PhotoLife Drama In Second Life
by Alphaville Herald on 28/06/09 at 7:11 am
You mean I need permission to sell your Flickr photos in SL?
by Tenshi Vielle
Besides nameless SLobrities showing up at SL6B friday evening, the talk of SL6B has been claims that PhotoLife's recently violated the Flickr standards – and Darkley Aeon's artistic rights.
The back story: Darkley Aeon was using PhotoLife's stage system – I beg refusal to call it anything but – to use her photographs, performed occasional customer service for the PhotoLife group – without pay – and was in their in-world group and Flickr group.
Somehow, this meant that Gregg Paslong thought he could take Darkley's photographs off of Flickr, upload them into Second Life, and use them at the PhotoLife booth without permission. It is also alleged that these photographs were set for sale at the PhotoLife booth.
So let's recap the story here:
1) Used photographs without permission.
2) Set photographs for sale.
3) Burping into the voice mic while Darkley was attempting to privately resolve the problem with Gregg.
I covered this story at Shopping Cart Disco earlier this week, but apparently PhotoLife felt they were not being adequately covered so they went to Cherie Parker, who proceeded to give us an enlightening unbiased view from the PhotoLife team.
Annnnywho. Moral of the story, kids — just because someone uses your stuff it doesn't mean you have rights to what they make out of it. Hey Linden Lab?
Yes, the PhotoLife booth is still up at SL6B – I assume because no one went ahead and filed a DMCA.
Lizzie Lexington
Jun 28th, 2009
But did you make an attempt to get both sides? I didn’t see that at all. Listen this post struck a nerve with me because I met Greg over two years ago. And he was nothing but kind to me. I understand Darkley’s perspective and how this could have been misconstrued but for once couldn’t you consider reporting both sides of the story?
lol
Jun 28th, 2009
oh,this is the new Amish,i must flee before the camera takes my soul.
Precious
Jun 29th, 2009
Anything that has to do with Photolife is whack.
Cherie Parker
Jun 29th, 2009
Seriously, no one at SCD made any attempt to get both sides of the story before attempting to set ablaze an SL business. In my country at least that’s called biased. So if you want to read more factual based information,feel free to read my blog. By the way, no one came to me. I took this upon myself, wrote the article on my own. But of course that fact might not be juicy enough for SCD and Tenshi Vielle. In addition, Linden Lab has already reviewed this situation and come to the conclusion most other intelligent people have at this point, it was a simply a mistake. http://bluntfashionsense.blogspot.com/
Amanda
Jun 29th, 2009
Tenshi did include a link to the “other side” of the story.
The basic question is how can a “world class” photographer possibly think it’s ok to download and use another photographer’s work without permission. The rest of the accusations and personal attacks don’t matter. It’s not an oversight. You never download an artist’s work until after you get permission.
Non-Photographer
Jun 29th, 2009
That comment from Cherie just made me laugh so hard, from the woman that turned off comments to her blog.
What can be more factual than a chatlog from the actual parties involved? certainly not a Opinion piece by a staff member at PhotoLIFE.
Cherie – you artistic work is fabulous, maybe you should stick with that because you are so out of your depth I actually feel sorry for you.
Cherie Parker
Jun 29th, 2009
Amanda I finally turned off comments because it was obvious that we had addressed all the issues and things were just being rehashed over and over ad nauseam for the sake of attention, or further attempts at witch huntery. No other reason than that dear. Oh, and I do need to correct you Amanda, I’m not a staff member at photoLife. I’m glad you like my artwork, thanks for the compliment, but as far as being out of my “depth” Amanda dear, you’ve reached new heights.
Zindra
Jun 29th, 2009
“Seriously, no one at SCD made any attempt to get both sides of the story before attempting to set ablaze an SL business. In my country at least that’s called biased. So if you want to read more factual based information,feel free to read my blog.”
SCD is a blog, not a newspaper. Your blog is full of opinion and incorrect facts as you correct yourself later when you admit to the price tag attached to the prim. Were you there Cherie? Is there any value in your little blog in any way shape or form. There is no getting out of the ‘facts’ of the case.
Work was taken illegally
Work was uploaded illegally
Work was displayed for a price – although the actual monetary amount is irrelevant, it was set for a price, which was against the terms of the birthday exhibit anyway.
The staff spoke to the artist in a very poor fashion.
What exactly is Photolife’s side in all this?
I wish I was Prok
Jun 29th, 2009
From Cherie Parkers Blog…..”So again, I’m going to ask you to dig deep, look at yourself in the mirror, perhaps looking where you’ve chosen not to look before because it’s ugly and easy to avert your eyes”
I suggest you do the same Cherie.
Non-Photographer
Jun 29th, 2009
Ooooh, be careful Cherie, responding to the wrong poster may make you look stupid
Cherie Parker
Jun 29th, 2009
LOL Oh dear. Well, alright then kids. You play amongst yourselves, raise cane and keep on with that witch hunt, I realize you need something to keep your mind’s busy. Take care and have a happy life!
)
Mocksoup Graves
Jun 30th, 2009
I think an apology is in order from Photolife, regardless of the mistake. You do not put other people’s work for sale without consent. Not for 1L, not for 10L, not for 1000L.
This is Darkley’s work and offering a full apology, without excuses or justification and taking down the exhibit with her work is the ethical and professional thing to do.
Calling her a troublemaker? That is really beyond the pale.
Prof. Archie Lukas
Jul 7th, 2009
If you publish a piece of work, it has automatic copyright under International law for 50 years.
If someone takes your work and uses or sells it for commercial gain without written permission, it is simply copyright infringement.
Sue the bastard.
END of STORY