the photographer who took the promotion shots of the celebrity has already been paid. The artist hasn't. There is also a next to zero chance of someone mistaking a celebrity photo as the "thief"'s own work. This is not the necessarily the case with the illustration. When dealing with agencies that are so far up, you can barely glimpse them among the clouds, I guess I just approach the situation from a different perspective.
I would get pissed if someone were to steal my layout, but I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Despite that I breach copyright on a daily basis. (yay tv torrents) What pisses me off, on the other hand, are people cropping a photo into a 100x100 LJ icon, and then getting mad over people not "crediting" them. 
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 17:39, Sarai said:
Rachel: LOL. Whoever you are: you can suck my dick? Stop being a pussy, and then come talk to me. P.S. Using names might help.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 18:19, Julie said:
@Cine: I don't see how money comes as an issue. People who, for example, work on movies, are putting their heart and time into it, just like the person doing it for fun without payment. The idea is not that of money, making profit or not, it's about a principle.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 18:19, Nyxx said:
So Brent... The thing is, maybe you will never get caught or receive any consequence, but it's still MORALLY wrong to do so! If you steal others copyrighted images you are sending the message that it's ok, not that you won't get caught. So here my new website: http://www.mycasusbelli.net/hypocrite/ Hope you like it! Have you seen the way I resize the image of 1 pixel and add beautiful text?? It took me so much time to do it and it's so creative! Come on that is stupid!
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 18:36, Vera said:
Well, simply put, I honestly don't care if someone rips off Brent. I don't condone it, and if asked I'll tell the person to stop doing it, but in the end it's not mine, I have no tangent with Brent (to name an example) so why do I care? I'd say "it's not the same", because they (as in the persons you asked) weren't the ones who have spent countless hours/days/months/years making sure things are "just right". And to be fair: don't you feel more satisfaction when you release a new version of BellaBook, as opposed to someone else releasing a new version of their script. That said, I try not to steal... though of course I'm not a saint. At the end of the day I feel much more accomplished to see my own work, even if it's not as good as X has... but at least I'm the one who made it, and sweat it out.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 21:47, Jabed said:
Forgive me if this question was already answered, but who actually made the header?
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 22:14, Carly said:
For someone who finds the entire situation so appalling, you sure didn't hesitate to link to the offending MB on your site right after it opened. Interesting.
On Fri 7th Mar 2008 @ 22:31, Darren said:
By this logic, if you were interested in child porno and had some on your site, you wouldn't remove it (knowing fully well it's illegal) until somebody threatened to sue you. Yeah, this really makes sense to me.
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 00:02, Raina said:
This is unrelated to the post, but @Darren: I don't know what you just said....didn't you just repeat what he said, replacing 'celebrity images' with 'child pono'? The difference might be that he's not interested in the latter?
Sorry if you meant something else.
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 01:40, Sarah said:
I hate it when people respond sarcastically when they're very soundly put in their place: "Thanks for taking so much time out of your busy schedule to worry about me though! Perhaps this time could be better spent researching displaced career goals?" (Brent in an above comment) Honestly, are you twelve?
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 02:12, Darren said:
I was using a better example than celebrity photography, because most people don't seem to think about the legality of that sort of thing (on the other hand, people normally do more for child porno). And I did say "if you were interested."
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 03:57, Rose said:
lol @ Sarah's comment. I hate that kind of reply too. Or when people use "dear" in a condescending tone when e-flaming. O, the drama!
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 15:57, Jamie said:
Wow is all I can say. I love when people are assholes online and then get caught doing or defending the same thing that they have criticized others for.
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 18:59, Jem said:
Sorry for the late replies, no Internets of course. @Sarai: you're still defending the header. In the quote you pasted you're defending it based on the fact that it's easy on the eyes. Whichever way you turn it, you're still defending it. @Brent: indeed, you didn't write the entry on Daniel. Nonetheless, I distinctly remember a now-deleted entry on your website not so long ago chewing someone out for a similar "offence". Please enlighten me on the difference, if you will. As for my busy schedule.. meh, not so much on a Friday.
@Carly: I am sure even you could comprehend the concept of supporting a person, or persons, without necessarily supporting 100% of their actions. I could explain this to you further, if you're struggling to understand though. Thank you everyone for the feedback on this post and my other - always good to hear from you all 
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 21:02, Chrissy said:
How isn't it the same?! As an artist, I would be really pissed if someone took my work. I get pissed when I see others take copyrighted material. I also don't use other people's stuff and try to pass it off as fair use. Come ON, people.
On Sat 8th Mar 2008 @ 21:18, Chans said:
I think it has a lot to do with people not being honest with themselves and admitting that yes it's wrong to steal from someone else just as it's wrong to have your work stolen. No one wants to be called a thief (all be it not in those exact words) and therefore the only 'appropriate' answer to your question for them is 'It's not the same'.
On Sun 9th Mar 2008 @ 05:01, Sarai said:
If you read the thread, and the replies above me, you would understand why I was defending that it was nice-looking. It had nothing to do with copyright infringement.
On Sun 9th Mar 2008 @ 10:26, Louise said:
Well, such people don't want to think of it as a concern because they don't believe they are in the wrong. Of course, you and I know they are.
On Mon 10th Mar 2008 @ 01:13, Stephanie said:
I haven't even bothered to read the comments yet, because of how much your friend's comment "It's not the same" incensed me. How can she even begin to call herself an artist if she doesn't have enough respect for others' work to not only NOT steal it, but also NOT fight to have their rights protected, and support such a cause? No artist with any dignity would say or believe such things, personally. The pride one has in his or her own time, work and talent should be equal to the pride they have for any other skilled artist. Now I'll go read the comments... ...And now I'll comment on the comments... ...It's been a long time since you've had such LOLworthy drama on your site, Jem :] I already commented personally on the entry, you can go read that yourself at your leisure (I brought you into it, so you might want to
).
On Mon 10th Mar 2008 @ 03:13, Carly said:
Back @ Jem: Linking to Neonglow with the accompanying message, "Go join!" implies that you condone their behavior. I don't see what is so confusing about that. Furthermore, commercial photographers don't usually care if someone uses their images in a graphic as long as they aren't profiting from it. If the artist doesn't care, why should you?
On Mon 10th Mar 2008 @ 09:11, Louise said:
@Carly, that doesn't go for every photographer/artist. Don't assume things like that. I, for one, would like to know in advance if someone wanted to use something I made. Furthermore, many artists aren't aware of their work being re-used on websites. How will you know if they're ok with it or not if you don't ask in the first place?
On Mon 10th Mar 2008 @ 09:14, Jem said:
@Carly: You must be thinking of someone else's website because I certainly didn't write "Go Join!"; my exact words were "Becky, Brent and Sarai have opened a new SMF board: Neonglow MB." Which commercial photographers have you asked, pray tell? Because I work with plenty on a regular basis and not one of them are lenient on the misuse of their photography. Perhaps you ought to read the following article on the damage copyright infringement does to commercial photographers: http://tinyurl.com/ybncun
On Mon 10th Mar 2008 @ 21:00, Dee said:
"Drama? On MY Internet Police?" It's more common than you think. /who really doesn't mind getting her non-commercial stuff 'stolen'.
On Mon 10th Mar 2008 @ 22:54, Carly said:
Louise - Okay, let's just ring up the photographer (I'm assuming the Volver theme was made from promotional stills) and tell them that someone on the internet made a theme from their photos. I'm sure they would be just furious. Jem - I apologize. But it still stands - you were inviting people to join. You have a very popular blog and anything linked on here will be visited by many people. You know that. Commercial photographers in this context = photographers hired to take promotional stills of enormously popular films. As I told Louise, I highly, highly doubt that if you called them up, they'd say anything other than, "Who cares?" It's not like Brent made it and sold it as a theme. He is neither profiting from it nor claiming it as his own. Just a random question, but to those of you opposed Brent's use of the images in his theme - do you download music illegally? Just wondering.
On Tue 11th Mar 2008 @ 00:53, Darren said:
@Carly - actually, I do download music illegally, and I know I am a total hypocrite.
On Tue 11th Mar 2008 @ 02:46, Louise said:
CARLY! You missed the point! All photographers (commercial or not) are NOT the same person AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER!
On Tue 11th Mar 2008 @ 09:04, Jem said:
@Carly: not going to argue with that
Like I said, you can support a person without supporting their actions. I buy Nescafe coffee but don't support the controversy with the baby milk. I buy McDonalds burgers but don't support a lot of their policies and business practises. I don't support Brent's theme but I still like him, and his amazing illustrations. And for the record, no.. I don't download music nor do I download films or software.
On Tue 11th Mar 2008 @ 15:05, Nyxx said:
Well I do oppose Brent AND download music but since it's legal in Canada...
Saying nobody care or nobody going to sue us does not make it right. Taking someone else work and using it is wrong. It's like going to the store and taking what you want... They might never find out, but it doesn't make it right.
On Wed 12th Mar 2008 @ 15:24, Stephanie said:
The great thing about being in college is that on campus we have a big sharing network of all the music students (who wish to share it, of course) have. But before that, I got all my music legally.