Unfair use

A few months ago, I got an e-mail that contained a sequence of images that showed an eagle attacking a swan. They were cool pictures. The e-mail gave credit to the photographer, but after so many Mars hoaxes, I have learned to not trust e-mail, so I googled the resort that was referenced in the e-mail. The Waterlily Bay Resort web site gave credit to a different photographer.

Why do people do that? Why copy a bunch of pictures to send around when a link to the original web site would do just fine, and why give the credit to somebody else?

I don't understand the e-mail hoax, but the most intriguing part of this story is that the original photographer removed his images from wherever they were stored, saying, "I removed the pictures off of pbase as I was worried that they would be taken and used without my consent." I can relate to that.

Apparently "fair use" means that any web image can be used on any web site or sent in any e-mail. The image sequence not only appears on the Waterlily Bay Resort web site, but it also appears on this blog. Considering that it was flying around the world in an e-mail, who knows where else that it ended up?



I occasionally do a search on my name and today I found this and this.

Both slide shows have several images that were taken directly from my web site. I am not sure of how the slide show web site is supposed to work, but it looks like a way of sharing slide shows with music, or whatever. The slide shows can be viewed, downloaded (to send in e-mail) and embedded on a web site.

It's the slideshare.net terms of use that really bugs me. They go about stating the DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT NOTICE PROCEDURES, but then they follow it up with this:

Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and
attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is
infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/
for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking
removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was
ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over
$100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online
infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

Did they just say that I should pay an attorney for a consultation before I complain about an infringement? That's just a nasty attitude on the part of slideshare.net. Whatever happened to common courtesy? On top of that, why jump through all of the paper hoops, even if it is the requirement by law? How about accepting an e-mail with some links? It seems that common courtesy has become as uncommon as common sense.

I haven't decided what I am going to do about the slide shows. The whole thing just bugs me. I don't understand how someone could be satisfied by taking images from a web site without permission and packing them into a slide show, blog or e-mail, and I don't like that I need an attorney to get a little courtesy.

Update

I cross posted this on my personal blog and I got a very quick response from Rashmi from slideshare.com. He said that I could contact them with the feedback form on their web site. That's the courtesy that I was looking for :)

Update 2

I have been in contact with the slide show creator and we have agreed upon which images of mine that he can use. There is no need for slideshare to take any action.

This is a happy ending.

What's new in fractal art?

Please read about it there and reply there or here

http://idreamincolor.com/forum/index.php?topic=74.0

Fuchsia WIP

Here's another one with some interesting potential. Check out these flowers with a hummingbird checking them out.

More on Ultrafractal 5

I still haven't spent enough time on it, but every time that I do use it I like it more and more.

I think that the class doohickeys and image import capabilities sort of distract from the powerful new features of global modifications of common parameters in multiple layers and layer grouping.

For example, the bird in this image consists of three layers. I had to play around with the Julia seeds and trap location parameters to get the birds located in a decent location and orientation. The old way would have been to change a parameter in one layer and then copy and paste into the other two. That's a PITA. The new way is to select multiple layers with a control-click and modify the parameter with the explore window. Only one layer appears in the explore window, but the common parameters in the other selected layers are changed along with it. That's more efficient.

I had to remove some birds around edges. To do that I like to use layer masking. The old way would have required 3 identical layer masks applied to each layer. The new way is to group the 3 layers together and then apply a single mask to the group.

UF 5 is good stuff. Hopefully I'll be able to do more with it when I don't have so many other priorities.

Hummingbird WIP

This has potential. The original image came from here

Dahlia 3

Playing with the image import functionality in Ultrafractal 5. This is the same flower that was used for the images in this blog

Fractal Art

This is the time of year that I think about submitting fractal art to one of the big fairs in my area. I am not going to do it this year. My fractal flame has dimmed a lot, but I still like to reflect back on past experience with that fair. Here are some random thoughts about it.

It's a pretty big art show. I don't remember the exact number, but I think that last year there was around around 600 entries accepted. It does not include a photography category but it does have oil, sculpting, watercolor and several others, including computer art. Again, I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I think that the computer art category had around 30 entries, so it was about 5% of the total show. Out of the 30, there might have been 2 or 3 fractal based pieces, so let's say that fractal art comprised of less than 1% of the entire show.

I have told this story before, but I think it is worth repeating... I'll never forget the time that I had a fractal based print in that show. I was standing next to it when a couple approached it. The first thing that the man said was, "that's just Photoshop". He was a pen and ink artist and it was obvious to me that he didn't have a lot of respect for "computer art". I had heard about that computer-did-all-of-the-work attitude before and that day I saw it face to face.

Let's face it, when it comes to fractal art, the computer does do a lot of the work. I wonder what impact that has on fractal art being accepted as legitimate art? I am thinking, probably not as much impact as that less than 1% number. Out of 600 accepted entries, only 2 or 3 were fractal based.

What is fractal art anyway? I don't know. I don't think that there is a clear definition. I also don't care. I am content with a computer category. At least there is one of those. Besides, with only 2 or 3 entries per year it would not make sense to create a separate category for fractal art.

Fractal art is a tiny spec on that world of art. It practically doesn't exist. It seems like there are thousands of fractals posted every day on the community sites, so how can I say that fractal art practically does not exist? I am looking at it based on my (limited) experience in context with traditional art.

I still believe that the best thing that anyone can do to promote the art of fractals is to get it printed and out there where it can be seen sitting next to traditional art. I still do not believe that the Internet is the best way to promote it. The community site are especially ineffective at promotion, at least outside of the community.

Last year I noticed a fractal in the judges section of the gallery. It was just a simple black and white Mandelbrot. At least that judge knew what a fractal was, but I think that he is an exception. Most people do not know what a fractal is . Even those of us in the middle of it cannot put a definition on "fractal art".

I'm OK with that. It's wide open. We can define fractal art as we go along. The people who do print and promote their own art have little to no competition. Take advantage of it.