I make my own 'databases' for certain figures and toy lines. Moreover, to an extent, I also try to use flickr for this purpose if I have not had time to prepare the formal article/checklist (e.g., by adding item details in the photo title or details). Therefore, all of my photos are 'generic' by design. I do not disable downloading of my photos or watermark them because I want people to have them as a 'clean' reference.

So what is Rotocasted adding to this equation?

i still find myself using vinyl creep at times. Wish that site was still updated.

I'm sure you're not creating a comprehensive database on your Flickr, which is what Roto is trying to do. Most people lack the time and ability to create their own picture database of their collection, especially if it's in the hundreds or thousands. A collaborative effort like Rotocasted makes a comprehensive database possible. It also makes it prone to error and misuse.

Somehow I think you're connected to this site the way you vehemently defend them.

I just had a look at their Butanohana pics and unless they want to face legal action I suggest they take down this picture:

http://rotocasted.com/toy/46210/

It's mine.

You can find it in my flickr. It's copyrighted:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28084937@ ... koQ-osNFpP

I emailed them if I don't get a response I will pursue legal options and have their site shut down. END of fucking story. Tell that to your good buddy Serge.

I understand the goal of Rotocasted, and I make no claim to providing a comprehensive reference to everything. I'm saying that Rotocasted is not adding anything to my set of photos that is not already there. So the claim of 'world good' in appropriating my photos is less convincing to me. For what I have personally photographed and uploaded, the information is there, double-checked and organized.

Don't get me wrong- I think the goal of having a comprehensive, collaborative vinyl toy database is great and a worthy endeavor. Just in this case, I think management and execution need a lot of work.

I'll talk to Sergey about getting that picture down.

You remind me of my neighbor. He shot my dog with a bb gun because it pooped in his yard.

Good for your neighbor!

I've heard that before!

http://www.skullbrain.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6289&p=837203

And it's still there!

Sorry, I'll try harder this time. Mods can't delete pictures, but I'll do my best.

So you're cool with people using images without permission and letting yer dog shit on someone else's property? . . .

OK, Lixx's and akum's pictures are now off of Rotocasted. If anyone on Skullbrain sees his or her picture on there and wishes it taken down, just PM me with the link and I'll take care of it.

The dog got out of the house by mistake. I have two kids under 7 and sometimes the dog gets out.

I'm cool with people using my images of my dog shitting on someone else's property without my permission.

Wait, do you mean the dog didn't have permission or the people using your images didn't have permission?

It was a free for all. The dog took a selfie of him shitting on the neighbors lawn (without permission) using my camera (without permission) and then the photo was posted to a dog shitting on neighbors lawn (without permission) host site. The photo was then used (without permission) on a data base site that catalogs dogs using cameras (without permission) to take selfies while shitting on neighbors lawns (without permission).

Typical self-absorbed millennial.

If it's an artsy shot, I get it - you set up a diorama or posed the toys in a creative way and the pic is of value because it is a wonderful photograph, made with time and effort to achieve a wonderful effect. Or it shows your whole collection, or a part of it, and that is unique and personal.

But if you stuck your toy on a shelf and snapped a quick generic pic of it for reference or to show it off, then the only value in your pic is that it shows the toy and people who steal it are simply trying to show the toy. It's the toy that is important, not the pic or the photographer. They are stealing an image of a toy for reference. I see nothing special or worth copywriting about those kinds of pics.

My two cents and I hope I don't get attacked and thrown into the skullbrain cellar for it.

And anyone who would shoot a dog for coming into their yard is appalling! They are dogs, they do what dogs do.

'14ers gonna '14

The content owners in this thread whose work has been appropriated by Rotocasted users do not share your opinion. Rotocasted clearly doesn't care, & if you support them then you are letting the terrorists win.

Actually, many professional photographers make a living out of taking generic, catalog-type photos. A lot more than taking artsy pictures. I know what you're saying, catalog pictures aren't exactly "unique", but... That's what companies pay for.

I was being cheeky when I mentioned the dog. Of course I wouldn't shoot the animal. I'd have a pretty stern conversation with the owner though.

I really want to pound my head on the wall because I can't fathom how the people thinking stealing someones pictures without permission or credit is ok. How do you not understand this? IT IS FUCKING STEALING!!!!!!

It doesn't matter if it's against generic background or I use a light box. In fact I happen to like those pictures way more than supposed stupid artsy shots. So a majority of my pics will be like that unless it's a collection shot. YOU DO NOT GET TO USE MY PICTURE UNLESS I SAY ITS OK! END OF FUCKING STORY! I really don't know how to make it clearer. Maybe it will be ok for me to come take your car (your property) and bring it to a parking lot takes some pics for a website and basically never tell you where I left it? Hey but there should be no problem your property is community property.

Which reminds me my flickr is now going to be closed to the public.

You don't get to decide what is or isn't good enough or valuable enough to be stolen. It's not up to you to determine how much effort someone other then yourself put into taking a picture. Obviously the subject matter is the important part of any picture but that does NOT mean the photographer has no rights or value or worth.

This whole thread is mind boggling.

'nuff said

I see your point about stock photos. Those are usually professionally taken with great skill and effort, though, often at the behest of the object's creator or manufacturer. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, just that I don't understand it. When I take quick pics of someone else's toy or product, I don't feel I own it or even care much about the pic other than that it shows the toy, which I did not create. I would not object to anyone using it, esp for a non-profit database intended to share information. And since no time or effort went into that quick pic just to show the toy, I would not care to get credit for it. The toy maker deserves the credit. It's the toy we are all wanting to see.

In fact, I think that fair use might cover that - if you do not make a profit off a work and use it in a limited way for research or education (which, to me, is what a database is) you might have some legal standing.

That being said, I DO get that you all feel differently about this, and will respect your feelings about the matter.

I was actually pointing out how sly dogs are and they should not be trusted!

In all sincerity (and in my opinion), it comes down to two things: intent and profit. If someone is making a profit off of someone else that is not okay. Ever.

But, intent can be harder to identify, and that I think is where the line is crossed, and I use the term lightly, "unknowingly". If someone is gathering information for a database, that is a noble cause. But if that person was doing so with that pure intent in mind, would they not have the foresight to ask permission for the use of the photos they have used?
We live in a wonderful time where we all have access to vast amounts of information, and sometimes that can lead to the misuse of said information(like someone using picture of dogs fancily dressed in order to make and idiotic joke*). Just because this information is being shared freely does not imply that it can be taken without question.

*in my defense those dogs were adorable

Oh man, leave the poor pups out of this. Their whole lives are "Eat Shit Play," and they most certainly can't use a camera (no opposable thumbs) or put photos on toy databases.

That being said... can't we all just respect the fact that we have different feelings about the photos we take?
I've specifically taken photos just for Rotocasted before. Sure, I could have searched online for the same toy and just uploaded that photo, but maybe they don't want their photo up there.
It's kind of like the same sentiment people have about artwork.
Back during the "pet site craze" (remember Neopets and all their lame copies?) I did artwork for a site run by some of my buddies only to have some jealous little shits take some art for their own site. Sure, I was 14 years old at the time and the artwork wasn't that good to begin with, but it was mine. I took the time to make it for a specific use, and I didn't give permission for anyone else to use it.

Photos are the same way... You have the toy (or asked a pal to borrow it) and photographed it, took the time to stage it with your own camera, put it on your own site, only to have someone swipe it and plaster it on someone else's site. It doesn't matter if it's a shitty snapshot or artsy fartsy photo with pro lighting, you took the photo. It's yours.

So, yeah... Let's not rip each other for how we feel about our photos. Asking permission to use something or giving credit where it's due really isn't that hard.