Saturday, December 15, 2012

A Sad form of Flattery

So it looks like another blog has decided to start reposting my work. And it's kind of sad how bad they are at ripping me off.


So I got an email today (it was actually a few days ago, but as you can tell by the lack of updates I haven't been around much lately) asking me if I was the owner of The Receiving End. Apparently this blog has been posting a lot of my work and the work of other authors and bloggers, and the person who emailed me wanted to take their stuff off of the site.

So I decided to check this blog out to see what was going on. Well after struggling to find my way around the site (a lot of the links are unclickable) I eventually just ran a search for my name on the site (their search bar is pretty terrible too).

I expected nothing to show up, after all, most places that want to rip off other people's captions usually just steal the image. But this lovely site took entire posts, text and all. And they didn't stop at taking just the posts with captions in them either, there were several of my formspring only updates as well.

Honestly I don't mind people reposting my work. I mean, I would like for them to link back to this blog, but I include my name at the bottom of every post for a reason and I feel like I'm known well enough in the community that most people who like my work find their way here eventually. In fact, most of the time I find a caption of mine somewhere else, I'm just happy that more people are seeing my stuff.

But taking entire posts is just lazy. If you want to rip someone off, do it properly.

And so I say to you, author of "The Receiving End," take pride in your work.

Get rid of the text in the posts, if you're trying to accumulate a bunch of captions to get views, you're appealing to an audience that doesn't give a damn about anything that isn't porn.

Don't take everything a site has to offer, pick and choose, your audience will appreciate that you only bother to steal the caps that are worth reading.

And for the love of all that is holy, don't repost "text only" pages, the people who read my blog barely care about my formspring updates, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Hopefully you listen to this advice and start to properly rip off people who actually have talent. If you want to be a thief, by all means be a thief, just have some damn integrity about it.

20 comments:

  1. That's terrible and I agree that page is made to be a rip off job, with lots of scam sites. Like this one which actually took my caps and some others... (even wall o' texts from Anne, Annabelle, Evie, Candy, mine too, etc)

    I posted it in the Haven:

    http://www.rachelshaven.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=40&topic=58100.0

    And surprise too look:

    http://www.model-united-nations.org/search/label/Alectra

    I even have a label in that blog... what are you stupid????

    This bug me, because It also delivers the same jobs at that one you posted.

    Hugs and Kisses Alectra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah it's a little frustrating, but I don't see much of a point in getting too upset.

      Delete
    2. Umm, WTF, there's practically my whole blog on there - font of the posts, watermarks etc.
      No way it seems where I can send a "cease and desist" email either... grrrr

      Delete
    3. Yeah, it was a pretty sloppy job. It's honestly a little insulting they couldn't be bothered to take the time to figure out what was really worth reposting.

      Delete
  2. I've gone to both ends of the spectrum when I see my stuff posted without consent or directions back to my blog. I've completely lost my mind in anger and indignation, and I've just laughed it off and took it for flattery. But I don't think I've ever pitied the thief and/or given suggestion on how to present their ill gotten goods! Bravo for keeping an even head on this Rauk!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's not much I can do about it, so I figured I might as well have some fun with the situation.

      Delete
  3. You can't really complain. You're ripping off pictures from websites, and using images of people you don't know for your art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. actually they arent "ripping off pictures" i've never seen a captionist who insisted that "hey guys i took these pictures" because THAT would be ripping off, a CAPTIONIST just takes images and puts words on them, those CAPTIONS are theres, as in, the WORDS, they never claim ownership of the actual photograph.

      (is captionist even a real word? i dont think it is, but by charlie im making it one if it isnt.)

      your friendly neighborhood instigator
      -Hekantonkheries XIV

      Delete
    2. Exactly... I prefer to use captioner or captioneer anyway is an invented word to begin with so...

      I never claim ownership, but over the story. The story is completely an undeniable mine. Should I had to close it down because of pictures, the story would still be mine.

      What gets me mad is the use of something I've done to get money or scam people and that in tne end it could get connected to me in some bad way. Like it happens here. That's not good.

      Hugs and Kisses Alectra

      Delete
    3. As far as the terminology goes, I tend to go with captioner, but that's just me.

      And I completely agree with Alectra, my work is the story. Now there are other cappers out there who also put a ton of work into their layouts and design, but seeing as that's never been my strong suit, I'm not too concerned about that.

      I created this blog to share my stories for free with anyone who's interested. All that I want is credit for my work, which for me is the story, not the image used to enhance it.

      So I don't care when people post my stuff elsewhere, unless it does one of the following:

      1. Other people are claiming to have written one of my stories
      2. Other people are using my captions to make money

      Other than that, post away. That's why I include a signature on my caps after all.

      Delete
  4. You don't own the right to the pictures, so it's theft. Try to argue that with a photographer and watch them laugh at your logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I don't own the rights to the pictures, which is why I don't monetize this blog, and why I have this disclaimer at the bottom:


      "All images used in my captions are the property of the original copyright holders. Should you be the owner of an image on this site and wish it to be taken down please contact me and I will do so. All caption text is original unless otherwise noted and is the property of Rauk22. Feel free to post my work on other sites, but please acknowledge where it came from and link to this site. Thank You."

      Delete
    2. It would be infringement at worst, actually, and then only dubiously so. No photographer would laugh at someone for making a fair use argument of the use of one or two images in a set for non-commercial use, especially since the photographers in a most pornographic captions did their work for hire and don't own the copyright to them anyway. The company the shot for does.

      Delete
  5. Even still, most photographers don't appreciate people grasping their pictures and posting them elsewhere or altering the image. If you must alter it, it has to be altered completely to avoid copyright laws. I'm just stating the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure they don't. And should a photographer ever contact me, asking to have their work removed from this site, I will gladly do so. The image is their property, just as the story is mine. I know I'd lose any copyright claim without question, what I'm arguing for here falls more under the domain of "honor among thieves."

      Delete
  6. Attribution is not fair use, especially since it's rare to find proper attribution on these blogs anyways - it should technically be per picture, every time. A disclaimer does not make it more legal - it does very little other than to say you don't claim to have made it, but that's like saying a thief who stole, kept, and used another person's iPhone is not a thief so long as he says he's not the owner.

    Using the full image, usually unadulterated by anything but text, falls more in under "sprucing up a text or post with pictures" than "new creative work". Furthermore, if these come from commercial sites, it may provide a demonstrable loss of traffic and possibly revenue. Thus, captions are not protected by derivative works (since copyright owners determine the validity of derivative works, through permission, etc) or fair use (because this is not "for the good of society", like research, nor is it a completely transformative work, since the picture is presented wholesale). It's just like how subtitling a music video or writing fanfiction are usually not, and the latter often makes far less use of the original work than captioning.

    Having said that, no one's policing, so it's not a huge deal. It's really only a problem when people who made the original works complain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much everything you've stated is true. The disclaimer does not make it more legal, it's more of a personal integrity issue of me not trying to pass off someone else's work as my own (even if it's not properly cited as it should be, although I do save the links of everywhere I pull images from).

      I'm obviously not winning any copyright lawsuits, which is why should an issue ever come up I can guarantee that I'll take down the offending caption rather than fight for some nonexistent "right" to post other person's work without their permission just because I tied it to a story I wrote.

      The only point you made that I disagree with is the issue of "new creative work." While I certainly can't claim to be anything more than a writer who uses images to enhance his stories, the same cannot be said for people like Caitlyn or Simone, who put significant effort into their layouts and presentation. Again, it's not going to be enough to beat a lawsuit, but to say that what they do isn't "new creative work" just isn't true.

      But this whole conversation has gotten more serious than I had intended. This post was meant to get a few laughs, and point out that in the legally gray area that captions inhabit there is a right and a wrong way to rip people off. And so I'll reiterate the last sentence of the original post: If you want to be a thief, by all means go for it (I've certainly done it with the images I use), just have a little integrity about it.

      Delete
    2. It's not a question of the full image. It's a question of the full work. If the image is part of a larger set of images, as many of these are, it's considered part of a whole. If they use one image out of a thirty-image set, they use 3% of the entire work.

      If the original photoset was a fetish shoot of a woman putting on and taking off a number of different outfits and costumes and the the captioner uses the lighting and costume and specific state of dress in one image to tell a story of a stage magician having trouble with an encounter with real magic, then it has a good chance of passing as a new work. If the captioner instead takes half a set of two people having sex and adds description of how the sensations of a woman are to strange and pleasurable, then it probably will not.

      Note that copyright holders determine whether or not something is a derivative work only as regards someone asking them permission to use the work on those grounds. Then their decision only affects their negotiations. When it comes to a question of legality, the courts decide.

      Also note that the question of purpose isn't to determine whether the new work or use of the protected work is for the public good. Public good isn't the only acceptable shape a new work or use can take to be protected under fair use. Parody, for example, is another accepted use. It's less categorical and more of a spectrum. On one end you have for profit. On the other end you have public good. The further you are from profit the more likely you are to be protected. There are exceptions to this, but I don't think they apply here.

      More importantly, though, claiming these protections means going to court, and a large corporation will probably just threaten to bury you in legal fees, so complying with most takedown notices is still the smart way to go. A lot of companies probably won't bother, though. It's not worth it to them, and some feel readers end up reverse image searching and heading their way, anyway. Also, there are far more sites that are far more infringing.

      Delete
  7. Shit as soon as i got there my anti-virus spotted 51 attacks...

    ReplyDelete