Links vs inline images on dgrin

rutt

Lynn gave me a headsup that the dgrin moderatorship has concerns about inline images in dgrin posts, in particular the kind of thing I did in the Leibovitz and HCB posts.

For the Leibovitz post, I used only images that were already online and clearly authorized by the artist. I cited my sources. The online images were not really high quality. And I shamelessly plugged her book (and even managed to sell at least four for her.)

Is that enough? Was I inside the bounds of good dgrin citizenship?

If not, I won't do this kind of thing again. I don't think the essays without the inline images work very well. It was fun to do and I learned a lot from doing it, but it probably doesn't matter that much. I was thinking of writing an appreciation of Penn, so this is somewhat relevant (though not urgent, since I've been thinking of writing an appreciation of Penn since last spring.)

ginger_55

It is fine with me if you write one..........but more to my point and worries, does he have a 10.00 book out?

g (I don't know what the concerns are. I was thinking that it is good art history)

rutt

ginger_55 wrote:

It is fine with me if you write one..........but more to my point and worries, does he have a 10.00 book out?

g (I don't know what the concerns are. I was thinking that it is good art history)

I think there may be some sort of intellectual property concerns. Maybe we need an intelluctual property lawyer's opinion. Is there one out there?

lynnma

rutt wrote:

I think there may be some sort of intellectual property concerns. Maybe we need an intelluctual property lawyer's opinion. Is there one out there?

Yes I think so Rutt.. here are some links to previous conversations on this issue..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html

a thread on this issue from last year

stay tuned for more installments

rutt

Since I am a fan of Annie Leibovitz's the last thing I wanted was to infringe on her intelluctual property. I don't even want to make her feel bad, even if I did happen to be in the right (and I don't understand the law in this case.)

So I contacted her agent and asked his permission to use inline images in my post. Sadly, he denied this request. Mostly out of respect for Ms Leibovitz (as oppposed to the law) I have complied.

I think I'll put Penn on the back burner. Maybe back in the cupboard.

*Sigh* No candids of children. No online art history. I guess I'll have to find some other kind of fun (and get my teacher's permission first, since my own judgement is so suspect.)

DavidTO

rutt wrote:

Since I am a fan of Annie Leibovitz's the last thing I wanted was to infringe on her intelluctual property. I don't even want to make her feel bad, even if I did happen to be in the right (and I don't understand the law in this case.)

So I contacted her agent and asked his permission to use inline images in my post. Sadly, he denied this request. Mostly out of respect for Ms Leibovitz (as oppposed to the law) I have complied.

I think I'll put Penn on the back burner. Maybe back in the cupboard.

*Sigh* No candids of children. No online art history. I guess I'll have to find some other kind of fun (and get my teacher's permission first, since my own judgement is so suspect.)

You can still post links, couldn't you? And your perspective would be informative.

rutt

DavidTO wrote:

You can still post links, couldn't you? And your perspective would be informative.

But it has to be fun. I supposee I'm just a mischief maker at heart.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

But it has to be fun. I supposee I'm just a mischief maker at heart.

John, I really enjoyed reading your thread concerning Leibowitz. Very informative, and it helped me see her work in a new and better way. Thank you.

Andy

rutt wrote:

But it has to be fun. I supposee I'm just a mischief maker at heart.

it's still fun and it still is a great thread rutt. thanks for making it.

dkapp

rutt wrote:

Lynn gave me a headsup that the dgrin moderatorship has concerns about inline images in dgrin posts, in particular the kind of thing I did in the Leibovitz and HCB posts.

For the Leibovitz post, I used only images that were already online and clearly authorized by the artist. I cited my sources. The online images were not really high quality. And I shamelessly plugged her book (and even managed to sell at least four for her.)

Is that enough? Was I inside the bounds of good dgrin citizenship?

If not, I won't do this kind of thing again. I don't think the essays without the inline images work very well. It was fun to do and I learned a lot from doing it, but it probably doesn't matter that much. I was thinking of writing an appreciation of Penn, so this is somewhat relevant (though not urgent, since I've been thinking of writing an appreciation of Penn since last spring.)

I think it was an awesome thread. I'm not up to speed on the present day greats like many of you are. This helped me find some great work, and yes I did order the book.

Dave

lynnma

dkapp wrote:

I think it was an awesome thread. I'm not up to speed on the present day greats like many of you are. This helped me find some great work, and yes I did order the book.

Dave

Sorry Rutt.. I loved your thread but we've all learned something I spose.. :
I can't see why doing an essay with links where the shots would be would'nt be fun?? would be for us... just one click away? and yes.. you are a mischief maker thanks for a great thread attempt..it's really prompted some new interest in the photo greats.. please don't stop posting essays?