Post by mauiboy on May 4, 2011 6:01:02 GMT -6
This is an apolitical topic so should be within the rules and is not dissimilar to the net neutrality topic.
First a bit of reading if you want to hear the fairytale version
publicknowledge.org/issues/ow
To sum it up, there is a group of people (mostly publishing companies / corporations / news providers) who want a situation whereby if they cannot 'reasonably' find the copyright owner of an image / video / book they want they get to use it for free AND should the owner find out damages do not apply, they only pay a capped token fee and the works owner cannot prevent them from continuing to use the work.
The justification for doing this is that it will unlock a vast amount of previously unusable work, make the world a better place and maybe bring back the dodo.
Put simply this is a fabrication. Whereas a bunch of teenagers before wanted it to be ok to have free music, this time companies just want to avoid paying for work. The unlocked library is a fallacy, getty, magnum, corbis et al have a huge library of video and pictures of every even since the inception of film and considerable libraries of illustrations and paintings going back to the dawn of pigments. The problem for companies is they have to pay to use them and this makes them very unhappy! It's terribly unfair in their view that photographers and videographers be paid for their work.
They say just registering copyright on the works will prevent this, but frankly it wont. Heres two scenarios,
1. I shoot a wedding and provide the client with the edited shots. They place them on facebook (this is fine with me) and some web designer for a company finds the image via google image search and uses it.
2. I shoot a portrait session and use a picture in a display at a bridal fair. Some numpty takes a picture of my work (this happens so much I want a trapdoor installed over a tiger pit to deal with them) posts it on flickr and it gets found and used.
In either scenario the clients find out, get upset at me and it tarnishes my reputation. Also I do not get paid, but most importantly I do not get a chance to refuse and nor can I prevent the use from continuing.
I pay for music, I pay for books and videos, why should my work not be respected. The arguments for bettering the world do not ring true, its simply an exercise in avoiding paying. Working as a pro photographer is not cheap, I have easily spent well into 6 figures on equipment, training, processing etc over the years. Whilst my rates are not craigslist cheap I do not make huge amounts of money (hell i work a second job as well), it seems that those of us in the creative industry are being demonised for wanting to at least have the chance to respect the privacy of our clients if not be paid for our work.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation but this seems like a giant con, its a free pass to cheat and if you get caught the penalty if 1/10th the cost of doing it right the first time.
First a bit of reading if you want to hear the fairytale version
publicknowledge.org/issues/ow
To sum it up, there is a group of people (mostly publishing companies / corporations / news providers) who want a situation whereby if they cannot 'reasonably' find the copyright owner of an image / video / book they want they get to use it for free AND should the owner find out damages do not apply, they only pay a capped token fee and the works owner cannot prevent them from continuing to use the work.
The justification for doing this is that it will unlock a vast amount of previously unusable work, make the world a better place and maybe bring back the dodo.
Put simply this is a fabrication. Whereas a bunch of teenagers before wanted it to be ok to have free music, this time companies just want to avoid paying for work. The unlocked library is a fallacy, getty, magnum, corbis et al have a huge library of video and pictures of every even since the inception of film and considerable libraries of illustrations and paintings going back to the dawn of pigments. The problem for companies is they have to pay to use them and this makes them very unhappy! It's terribly unfair in their view that photographers and videographers be paid for their work.
They say just registering copyright on the works will prevent this, but frankly it wont. Heres two scenarios,
1. I shoot a wedding and provide the client with the edited shots. They place them on facebook (this is fine with me) and some web designer for a company finds the image via google image search and uses it.
2. I shoot a portrait session and use a picture in a display at a bridal fair. Some numpty takes a picture of my work (this happens so much I want a trapdoor installed over a tiger pit to deal with them) posts it on flickr and it gets found and used.
In either scenario the clients find out, get upset at me and it tarnishes my reputation. Also I do not get paid, but most importantly I do not get a chance to refuse and nor can I prevent the use from continuing.
I pay for music, I pay for books and videos, why should my work not be respected. The arguments for bettering the world do not ring true, its simply an exercise in avoiding paying. Working as a pro photographer is not cheap, I have easily spent well into 6 figures on equipment, training, processing etc over the years. Whilst my rates are not craigslist cheap I do not make huge amounts of money (hell i work a second job as well), it seems that those of us in the creative industry are being demonised for wanting to at least have the chance to respect the privacy of our clients if not be paid for our work.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation but this seems like a giant con, its a free pass to cheat and if you get caught the penalty if 1/10th the cost of doing it right the first time.
