antonio gabriele toppi – is it ok to steal a picture ?

Hi,

I’m not registered to your forum, so I comment here.

Copyright doesn’t end with ‘having’ it. And also in Italy you sure have a copyright. This is not the question. The question is, when is your copyright infringed. I do not read any discussion in the forum about this. I guess it is time to do so. Mr Toppi or his lawyers will for sure state that this is not the case. I assume that is the reason for him not to respond to any such comments on his flickr site. I even assume that he likes to get the attention of those who are angry with his behavior.

So why is nobody investigating the law a little further here or at least read/quote it? Knowing what is good or bad is morality, copyright is something else.
Here are some good starting points:
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/
http://www.copyright.gov/

All the best,
Tom

Well, actually this is my point, Dietmar.
It seems to be not an easy answer at all, since you throw up a lot more questions here. I guess they should be answered…
I’m not in the position to do this, since I’m not acting as a lawyer/attorney here.

Just some more questions:
What damage exactly is Mr. Toppi causing? If there is any damage occurring (money, market…), what would be the compensation for this? Is he making money of what he is doing? Would Mr.Toppi be able to seek protection under the ‘de minimis non curat lex’ doctrine, which simply means, there is only a trivial use of the copyrighted material? If no damage is caused, there is no way to sentence somebody for what he is doing…

Either one has to find the answers to all these questions or one has to find a lawyer, sue him and find out by trial and error (in the court that is). Whining about this just adds more publicity to Mr.Toppi’s site (sometimes referred to as public relations).
So where is the brave one to sue him? Or are we all just going to spend some tears on Mr.Toppi’s website? He might be laughing about this.

If the photographer would have registered his copyright, any legal action against the usage of his images would be easier to carry out, since Mr.Toppi would find himself in the position to prove that he is not infringing the copyright, rather than the other way around, the photographer has to prove the infringement of his copyrights. Mr. Toppi would also experience that he has to cover the costs of this procedure (honorarium of the lawyer, legal fees etc.), if he is not able to defend himself.

Just my 2 cents.
Tom

Michael,

sorry, but your statement of difference between European and American law is not correct. Copyright is ‘born’ by creating a work in both legal systems. I.o.w. you do not need to register for copyright in the US as well to own it (I provided the link to read about this above). Nobody anywhere has to register his copyright to own it. My argument is, if you decide to register it, the need to prove that you actually own it when you take action against infringement is obsolete, because the registration is a proof thereof and will serve as an evidence in court. So the defendant has the obligation to prove, that he does not violate the copyright. This is very much the case also in Europe, as the US copyright is ratified under the Berne Convention by Italy (this case as I understand) and many other European countries and vice versa, the USA treats the copyright laws of Italy as well. So showing a registration of copyright is a good way to enforce it, since you do not have to show the ‘negative’ as you mentioned, which might become difficult, since Mr Toppi can show a ‘negative’ as well. You are already equipped with the proof of copyright and you can proceed to ‘step two’, which is to state your alternate/damage/losses/attorney’s fees and demand the infringing party to compensate for this, if he cannot prove his own rights to use your image. So the registration is beneficial in the sense of actually being able to control the usage of your images without the costly way of proving ownership prior to suing someone for compensation of losses. Registration of copyright is not a ‘must have’ to own copyright but very much a ‘must have’ for enforcing it. So we are talking about the procedure to protect copyright, not about the procedure to gain it, which is entirely done by creation.
Why Mr. Toppi does not credit the photographer or ask him for permission is beyond my knowledge. But it doesn’t matter anyway. If he would get a permission, we would not have a discussion here. If he would credit the photographer, we would still discuss the copyright implications, because he is altering the original version.
Mr. Toppi might well have the opinion, that by using photoshop and other tools, he is creating a new creative work which he consequently appropriates to himself and protects it under the creative common license. If he creates something new he would stand on two legs in a court of law.
Ultimately any creative work is based on former ‘old’ creative work. This is true also for the original photography here – as Dietmar implicated with his example of the photographed house -, since the photographer has no copyright on the lamp, the mirror,… in the image, he is just altering these creative works with a tool – the camera. The question here is, when is work ‘creative enough’ to be considered an original work and copyright worthy? Usually it does not need a lot of originality to constitute a copyright, just imagine two photographers taking pictures at the same time of the same subject. Both -very similar- pictures would be copyrighted.

Cheers,
Tom

Good luck Thomas. :-) The idea of yours resembles me official measures to cope with marijuana or prostitution – by legalizing them ;-)

Thomas, now as the offensive image is gone there is no evidence whatsoever. Official legal actions would take time. I would start them if my request to remove the stolen photograph was ignored.
Personally most of all I needed a moral support – I was completely put out by finding my work under different name.
As for the proclamation – ask Dietmar.

Ok, I see your points.
@ Kirill, I might be seen as a little bit persistent (don’t get peeved), but if I would have a copyright registration in my hand and such would happen to me, I would document the infringement (screenshots) before the deletion and let my lawyer send him a cease and desist order with a nice invoice and statutory damages claim. Maybe the money he would have to pay will make him ‘think’.
I can understand your embarrassment about this theft and just would not let him come away with this. We will for certain see him doing this again. Photographers have to be more aggressive in protecting their rights nowadays in my humble opinion.
Enough is enough!

Exactly, Michael!
Flickr and probably all the other community places do not care a bit. Maybe photographers should unite and share more their experiences and maybe even support their fellow pros to take actions. I think a lot of photographers are just way to ‘nice’ to certain people.
Yep, I think we have a sort of philanthropic touch, which makes it easy for a certain kind of people to fool around with our rights. Sometimes we should be more business-oriented instead of humanity-oriented. I think a James Nachtwey for instance would not hesitate a second to bring infringement of his copyrights down. Well, a little too much philosophy here, but I really hate to see what can happen.

The good thing is, we can get together quickly now, like here. We can make use of this.
All the best,
Tom

P.S.:
I’m supporting a photojournalist in great need, please have a look to this and join our rally to save his family by spreading his story:
http://www.pd-jkt.com/2009/08/16/photographers-help-to-save-steves-family/

it’s stealing, simple as that.

Hi Magda,

you would probably be a good judge! At least you are not bothered with doubts about what is right or wrong and what is obvious and clear…

Seriously Magda, how can you be so sure about the outcome of such a case? It is entirely up to the judge to evaluate, whether the derivate work is of its own originality or not (not up to you, I might add here). The law doesn’t regulate this, so how come it is obvious?
Where do you read in the copyright law, that copyright will give you compensation for violating it? How much would that be then in this case, Magda, assumed that you really would be the judge?
Sure, there must be a damage claimed, either the loss of money (for instance somebody copies music and sells it, so the musician looses the revenue) or a loss of your work’s market value (e.g. the copies are ‘flooding the market’ and decrease the value of a limited edition). To claim for statutory alternate damages you must have a registration of your copyrights. Otherwise you have to prove damage (in dollars or euros, please). Your assumptions here are dangerous in the way that they are assumptions and do not match reality.

Why is it still an infringement, when the picture in this case is deleted? It is wiped away. You probably forget, that copyright is civil law (in most cases, for sure in this case, since there is no criminal act involved here). If I pay my debt, it’s wiped away, you cannot sue me anymore! I cannot follow your argumentation here as well.

I do not follow your question about the choosing of the country to go to court either. Since when does Canadian civil law apply or is executed in other countries? Italy is an independent nation with its own laws and regulations as far as I know. So you are correct, Kirill would have great difficulties to get the Italian legislation to execute Canadian laws, it is simply not possible A judgement of a Canadian judge will be executed in Italy. Beware! The question is answered, Mr Toppi, as an Italian, does not have to fear Canadian law, basta.

Why would Kirill have to ‘spend a lot of money for the lawyers’? It would not cost him a fortune if at all, if he would have a registration of copyrights in his hand. His lawyer will just send a letter out to the party who infringed the copyright and will claim for his fees as well at the same time, he will also claim a statutory damage (in the US up to $100.000), because such a statutory damage ‘comes’ with the registration of the copyright (and only with the registration!). That is not costly at all! And this is actually one of the major ideas of the copyright registration: to make it possible even for ‘poor’ artists to protect their rights against much mightier corporates or individuals!
Once this letter is out, the other party has a choice, whether to give in and pay or to go into the court of law for defense. The latter will require to pay for this procedure in advance (!) which is depending on the amount of money which is claimed for. So the defendant has to ‘spend a lot of money for the lawyers’, not the copyright owner (see above, the idea of copyright registration). If he is not sure whether he will win, he would be better off, paying what is claimed and ‘wipe away’ the infringement. Otherwise the expenses for going into court might add up to the claims presented, in case he will loose.
If he doesn’t react to the letter by stating a defense and paying for the costs of this defense procedure in court, the copyright owner can enforce his claims without ever actually going to court! He ultimately will receive the help of the law enforcement (commonly the police) to get the money. An easy and very low cost way for a lawyer to earn money. Kirill would not pay a lot. And the court might be slow in Italy, the law enforcement for sure is not.

I think, it is quite well to the point to discuss the law, because obviously some photographers have no clue, how to protect their copyright and why a registration of copyright is beneficial for them. That is true also for those to whom the law seems to be so clear. One should differentiate between the norm and its enforcement, the latter is not understood.

@Frans Peter, No, it’s not stealing. If it would be stealing, we would not need to have a copyright law. Stealing is a crime, infringement of copyrights not. If it would be stealing, we just call for the police, make a statement of what happened and the prosecutor will do his job. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Kirill, register your copyrights. It’s about $50. You can do this even online. No need to go to bureaucratic offices. Upload your work or send in a CD with files, fill out the registration form online, send money by credit card, that’s it.
Next time, somebody takes your work, call a lawyer, tell him the registration number, let him write a letter, sit back and enjoy.

Action!

All the best,
Tom

I found a good swiss website http://www.copyright.ch

Seems as if in switzerland its like in EU. No “copyright by” necessary. Register not possible. Work is “with creation” fully protected.

well… sollicitated by Thomas interesting advices and Magda’s remarks and to further explore what Eva wrote, I’ve been digging a bit on the website of the italian national association of professional photographers TAU Visual…

the relevance in this discussion it’s, I fear, minimal: the interesting and very practical informations contained in their site
(in italian… see here: http://www.fotografi.org/protezione_foto_internazionale.htm )
almost only applies to italian authors: I’m far from being an expert but I’ve understood that (in Italy)
- you don’t *need* any copyright _registration_
(you *may* do it if you want: it exists for other works of arts but it’s not even *suggested* for photography: other methods exist)
- the *law enforcement* organism mentioned by Thomas which helps the authors in monetising possible losses is not the *police* in Italy, but an organism called SIAE (Italian Association of Authors and Editors): in order for them to act, the author should gave them such warrant *before* the copyright infringment
- in all cases the extra-judiciary solution is always suggested as the best choice: and it passes as Thomas described (that is: even *without* any copyright registration)
- as for the extinction of the infringement after the picture has been wiped out, I don’t think that could be even considered sufficient in Yahoo own copyright policy terms: the correct way (unless Kirill have any evidence that any money has been gained by someone else after the infringement) should be the publishing of the same picture with the correct author attribution by our Mr. Toppi…

BTW: apparently people as him produces *works of art* using in the same way copyright-free pictures…
call me naive but only now I start understanding all this *flicking* buzz…

Luigi,

you are right, you don’t need any copyright registration to own a copyright. We said that many times.
In many other points you understood me wrong.

You need a proof of your copyright when you want to sue the infringer. This is easier accomplished by presenting a registration of your copyright.
I assume that registering the copyright of photographs was indeed suggested many times. Because renown photographers did choose to do so. Just look for the registrations of photographers from Avedon to Z’s.
(try it out yourself -example, Avedon Richard-: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First -and this is the US registration only)
What else does exist here as an alternative??? I do not know of any other and cannot find any other legally acknowledged way to do so. Maybe you can advise.

The SIAE is not a law enforcement organism nor in any way part of the legal system in Italy and cannot do anything else than the copyright owner himself. They just offer to do this for him (and maybe getting money for doing so or by doing so getting memberships in their association sold). In order to do so, they must be authorized by the copyright owner as you said. For what would that be good for? Why not taking a lawyer in the first place, instead of authorizing an association to do so for oneself? One more thing, you cannot give your copyright to other people anyway. The only way to give it to other people is to die.

I did not suggest any ‘extra-judiciary solution’. To the contrary, if the infringer does not choose to defend himself in the court of law against the claims of the copyright owner, his case is seen as lost and the law enforcement entities, the executives (including ultimately with the help of the police) will execute the claim of the copyright owner. This is not extra-judiciary, but there is no need to stand in the court to make this happen. It is like having a sentence against the infringer in hand, as if the judge would have already sentenced him. Once you have a such a ‘title’ in hand, there is no need to go to court again, it will be executed with the help of the executive ‘organism’ (including the police).

I do not see, Luigi, why Mr Toppi could be pressured to show the original photograph attributing the correct owner once he deleted his altered version of the photograph. Why has he to do this? Wiping it out (by deleting it) is sufficient. One would alter the Mona Lisa picture, show it, then delete it, then have to show the original Mona Lisa picture with the correct author attribution? Wishful thinking… In Italy and elsewhere it is sufficient to follow the law. There is no other ‘punishment’ or satisfaction for doing something legally wrong than paying a fine or going to jail by verdict of a judge. This is called democracy. So how come, we ask for more? Not Yahoo at least.
What he might be pressured to by Kirill and other copyright owners is (even after deleting the pictures), to sign a paper that he will not do so anymore or will accept a fine (up to several hundred thousand dollars). That would teach him to not do it again! But then, nobody is taking legal actions and everybody is just complaining and guessing, when he will do it again and who will be his next ‘victim’. Everybody is yelling ‘we have a copyright, how can he do so?!’. ‘He’s so bad, yahoo/flickr/… has to do something’. They can’t and they will not. The copyright is given by law for free, but the owner has to take care of it or it is good for nothing.
Duh, who is finally brave enough to take action instead of whining?

What I really don’t get in this discussion is, why are photographers and other artists so reluctant to register their copyright? What should the legislative system do more for their right protection? Why is it not understood, that having right, doesn’t mean to get it? Why do large companies and famous artists from A to Z register their rights?

Ok, I made my point -again- and this will be it for me.

Take care,
Tom

Tom
thanks for your remarks: clearly my post was *obscure* ;0)
first: I just wanted to clarify how (as far as I have understood from the source I’ve provided) things work under italian laws when protecting artworks

I understand that you meant *copyright registration* as a way to easily prove the author owns the copyright: I’ve just remarked how that is considered *unneeded*, not by me, but by the italian association called TAU Visual (which gathers a number of professionals in Italy)
by my part I consider this registration *not practical*: at least as far as I understand how it works

SIAE actually, to my understanding, is part of the civil system managing the copyright laws in Italy: please read point 9 in the english FAQs section of their site
http://www.siae.it/

by *extra-judiciary* I meant all the steps, that you also indicated, issued *before* sueing: sorry for using an imprecise language

your remark about the fact that *wiping out* the copyed work is sufficient…
it is generated my by own speculation about the fact that Toppi should be called to republish *his work* with a clear attribution of correct authorship
I should have added there: along with the original photography (and clarification of the copying)

in the case of an nonmaterial damage a nonmaterial punishment is, as I understand, a common *punishment* (which have nothing to do with *democracy*)

finally, what I can’t really understand and probably you can comment or explain also for me, is why register the copyright of images stored by flickr to assess copyright infringement made on the same platform…
I can read in the copyright policy of Yahoo|flickr:

It is Yahoo!’s policy, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, to disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who may infringe or repeatedly infringe the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of Yahoo! and/or others.

then I’m asking: in such *particular* case of a member copying straightly from another member,
couldn’t it be possible to just look at the creation date on their database?

http://it.docs.yahoo.com/copyright_it.html

There is written very clearly that Mr. Toppi isn’t allowed to do what he did, and furthermore, there’s even written that Yahoo can suspend or cancel his account.. but instead of doing so, Mr. Toppi can keep on posting pictures and even more, delete comments he doesn’t like.

Kirill has written to Yahoo, the next step should have been theirs, IMO.

Thomas, I’m pretty sure that Magda knows what she’s talking about..

“i would ask the photographer’s permission and/or opinion, before uploading an edition of his work, yes. ”

then why didn’t you ask kiril? or credit him?

“To be blessed with ‘my’ treatment of a photograph is high praise for the photographer, indeed.”

that is a matter of opinion, and a rather arrogant statement, unless you are being ironic.

“Anyhow I hope to be forgiven.”

then maybe you should apologise to kiril?

thank you for at least becoming visible, and stating your case.

It’s a 100% serious comment of G.Toppi. No irony.

Interesting to hear, that Mr.Toppi believes, that he is doing art. So when he uses the photograph he adds originality to it, making it his own work, even gaining his own copyright of it.
Didn’t we talk about it already?
He believes, that the photograph is an offering, when published on the net (which is obviously wrong), so maybe he is not aware of doing something wrong? If this is the case, he would not be ‘guilty’ in what he is doing, because he is acting without guilt (copyright is one of the few laws, where there must be an awareness of wrongdoing).
And finally, maybe he didn’t know, that it is not offered to the public, because there is no © copyright remark on the photograph to tell him?
I think, we talked about it …

No, I’m not implying this, but he could exactly do so!

Ignorance of the law is usually not a defense, but in the case of copyright it is!
That’s indeed what I am saying above.
It is one of the few laws, where you just have to make credible, that you did not know, that you were acting consciously wrongly/against a law, in a way the judge will believe in this! This is intended to protect those, who are without knowing violating copyrights and there are cases in which this makes well sense. So again, the copyright law tries to be ‘on the side’ of those who are not equipped with a lot of knowledge about this law and who might not be able to defend themselves in case they infringe the copyrights of mighty corporates or individuals (remember that it might cost 100000$$$$ to violate this right) without knowing of bad-doing/guilt.
Consequently I argue, to add the copyright remark to your works! It’s not needed to have a copyright, but nobody can tell the judge anymore, “uh, sorry, I didn’t know about this. Sure I will delete it, no problem. Thank you, that I do not have to pay for compensation of damage/losses, because I’m sooo stupid”. I hope this makes it more understandable what I meant.

Regarding the work, Mr Toppi applied. Whether this work is original or not is entirely up to the judge to decide (not to us). Since copyright is gained very easily, originality is not a ‘big thing’ to achieve. So I fear, just using photoshop is not an indication of not creating original works. Of course a lot of photographers use photoshop in an original way, don’t they?
It doesn’t matter, how much work and effort Kirill put into his original photograph. Effort and work are not needed to create original works! (I know a lot of very expensive work, which did not require a lot of effort or skill. How easy would it be to make similar pictures of Andy Warhol’s portraits? Or Avedon’s Beatles-Poster? Just a few click in photoshop…)

Well, I just hope, nobody here gets the impression I’m on Mr Toppi’s side. I’m rather acting as an advocatus diaboli to make my points clear. I am a photographer myself and would never accept the infringement of my copyrights. Just to make clear…

Cheers,
Thomas

Maybe it’s not art. But this doesn’t matter. Copyright doesn’t protect ‘art’. It protects any original work.

3 clicks with photoshop, the Obama-campaign-poster-lawsuit.

Thomas,

There are two main copyright doctrines – the European and the Anglo-American. While many issues have been harmonized with help of international conventions (e.g. the Berne convention) the most important difference is still there. It’s about the role of the author and his personal rights. Americans have „copyright”, Europeans have „author’s right”. Americans stress the economical value and free circulation of information and cultural goods, we, Europeans, respect the author as the creator of an intellectual good. We believe that the work reflects the personality of the author and that it has to be protected at least on the same level as his right to gain economical benefit from the use of his work. Our free use doctrine is different from the American one. Only a new original work that has been created by inspiration of another one would be a free use in Europe. There has to be a high distinction between the both works. In this special case Mr. Toppi changed the color of the Kirill’s picture – that’s not enough for an independent work in Europe and there is no free use doctrine applicable here. One doesn’t need to be a judge to be able to see it (and apart from that – since when it’s only up to a judge to decide what’s right and what’s wrong? Isn’t this ability something that distinguishes us from animals?)

Besides the appearance of Mr. Toppi’s flickr account makes the user think he was a photographer and that were his own photographs. He doesn’t really act like an artist who alters the work of the others.

Now short about your remarks:

1. If somebody has been injured in the internet he may sue in every country where the infringement is available to the users – that’s the principle of the country of destination. I mentioned only Canada and Italy as they would be the most practical for Kirill in my opinion (the one is his country of residence, the other one is the country of residence of Mr. Toppi).

2. To ease international matters there are bilateral and multilateral treaties between countries about the recognition and the enforcement of foreign judgments in the inland. I never said the Italian court would apply Canadian law. I was talking about the enforcement of Canadian judgment in Italy – there is a special procedure how the Italian court proves the Canadian judgment and acknowledges that it can be enforced in Italy. If you are interested you can google about it.

3. The altered picture has been available in internet for a longer period of time – if I remember well the newest commentaries were made about 14 month ago. So the copyright infringement was lasting more than a year. Now Mr. Toppi has deleted the picture – fine, he has stopped the infringement. But that’s only one side of the coin. By deleting the picture he has not wiped away the infringement because the publishing itself (and not just beeing published) is already an action that infringes Kirill’s copyright. It has nothing to do with the civil or criminal nature of the case. For the publishing and for the period of beeing published Kirill can claim damages. If we would follow your logics claiming damages would almost be impossible because it would be sufficient for the dependant to delete the infringing work. Or just think about the cases that are not lasting – a concert for example. According to your logics a song writer would not be able to claim damages for unauthorized playing of his songs at the concert a day ago because today the concert would already be in the past – nobody is infringing his copyright today.

4. In Europe there are three ways to calculate the damages and only one of them has something to do with the actual amount of the damages. The plaintiff can also claim the statutory damages (no copyright registration needed!! – we don’t have it in Europe) or the profit of the infringer – mostly its up to him to decide which method of calculation would be the most sufficient. In this special case Kirill could also claim a compensation for the intangible damages caused by infringing his personality rights (recognition of the authorship & distortion of the work).

5. Copyright registration is not a panacea. An American copyright registration has no effect outside the country because copyright is a territorial right (see your own remarks about the sovereignty). An Italian judge would still prove whether the work is protected by the Italian copyright law.

If you still want to continue the discussion it would be nice if you would forget the American copyright and American procedures as I do not see why in this special case the American law would be applicable (unless Kirill would sue in America… for some strange and unknown reasons).

it seems his account at flickr has now been suspended. he could have avoided all this mess very easily. all he had to do was ask for permission to use other people’s work. i am sure there are many people on flickr who would be happy to let him manipulate their work, why did he ignore common courtesy and also imply that the photographs were all his own work?

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/08/twitter-photographer-asks-sky-news-to-pay-up.html

even sky news are at it now! (although when asked by the photographer for money, they paid)

I am glad Mr. Toppi responded, though I am amazed by his position. Of course he didn’t ask my permission. And of course I do not need his blessing. I guess neither do Kevin nor Gertrud who spotted their photographs among Toppi’s creations. I think they are not the only ones.
Anyway, something happened – his account on flickr is suspended. He also had an account at ArtLimited.net – another art community. I posted an article with a link to the still-dancing blog in their “Copyright” forum. It looks like Toppi’s account disappeared from that site too.
I agree with Michael – it was so easy to avoid this mess, though some people’s ego may be too strong for them to remain decent.

I have been reading the preceding comments with great interest and here is my 2 cents worth. I discovered Mr Toppi’s Flickr photostream purely by chance and was immediately entranced by it, visiting it regularly and even adding a link to it on my own website. Only once was I alerted to the fact that he had used an image created by someone else as the basis of his ‘art’ when a similar polemic ensued. In that case, he HAD acknowledge the author of the original image but the issue raised in the attendant comments was not so much relating to copyright but to the question of whether it is admissable to use someone else’s creative output to create output of one’s own (for which one claims credit). This is more a question of artistic ethics (and perhaps morality, in the case of attribution), than of interpretation of and adherence to the law.

Personally, I believe that permission and attribution are fundamental ethical principles that should be followed on the grounds that we are all trying to be creative artists, we are part of a community with a common aim, and we should all be working together, learning from and inspiring each other, encouraging and supporting each other and sharing our ideas and achievements. The question, as always, is one of demarcation. Is the act of copying an image and applying a ‘treatment’ to it to create a new creative work really any different from using the ideas found in someone else’s photograph to create your own original photograph which is, effectively, a recreation of the original, then claiming credit for it? I have seen this done on Flickr, with and without attribution. We see examples of rebadging, repurposing or extending original works in all forms of art. Aimee Cesaire’s play, La Tempete, is clearly and admittedly based on The Tempest, by Shakespeare. John Stenibeck’s greatest novel, East of Eden, is loosly based on the Bible’s Book of Genesis (and in particular, the story of Cain and Abel). In reality, there are few new themes, in literature, art and photography; and the best that most of us can do is to reinterpret these themes through our own life’s experiences. Whatever the ethical and moral issues, it is my opinion that Mr Toppi’s work has a depth and beauty that most of us can only dream of achieving; and to cut him down on legal technicalities, to me, smacks of bitterness and jealousy. I am profoundly sorry that his photostream on Flickr has been closed down. It means that my own catalogue of favourites has been decimated and I am no longer able to enjoy the quality of his work. Far better, in my opinion, to encourage this great talent to follow the ethical path than to brutally obliterate his work like modern-day Nazis.
As I said, this is my own, honest opinion. I feel passionate both about artistic freedom and about the ethics of art; and I feel that we should look for ways to bring them together as one rather than to split them apart.
Keith

poor souls, who have to use other peoples ideas and fantasy..

so what exactly did mr toppi do?

1. he took somebody else’s work without their permission. this is illegal.

2. he published that work under his own name, with no mention of the original creator. this is illegal.

what else to say? how can two illegal acts become legal?

Michael, fuck the rules and laws. he took it somebody else work, ideas, fantasy and inspiration, that shows only that his small little brain is and was not able to create something own.

his “work has a depth and beauty that most of us can only dream of achieving”

yes ;)))

i don´t think it´s ok to steal a picture or anything else… but don´t forget

“Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed”

“”Of course, your question is — where did that first energy come from? Fact is, no one knows. That is a HUGE question. IF the Big Bang is true, then all that energy came from nothing (ex nihlo)! Some would have you believe that it came from a “quantum fluxuation in a vacuum”. Huh!?!?”"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuli_giulietta/3148390759/

…. if the best that one can do is transform in ps a photo from someone else , well, for me that says it all …ridiculous…
no need for “punishment” or whatever.. gosh.. just showing this in public is enough, what goes around comes around

Keith. He should have asked, or in this case replied to the email of Kirill.

I am sure there are also many photographers who think like you do. And there is nothing wrong about that.

They would have agreed that he can use their pictures.
Some would have told him that he would have to mention their name under the photograph
Others maybe would have rejected.

Its easy and not complicated.

For example, if he would have replied to Kirill, maybe Kirill would have allowed him to use the picture? No problem then.

Imagine, he would have written: I made a mistake, sorry, I apoligize and will ask Kirill and all the others. Then I will act acordingly. No problem anymore, and many pictures would have been “saved” for you to watch, I think.

And then, I would have watched the pictures, too ;)
You see, I am not against his art of postprocessing, but against not asking and just using.

Dietmar and Kirill, thank you very much for your considered comments. I totally agree with you Dietmar. I do not condone what Mr Toppi did in Kirill’s case and in other cases where may have acted similarly. In fact, I am very disappointed by what has transpired. As a sincere admirer of the images Mr Toppi previously displayed on Flickr I feel cheated now, perhaps not as much and as personally as Kirill does since he was the author of the image in question, but as one who has been deluded into praising a photographer for work which was not entirely his. And Kirill’s comment, above, only reinforces that feeling.

I had previously believed, and argued (on my own website), that the image is everthing; and that how an image is created should not influence one’s evaluation of its aesthetic merit. In that case, I was writing specifically about photographers who, through post-processing, continue the creative process beyond the act of capture in the camera. But, of course, my assumption was that photographers would either post-process their own images, or obtain permission to post-process the work of other authors and give credit to them for the original work. I had assumed, until I started reading this chain of comments, that Mr Toppi was doing this and in my opinion, he was one of the finest exponents of post-processing that I had stumbled across in Flickr. So, I am not only disappointed to have been duped into believing that he was the author of the original work; but I am equally disappointed that such a talent should be wasted or misued; for whether ethical or not, if I understand you correctly, Dietmar, his talent is not a matter of dispute.

This really is a sorry business and as you said, Dietmar, it could all have been avoided quite simply and to everyone’s benefit.

Thank you again for your correspondence.