I don't want to escallate this but there is an important principle here. I have seen people say "it is just a scan". And, "You don't even own the chip". I ask then, what is the differance between this topic and this picture of Paris and The Eiffle Tower, that I took.

I used a digital camera set on full automatic. I happend to be standing at a point where the composition inspired me. I simply pushed a button. I don't own the Eiffle Tower so I suppose I don't own my photograph because I don't own the subject. This would make most of the photos in a newspaper or magazine or whatever public domain since the publication doesn't own the subject so therefore wouldn't own the image. I didn't go through an extraordinary effort to get the picture. Therefore, I suppose I should just share it with anyone who wants to use it. Whether it is for their own enjoyment or on the cover of their Travel Agency Brochure for a Las Vegas Vacation. There goes the ownership of about 80% of all the pictures in most peoples family albums. So many cameras now days (point and shoot) require little if any thought or effort.

There are a couple threads on this topic, running here on TCB. Randy Pisane is dealing with a chip scan that was misappropriated and CLAIMED by a dealer who sold a similar chip for over $700 using Randy's scan and John Benedict writes of having a scan stolen and used as a illustration in an Antiques Guide. While each incident is a little unique, they both have to do with the same basic principle.

Randy had someone take advantage of his expense and investment and used his scan to generate income by selling the $700+ chip using his scan. John has been taken advantage in the same way. His financial expense and investment was taken advantage of by someone who is using his work in a book that is being sold for whatever amount per copy. Whats worse, is that now John can't use that original image anymore without infringing on the thief. In both cases, as I understand, there was no acknowlegement or consideration given to either person for their work and investment. These offenders are PROFITING off of Randy and John.

The issue here is, the principle of where do we draw the line. If ownership of a photograph hinges on the ownership of a subject or the physical exertion or mental input into capturing the subject, than many of us have no right to own much of what we produce. Including pictures such as mine shown above. My point simply is, Where Does This Stop? There is an attitude that computer or digital photos and scanned images etc. are of such little value since they are so easilly duplicated. Also there is the feeling that the internet constitutes public domain and is anyones personal library of material for whatever purpose they want. If we allow people to commercially use these scans and treat them as petty property then they may start to use that as a justification or aproval to TAKE our snapshots, family and travel photos and other photos, drawings and computer images for their unrestricted purposes. If someone comes up to you and ASKS if they can use your property and you concent. That is fine. At least you have control over the use of your work. That is the big issue. Do YOU have the right to determine a fair use of your photo or scan. If they just TAKE your images and use them for personal financial gain without even consulting with you than they ARE STEALING FROM YOU. Remember, in the examples above, we are not talking about people using the images for personal use or for hobby or for education or other non-commercial reasons. We are talking about incidents that were directly involved with commercial ventures thus making the scans a valuable salable piece of property.

You can call me petty or selfish or whatever, but I believe that if my work is salable and worthy of someone using commercially, I deserve some respect, consideration, acknowlegement and yes compensation. I don't go out and spend $999 for a digital camera, or $300 for a scanner to be cheritable and help others make money. I would think that a book publisher should be professional enough to acquire the proper licensing and concent for their illustrations. Either pay for them or give credit. A person selling High End casino chips and who has the financial means to acquire the chips in the first place, should have the means to buy his own scanner instead of stealing chip scans, AND PUTTING HIS OWN NAME ON THEM. To me, that would be the most infuriating part. The seller here, gave a DOUBLE SLAP when he first took the image, then later claimed that it was his property by putting his name on it. That, to me, is the same as if he had walked into my house and taken something of mine. It was mine, Now he says it is his. This is the exact same outcome of the issue with John. The scan was his, Now it IS the book publishers. If I were in Johns situation, I would SOOOOOOO BAD want to sue. As he and others have said though, That may not be possible, "Clean Hands" etc. I don't know.....

THIS HAS BEEN MY PERSONAL RANTS AND NOT LEGAL OPINION, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY