Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ARA

I know what you mean, but as a professional photographer who relies on my copyright to protect my financial interests, I felt it would have been hypocritcal for me to just "use it."

It drives me nuts to see some high school kid using my sports photos on his "myspace" without even asking permission.

I know its small potatoes to these guys, but there are a ton of honest people who want to do the right thing--if only they could tell us how.


112 posted on 12/24/2006 10:40:48 AM PST by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: Vermont Lt
It drives me nuts to see some high school kid using my sports photos on his "myspace" without even asking permission.

Is he charging money for it? Is it a full/high res TIFF, or is it some small JPG he thought was cool and visually represented something he wanted to convey?

If the latter he should at the very least credit you as the photographer if he knows, or the original source of say some web/news/sports site out there he found it on.

If the former then he should have gotten permission from you and arranged a percentage of sales. Did you contact him via his myspace page and ask him to at least credit you as the photographer?

149 posted on 12/29/2006 12:14:12 PM PST by AFreeBird (If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Vermont Lt
It drives me nuts to see some high school kid using my sports photos on his "myspace" without even asking permission.

I understand your aggravation.

What we have here is a two-fold problem.

1. Once you publish something, everyone has access to it. In the old days, someone would have to go to a library, check out your book, and take it to a professional publishing house or photo studio to copy your picture. Today they just go "click."

2. Copyright is a limited-time monopoly provided by the government. It's original purpose was to ensure that people don't hoard their artistic talents and sell them only to rich collectors. In return for the artist putting their work out into the public view, the artist is given a limited monopoly, after which the work goes into the public domain.

Since the 1930's or so, large companies have been lobbying Congress to push, twist and deform the "limited" part of limited monopoly until it has no meaning. Now that part 2 has been made meaningless, and part 1 has made ignoring copyrights effortless, artists have a problem.

So artists have two options. 1. Lobby Congress to make copyrights mean something again. People will be more willing to wait for something to go into the public domain if it's not 100 years from now. Or 2 figure out another way to make money off of your work.

150 posted on 12/31/2006 2:26:22 AM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson