Lady Gaga pirates materials while criticizing fans pirating her music lol

[Hammettf2b]

Lady Gaga Criticizes Music Pirates with Pirated Photos. Shutterstock Responds

In the article the original artist said it was fine and even provided a pic without the watermark but I thought it was really funny.

How prevalent is pirating nowadays with the amount of streaming services there are, I would think it would have dropped quite a bit but I admittedly have been out of this loop for a while now.

Click to read more...

 

[ArGarBarGar]

That is literally why they have the watermarks, I don't see the issue.

 

[Hammettf2b]

That is literally why they have the watermarks, I don't see the issue.

My understanding is a watermark is there to discourage people from using the image and pay for the license of the original. It also tells everyone that you decided to use copyrighted material without paying for it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

My understanding is a watermark is there to discourage people from using the image and pay for the license of the original. It also tells everyone that you decided to use copyrighted material without paying for it.

Yeah, the point is an artist isn't being paid for their work, so it goes against the message she was making.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

This just in, pop stars are dumb. More at 11...

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Pop stars as a whole = lol

 

[Shockmaster]

A famous person looking like a hypocrite? In other news, water is wet.

 

[Supermassive]

Who pirates music? Everyone streams.

 

[beowulf]

Who pirates music? Everyone streams.

Actually not everyone, I still buy physical CDs and/or vinyl and a fair number of people do.

Many musicians are arses when it comes to photographers, many have excessively crazy contracts the photogs have to sign if they want access. Some want complete controls of the photos pictures, like a musician giving up complete control of their song to a streaming service for example. I have a friend who does concert photography and a number of times he has had to send letters to groups to stop using his pictures on their social media. They not only take the pics but don't even give him credit for the picture. Some even have the guts to say he should be thankful they are giving him exposure.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Actually not everyone, I still buy physical CDs and/or vinyl and a fair number of people do.

Many musicians are arses when it comes to photographers, many have excessively crazy contracts the photogs have to sign if they want access. Some want complete controls of the photos pictures, like a musician giving up complete control of their song to a streaming service for example. I have a friend who does concert photography and a number of times he has had to send letters to groups to stop using his pictures on their social media. They not only take the pics but don't even give him credit for the picture. Some even have the guts to say he should be thankful they are giving him exposure.

I used to be the same way but I don't even own a cd player anymore. My car doesn't even have one lol. I just use Spotify Premium now. I do miss going to the store and searching through all the cds and what not but the convenience of streaming is so great.

 

[Supermassive]

Actually not everyone, I still buy physical CDs and/or vinyl and a fair number of people do.

Many musicians are arses when it comes to photographers, many have excessively crazy contracts the photogs have to sign if they want access. Some want complete controls of the photos pictures, like a musician giving up complete control of their song to a streaming service for example. I have a friend who does concert photography and a number of times he has had to send letters to groups to stop using his pictures on their social media. They not only take the pics but don't even give him credit for the picture. Some even have the guts to say he should be thankful they are giving him exposure.

Agreed, I’ve read many stories about music artists screwing over their photographers. Quite the hypocrisy. Garbage tried to release a coffee table book without paying their photographer, and that’s when I lost a lot of respect for artists in general.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

My understanding is a watermark is there to discourage people from using the image and pay for the license of the original. It also tells everyone that you decided to use copyrighted material without paying for it.

What is funny is the original photographer was totally fine with her using the image, which kind of renders the whole idea of anyone being indignant about her "stealing" a photo kind of moot.



At the end of the day she did nothing illegal or really immoral by grabbing a watermarked picture to post on twitter. And I am not sure why this is even a story. Lady Gaga got her message out, shutterstock used it as an opportunity to promote their brand, and the photographer got a kick out of it. Everyone wins in this situation.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I mean it's a picture the artist never intended to really make much money with. The guy is primarily a children's book author. That's why there really wasn't an issue with him. And it's not like this publicity is going to lead to a surge of people paying for that image.

The point was just that Lady Gaga was complaining about an artist not being paid and she used a picture without paying the artist. It's really not a big deal, just kind of ironic.

 

[Hammettf2b]

What is funny is the original photographer was totally fine with her using the image, which kind of renders the whole idea of anyone being indignant about her "stealing" a photo kind of moot.



At the end of the day she did nothing illegal or really immoral by grabbing a watermarked picture to post on twitter. And I am not sure why this is even a story. Lady Gaga got her message out, shutterstock used it as an opportunity to promote their brand, and the photographer got a kick out of it. Everyone wins in this situation.

I mentioned that the original artist was ok with it in the OP but what happens if the artist is not ok with it? Just because she got away with it unscathed from the original artist doesn't mean what she did wasn't the very thing she herself was mad at with regards of people pirating her music.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I mentioned that the original artist was ok with it in the OP but what happens if the artist is not ok with it? Just because she got away with it unscathed from the original artist doesn't mean what she did wasn't the very thing she herself was mad at with regards of people pirating her music.

I would ask you the same question. What if the artist doesn't like it? What about this case makes it a big deal or comparable to music pirating?

 

[Hammettf2b]

I would ask you the same question. What if the artist doesn't like it? What about this case makes it a big deal or comparable to music pirating?

My point is, it doesn't matter if the original artist likes it or not. She was doing the exact thing she was upset with. Pirating is pirating. Just because one is with music and the other is photo's doesn't change anything. Also, I never said it was a big deal. All I was saying is I thought it was rather funny that she was doing the same thing she was mad about.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

My point is, it doesn't matter if the original artist likes it or not. She was doing the exact thing she was upset with. Pirating is pirating. Just because one is with music and the other is photo's doesn't change anything. Also, I never said it was a big deal. All I was saying is I thought it was rather funny that she was doing the same thing she was mad about.

That isn't pirating.

 

[Hammettf2b]

That isn't pirating.

how so?

 

[IceNeophyte]

I mean it's a picture the artist never intended to really make much money with. The guy is primarily a children's book author. That's why there really wasn't an issue with him. And it's not like this publicity is going to lead to a surge of people paying for that image.

The point was just that Lady Gaga was complaining about an artist not being paid and she used a picture without paying the artist. It's really not a big deal, just kind of ironic.

Donchathink?

 

[Hammettf2b]

Donchathink?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

how so?

How is it "pirating"?

 

[Hammettf2b]

How is it "pirating"?

If you want to be perfectly technical of the word, I guess its not. But neither is the thing Lady Gaga was mad about. There would have to be a profit involved in order to use the word Pirate but thats not what this discussion is about and I think you know that. The discussion is about an artist (Lady Gaga) getting upset about people getting her work without paying for it only for her to do the same exact thing.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

If you want to be perfectly technical of the word, I guess its not. But neither is the thing Lady Gaga was mad about. There would have to be a profit involved in order to use the word Pirate but thats not what this discussion is about and I think you know that. The discussion is about an artist (Lady Gaga) getting upset about people getting her work without paying for it only for her to do the same exact thing.

I think we should be able to acknowledge the difference between "stealing" music to own and be entertained by is different than grabbing a picture on google for the sake of a post on Twitter.

People grab music/video clips from copywritten sources for Twitter/Reddit all the time. That isn't the issue being brought up by Gaga.

 

[Hammettf2b]

I think we should be able to acknowledge the difference between "stealing" music to own and be entertained by is different than grabbing a picture on google for the sake of a post on Twitter.

People grab music/video clips from copywritten sources for Twitter/Reddit all the time. That isn't the issue being brought up by Gaga.

Well the law disagrees with you. Bands/artists use photos for their twitter/instagram all the time without the permission of the photographer and many times it has to get taken down at the request of the photographer because they didn't give permission. Some instances it turns into a law suit.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Well the law disagrees with you. Bands/artists use photos for their twitter/instagram all the time without the permission of the photographer and many times it has to get taken down at the request of the photographer because they didn't give permission. Some instances it turns into a law suit.

Anything related to what we see here that I can look at?