19
Is it wrong to steal Lightroom presets?
Whew! Who knew an innocent tool from a talented guy would incite a discussion like we had the other day. I held back from posting so I could respond here with my thoughts. Before we get to it, a couple of things:
1) I was extremely impressed with the quality of comments. Its definitely a touchy subject and very important to some people. For the most part (yes there were some meanies who had to resort to name calling), the comments were all in good faith and people were respectful of each other (which is hard to find in this online world of anonymity).
2) What you’re about to read below will definitely incite some equally heated comments. All I ask is that you keep them respectful – whatever your opinion is fine. Just be respectful to each other (oh and to me too). Cool? Thanks!
First off, I feel for Mike WiacekI feel for Mike. He created a cool program that did something really neat. Over 2000 people downloaded on that first day. One person from another country complained and threatened legal action. Mike, not knowing the legalities of lawsuits coming from that country, decided to take his tool down. I don’t blame him. The threat of legal action from some one in another country sounds scary. I’m no legal expert by any means, but I’m pretty sure he’s OK and has nothing to worry about so I hope he puts it back up. But that doesn’t change the real debate here because, regardless of country of residence, there seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion here of whether or not this “preset lifting” is right or not. So I’m leaving legalities out of it (since I don’t really know what’s right or wrong here) and just concentrating on the artistic/ethical issue of whether this is right or wrong.
Just look at the drug companiesPage (one of the commenters from the post in question), brought up a great point. Just look at some of the medicines in the drug stores. Advil, Nyquil, Sudafed, etc… all of them have generic equivalents that you can pick up at Walmart. Same ingredients with a different name. Advil makers can’t do a thing about the WalMart-Vil equivalent of their product. They can’t copyright or own 150mg of Propylparaben in their drug (or any combination of ingredients) just like you can’t copyright or own f/2.8 at 1/250th or a Vibrance setting of 35 (or any combination of develop settings).
Lets move to an art exampleLets say I create a piece of fine art with various woods and plastics. You know, the kind you see in a fancy art museum or gallery with a price tag of $45K that no one would ever buy 
What tools did the artist use to create that art? Take the illegal mind altering substances out of the equation and you’re left with maybe a hammer, glue, maybe a miter saw, screwdriver, drill, and other various tools. Can they declare that they own a 45 degree setting with a 9 degree bevel of the miter saw since that’s the setting they used to create the art? Can they own 8 turns of a phillips head screwdriver because that’s what they used? Its silly to even think about right?
Now, lets keep it simple when it comes to a photography exampleOK, lets break this down to a really simple example. Lets take 3 settings – Aperture, shutter speed and focal length. Those 3 settings are included in the metadata of a photo right? Now lets say I take a photo at Mesa Arch in Utah. You know, one of the ones with the sun rising through the arch that I posted a while back (and a photo that tens of thousands of people have likely taken while standing in the same spot). Then I post that photo on Flickr (or any website).
Now you look at my metadata and find that I shot it at f/22 with a 1/10 of a second shutter speed, at 17mm using my Nikon 17-55mm lens. You take your Nikon camera, your 17-55mm lens and set up exactly where I did and shoot the same photo at f/22 with a shutter speed at 1/10 of a second at 17mm. Did you break any laws? Nope. Artistically or ethically, have you done anything wrong? Heck no! So why when you add a Vibrance setting to the metadata or a Contrast slider setting does it become a problem? There is no governing body that states that I can copy your shutter speed and aperture setting but I can’t copy your Vibrance setting. They’re all part of the metadata and as far as legalities are concerned, I don’t think the law can/will discern between the two.
Does knowing my settings make your photos great?Its funny this came up because Scott Kelby and I had a discussion the other week about a question we get a lot. Somebody will see a portrait or a photo that one of us has taken and say “Hey, that’s a great photo. What was your shutter speed and aperture setting for that photo?”. Its almost as if they think knowing that information will make their portraits better. If I take a photo of my cute kid outdoors at a park at f/8 and 1/250 of a second, it doesn’t mean that if you take a photo of your kid at a park using the same settings yours will be just as good. There’s the light, the time of day, the location (under a tree or not), the lens, the distance the child is from me, the expression, and a number of other things that contribute to my photo being good. Just because you copy my settings doesn’t mean you have a great photo.
Here’s another example. I give away free presets on this site all the time. Just because you apply my presets (which look good on my photos), to your photos doesn’t mean they’re going to be great. There’s still a lot of things that need to happen for your photo to be great.
Good isn’t GreatOne commenter wrote: “Am I alone in believing, with all the presets, EXIF rippers, digital editing programs in general, that it no longer takes much talent to be a photographer?”. Come on! Seriously? Do you really think talent is no longer required?
Things get better, easier, faster and with better quality all the time. Its easier to be a good photographer today then it was 10 years ago. 10 years ago, it was easier to be a good photographer then it was 10 years before that. But good isn’t great. And great is what counts in just about any field. Can anyone look at a portrait and copy its settings and add them to their own photos. Of course. Does it mean they’ll have a great photo. Of course not. They still need a great subject, shot in great light with spot-on exposure settings and with great quality equipment. Remember, good isn’t great. While technology (like Mike’s preset extractor) makes it easier to be a photographer with nice photos (honestly, this happens in just about every other profession and hobby out there), it also ups the bar. The great ones will always be great because they’ll find a way to make it work.
Get over it!Sorry, but I’m going to close this by saying get used to it and get over it. Regardless of whether photography is just a hobby or you’re a pro, worrying about your develop settings ain’t gonna help. You’re going to need something more then your precious Develop settings. Whether you like it or not, your effect/style will be copied and shown to the masses if its a good one. Dare I say that you should be so lucky to have people care about your work that much to copy its style. In a way, its the ultimate form of flattery. That doesn’t mean they can copy your photos from your site onto theirs and claim them as their own. That’s stealing and illegal. But copying your style and your recipe is not. Its what sets the bar higher and higher and forces us to get better and better.
In the end, you can’t copyright and own Vibrance=15, Clarity=52, Temp=6750. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Note: Remember. Before you click the Submit button on your comment take a deep breath. Read it again and make sure you’re not a meanie.
No Comments to “Is it wrong to steal Lightroom presets?”
Leave a comment
Lightroom Killer Tips
Get your weekly dose of the coolest Adobe® Lightroom® tutorials, tips, time-saving shortcuts, photographic inspiration, and undocumented tricks with Matt Kloskowski from Kelby Media Sites
Like many others here, I stumbled in here as a link to the debate going on here.
As a professional who publishes a lot of material, whether it’s photography, art, music, articles, books, videos, etc… I’m a little sensitive to copyright infringement issues. But beyond that, I find this commentary a somewhat sad statement of the global acceptance of this kind of activity.
I say that not merely as a “shame on you” to anyone, but more from a point of principle – which clearly doesn’t seem to register with the masses here. There’s more than just what’s just legal at stake here.
Sure, people want to imitate and copy from others (as one person referred to, “the masters”) and what we do as authors and training professionals, will help people achieve many of the techniques and tools to produce similar looks, effects, styles, etc. that are comparable to “the masters” – whether it’s a cool grunge effect or an animation technique that’s commonly seen on TV.
But we haven’t stolen anything to then pass it on to you. We’ve created a workflow and a series of techniques to show you how to imitate that look or style. It may be very close to how the original was done, but nobody gave it to us and we sure didn’t take it.
So what’s the problem with “lifting” metadata from someone’s artwork or photo file? Well, did they give it to you? Were they providing it as instruction for how they achieved a specific effect or style?
What have we all become in the world of rapidly-progressing technology, that allows us to create more content at break-neck speeds. We all want more and we want it know. Unfortunately, QUALITY creative work takes time. It takes skill. It takes practice. So often I witness people that want to learn everything instantly – buy the tools and the “open up my head and dump in the information” ala “the Matrix”.
But here again a saying comes to mind:
“A man buys a camera and instantly, he’s a photographer. But a man buys a violin, is just another guy with a violin.”
So again, if the metadata is there to be intentionally shared and offered as some kind of guide for shooting specific stylized images or presets in color correction, etc… then by all means, let the masses be informed. But to extract it without consent is nothing short of a digital date rape.
I gave up on password protecting my site, stripping metadata and all that jazz long ago. Times have changed. We all share now, whether we like it or not. I wouldn’t have looked over Ansel Adams shoulder, that would be somehow different. “How did you do that?” is a normal and less invasive question now.
If I’m excited about something I learned from you or Scott Kelby, I might mention it on my blog with your names all over the place, but I wouldn’t pretend I thought of it or learned it on my own.
You are right with your key point… someone else’s setting are only a crude starting point for your own photos. That crude starting point can be a big help, but it’s exactness stopped being usable on the creator’s photo.
Do I think one person should sell or receive any gain from someone else’s work, absolutely not. Ideas and inspiration are now and have always been everywhere. Is it easier now to take great pictures, Yes it is. Is it easier to take great and memorable photographs, no, not at all.
The problem with stripping metadata is that you also remove your copyright info and that can bite later if people steal you images because of the Orphan Works Act. (You are aware of that right?) Personally I don’t care if people know my metadata.
But Ripping is another matter, it’s become an epidemic on the web. If we all sit by and attack people that care about their privacy, what does that make us? So if your photos get stolen by someone on google images. Don’t complain. No I say, its up to us. Sorry guys, I can’t agree with ripping, even if it’s “harmless.” If you want to know my settings, just ask and Ill tell you. Wanna knowhow I did something? Ask and Ill gladly share. Want to use one of my images? Sure, but please ask first.
I don’t see anything illegal going on here, but I do see something very rude.
Scott Kelby wrote a book called “Scott’s Kelby 7 Point system” in which he explains 7 things that you need to do to your pictures so they will come up looking as good or better than his pictures. He did not patented those things… If anything, those “things” will belong to ADOBE!!!
It’s incredible that some people will resort to this type of behavior in an attempt to protect something that if anybody tries long and hard will be able to copy just by looking at the picture.
Thousand upon thousands of canvas artist have become what they have become by standing and learning from the ones that came before them…
OMG – Some really far out views here (although I’m not going to preneted I read even half the replies).
To think that some settings in Lightroom could be subject to copyright is frankly laughable. It’s conceivable that someone could try to apply a patent to a certain combination of settings used to create a certain effect but I doubt it would ever get granted, it just not unique.
If you were to publish your settings and someone coppied that writing word for word as their own work that would be copyright infringement. However if someone read that article and used the settings that is just learning.
If you went to a restaurant and afterwards tried to recreate the dish at home would that be copyright infringement as well? No.
This tool is nothing more than ab agregator for this information that people have published, like google news, putting the information that is out there in an easier to use format. Its not illegal, its not even rude, its just usefull and I hope it goes back up so I can learn from it.
@Patrick
The programm in question does not extract information stealthily. It automatically retrieves information published openly by the photographer. It does it without the photographer knowing but if he posts the picture on a public forum (like flickr) he consents to people looking at the picture.
Also even though you may think it (at least in Germany) you do not have complete control over your works. If you publish a picture i may copy and print it as much as i want, as long as it is for my private use. And coming back to that tool – virtually every user of this tool will use it for private purposes since a pro will use his own settings and know how to achieve the effect he wants.
Personally, I am grateful for presets shared by others. I look at them as a jumping off point for own education. I accept them “as is” and know that my mileage will vary if I use them.
I notice the video on How to Install Presets has been taken down. Is that a glitch or intentional?
“steal my exif” but you won’t wind up with my images. If you think you will, good luck with that.
We all should try to learn from each other, but don’t kid yourself – it’s more than just “settings” that make good images.
I only want to comment on the drug company example and point out that it actually may not a good example. If a drug company develops a new drug, which does take quite a bit of time and money in the R&D process, then they are rewarded with a patent that protects anyone else from coming a replicating that drug and selling it for cheaper for a set number of years (around 10 yrs, but can’t remember exactly). These are enforceable and usually successfully so. After that time then anyone can duplicate and sell that product for any price they wish.
I should also add that the process (algorithm, or in this case a series of presets) to generate something is not copyrightable. Processes however are patentable, if you want protection on your process you can go ahead and patent that, but it is not automatic. And like pharmaceuticals, you would be required to disclose the process to the public, and the patent would expire in ~20 years.
Now a specific look with a specific subject (regardless of the process to get it) could be covered by trademark. Keep in mind that, like a patent, it is not automatic: you would need to get it trademarked and and there are fairly specific rules about enforcing and protecting it.
As many have pointed out, if I managed to take a photo that was strikingly similar, so similar that people would confuse them, then you might be violating some copyrights. But this would also require the two photos look very similar and the actual process probably would not even matter.
I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet.
I think it may be wrong, some great site on this is http://www.isitwrongto.com. So if you like it i’ll see you over there, enjoy!
Well I plugged in all the lightroom settings, I even used the same camera settings but my image looks nothing like the onese I was trying to copy
Oh, wait, do I have to take the lens cap off? That wasnt in the meta (instructions) now what do I do?
I have no great use for presets other than learning the general effects of combinations of settings, for as Matt said without the original source material the outcome will always be different.
Lightroom “Settings” as property, completely Laughable, good luck with that one in court. Might as well copyright the temperature and time that you bake cookies for, or better yet directions from point a to point b.
Photographers who cannot, or do not, adapt to the fact they now live in a digital world will fail. It’s that simple.
Continue to be judged by the sum of your parts.
Many individuals from other countries do not consider plagiarism as wrong, they just see it as another great idea that they should do as well. I am not excusing them, rather, I am just guessing why it happens. This Lightroom preset ordeal is not the first and unfortunately not the last of its kind.