Creative Commons is an organization to help you share your images (any creative works), but can it be use to promote your stock photography as well? Read on....
(I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on the group, but here goes....)
This organization.... http://creativecommons.org/ ....allows your Web site to become part of their database of artists that offer "Some Rights Reserved" (rather than "All Rights Reserved") to their images, designes, and etc.
Creative Commons allows you to offer a "Spectrum of Rights" (up to 11 different license combinations) to your creative work(s).
You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?! There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2) for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires users to give you credit (although I don't think that's enough -- I'd require the users to also give you a Web link and the image file number, so others who have a commercial need can more easily find the image).
However, you might first search their Google-enabled search engine and see how others are using this (many are using their blog site and most are not professional photographers): http://creativecommons.org/find/
Suggestion: Search on "sports stock photos" Although the "Sponsored" links are the same as a normal Google search, the true, non-paid links are not your normal commercial Web sites like Corbis, iStockphoto, GettyImage, etc. Instead, you'll see site like....
Scoll to the bottom of this page and you'll see the Creative Commons logo (click on it and you'll see the license notice).
Darren Barefoot is a writer and graphic designer, but his photography is marginal (in my opinion), and I never saw any "sports" related photos (but because the word "sports" was in the "Categories" list on the left side, and because he did a blog about "stock photos", Google and Creative Commons listed his site in their search results)! Here is his photography portfolio: http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/images/albums/
All in all, Creative Commons has a nice idea, but do you think it is really useful for the professional stock photographer who wants to promote his/her images, and give something back to the community, or is it just a waste of time, and it's licenses too broad so as to lose control of one's images?
> All in all, Creative Commons has a nice idea, but do you think it > is really useful for the professional stock photographer who > wants to promote his/her images, and give something back to > the community, or is it just a waste of time, and it's licenses too > broad so as to lose control of one's images?
> Royce Bair
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in >their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?! >There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2) >for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires >users to give you credit
And what's the penalty for forgetting? Double the original fee?
On Monday 20 February 2006 06:02, roycebair wrote:
> (I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on the group, but > here goes....)
It hasn't been discussed since I joined the group in September, because I've been watching for it. I've always been curious how the folks here would react to the Creative Commons philosophy.
> This organization.... > http://creativecommons.org/ > ....allows your Web site to become part of their database of > artists that offer "Some Rights Reserved"
Unlike my photography, I am an author of some success, and I release as many of my written works under the Creative Commons (CC) licenses as is reasonably possible.
However, I have never released any of my photos under CC (with the possible exception noted below), and I'll explain why in a moment.
Creative Commons is an outgrowth of the Open Source movement, which is almost universally misunderstood by those who are not a part of it. Unfortunately, in order to understand Creative Commons, I will need to veer off-topic here for a while and explain Open Source.
Open Source is a method of developing computer software that grew out of the early traditions of Unix, which at the time was popular in university computing centers. Bright programmers would create some new useful tool or other, and then freely share the "source code" for that utility with the rest of the Unix world -- meaning that anyone could copy it, recompile it for a different system, and use it. After a couple of decades, there was a prodigious code base of useful utilities that 1) no one had to pay a royalty to use; and 2) anyone was free to modify and improve.
As Microsoft's threat of world domination through monopoly power became more distinct in the mid-1990's, the old Unix gurus began coalescing around one particular Open Source project known as Linux. Linux has enjoyed phenomenal growth (much to Microsoft's dismay) precisely because a) anyone is free to modify and improve it; and b) no one is permitted to charge royalties for the use of said modifications and improvements.
This has led, in a few short years, to an operating system that is vastly superior to Microsoft's products in every way, but particularly in the areas of security (Linux is virtually immune to viruses and other malware) and reliability (with few exceptions, Linux never crashes. I mean NEVER).
The Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement has now grown and matured into a subculture with its own well-defined philosophy and values. Understanding all of this would fill a book, which there is no need to do here because Eric S. Raymond has already written it. It's named "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and, true to Open Source values, you can either buy the book or read it for free online.
So, the Open Source model works well for computer software because it allows thousands of really bright people all over the world to continually improve the code base through their contributions. These days, most of these people are not working for free: they are employed by a company who has something else (usually either hardware or support contracts) to sell, and they get a paycheck for their contributions.
If you think this doesn't make any economic sense, it's all explained in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Or just consider this: IBM invested a billion dollars into Linux a few years ago, and got their billion dollars back (in increased hardware sales) in less than a year.
The Open Source model also works well for books, articles and documents of a technical nature. Again, someone usually gets paid to write it in the first place, and the publisher recoups the author's wages in some way. However, anyone is free to improve / update that author's work and re-release it -- but s/he cannot charge a royalty for it without negotiating with the original author.
This is what Creative Commons is all about. Its obvious best-fit use is in technical works that need constant updating as technology changes -- such as textbooks and comprehensive how-to manuals. The O'Reilly company is making good money from this model with their series of computer books (O'Reilly is the publisher of the dead-tree version of The Cathedral and the Bazaar).
Creative Commons licenses also make sense for certain genres of music, since it allows remixing and making new sounds -- all of which exposes hip consumers to new artists that they would never have heard on the monotonous airwaves of commercial radio.
However, I'm not sure that CC licenses would have much use for stock photographers who live and die by their royalty sales. Certainly, there may be merit in releasing select photos for free use to non-commercial users (free wallpaper/screensavers that include a prominent URL come to mind) -- and I think I remember licensing some of my photos under a CC license on a long-forgotten personal Web site many years ago, before I had any idea of trying to make money from my images. But I don't see a broad application of Creative Commons licensing making any sense to the majority of the folk on this list.
However, a few weeks ago I did design a few bumper stickers with my own political philosophy and released them under a CC license. Yeah, big deal. They took me all of maybe a half-hour to create, and there aren't enough people in this country who agree with my political views for me ever to make any money from selling them. So I released them on one of those make-your-own-bumper-sticker websites under a CC license. No one else can make any money from them without my permission, but anyone is free to copy and/or modify for their own car's bumper.
And all of my major Open Source-related written works are released under either a Creative Commons or GPL license, including my lectures and lab exercises from the college course I once taught. Professors anywhere else in the world are free to copy, translate, or update them, as long as they don't make any money from publishing them. Poor students can download, read, and study them and even teach themselves (one friend of mine actually did that!) if they wish. But if someone wants to turn them into a textbook, I get royalties.
But will I release, under a CC license, my 1968 shot of (former U.S. Senator) Bob Packwood shaking hands with a voter on a campaign stop? Not in your dreams!
Ken Barber Modestly successful writer, unsuccessful (so far) photographer
Creative Commons is a dangerous organisation run by academics with funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the copyright of photographers. They have been involved in lobbying the Canadian government(for example) to prevent any changes to their copyright laws which would give Canadian photographers the same level of copyright that photographers in many other countries have.
> Creative Commons is an organization to help you share your > images (any creative works), but can it be use to promote your > stock photography as well? Read on....
> (I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on the group, but > here goes....)
> This organization.... > http://creativecommons.org/ > ....allows your Web site to become part of their database of > artists that offer "Some Rights Reserved" (rather than "All Rights > Reserved") to their images, designes, and etc.
> Creative Commons allows you to offer a "Spectrum of Rights" > (up to 11 different license combinations) to your creative work(s).
> You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in > their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?! > There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2) > for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires > users to give you credit (although I don't think that's enough -- > I'd require the users to also give you a Web link and the image > file number, so others who have a commercial need can more > easily find the image).
> Anyway, if you're interested, this is where you choose your > license and become part of their database: > http://creativecommons.org/license/
> However, you might first search their Google-enabled search > engine and see how others are using this (many are using their > blog site and most are not professional photographers): > http://creativecommons.org/find/
> Suggestion: Search on "sports stock photos" > Although the "Sponsored" links are the same as a normal > Google search, the true, non-paid links are not your normal > commercial Web sites like Corbis, iStockphoto, GettyImage, etc. > Instead, you'll see site like....
> Scoll to the bottom of this page and you'll see the Creative > Commons logo (click on it and you'll see the license notice).
> Darren Barefoot is a writer and graphic designer, but his > photography is marginal (in my opinion), and I never saw any > "sports" related photos (but because the word "sports" was in > the "Categories" list on the left side, and because he did a blog > about "stock photos", Google and Creative Commons listed his > site in their search results)! Here is his photography portfolio: > http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/images/albums/
> All in all, Creative Commons has a nice idea, but do you think it > is really useful for the professional stock photographer who > wants to promote his/her images, and give something back to > the community, or is it just a waste of time, and it's licenses too > broad so as to lose control of one's images?
On Monday 20 February 2006 13:13, Steve Lovegrove wrote:
> Creative Commons is a dangerous organisation run by academics with > funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the copyright > of photographers.
That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any facts?
>On Monday 20 February 2006 13:13, Steve Lovegrove wrote: >> Creative Commons is a dangerous organisation run by academics with >> funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the copyright >> of photographers.
>That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any facts?
Just Google it - this surprised me tonight, so I had to look. Quickly found proposal to grant consumers ownership of the photographs they commission in defiance of planned legislative reform.
Am not yet clear if if any common creatives are trying to extend this reactionary nonsense to other commissioned photography as well, but this is bad enough.
In the UK the proposed copyright reform - giving photographers the same rights as other authors - was enacted in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The rights of those commissioning work of a private nature was simply dealt with - photographers retain copyright, but require the subject's permission before selling to third parties.
It's about time Canadian photographers had the same rights as the rest of us, and it's clear that Creative Commons wants to stop that.
Sorry Ken, still looking for the info I had on file, but in the reading I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of creators.
If you take this as propaganda, then so be it, I stand by my personal view that this is a dangerous organisation, I certainly can see no benefit in the concept.
"The Australian branch of the Creative Commons is taking shape with the Queensland University of Technology being the lead agency, according to Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the university's law school.
In February this year, QUT became the Australian institutional affiliate for the project and over the last few months it has worked closely with the legal firm Blake Dawson Waldron to set up the platform for the project in Australia.
The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its keynote speaker."
> On Monday 20 February 2006 13:13, Steve Lovegrove wrote: >> Creative Commons is a dangerous organisation run by academics with >> funding from government sources whose aim is to undermine the >> copyright >> of photographers.
> That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any > facts?
On Monday 20 February 2006 15:50, Steve Lovegrove wrote:
> Sorry Ken, still looking for the info I had on file, but in the reading > I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby > governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on > the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of > creators.
> If you take this as propaganda,
Yes, it is propaganda. Not only is the phrase "weaken the IP rights of creators" a straw man, it is blatantly false.
As you look for the info you have, follow the money. Somewhere behind your sources, you'll find one or more of the usual suspects: Microsoft Corporation, the movie industry, or the record industry. All three have a long history of distorting the facts and impugning the integrity of people (such as the Creative Commons project) who are working to preserve the traditional rights that (until recently) have always been part of copyright law. This is, of course, against the monopolistic interests of those who would take away those rights.
The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the stock photo business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in the stock photo business). Anyone who thinks otherwise is working from information that has been fed to him or her, and such a person would do well to examine the facts closely.
>You may ask, why would any professional stock photographer, in
>their right mind, ever want to offer free use of their images?! >There are usually two reasons: 1) To give back to society and 2) >for self-promotion. The Creative Commons system requires >users to give you credit
And what's the penalty for forgetting? Double the original fee?
This isn't the first scheme to get a lot of attention after originating with people in ivory towers who are buffered from having to make a living in the real world. A method for survival after all the evils of compensation have been removed from transactions between people has previously been created by those wishing to live on love alone: eat the babies.
What has love got to do with it? Well, Steve is obviously forgetting all the feel-good aspects of being part of a "community"--even a community of idiots.
Carl May/BPS
Steve Lovegrove <st...@lovegrovelea.com.au> wrote:
Sorry Ken, still looking for the info I had on file, but in the reading I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of creators.
If you take this as propaganda, then so be it, I stand by my personal view that this is a dangerous organisation, I certainly can see no benefit in the concept.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open >content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor >Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its >keynote speaker."
If you're academical or have some other paid position this might seem like a good idea but from the perspective of people that make their living by licensing their copyright work it is stupid.
David Barr -- Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
>The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open >content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor >Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its >keynote speaker."
If you're academical or have some other paid position this might seem like a good idea but from the perspective of people that make their living by licensing their copyright work it is stupid.
David Barr -- Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
> However, I'm not sure that CC licenses would have much use for stock > photographers who live and die by their royalty sales. Certainly, > there may > be merit in releasing select photos for free use to non-commercial > users > (free wallpaper/screensavers that include a prominent URL come to > mind) -- > and I think I remember licensing some of my photos under a CC > license on a > long-forgotten personal Web site many years ago, before I had any > idea of > trying to make money from my images. But I don't see a broad > application of > Creative Commons licensing making any sense to the majority of the > folk on > this list.
Without wishing to be rude your last sentence says it all.
I am very close to retirement age and have worked in photography since I was 16. I have had ups and downs but the ups far outweigh the downs. From my experience professional photography is a business first and last. Academics and computer geeks might believe in 'cock-a- looney' ideas like CC but professionals just have to have a different mindset.
IP is Property created by hard work and sweat. If I were to buy a plot of land and self-build my own house on it there is no way a bunch of academics like Lessing would dream of suggesting I give it away for free. Because I decide to invest my sweat in IP he has plans via the Orphan Rights Act to steal it too, in some cases.
Its a very dangerous development.
Bob Croxford
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> IP is Property created by hard work and sweat. If I were to buy a > plot of land and self-build my own house on it there is no way a > bunch of academics like Lessing would dream of suggesting I give it > away for free. Because I decide to invest my sweat in IP he has plans > via the Orphan Rights Act to steal it too, in some cases.
> Its a very dangerous development.
Here, here!
Steve Lovegrove Board Member ACMP The Society of Australian Commercial and Magazine Photographers
>On Monday 20 February 2006 15:30, Andrew Wiard wrote: >> Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:09:17 -0800 Ken Barber wrote: >> >That sounds suspiciously like propaganda. Care to back it up with any >> > facts?
>> Just Google it
>Google didn't turn up anything negative about CC. Care to share your search >term(s) with me?
>Ken
I just went "creative commons canada photography copyright law". Bit primitive, I know, but it produced immediate results. Now I have to admit I didn't get the statement " A spokesman for Creative Commons said...., but the movement is clearly in very close proximity to all the individuals trying to neuter Canadian photographic copyright law reform.
If I were a CIA operative I might detect a shadowy worldwide organisation with tentacles everywhere...but even an ordinary police officer should be able to find the fingerprints, and the DNA, at the scene of the crime.
Creative Commons is the spirit that inspires the actors on the public stage. Actually, even I can find the links.
1) - from Creative Commons Canada:
"Creative Commons Canada is affiliated with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. CIPPIC's mandate is to fill voids in public policy debates on technology law issues, ensure balance in policy and law-making processes......."
2) ""This is not a happy day for Canadians," states Philippa Lawson, Executive Director of CIPPIC, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. "The Bill calls for a massive transfer of rights and entitlements out of the hands of the Canadian public, and into the hands of copyright holders. Foreign content industries should be very, very happy with the government's draft legislation - they are the big winners here. Losers, unfortunately, include Canadian consumers, educators, students, Canada's security research community, Canada's public domain and Canadian innovators and creators, whose interests have been sacrificed to the wishes of collectives and multinational entertainment companies." "
3) From the same document quoted immediately above ,the reforms CIPPIC is targeting include:
" * Expanding photographers' rights at the expense of the rights of those - including consumers - who commission photographs; and "
- I know which side I'm on.
Andrew Wiard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>The University is holding a conference in January next year on Open >>content licensing, and has invited Stanford University Law Professor >>Lawrence Lessig, one of the directors of the Creative Commons, as its >>keynote speaker."
>If you're academical or have some other paid position this might seem >like a good idea but from the perspective of people that make their >living by licensing their copyright work it is stupid.
>David Barr
It may be embarrassing but the purpose of Creative Commons licensing is not to remove copyrights, as I understand it. I've placed over 80 of my sound recordings under CC licensing (Soundclick.com) with a specific ban on modifications, commercial use or resale. CC licensing permits personal use, personal redistribution (someone can copy and send my work to a third party for no personal gain, intact). It's ideal for study, personal websites.
Amonst the CC music I have produced has been instrumental material forwedding and portrait photographers to use as background tracks when showing proofs (digitally, projection). Many photographers are willing to pay £65 a year in the UK for a licence to use commercial recorded music when doing viewings. It costs a little more to be allowed to have music in your studio when shooting - about £200 a year depending on the type of studio, for a busy photographer. This is about the same as fee you have to pay to have a radio station playing in a workplace, or a radio/TV switched on in a pub or restaurant. You are not, of course, allowed to have any music playing in your offices open to the public without paying a fee but you are free to play music or listen to the radio in your own personal workspace.
Much the same applies in the USA and worldwide, and I sincerely hope that everyone who takes a firm position on photo copyright is paying all the music performance and licencing fees in full.
When this came up in the UK, I wrote a short piece just for wedding and portrait viewings, and again, it's made freely available to photographers but protected by Creative Commons licencing. I don't mind use on private proof DVDs and CDs, which is normally very expensive (it can cost hundreds to put commercially popular music on a wedding DVD - and you are liable for the fees even if it's the church organist playing a bit of Elton John or the band at the reception doing covers and you video/record the sound).
I have received some response from musicians in the UK and we will, at some point, issue a CD containing original music (mainly by professional musicians who accept wedding, conference and similar 'potted plant' work - harp, guitar, piano etc) which will be entirely free for use by photographers including on DVDs, conditional on credit lines and weblinks. We shall probably use CC licencing as the basis for this, because it protects the author's rights while removing restrictions, without doing an 'RF' job.
The downside of all this is that you are stuck with original improvisations or composition and eejits like me are quite capable of accidentally 'repeating' some well-known melody when noodling away, and then getting Messrs Sony and Universal claiming large sums of money on behalf of the 'original writer'. You just wait until Mr Getty wants money off you for including 1/3rd sky, 2/3rds ground and a row of footprints in the sand - didn't you know that composition is already copyright? * David *
<ken.barber@...> wrote: > However, I'm not sure that CC licenses would have much use > for stock photographers who live and die by their royalty sales.
Ken, Thanks for taking the time to explain the Open Source concept and how it relates to Creative Commons. Fascinating! After "attending" <grin> your great lecture, I agree that CC licenses may not have much application for us in the stock photo industry.
As I've followed all the threads on this subject, I tend to feel what Ken has said sums it up best:
"The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the stock photo business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in the stock photo business)."
I believe open source has been very benefical to the world in many aspects, but I'm not sure it is as relative in the stock photo industry. Thanks to everyone for sharing your opinions and insights.
> On Monday 20 February 2006 15:50, Steve Lovegrove wrote: > > Sorry Ken, still looking for the info I had on file, but in the reading > > I have done one of the objectives of Creative Commons is to lobby > > governments around the world to allow the use of creative content on > > the web by anyone, and to significantly weaken the IP rights of > > creators.
> > If you take this as propaganda,
> Yes, it is propaganda. Not only is the phrase "weaken the IP rights of > creators" a straw man, it is blatantly false.
> As you look for the info you have, follow the money.
> sources, you'll find one or more of the usual suspects: Microsoft > Corporation, the movie industry, or the record industry. All three have a > long history of distorting the facts and impugning the integrity of people > (such as the Creative Commons project) who are working to preserve the > traditional rights that (until recently) have always been part of copyright > law. This is, of course, against the monopolistic interests of those who > would take away those rights.
> The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the stock photo > business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in the stock photo > business). Anyone who thinks otherwise is working from
information that has
> been fed to him or her, and such a person would do well to examine the facts > closely.
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 00:42, Andrew Wiard wrote:
> I just went "creative commons canada photography copyright law". Bit > primitive, I know, but it produced immediate results. Now I have to > admit I didn't get the statement " A spokesman for Creative Commons > said...., but
Exactly. So everything you said below this is a Red Herring. Forget the "but" because everything after it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> the movement is clearly in very close proximity to all > the individuals trying to neuter Canadian photographic copyright law > reform.
> If I were a CIA operative I might detect a shadowy worldwide > organisation with tentacles everywhere...
And if you were trained in logic and Critical Thinking you would know that this is a logical fallacy. We're not discussing individuals and movements here, and we're not discussing shadowy conspiracies. We're discussing a particular legal instrument.
I would love to talk about the effort by movie studios and record companies to lock away our rights that have always existed (endangering, by the way, national security in the process) -- and the effort to stop them -- but it's off-topic here.
> but even an ordinary police > officer should be able to find the fingerprints, and the DNA, at the > scene of the crime.
> Creative Commons is the spirit that inspires the actors on the public > stage. Actually, even I can find the links.
Guilt by Association. Another type of Red Herring argument. You're also assuming, without evidence, that Creative Commons is the driving force behind the rest of the players in this scene, rather than just another one of the players. Yet another logical fallacy.
> 3) From the same document quoted immediately above ,the reforms > CIPPIC is targeting include:
> " * Expanding photographers' rights at the expense of the rights of > those - including consumers - who commission photographs; and "
Yes, and this is the CIPPIC, not creative commons. If you disagree with this, then start another thread (it is one that I'd like to discuss).
Now, I don't know whether you actually READ the entire document, or just picked out the one part that you didn't like. But there is a lot more to that document than that one part.
To throw away the entire document and pass personal judgment on its authors (and everyone with whom they associate), just because you disagree with one small part of the document, is yet another logical fallacy.
But all of this is off-topic. We're not discussing the CIPPIC; we're discussing whether Creative Commons licences/licenses have any merit for stock photographers. I think we've already settled that question.
> - I know which side I'm on.
There is no need to choose "sides". It should be possible to rationally analyze the IDEAS at hand without impugning ulterior motives on the part of certain people, whom one happens not to like, that hold those ideas.
As far as I can tell, there are no "Creatives" in the "Creative Commons." There are only those that are either too lazy or too inept to use their minds and education to create anything themselves and feel that they should be able to take form others who can create.
_____________________ Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy age, Alamy, SAA, EP
The loosening and stealing of rights to music has been a disaster for many workaday musicians--since music has been brought up here. One of my few best friends is a professional jazz musician, and nowadays he puts out CD's primarily to help him (plus his quintet and his assorted other associates) get live, paying gigs. He feels good if CD sales are large enough to pay for the costs of making them. Huge numbers of performers, including some of the most famous, are treating their recorded music the same way--the buzz among them--those that reflect on it--is that the producers and distributors are the only ones making any money from sales of recorded music. Live performances, from international concert tours down to one-night stands in clubs, constitute the remaining refuge for making a buck.
The parallel with photography should be obvious. Stock becomes primarily a way to get assignments. Anyone who can't build a demand for enough assignments to support them must learn to live on love alone. You know, nourishment from those good vibes you feel when you see one of your pictures used.
The threat of Creative Commons points up the genesis and rationale behind one of the cardinal rules of modern professional stock photography: control your images!
Carl May/BPS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "roycebair" <royce@...> wrote:
> As I've followed all the threads on this subject, I tend to feel what > Ken has said sums it up best:
> "The Creative Commons project is not a threat to anyone in the > stock photo business (hell, it isn't even RELEVANT to anyone in > the stock photo business)."
Dear Royce
I admire your naivety. Any erosion of copyrights is damaging to all IP creators and owners. Have you studied what this same bunch of pie-in-the-sky academics propose for 'Orphan Rights'? They are using the thin end of a wedge to blast a hole in our ability to be properly compensated for our work.
And if you think that 'Orphan Rights' only concerns dead poets, think again. Every single digital file you send out can become an orphan ten minutes later. The 'Academics' proposed that if they couldn't find a copyright owner within 36 hours they, AND COMMERCIAL USERS, should be allowed to use a photograph, in anyway they saw fit free of charge.* Fortunately the draft proposals from the Copyright Committee fall short of that. Rest assured however that they will be back in further attempts to get their way.
*That means even if you have a moral objection to the use.
|
