Free publicity? No thanks!
Aug 5th, 2008 by Eve
In Plagiarism, the discussion got kind of side tracked on the issue of using copyrighted images as forum avatars on the internet. Rob suggested that:
Maybe the whole avatar thing is for images as fanfic is to the written word? Yes, by the definition of it, it’s breach of copyright - but most “artists” allow because it in the end helps promote them? I’m talking the major players here, movie studios/actors, gaming companies, comics, etc.
I know the “it’s promotion” and “it’s free publicity” reasons are among the most popular rationales for using copyrighted images on the internet. But who made you the publicist for that artist/photographer/actor/company?
In The Dilbert Blog: Is Copyright Violation Stealing?, Scott Adams wrote:
“When you violate a copyright, you take something valuable from the copyright owner that he can’t get back. You take his right to control where his creation is viewed and how. It might be your opinion that the “free publicity” you provide outweighs the loss – and you might be right – but you’ve taken from the creator the right to make the publicity-versus-overexposure decision himself. That might not seem like a big deal to you, but it feels that way to the person who lost control of his art.”
And what about this — how can it be possibly considered promotion when the artist and/or copyright holder isn’t even identified or credited?
Think about it.
I do believe that I would be right put-out if someone were using any of my images and attempted to tell me it was ‘free publicity.’
Especially (and exactly) for the reasons you’ve said–most people don’t put any credit at all with the images used.