Interesting post/replies on licensing

[samueli]

Maybe some of you folks have seen this already, but one of the replies from the other side of the deal shows some of the ignorance of the image consumer. The google lawsuit is interesting as well. Sets the wrong precedence.

http://rising.blackstar.com/10-ways-to-fight-for-your-digital-rights-as-a-photographer.html

I'm sitting here pondering the logic of licensing and enforcing that license once an image is used on web page. Once an image hits the web, it really does become somewhat public domain, because there is no reasonable way to enforce the license. No wonder RF licensing is so popular. License management would become so cumbersome and expensive that no one would pay the price for RM type licensing.

Also, think about the wayback machine. The internet archive that serves up old web pages with images that are not licensed.

Not only is a problem with payment and income, but on what type of site is your image going to show up on after it has been stolen and reused several times? Then the orphan clause that has no real structure or time table to deem an image orphaned?

I've read similar conversations related to web development, especially concerning the blogsphere. Many folks, and I think more in the recent generations enjoy the idea of "mashups"; RSS to the extreme. The internet is one big information database where folks can consume information from the web when they want however they want - despite the wishes of the author/owner on how he/she chose to display that information.

I know this has been hashed and rehashed, but I couldn't help it. People need to be reminded of this.

[chakalakasp]

Once an image hits the web, it really does become somewhat public domain, because there is no reasonable way to enforce the license. No wonder RF licensing is so popular. License management would become so cumbersome and expensive that no one would pay the price for RM type licensing.

If you live in America and register your copyrights, there are very reasonable ways to enforce your license. They usually carry briefcases and have "Esquire" appended to their name. :)

[Fenster]

If you live in America and register your copyrights, there are very reasonable ways to enforce your license. They usually carry briefcases and have "Esquire" appended to their name. :)

The music and film industry tried this approach for ten years before they finally threw in the towel. If you sign an agreement with a client and find them abusing your works, that is (almost) open and shut, but if you get into the morass of suing every Tom, Dick and Harry who you discover using them... If nothing else you have to consider the cost/return ratio, as well as the cost to your image. I've known prosecution-happy photographers who garnered such a bad name from it that they wound up losing business.

[chakalakasp]

The music and film industry tried this approach for ten years before they finally threw in the towel. If you sign an agreement with a client and find them abusing your works, that is (almost) open and shut, but if you get into the morass of suing every Tom, Dick and Harry who you discover using them... If nothing else you have to consider the cost/return ratio, as well as the cost to your image. I've known prosecution-happy photographers who garnered such a bad name from it that they wound up losing business.

All these things are true; however, if you enforce your copyright reasonably, it is a viable method for managing RM images that have found their way onto the internet. It is a shame when photographers do not embrace the internet for fear that it will ruin the value of their work. It doesn't have to be that way.

[PhotosGuy]

All these things are true; however, if you enforce your copyright reasonably, it is a viable method for managing RM images that have found their way onto the internet. For the possibly one time that you have to sue someone, you'll need to provide evidence that you've tried to enforce your rights or the court will adjust the possible judgment to reflect that you didn't put a priority value on your images.

There are apps for searching for your images. I think TinEye is one.

[RDKirk]

The music and film industry tried this approach for ten years before they finally threw in the towel.

Umm, not quite a college kid just lost a lawsuit for several hundred thousand dollars just a few weeks ago. And for sure, they will go after any business that infringes on their copyrights. They haven't "thrown in the towel" at all--they still intend to make their own determination of what they allow and what they will protect.

If you sign an agreement with a client and find them abusing your works, that is (almost) open and shut, but if you get into the morass of suing every Tom, Dick and Harry who you discover using them... If nothing else you have to consider the cost/return ratio, as well as the cost to your image. I've known prosecution-happy photographers who garnered such a bad name from it that they wound up losing business.

Fortunately (I guess) not many of us have to worry about every Tom, Dick, or Harry wanting to copy our work. Those guys with "esquire" after their names have a good idea of which cases to take to court.

[Fenster]

Umm, not quite a college kid just lost a lawsuit for several hundred thousand dollars just a few weeks ago. And for sure, they will go after any business that infringes on their copyrights. They haven't "thrown in the towel" at all--they still intend to make their own determination of what they allow and what they will protect.

I made the point that businesses are a different matter, and the cases progressing through courts right now originated before they decided to cease such Jane/John Doe suits.

[RDKirk]

I made the point that businesses are a different matter, and the cases progressing through courts right now originated before they decided to cease such Jane/John Doe suits.

LOL! Lawyers cost money for every minute they spend on a case. If a business decided to stop action on a case, they'd instruct their lawyers to drop it without delay. They would not continue to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on a suit they no longer intended to press.