Images by Merkley???.
Image by Cari Ann Wayman.
So, we’ve been pretty unsuccessful in tracking down the image in my previous post, which is both disappointing (I want to get the artist proper credit and see more of their work) but is also a very interesting real-world thought experiment. How exactly do you do the right thing with unattributed images, besides just not touching them at all?
This issue dovetails neatly into a very fascinating post *in favor* of contextual online photo distribution, the kind that a number of photographers actively advocate against. Here’s a snip from Dear photographers who restrict your hi-res images on Flickr/your portfolio/whatev (the blogger is a Tumblr user, BTW):
You do this because you think it will benefit you. You think that visitors to your portfolio or Flickr stream will try to find a way to hand you money to avoid visual blueballs, or you think it will prevent IP theft and thereby increase your chances of being approached by photo editors/art directors/gallery owners even though people in those influential, legitimizing positions constitute maybe 0.000001% of your current audience.
This thinking is wrong-headed. You are dumb.
You need to provide hi-res images so that people pirate them. By ‘pirate,’ I mean ‘pass them around,’ of course. You need as many people as possible coveting your work and showing it to others. It’s a strategy of odds. Some people will be like me and happily provide links and credit. Aggregators who make this effort attract a greater concentration of professionals (photographers and patrons alike) because we allow people with more than a passing interest the ability to spider outwards—what the internet was meant for. This is what separates Resources from Distractions.
Huge-ass JPGs are instrumental to all this.
If you have talent and vision, your brand will take care of itself. Think about Noah Kalina, Merkeley, Cari Ann Wayman, or other net-made photographers. Their visual styles are distinct. You know who shot those photos without having to see their name.
Individual images are less important than building a reputation for shooting captivating photos. Do great work and throw it to the wind. (…read more, syntheticpubes.com, thanks A!)
Update 06.10.09: In defense of remix culture, here’s the post 40 Examples of Incredible Photo Manipulation (thanks, Tim!), with this image — the explicit original versions here; entertaining derivative here:
@David R Carroll:
It probably wouldn’t hurt to start using an EXIF editor to start putting your info in there.
It’s not a perfect solution, the data can get stripped intentionally or unintentionally, but better than nothing at the moment.
I also use the FxIF extension in Firefox to see EXIF data in image properties on the other end… if it’s there.
@Steven –
“How about I camp on your lawn or something for the night? Maybe break into a hotel room just for a place to sleep for the night… when I’m gone the next day, the hotel room is still there… isn’t it?”
You’re talking about physical places. It’s not the same thing. If you could perfectly replicate them almost instantaneously for virtually no cost, your strawman might stand. Scarcity makes sense to charge for; attempting to create false scarcity in order to preserve an old business model and hold back the future, not so much.
“Photographers, filmmakers, music makers, play writers, etc, should have the ability to protect their work and charge for it however which way they wish.”
They do have the right to demand payment any way they wish. They don’t, however, have a right to demand that their business model be successful, or that technology will not render it obsolete.
Robert Heinlein hit on it about 70 years ago:
“There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.”
– Life-Line (1939)
All of my photographs on Flickr! are available in full resolution and are CC Generic 2.0 (Share/Remix OK, but with attribution).
I don’t watermark my photos or put my name in the EXIF data. As far as I can tell everyone who has used my pictures has given me attribution.
My question is this: How do I prevent a scenario like this where Ms. Blue has found a fantastic photo, really wants to attribute the photographer, but can’t find out who he/she is, from happening to me?
@Steven – Shakespeare is a perfect example of something important: his work is now in the public domain! Part of the deal being made when a copyright is granted is that in exchange for a temporary monopoly, society gets ownership in the end.
In my own works of creation, I am not obligated to apply DRM and restrictive licensing from the start. :P My photography has only ever earned me, financially, gifts of wine, beer, and books — but it has earned me friends. This act of taking a beautiful photograph and sharing it with others has value beyond the cash I could squeeze out of it.
Also, there were plenty of meat heads in ancient Greece: haven’t you read the Iliad and Odyssey? BTW, those awe inspiring works only survived because people spoke them to each other — without royalty payments to Homer Poetry Corp. — for generations…
@Kevin – professional artists have always been paid for their work. You think Shakespeare did his plays for free? He didn’t get the second largest house in Stratford for letting people see his shows for free. Back in the days of Plato, the Olympics weren’t just about the meat, they were also about the arts. Today’s meat heads at the Olympics have forgotten about that. And a lot of folks who think it’s OK to copy (aka steal) peoples work have no concept of the time and effort it takes to create that content. An album can cost thousands. A book can take years and cost thousands. Without copyright protections, there would be no money in either and the world will be the worse off for it. 2,000 years ago, if you wanted to copy someone’s work, first you had to get a copy, then you had to write it down. There were no photocopies or electronic texts.
@Myk – After you copy it, what do you do with it? Delete it? Or do you take it and listen to or watch it? If you do, then you’re stealing it.
Hang the pirates high, then throw them to the sharks.
Twentieth century big studio movies and music are about getting paid, but that is only a brief moment in time. Lets not forget that people have been singing together and telling good stories for tens of thousands of years.
Culture isn’t always about getting paid.
“Sure it’s theft. It’s taking something that doesn’t belong to you without paying for it.”
It isn’t “taking” anything. It’s copying. And yes, there really is a fundamental difference.
“(Anyone who cries “theft!” still doesn’t get that bits are copied, not taken away leaving an empty space where they used to be.)”
Sure it’s theft. It’s taking something that doesn’t belong to you without paying for it. How about I camp on your lawn or something for the night? Maybe break into a hotel room just for a place to sleep for the night… when I’m gone the next day, the hotel room is still there… isn’t it?
If you don’t want to pay, then don’t play. Seems pretty straightforward. Photographers, filmmakers, music makers, play writers, etc, should have the ability to protect their work and charge for it however which way they wish. Meanwhile, hang all the pirates. We still hang pirates, don’t we?
I’m a composer and I’ve earned more money through my free download music, than with my music that is available in shops and on I-tunes. The reason is that a few times I was approached by companies that asked permission to use my music for commercial purposes. They would have never found it if it hadn’t been freely available.
(ehm…. it also helped that some of it it was labeled as “music for porn movies” on comfortstand.com ;-)
For another viewpoint see
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/aus/558260167.html
In a related post I recently wrote this on the National Press Phoitographers Association list:
The fundamental issue is that for all of their lives people have been
taught that intangible information is free. TV is free, radios is free,
you may pay for cable but in the mind of the public you’re paying for
the guy in the truck not the information. The recording industry and
Hollywood actually made matters worse by charging more for CD’s and
DVD’s than they did for tapes. All that did was strengthen the
perceptions that it was the media that drove the cost. As somebody who
has spend a fair amount of time studying consumers attitudes to media (I
was VP of Engineering at BitTorrent for a while) I can say with some
certainty that it’s going to be very hard to break the intangible equals
free mindset.
There is a idea floating around that micropayments are the answer.
They’re not. The problem is that a purchasing decision is still a
decision no matter how small the amount. There is a reason that cell
companies, cable companies, phone companies sell bundles, people like to
make one purchase decision and forget about it. The consumer psychology
is well understood and the people could be in the micropayment business
(eg phone companies) are moving in the opposite direction.
Micropayments work for corporations who want to pay only for what they
use, they don’t work for individuals.
All that said you can’t pay the rent with photo credits. It’s going to be interesting to see what new models emerge.
My plea for advice and guidance is even somewhat related to the post, so: I have this idea (described on linked website, which at the moment requires google login for no particularly good reason) that is wanting for a license to some nude pictures for use in a mobile application (specifically, android/g1).
The only place I ever found that sells licenses is this site called https://www.adultimagebrokers.com/ which seems like it has totally usable stuff but a) their licenses are geared towards websites not mobile apps and b) their licenses seem geared towards selling access which I’m not really interested in doing if I can avoid it. I have emails out to them but I’m not super hopeful.
Anyways, I’m all about paying to license the images, but any ideas where something like that could come from? (joe@daverin.com if you want)
I couldn’t get past the breathtaking pics of you and Jennie, did you write something too?
How am I supposed to think under these conditions?
Obscurity is a far greater threat than “infringement.” <– Gets it.
For those reasons quoted I’ve updated my site so that html code can be copied and pasted into a blog or website and allow my photos to be reposted. This one for instance: http://elaisted.com/index8252003.php?g=oldstr&p=y&image=noel–19.jpg&directory=portfolio
Obscurity is a far greater threat than “infringement.”
(Anyone who cries “theft!” still doesn’t get that bits are copied, not taken away leaving an empty space where they used to be.)
But really, are people just not using EXIF tags as much as they should? Or are they just getting stripped that easily?