Cafe Racer Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This guy, http://www.owenartstudios.com, is selling stuff that he has stolen from online moto galleries of all type.

This one in particular pisses me off. I've been trying to find the original site that I saw this sweet picture at. The guy is selling a photoshopped version of it that has a duplicated image of the racer. Clearly, the blurring isn't just for effect, but to reduce the recognizability of the original. The original, FWIW, was put up on some Euro cafe-racer site that said that the guy who took it had taken it in the 70s when a guy would fly around every Sunday down his street.

http://www.owenartstudios.com/pg_cafe_racers.html

This is another of the same 'chopping.
http://www.owenartstudios.com/pg_bmw_r75_6_cafe_racer.html

Does this bother anyone else? Stealing pics from motogp.com and random sites, doing some Photoshopping and calling it your own to make money? It's like sampling music and not giving credit to the original (real) artists.

Or. . .am I just stupid?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
It p*sses me off too. As a sometimes-published photographer, I would lose my sh*t if I found images I shot being used without my permission (ESPECIALLY if they were being SOLD).

It is totally illegal - just like ripping DVDs and selling copies. There's no difference.

Any of the photographers whose images those are can sue this guy for thousands, if he has any money.

Please send the link to any site that you believe is the original owner of these images.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,267 Posts
Looks to me like he is using either old public domain photos or photos that he has taken himself, or prints of original artwork. It's also quite possible he bought permission to use the current motogp photos, or that Dorna releases certain photos into the public domain...or even that the sites he may appear to have taken them from actually posted them without permission in the first place.

Just because you've seen the photo somewhere else doesn't mean he is using it without permission or has stolen it. Course it doesn't mean he didn't steal it either. Just taking a photo doesn't mean you own it, you have to imply a copyright, or publish and copyright etc. Or any person could just say they own a picture whether they could prove they took it or not.

Andy Warhol using campells soup cans in his art, the many characitures of the Mona Lisa, the use of thousands of historical photos...all based on someone else art that are not examples of copyright infringement.

Yeah, stealing someone else work sucks...but it's just as bad to accuse someone of stealing that may not be.
JohnnyB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,388 Posts
I think this is the same guy that shows up at LRRS events in a huge motorhome, snaps pictures of all the races, and then charges $40 for a single print. I actually really like this picture:
http://www.owenartstudios.com/lg_motorcycle_art/lg_sheene_barry_500cc.html

and was considering buying it. And then I remembered who the guy was. And he doesn't like selling CDs of the pictures.

When I went up to Mosport a few years back, I got a CD of 40-50 pictures (high res) for $50 Canadian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,303 Posts
Branson,

I'm glad you mentioned public domain, because if you didn't I was going to. If a photo is in the public domain then the guy can do whatever the hell he wants with it and I don't care except when he begins to sell for outrageous prices. What is an outrageous price you ask well consider this:

his frame and matting probably cost $10-20
The printing process

- lazer printer the inks are $120 a color cartridge minumum and you are probably going to use 3 (grayscale cartridges are not just black and white). He will probably get about 20-30 prints before he spent his cartirdge

- photo process involves a print quality negative to be made and then that negative run through a hi-quality photo printer. I would say this is probably cheaper than the lazer printer but it is slower and we are probably looking at a cost of $100 per run of 1000.

then there is his time for adding the painterly effects - figure about 20 minutes.

and the license fee if it is not a public domain work

and he is selling it at $42 and $57 a print. I figure each print may cost him about $20-$30 to make if it is a high quality print, $15 in low quality. tough to say how much of that is profit since we don't know if his space costs him anything, or if he owns the machines or rents them and what the interest would be on the rent/lease.

Do I think he is overcharing? can't really say but for a high quality print it is not out of line pricing. I don't dig the painterly effects nor do I dig the fact he is kind of charging you for the blank space on the print (the pre-matted look - ugh!). I think you can get better deals out there.

As far as the exceptions to copyright - there are 4, but not that many involve making money. Since you have access to the internet I'll spare you the legal diatribe and just give you a quick summary that I cut and pasted from somewhere else:

Idea-expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine - A copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy. For example, if a writer has a general concept or idea for a television program, a copyright of that "idea" does not prohibit other writers from creating the same general idea for a project. However, if the writer develops the idea to a point of detailed and specific aspects and storylines of the show, then that specific expression of the idea is copyrighted.

The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights - Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or CD. In the United States this is known as the first-sale doctrine, and was established by the courts to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand bookstores.

Fair use and fair dealing - Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Compulsory license - A compulsory license is an exception to copyright, pursuant to which another party can exercise one or more of the copyright's exclusive rights without having to obtain the copyright holder's permission (hence "compulsory") but will have to pay a licensing fee. Compulsory licenses are often justified as a governmental correction to market failure.

Parodies are usually covered under the fair use doctrine - Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be defended under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. (See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.)

robertob - I would have expected a more enlightened answer from you if you are in the business.


I personally love my prints but nobody has thown buckets of money at me for one:





Edited by - Geeto67 on Mar 08 2007 10:55:33 AM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
It never hurt the Dead to have ppl bootleg their music. If you have a problem with it.. take it either do not buy it or up with the guy yourself and don't get the "government" involved at all... we already have FAR too many laws, law makers and law "enforcement officals" and too many people minding other peoples business.

J "I love my country but fear my government" D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
Copy and paste error:

take it either do not buy it or up with the guy yourself

should be "either do not buy it or take it up with the guy yourself"

that is all.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,303 Posts
quote:
It never hurt the Dead to have ppl bootleg their music. If you have a problem with it.. take it either do not buy it or up with the guy yourself and don't get the "government" involved at all... we already have FAR too many laws, law makers and law "enforcement officals" and too many people minding other peoples business.

J "I love my country but fear my government" D
Dude, what are you talking about? Nobody is taking up anything with the government. sheesh!

And maybe you missed the point of message boards which is largely to bitch, moan, compalin, and generally discuss what is going on in the world of ______ (insert topic of messageboard here).

AS far as whether it "hurt" the dead or metallica to have their music bootlegged, well if you could possibly add up all the bootleg sales that occured (which would be impossible to track) you'de see that those sales were lost revenue on the licensed record sales so in a way it did hurt them in the sense that they did not make that extra revenue. Whether they cared is a different story (in the case of the dead probably not, metallica...well).

this doesn't make sense to me:
"we already have FAR too many laws, law makers and law "enforcement officals" and too many people minding other peoples business"

As compared to what? as many we had before? we seem to have less in proportion to the population as we had before but there are more people. As far as law makers well that has not really changed, you still have the same number of people in congress and the same applies for state and local governments. The only number that can actually increase is the number of law enforcement officials which due to budget constraints in the last couple of years has not increased in the way that the population has. As far as laws, well the old ones have not changed and all we have are new ones that cover the shit we didn't have when the old ones were written. Old copyright laws were insufficient to address digital mediums, so new ones had to be written, the core tenants stayed the same. 20 years ago we didn't have the internet so home privacy laws were insufficent in addressing invasion of privacy, now we have laws that say we have no expectation of privacy on the internet because the old laws were unenforcable as to the new medium. The world evolves, its laws evolve with it.

Do yourself a favor and take high school government all over again and this time pay attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Geeto gets it - if I take a picture, I OWN that image. Period - I don't have to do anything else to maintain ownership of that image if I can legally prove that I took it (i.e. I have the only full-res version).

If I email you a 1200X800 jpeg of it, you cannot then print it out and sell it.

Incidentally that's why most photographers do not give out full-res versions of their images.

Whenever I shoot a car for a magazine, I give the owner the out-takes on CD, but I always down-size them to 1200x800 and put my watermark in the file. That way I can keep track of them. The only person that gets hi-res images is the magazine, and they're buying my work for one instance of publication in a specific magazine so even there I'm protected.

If the linked guy has the rights to his images and is printing and selling them, there is no problem at all.

If he does not, there is a big problem.

I would give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because the penalties are pretty severe.

Especially the MotoGP shots - he would have to be a total moron to take those images and sell them if he does not own the copyright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,303 Posts
quote:
when did geeto become the dahlia lama?
I don't know it just happened one day. I really shouldn't be because I am a Internet bastard (read: pompous ass) most of the time.

Yeah you make it you own it (although registration helps protect it), unless it has entered public domain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,303 Posts
quote:
Geeto...is that you on the triumph?
That's a cool pic.
JohnnyB
nah, that's Bill and his trumpet. Cool bike. Bill is a brooklyn local who used to work for Huey and works for Works in brooklyn now. I think he saw me outside shooting and hammed it up a little for me (he was booking when he went by), out of 6 shots I took of him that is the only one that came out.

I'm the guy on his knees in the street taking that pic.

I like it better than this one which is our own ROSKO puttering away on his cb450:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,809 Posts
damned! i was looking for myself in those pics and no me!


jc
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,267 Posts
That looks like a cool scene down there in NYC...I gotta go down there and visit sometime.
I grew up in sort of an inner city area...I miss just hanging out with people.
JohnnyB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,809 Posts
jb, the vintage bike scene is pretty cool in nyc. its surprising how many people have large spaces with old bikes jammed in. and alot of pretty neat shit.

jc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
owenstudios is the real deal he has been doing sports car and motorcycle stuff for a long long time has been featured in every top magazines numurous times.

Besides that his entire family have been envolved in motorsports,before he was a commercial artist,bike sports cars you name it his family have been personaly involved in forever... just so you know.

Im so far behind ,that I think Im in first.

Edited by - LiLBull on Mar 09 2007 9:21:59 PM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Thanks for the info LilBull. But just because there's a passion doesn't make it right if the original work is just lifted, mildly altered, and sold for any, even if small, profit.

I'm still not happy that its being done. I'm certain there is little credit given to the photographers who spent the money to get a pass into the gate, or went through rolls of film and hours getting a decent shot. Just a right-click, save-as and it's yours to sell. I'm glad my business isn't this unfulfilling.

Sorry if I'm just bitching. I think robertob can relate.

All that aside, that scene in NY looks awesome. Downtown Milwaukee has a little of that to offer. Lots of vintage bike enthusiasts since they can be used for city travel. Lots of old cafes going around. My GS450e has sat too long. I need to get that thing back on the road. I never enjoyed motorcycling so much like I did my first year on that beast!
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top