Working as a professional photographer, copyright is often at the forefront of my mind and often involved with my daily tasks. My perspective on copyright has almost always come as the copyright holder, trying to figure out ways to prevent others from using my images without compensation. After all, I do make my living through the creation and publication of my photographs. This is a huge issue in the photographic world these days and something that people struggle with on a daily basis. Image theft is rampant and the internet only makes it easier.
The thing about violating copyright that drives me nuts is that people do it without a second thought because most people know that they won’t get caught, or it isn’t worth the time of the copyright holder to prosecute the offender. After all, there isn’t a police force out there that protects copyright holders (unless you are dealing with major movie/music/product piracy and then it is the FBI). For the most part, someone like me would have to hire a lawyer, get a cease and desist order written, and then send it to the offender. This is not a cheap endeavor and likely won’t result in any returns. The reality is, if that person had just asked, they might have been given permission. Instead, the culture is “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” and it drives me crazy.
One of the interesting things I found by watching these videos as they were primarily from the perspective of the user rather than the creator. What makes it even more interesting is that a number of those people (primarily the documentary folks) are using the copyrighted material to create commercial products (documentaries) that they then copyright. I find that when these discussions come up people want to use the work created by other people but they don’t want other people to use their work.
For a couple decades now, Internet users have had the expectation of getting things for free but this is a false premise. We can see this transformation coming in the world of journalism where places like the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have finally started charging subscription fees for the content they provide online. After all, people used to pay for the print version and they weren’t paying to simply have the physical newspaper in their hands, they were paying for the content. Because the internet isn’t a physical object, people think it doesn’t have costs associated with it, but that is far form the truth. The content still needs to be produced regardless of whether it is printed on your screen or printed on newsprint. The value is the content and until we start to accurately assess this value, it is going to be difficult to regulate copyright violation in this new digital world. I think we are headed that way, but we aren’t there yet.
Sonja Sprague's Response
Drew,
Although I understand your point about holding your own copyrights, I also understand the educators and persons who are stealing the materials for their own use. As I create educational materials in the work place, I keep in mind that someone is going to repost. I hope they are going to reuse. On the other hand when I create my photography through Sunny Trees Photography, I know the images are going to be duplicated whether I like it or not. I charge a higher price and simply allow them to do it. As you mentioned we cannot police them to secure our artwork safe, but we can benefit from what we know they are willing to pay for. I say if you don’t want anyone to duplicate your work, don’t publish it.
No comments:
Post a Comment