The War over Intellectual Property’s Boiling Point: Pictures of Snow on Flickr
Who knew Flickr users were so hardboiled? Not British daily The Independent, who stole from them pictures of….snow. Thrifty! This pissed off one copyrighted photographer, who posted his fun exchange with the digital director, who basically laughs him off. [Flickr]
View full post on Gawker: valleywag
@grrad: Doesn’t matter, the law’s on his side.
If he so chose, this photographer – pro or not – could sue the pants off these guys, and he’d win. Especially given the comments from the photo editor, which display a willful ignorance of both the law and how it applies to his job.
This used to be (part of) my job too, so I almost take personal offense at people that don’t do it well. This is kind of a fireable offense at most companies. If you’re an editor of any kind and you don’t understand the concept of clearances, then you have a major, major problem with your qualifications for that job.
And the reason for that is exactly this – that a small mistake like this can cost the company a lot of money, and often more importantly time and effort in defending against it. That’s something a lot of people don’t consider – a “legal team” even at a big company is usually 3 or 4 people, and if all of them are constantly involved in fending off lawsuits over relatively minor transgressions that did not have to occur in the first place, then that leaves larger legal issues (like, say, that merger that’s been in the works for a couple years) on the back burner. It can waste a lot of time and end up costing the company a lot more money indirectly than it does directly.
badasscat
@mommy_dearest: Good point, I stand corrected.
fuckingoldman
@fuckingoldman: Except that it didn’t list the guy’s name, so he couldn’t even build his brand. And there wasn’t a way to purchase the photo.
mommy_dearest
@grrad: What if it wasn’t a photo but text? If a major publisher just harvested an article online with no credit or payment, would that be OK too?
Maryscary
@Botswana Meat Commission FC: I’ve been doing digital photography for more than 5 years now, and I know photographers are the most self-important group (generally speaking). They fancy themselves true artists and feel entitled to everything (the “it’s public therefore I can bother people without being called out” argument comes up a lot). I feel uncomfortable taking pictures of people that I don’t know.
The most useful info I’ve found by far in the forums are from engineers who are hobby photographers actually. The pros are usually dicks who don’t really know much either of optics or electronics.
Anyway, what were we talking about?
andyo
Any editor at a newspaper the size of the Independent knows perfectly well that this is a patent violation of copyright, and any claim to an alternate “interpretation” of the law is bullshit. It doesn’t matter that the photog is not a “pro,” or that, yes, posting material on the web makes it more susceptible to infringement. Neither of those negates a creator’s rights one iota. Sounds more like the photo editor is a cheap-ass sleazebag who thought the odds of discovery were infinitesimal. No doubt with an insufferably disarming Hugh Grant accent.
octothorp
Just disable 3rd part access via API… solved.
Anrkist
@petra6760: And good for him for doing so.
lostarchitect
Oh, I think I see what he’s getting at, although I’m not sure how Flickr works with respect to copyright. The guy at the paper seems to be implying that the paper was basically linking to his photo and that means they were in the clear. Not sure I get this. Had it been the print version, they would surely have had to pay him something and credit the photog. Indy says they credited him exactly as on Flickr. Maybe they consider this fair use? Not sure.
tongue-tied
@grrad: Ask any editor… photographers are FUCKING ANNOYING to deal with. It attracts a lot of truly bizarre, borderline-autistic personalities.
That said…
That editor from The Independent was being a dick. Just apologize and try to cut a deal with the dude.
Botswana Meat Commission FC
However you actually feel about copyright, the photo editor’s comments are ridiculous. He apparently doesn’t even know that copyright exists. This is his job. Whether he agrees with the concept of it or not is immaterial; to have the job he has, he needs to know what copyright is and how it applies, which he clearly doesn’t.
badasscat
I think the guy is right. Why didn’t the newspaper just pay everyone a nominal fee?
My photos are “protected” by Creative Commons too – and I will protect them if need be. I created them, why should someone else profit from them?
BowlingForDollars
Every dweeb who gets a camera from Santa and then opens an account at Flickr considers themselves a ‘pro’. They are encouraged in this erroneous belief by Flickr assigning them this label if they pony up a little money for a paid account, and learning a few words like fstop.
This Flickr “pro’ should consider themselves honoured that an actual professional considers their otherwise worthless photo worthy of recognition by being selected (or a bunch of crap thrown together under deadline pressure). Instead of yelling about his rights being violated, suck up the recognition. It’s likely this will be one of the few times he’ll get it.
You want to control all rights? Don’t post it on the world wide web.
grrad
Pete needs to get over it. If more people used his pictures and his name became a little more well known he might be able to charge more.
I’m a programmer and have free code posted on a lot of open source sites trying to do the same thing. If people like the program, enough of them will buy it so I don’t mind the others using it for free.
fuckingoldman
I don’t understand why he didn’t begin the discourse by changing permissions on the photo to “private – only you can view” and leaving The Independent with a little red x in middle of their slide show.
And then start negotiating.
clickable
Pete probably pays for his music.
petra6760
You don’t remember the Consumerist getting in trouble for swiping Flickr photos?
[consumerist.com]
Maryscary