Copyright, Respect It – use of Lightning Maroon Clownfish Images

January 19, 2012 TheLightningProject 10 comments

With SOPA and PIPA making news this week, it’s all too timely to bring up a brief discussion about copyright. I was 100% against these measures because they lacked the necessary protections of due-process…all it takes is an accusation to bring down an entire server, a server which could house dozens or hundreds of unrelated websites. Never-mind whether the accusations are even true.
That said, copyright is some pretty serious business. What people don’t realize is that some of the aquarium industries most valuable photographers are actually reducing what they publish because rip-offs are simply too prevalent. To date, there have been only three people here in my home shooting high-quality photography of the Lightning Maroon Clownfish.
First is Tony Vargas. He shot for over an hour, to the point of almost ignoring the other 16 tanks in my house! Tony takes copyright so seriously that he releases few if any images from his work, and when he does, he’s forced to watermark right over the subject, like this:

It’s a shame that Tony must do this, as a watermark is, in my opinion, very obtrusive. However, Tony has been driven to this as a stern measure to help enforce the copyright over his work. You (the vague, amorphous, internet community at large) are to blame.

Marc Levenson has been here too and photographed the Lightning Maroon. It’s fair to say that Marc shares my dislike of watermarking over a photographs subject. So instead, he places a photo credit within the picture, but off to the side or bottom so it doesn’t interfere. For example, this:

Better yes, but certainly such a mark is easily cropped off this image. I implemented such an image strategy in an earlier business, and routinely found my images being used by my competitors to sell competing products….they’d just cut off the watermark and use the image as if it was their own. Policing this was a nightmare. I invested thousands of dollars to create this photography to sell my products and they’re stealing it and underselling me. You bet it drove me insane. It was HIGHLY wrong and quite illegal to do what they were doing.

But in the end, I still did not choose to watermark my images as Tony had done. So really, if I’m not going to watermark every image I put up here because I want this audience to enjoy unfettered images, what am I asking of you, the reader?

Well for starters, I’m asking you to not steal my images. We’re not even through the first month of 2012, and I’ve already been notified of 2 unauthorized uses of my Lightning Maroon photography. Certainly some of you may ask “what’s the big deal”?

First off, it’s because they didn’t ask. Yes, often times all it takes is to say what image you want to use, why you want to use it, and often you’ll get positive response from the average photographer who isn’t doing it for a living. Yes, Tony and Marc both gave their blessings for me to share their photography here on the website.

Of course, Marc and Tony were invited to my house. They shoot photos of my property, without offering any compensation to do so, so there’s an understanding and respect there from the get go…i.e. I’d hope that these friends of mine would contact me and suggest me first if anyone came to them looking to license Lightning Maroon photography. By the same token, Tony has one image that I’ve said “that’s the cover of my BOOK Tony, that’s awesome, and I’d hope he’d be kind enough to simply let me use the image gratis (since it is my fish in my tank afterall, shot with my permission)..but I’d still make sure he’s compensated in some way because man, a book cover of that caliber…he deserves it.

So yes, even with ALL of this “unspoken understanding”, I still showed my friends the courtesy of ASKING before using their images here on TLP. And still, it’s important to note that technically, if Marc or Tony wanted to commercially use their photography of the Lightning Maroon in my home, they’d have to obtain a property release form from me in order to do so (and if I wanted to be a jerk, I could make them pay me for that release)- it’s that much more important because the Lightning Maroon is a one-of-a-kind, instantly recognizable fish that over time has also become synonymous with me. Still, so much of this in the aquarium world functions on mutual respect and the understanding. And despite that, every image I use in a story on Reef Builders is either creative commons, my own, or one that I’ve ASKED to use first.

But the fact that this month’s infringers didn’t ask to use my photography is almost trivial…in both cases this year if infringers had asked for permission, I would’ve said “no”, you can’t use this image in this manner. But still, understand that I might say “yes” just as easily to some future inquiry, or I might say “for that use, I’d be willing to license the image”.

In the two cases this year, I didn’t get paid either way. That’s theft. Granted, I wouldn’t have offered to license these images either. Doesn’t make it OK to steal them then. If you can’t afford it, or it’s not available for purchase, theft is not the solution. You’re not starving and my images are not a loaf of bread.

But the real conundrum here is that along the way, this iconic fish has become synonymous with my personal name. So when someone uses my photography of a one of a kind fish that I own, people recognize it. Instantly. And I’ve found it directly associates back to me.

The use of my Lightning Maroon photography in commercial settings creates a connection between myself and the activities of the person who isn’t authorized to use the imagery in the first place. It’s interesting because in both cases of infringement this month, I found out not by my own hand (it never happens that way) but because people contacted me to say “Hey, do you know this person that’s using the Lightning Clownfish in this way here on the internet? What can you tell me about their product/service/business?”

Well guess what kind of response your business / project / service gets when I find out you’re stealing my photography and along the way, creating the illusion of an unspoken, unofficial endorsement by me? Do you think I have glowingly wonderful things to say about you and your business?

I’m not going to go into the realities of copyright law here. Yes, I’m trained in it; understanding copyright was crucial in my professional line of work. Here’s the important pieces of advice, both for me, and in general:

If you’re re-posting a Lightning Maroon Clownfish image of mine on a forum or something to say “Hey, check out this new shot” and you attribute it to me and link to the blog, I’m not going to have a problem with that, I get that, and you’re not causing me any harm by doing that. However…
If you find an image of the Lightning Maroon out there in any other capacity, that wasn’t published by me, a vendor who handled the fish (Pacific Aqua Farms, Blue Zoo Aquatics), or someone who’s known to have photographed the fish (Ret Talbot, myself, Marc Levenson, Tony Vargas, and soon to be Gary L. Parr), please let me know immediately as it is probably an unauthorized use.
The Lightning Maroon’s likeness will never be licensed out for use as part of any brand identity..i.e. you’ll never see a logo with the Lightning Maroon in it unless it’s something I’ve done, for me (i.e. if I have babies to sell someday). Anything even remotely commercial at this point, chances are it’s unauthorized and I want to know about it.
If you want to use any images of the Lightning Maroon, in a commercial or journalistic setting, please ask first so we can discuss whether I’m comfortable with the use, and any potential licensing arrangement.

Some more general copyright advice:

Any image, text, etc, is covered by copyright the second it is created. It does not require a copyright symbol, sign, watermark or any other notation to be copyright protected. Just because it doesn’t say “Copyright Matt Pedersen 2012” on the image, doesn’t mean it’s not my image.
All you really need to know is a very simple test – if you didn’t create it yourself, and you didn’t license it from someone else who did, then you don’t have any claim of copyright on that work. Using it in just about any setting could have you violating copyright. Again, not going to get into “fair use” cases because frankly, in the aquarium hobby world and industry there aren’t many likely scenarios for a fair use claim to arise.
In general, if you’re just rumbling around the internet and find a picture you want to use for something, ask first.
If you don’t know who’s image it is, find out.
If you can’t find out, move on and find another image.
Or go find an image on Flickr that’s available for attribution only license via Creative Commons
Bottom line, real simple, if you want to stay above board, avoid public embarrasment, avoid nasty emails, and avoid a bad reputation, make it yourself.

It’s really simple folks. Life is better for everyone if we respect the creative works of other people. It costs real money and time to create and publish these works for you to enjoy. It is one thing to share and attribute those works to promote them (although you’re probably still violating copyright law), but it is an entirely different story to use images in a commercial manner of any kind, let alone in a manner that appears to create an endorsement or partnership where none exists.

General Topics, Images and Videos, Lighting Maroon Clownfish copyright, Gary L. Parr, images, Marc Levenson, pictures, Ret Talbot, Tony Vargas, video

Comments (10)

#1 | Written by Marc Levenson about 12 years ago.

Matt, I’ve had many of my images taken by others specifically for the purpose of commerce. It’s been something as minor as an ebay ad selling a small maxima clam, yet they used multiple images of MY CLAM that I’d photographed eating phytoplankton in a specific feeding station I’d built for my 55g. Why a seller can’t use a picture of THEIR product amazes me – imagine the buyer when they didn’t get what they saw. Ebay took it down within minutes of my supplied proof.
I’ve had pictures of my reef tanks used on sites offering tank maintenance. What, they don’t have pretty tanks they service that they can photograph as examples of their excellent care provided by their employees? Rather, they’d like to share pictures of MY tanks that I care for, multiple states away? I had to push the legal envelope to get that taken down.
Another individual literally ripped off my entire ID section of my site and published it on their site, using the same format, font and colors but put their site’s name on every one of my images. Talk about bold.
Yet another site took my articles in full and published them on their site without any reference that might indicate it might not be their words and pictures, nor did they credit my content & photographs.
These are but a few examples of what I’ve had to deal with, and yet it has never made me regret sharing what I’ve learned and experienced with the rest of the world. Fortunately people have contacted me as they do you when they come across such violations, because deep down people do want to do the right thing and point out those that seemingly don’t. Asking for permission is always best, and often I’ve granted those requests. I’ve even dug through my image collection for those that needed specific images for their articles or projects. I currently have more than 50,000 hobby-related images on my hard drives because they are of value.
I’ve had friends with stunning tanks have their pictures used for marketing purposes without their knowledge let alone their permission. Where’s the common sense?!
In the end, it is up to me to decide what I want shared, and where it will appear. I agree with you that they need to ask for permission, and additionally they need to also understand they may have to look elsewhere if the owner (creator, photographer, writer) chooses not to allow it. Just because an image appears in a search engine image index doesn’t mean it’s free and fair game. It’s not. Copyright laws say so; we aren’t making this stuff up.
#2 | Written by Ted Judy about 12 years ago.

Great post. My images have appeared in web sites hosted all over the world without my knowledge or permission. So much so that I ultimately had to remove the galleries from my website…. galleries that contained images of close to 1000 species of fish. I honestly do not have a problem with the use of the images so long as the photo credit stayed on the picture and the users asked. I drew the line at images being used as relatively permanent fixtures on a commercial website, but I would usually permit a hobbyist to use an image for an auction… not everyone can take a decent picture, and a fish auction needs a picture (imo).
What really caused me to take them down was that people were using the images and misidentifying the fish! Or giving completely wrong information on their care. There would be a blog somewhere talking about a specific species, and in the post would be my images of a different species with a caption saying it was the species in the article. But the only name of a person anywhere on the web page would be my name on the picture! I would get emails telling me that I misidentified a fish. Really people… if you are going to put yourself out on the web, at least have the cahunas to boldly identify yourself as the author of the blog posts….
I have decided to rebuild the galleries… but it has been a slow process. This time around I am using very small, relatively low resolution images that will look OK on a webpage for ID purposes. The really good shots will never show up on the net. When you make a living taking pictures of fish, people need to be able to see pictures. After I took the galleries down requests for commercial license of images dropped way off. So for me, it is better that some basic images get seen (and possibly used without permission) than not seen at all.
#3 | Written by Todd Warren about 12 years ago.

What matters most. I read your posting about copyrights, and legally you are correct on each point you wrote about. An altered image is another problem, since once the image is altered, it exact legal grounds are still subject to a court room.
I am involved with reef tanks mostly. I think as the world keeps dumping huge amounts of Carbon into the air and sunk into the oceans, it is for us to do what we can to save the last of all these wonderful creatures before we make it impossible for them to survive in the wild any longer. It seems selfish to me that, while you are correct, ownership of images and fish and clams, and whatnot are issues you can focus on. The white man was focused on owning the land, while the Indians didn’t at all understanding owning the land. They lived in harmony with it. I know you guys get paid for your knowledge, your images, and such. And that is your right, and I am not fighting that at all. I am asking for you to stop for a moment and take into account that this is a secondary issue. What is more important is our moral responsibility to save these animals for the next generation. Sharing knowledge to help new people learn the skill important to making a successful tank to me should be the top of the list. In the past I was asked to help do exactly this, but after I had come to see your talk, recorded it, and then I was told you were worried about your ownership of said materials. I even sent you an email explaining I wanted your permission, so as to not waste my efforts to get ‘your’ knowledge out there. But, you didn’t want it, and I respected that. I am asking you and Marc both to just for a few moments try to look at this from the point of view of stewardship, or lack there of. We are not treating the world in a good way, and as a direct result these animals are all going to be gone in the very near future. What we do over the next few years will impact in some cases millions of years and many many generations of these animals. We are in a race to save as many of them as we can, but it is sad to me that if we worked together we could save even more, but it seems more important to instead fight over what is mine vs. what is yours.
- #4 | Written by Matt Pedersen about 12 years ago.
  
  Todd, you go a long way around to getting to your point. The bulk of your commentary is a bit of a straw man, so let me publicly respond to your version of events and what I take to be the real criticism here. Well over a year after I repeatedly told you that you did not have permission to record a talk I was giving, you’re still upset about it. Furthermore, it seems that you believe that by not “working together”, which I take it to mean “me letting you record and distribute MY work”, that I am “fighting over what is mine” and thus preventing the salvation of the reefs. Seriously…that’s the end game of your arguments. Maybe recording my talk will make the difference between saving the reefs, and not.
  Frankly as someone who has personally championed the sharing of knowledge in a myriad of platforms, I’m disappointed that in the end game, you seem to think this means the rules of copyright and credit somehow shouldn’t apply. I suppose people shouldn’t get paid for their work either?
  First and foremost I never gave permission to record my talk, and I continue to request that my talks not be recorded by default, although I have made certain exceptions for certain situations…and that’s MY right as the author of the content. There are numerous reasons I normally do not allow the recording and redistribution of my presentations.
  The largest concern is that such a presentation could be rebroadcast online. You can’t record a football game and broadcast it online without the necessary permissions, and neither can someone do so with my talks. What you fail to understand is that by placing a speaker’s talks online, you devalue them for future clubs who may have been wanting to bring in that speaker…why should they invest in bringing someone out if the same talk can be watched online for free? You may argue that “more people hear the message”. Maybe, but at what price?
  There is something inherently valuable in face-to-face interactions that go beyond the 60 or 120 minutes I might be talking on a stage, so to place a talk online reduces the chances that another club brings out that speaker to give that talk. It’s not only my loss as an invited speaker, but frankly I just got to spend an entire weekend in Houston with the breeder who hosted me and several other people, and we ALL benefited from that personal interaction. I got to spend hours talking with club members beyond what occurred in the timeframe of those 2 talks, and what we talked about covered far more than just the subjects of my talks. So why should I say “sure, record my talk and freely broadcast it”? To do so potentially robs both parties, the speaker and the hosting organization, of the OTHER benefits that come from the on-site, extended duration, and face-to-face interaction. And to those people who say “the video will only be in a ‘private forum'”? BS. I know better. Private links can still quite easily be shared via email etc…and then it’s no longer “private”. Passwords can be shared. Files can be downloaded.
  Think also about the fact of fairness as an attendee of a speaker event…and think about running a club. Is it fair for those who attended an event that they paid an entrance fee to be part of to then have that event broadcast after the fact for free? NO WAY. If everyone knows that “NextWave” will suddenly now be broadcast after the fact on a club website, who’s gonna spend the money to go to next wave or to see the speakers? So the reality is that the “limited opportunity” to see a speaker is what helps events like NextWave be more successful….it is the motivator for people to come, to pay the money that funds the event in the first place.
  You also don’t think about where this content all comes from. Should everyone suddenly now labor tirelessly and endlessly to create talks for free? The reality is that preparations for these talks can take weeks or months, and any self-generated content has a further investment behind it (cameras and time, lots and lots of time). Why should I kill myself to make a new talk if I’m going to give it once and then have it broadcast all around the world? I have a much better way to spend that time. You kill innovation when you take away one of the few rewards an innovator actually has.
  But another concern IS copyright law specifically. In the particular talk you wanted to record, I didn’t “steal” anyone’s images, but I contacted dozens of people and received permission explicitly and exclusively to include those images in my presentation; those permissions did not include any form of online retransmission in a video. So while the odds are slim that anyone would ever complain, the simple truth is that as an ethical and honest person, it was not right or proper to say “sure, you can record it and do whatever you want”. It’s MY butt on the line if Swiss Tropicals were to come to me, angry, asking “hey, why are my photographs in this youtube video…I never said you could do that!”.
  And honestly, you knew well enough to ASK permission, so that right there should be the clincher. You already innately know that the presentation isn’t yours to record and do with as you please. No one even has to tell you that it’s not YOUR’s. It’s really no different than walking into a movie theater with a camcorder Todd; the difference being that the person on stage is being paid peanuts, if that, to be up there sharing the information with you in an different, and hopefully entertaining manner.
  Indeed, in the end, there is a realistic side to the altruistic notion of “saving the reefs”…it has to be profitable. One need only look at the Red Tailed Shark…E. bicolor. Thought at one point to be extinct in the wild, yet sold in every corner aquarium store. Why? Because it’s bred in huge quantities in Asian fish farms because people like to keep them in their tanks. The same cannot be said for Ameca splendens; it doesn’t enjoy commercial popularity, so THAT species stays around only because of the dedication of a few private breeders who make it a point to not let the species go extinct. Clearly, BOTH sides play a role here…BOTH sides work together to get the job done. Your argument only thinks about one side of the coin (the side where there isn’t an actual coin). Now, I’m not saying that speaking is about money…no, what I’m saying is that I wouldn’t go making new talks if no one was inviting me to come give them. If you record a speaker’s talk and distributeit, you take away one of the main motivations for a speaker….simply being asked to come speak.
#5 | Written by Todd Warren about 12 years ago.

I’m sorry, this is not about a year ago, I thought I made it clear, it is about priorities. I asked once, you said no, and that was that. But you remember it differently than I do. Repeatly… please, I stand on a moral ground above begging my point or permission. I didn’t mean it as a personal attack, even if it clearly is seen as such. And I disagree that there should be a buck to be made, hence the use of the word stewardship. WE, humans, and no not just you, are to blame for what is going on in the world. WE, those most informed about what is going on with reef systems should take it as a moral responsibility to work together, even to the point of personal sacrifice to put right or save as many of these animals from destruction. These were the only points I wished to make. I made them here on your site because I think keeping these points at the forefront of our attention is more important than placing blame or claiming ownership, and after reading your posting about ownership, I thought this was something you should be reminded of. But I am happy this talk is being had, I think it is a talk the whole world should be having, not just you and I. I would like to close by saying, I do not break the laws, that is why I asked for your permission, and then walked away. If I hadn’t, I don’t think I could claim morality and be heard, but from your response, I am believing that doesn’t matter. I am indeed sorry you see this as an attack, it was only to be be a friendly reminder that the most important issue today is the life and death of some of the most wonderful animals on the Earth, not who owns what. That’s all.
#6 | Written by Todd Warren about 12 years ago.

If you could ask Mr. Lightning clown fish, do you want to be free, let’s face it, he would be gone in a second. But like Nim the chimp that is not a choice we can offer these animals since climate change is making their native world a poison to them. We, humans, have effects their worlds, if we wanted to or not, and we owe it to them to be mindful of their futures, and it is not a question of letting them follow their natures. I don’t know why, but when I read you on a soap box talking about how you need to rpotect yourself, I just couldn’t help but wonder the last time you put yourself in the position on Mr. Lightning Clown fish. I hope by bringing up this fish you don’t think I am going to steal your fish from you, as everything I said before was taken as an attack. I came here talking about humanity, and you have given every reason why I thought it important to have brought up to begin with.
#7 | Written by Todd Warren about 12 years ago.

Oh and by the way, I have the right to record anything, the use legally is limited, but if I have a pocket mic or an iphone, I can record everything I want, and that is not breaking the law. It is the law.
#8 | Written by Todd Warren about 12 years ago.

and on a last note, he is part of my reply to you after you said no, I don’t want you to use MY image, lecture, and voice for no personal gain to myself. I think you should read it again since you seem to have me pegged as someone I am now.
I think it is too bad that many of the best practices that I have learned about from lectures I have gone to are not something everyone has access to. they have pushed forward the clock to only 40 years before we will be looking at mass bleaching events worldwide that will make many of the animals we love to be destroyed. And it will likely only speed up, not slow down as China and Indian’s needs for energy grow. That is the one and only thing that drove me to want to get people educated to increase survival rates. One day maybe one of these rare and special animals will survive from totally fading away from the world because some 18 year old kid learned how to keep it alive, and then spread it around to other people in the hobby. I am 90% sure this is likely to be the case with your lightning clown, from what I understand since the failure of the company that collected and exported the animal.
I guess maybe one day I will try to find a way to do it that way one day if I still have a fire burning to get this kind of info captured in video format.
I wish you success on the lightning project. As I said, I have followed your work there on and off for months. It is truly a wonderful animal! I am pretty sure you can make it happen, seeing the care you put into them.
Nope… no begging… nope, no hard feelings. that is all just in your head man. I hope you see that one day. And next time you are in Dallas, I promise I will not record you, no matter what.
- #9 | Written by Matt Pedersen about 12 years ago.
  
  I think you’re way off the mark here Todd. You say you “stand on a moral ground above begging my point or permission“. So if there’s morality involved, you shouldn’t have to ask or seek permission? I know you say you follow the laws, but it seems as if you wish they didn’t exist? Do you even know WHY they exist? I’m not sure you have the right to be critical of something if you don’t understand what’s behind it and how it works.
  You say “WE, those most informed about what is going on with reef systems should take it as a moral responsibility to work together, even to the point of personal sacrifice to put right or save as many of these animals from destruction.” Obviously you’ve not really done your homework, have you? Even if you exclude “me” from the above statement, there are many other people in the collective “we” who are bending over backwards; yet there are also others who to this day “volunteer” without any progress orresults to show for it.
  But let me assume that by “we”, you really meant to criticize ME. For years I have sacrificed my time, resources and efforts in MANY ways directly towards the goal of promoting captive breeding within the marine aquarium hobby and industry. So much so, that I was recognized as the 2009 MASNA Aquarist of the Year for it. I’m still the only person in the world to have spawned and reared the Harlequin Filefish (Oxymonacanthus longirostris). There’s a species that feeds on Acropora, and it’s documented fact that when Acropora die off, the Harlequins disappear, which means they’re at greater risk for extinction. My discoveries provided the way to ensure that the species can survive in captivity even if not in the wild. My contribution as a result of my sacrifices. Shared with the world rather than help privately for personal monetary gain. But my contributions are far more than one single fish – I’m embarrassed to say I started MOFIB (it used to be a force for good before greed took over with other board members). However, I’m still proud to say that I helped MASM start and design the MBI (Marine Breeding Initiative), and I am still quite an active council member.
  Forgive me, but given the above biographical data I fail to see how you feel entitled to admonish me or somehow imply that I’m not making enough of a personal sacrifice here? You certainly haven’t talked to my wife to learn firsthand how much of me SHE GAVE UP over the years to let me pursue these causes and the experimental fish breeding. It’s family money going into it. And I’m guessing you don’t really know me much beyond the one talk I gave in Dallas last year, and the Lightning Project here. I can only assume that you draw this conclusion that I’m not sacrificing or sufficiently burdening myself “for the cause” because of the ONE interaction we’ve actually had, in which I wouldn’t let you use copyrighted materials belonging to ME and to OTHERS. For that I’m selfish and not sacrificing? Your arrogance is astonishing.
  You disclaim “I didn’t mean it as a personal attack, even if it clearly is seen as such.” If it’s clearly seen as such, that means it WAS. You called me “SELFISH“, remember? You most certainly DID attack me above. You apologize, saying “I’m sorry, this is not about a year ago, I thought I made it clear, it is about priorities.” Wait, no, you brought up NextWave 2011 at GREAT lengths in your initial response. I have reiterated my reasons for not allowing recordings of my talks in most circumstances. DO i need to go pull the several lines of text about presentations, Marc, and such? Or can I take it on faith that no, you’re able to look back up there and say “oh yeah, I actually did bring up ‘last year’ afterall”.
  You wrote “And I disagree that there should be a buck to be made, hence the use of the word stewardship“. I’ll state it many times – how do you propose to be a “steward” if you haven’t the money to pay for it?
  You believe “I have the right to record anything, the use legally is limited, but if I have a pocket mic or an iphone, I can record everything I want, and that is not breaking the law. It is the law.” Ha…show me that law, because I couldn’t find it, and common sense tells me that’s not true. You CAN record a public event (like a governmental meeting) within limitations. However, I’m not as convinced that you have the right to freely record at a PRIVATE event (which is what NextWave is…an event put on by a private party which you pay an entry fee to attend), and you certainly don’t have the rights to distribute what you recorded in any fashion, even if there is “no money to be made” as you stated in your email to me last year. That’s where you’re wrong…you don’t need to be MAKING money to be infringing. You just need to be infringing…that’s it. Money isn’t relevant, it just makes it more worthwhile to legally pursue the case. However, you don’t need to be making money even, you just need to be preventing someone ELSE from making that money / compensation / opportunities etc. Remember, this initial post is a discussion about COPYRIGHT, which I’ve dealt with at a professional level for 15 + years. I can tell you unequivocably that if you posted the recording you took of my presentation last year, I could come after you for it and I’d have a case. It’s just a matter of whether it’s monetarily worth it or not.
  You stated, “I think keeping these points at the forefront of our attention is more important than placing blame or claiming ownership, and after reading your posting about ownership, I thought this was something you should be reminded of“. Clearly, you are looking solely at ONE post I’ve made here and calling me out on it. Whatever. My contributions are so much more diverse. However, this is a VERY important issue in our interest group…so I make no apologies for taking my own time to write about something that is quite important to me.
  So let’s go back to that attack, yes, when you called me “SELFISH” for being concerned about my actual property being stolen, that’s a direct attack. How would you feel if someone walked into your house and walked out with your TV? Or smashed in your car window and drove away with it? Or picked your pocket and walked away with your $$$? Unless you can honestly say you’re of the mindset “so be it”, I’m pretty sure you’d consider it a) a theft and b) you’d be miffed. So you’d be just as “selfish” as I am being over theft of intellectual property. Just because it’s not always tangible property, doesn’t mean it’s not property, and doesn’t mean it should be for anyone to use in any fashion. I’m sorry Todd, but the world doesn’t work that way, and I’m very glad that it doesn’t. Sadly however, thefts such as the ones described above are ongoing and occur with MANY people besides me. They are extremely easy to pull off…so much so that there’s an entire website where it occures every second of every day (http://www.businessinsider.com/pinterest-copyright-issues-lawyer-2012-2 ) I think it’s VERY important to understand copyright in this day and age and when a) images are being stolen FOR commercial use and b) images are being stolen constantly, it is EVERY bit as important to take time out to discuss THAT troubling matter. Why?
  Because you fail to understand that we have things like books and magazines BECAUSE there is copyright protection and because there is a monetary value behind them. So while you bemoan the occasional lost bit of data from lectures, here’s the reality. My Fishroom Talk, the one you recorded, is not a game changer…it’s a nice talk, an enjoyable talk, but if someone wants to build a fishroom, there are plenty of resources out there (all also covered by copyright law).
  Meanwhile, my Harlequin Filefish talk? Covered in more detail in the March/April 2009 edition of CORAL Magazine. My captive breeding 101 talk? Go pick up a copy of Wittenrich’s book (do you think he would’ve written that book if he wasn’t paid?). My Why Captive Bred Talk? OH…go check Reef Hobbyist Magazine, ReefBuilders, and Reefs.com:
  http://reefbuilders.com/2010/07/12/sustainable-collection-captive-breeding-room-take2/
  http://www.reefs.com/blog/2012/01/09/we-are-noahs-ark-the-immorality-of-aquariums-debunked/
  http://www.reefhobbyistmagazine.com/archives/vol_3/issue9/pages/issue_9-14.htm
  So I have to tell you that sadly no, the information that is given in lectures in the marine aquarium world is OFTEN available in many other capacities – your argument is without merit in this case.
  BTW…What’s the message of my “why captive bred” talk? Simple – vote with your wallet. You can claim whatever morality you care to claim, but I’ll be realistic and look at how the world actually works. In the Freshwater Trade, it is the health of the industry that allows many species to have lives in captivity. Commercially popular species that can be bred will never be lost so long as we keep keeping aquariums. But those species that aren’t commercially viable are at GREAT risk, and that’s where the “altruistic” hobbyist plays a role. Because the truth is that the casual aquarist, the one who’s NOT going to club meetings and breeding fish and thinking all that much about it, is the same aquarist who provides the money that keeps it all working!
  So if you really want to see more aquarium fish and reef biodiversity saved, you should stop bitching about the fact that you don’t have the right to share recordings of presentations you’ve recorded, let alone attacking the copyright holders and calling them SELFISH for it. Instead, you can either take up breeding yourself, or work to bring more people into the aquarium hobby. Why the latter? Because captive breeders need people to buy their fish. It’s what pays for the food, the electricity, the water, the tanks, the salt, the equipment. And the last thing you can do is to make sure to only buy sustainably harvested wild fish or captive bred fish; the “voting with your wallet” scenario.
  Regarding your strawman of the Lightning Maroon wanting freedom- I’ll be cavalierly blunt. It is not a monkey or a human, it is a fish. It doesn’t want freedom. It doesn’t even know what freedom is. On the reef, the clownfish doesn’t even HAVE freedom…it’s invisibly bound to it’s anemone protector…it never leaves! Arguably, the lightning maroon is afforded a safer life here in my tank than it would likely have on the reef.
  Indeed, it is fair to assume that the Lightning Maroon would not even understand the concept of “freedom” if it had the words with which to speak whatever 10 or 20 concepts it’s tiny brain can actually hold on to. Some of those “big picture” ideas for a Maroon Clownfish? Well, it certainly does understand that it hasn’t seen a predator for years now. It understands that food is plentiful and abundant. It understands that it has a mate and a territory. It understands that I am not a threat to it.
  So for as much as you’d like to anthropomorphize the Lightning Maroon, you need to check your emotions long enough to realize that it lives here, with me, under my care and stewardship. It wasn’t my choice to take it from the reef, but it was ultimately my choice to either get involved with the future of the fish, or not. I chose to be involved this time around. While it cannot rationalize the options it’s future had laid out for it, I certainly CAN. It could have died anywhere in the chain of custody. It could have gone to another breeder who may have gotten it spawning faster, but may have taken shortcuts I wouldn’t agree with as a breeder. It may have gone to a private collector, never to be seen again. As it stands now, it lives with me, has it’s own website, is safer than it would be in the ocean, and has dual redundancy to it’s life support systems. If that’s not being a steward for the PNG Ambassador, I don’t know what is.
  You can be emotional, but that’s no excuse to disregard logic, laws, respect, and reality. I emplore you to think deeply on this before you even think about posting again, because I may or may not choose to have this discussion further.
#10 | Written by Andy about 12 years ago.

Matt, you are absolutely correct.

The Lightning Project

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Copyright, Respect It – use of Lightning Maroon Clownfish Images