Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Fascinating story about the consequences of sharing your art in the Internet age
wraith808:
^ In the latter part of it, he says he has no problems with the renditions that appear that are for arts sake- even though not attributed to him. His big issue seems to be with people making money off of something that isn't theirs, which is what my issue would be, also.
tomos:
^ In the latter part of it, he says he has no problems with the renditions that appear that are for arts sake- even though not attributed to him. His big issue seems to be with people making money off of something that isn't theirs, which is what my issue would be, also.
-wraith808 (March 19, 2011, 02:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
which seems fair enough!
Someone in the comments suggests getting a lawyer/attorney and going after the publishers etc that used it, most of whom would probably pay X now rather than having to pay 10X or 100X later. That route must be a major PIA too though...
The image really struck a chord, didnt it...
JavaJones:
Yes, I agree. With all the hand-wringing (and legislating and lawsuits) about copyright, it's a shame (and IMHO a serious indictment of policy) that when it comes down to it, it doesn't really serve the individual. Sure the laws on the books apply to them, but if you can't afford the legal fight needed to actually enforce your copyright, what's the point? Not that he even tried that, of course, but I know from many other cases that it's an issue.
- Oshyan
rxantos:
Ok, I will sound as an asshole, but whats up with the victim mentality?
His creative work:
Pose making a funny face, take a picture and then place it on flickr.
Total time: At most. including creative thinking, one day. The work itself, 1 hour.
Total Cost: One picture roll + development of pictures (if he did not use a digital camera). Near to zero if he did use a digital camera.
That means that at most, he got stolen 1 day of work. Which if you count the publicity, and pay work he got because of it, its nothing. As he got more than the day of work worth. Now he gets to play the victim in the video in order to milk more of it.
Or is anyone suggesting that a 1 day of work is supposed to bring you money for the rest of your life?
As of his work stolen, either he was really really REALLY dumb to put work on flickr and expect that no one will use without telling him. Or he did it on purpose to get publicity for his work. Either way, he does not deserve pity.
As for consequences of sharing the art of the Internet (if you want to get paid). You could just keep it on your portfolio (and loose free publicity of your work), you could just place a low resolution version (difficult to use on printing), or you could add a watermark to it.
If you are doing it for fun or for the art, then why would you have a problem with others using it? Either you care about the money or do not care about the money, do not be a hypocrite. And don't expect to work once and get paid the rest of your life.
JavaJones:
Ah, so the time it takes to do something defines the entirety of its value and how much one should be compensated? Better tell that to all the billionaires out there. The world already does not work on linear time=value relationships. Who are you to suggest how much money a photo is worth, simply based on time and effort? Obviously the market determines worth, and the only way to know how much it was really worth would be if each person that used it had to pay for it. Perhaps it would have been much less "valuable" if it had actually cost something, which is another interesting consideration.
But regardless, if money is made on someone's work, should *they* not be compensated (unless they authorized it and agreed to no compensation)? Regardless of the time it took to create it?
- Oshyan
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version