One day I signed into Facebook, one of the photography pages I look at some times. As I scrolled I saw one of my images, an indian. It had received a few hundred likes. I had to look twice as I read the thread below it of lots of admirers, but also shock and bemusement as it wasn't me that had posted it in the first place. Some person in Spain had taken my image in its entire form, added his logo and claimed it. Not only did I message the person asking him to remove it and not to ever do that again or I would take action. But I added my image to the thread saying thank you for all the lovely comments and such a shame my image had been stolen.
Personally, taking a part of an image that has inspired you and making your own version, I have no problems with at all. But complete plagiarism or theft I am against.
I am a member of the Guild of photographers and part of the package is free membership to a company called Pixsy. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Pixsy safeguards your images and tracks down rogue uses of your images. Like companies using your images without paying you or infringing copyright.I am sure there are a lot of companies that do the same.
I am flattered if I inspire people, and recently I have had someone local to me copying most things I post on social media. There is a fine line.
Garnett, on the other hand, asks "Who owns the rights to this man's struggle?" She questions the legitimacy of an artist's right to dictate who can make commentary on their work and what can be said. On one hand, she is concerned with the role that copyright may play in restricting artistic creation, and how to preserve rights of ownership while still allowing for creative appropriation under terms of fair use. But mainly, Garnett is interested in the ways in which painting as a metiér can be wielded to engage issues of mass media-generated culture.
20 things about intellectual property law.