Infringers really bug Alex Wild
September 25, 2014 11:14 AM Subscribe
Insect photographer Alex Wild explains the effect of copyright infringement on his business; he has decided to give up commercial photography, partly due to the time he spends going after infringers. Alex Wild previously on MetaFilter.
Not that I don't feel for this guy, but stock photography has been dying for a very long time. I don't know anyone in the commercial photo world who makes any significant amount of money from it. This is less a copyright infringement problem and more an overall shift in the photography market - stock photos are worthless.
posted by bradbane at 11:31 AM on September 25, 2014
posted by bradbane at 11:31 AM on September 25, 2014
stock photos are worthless.
Like ads, stock photos are individually worthless regardless of how hard they were to take or how much technique or artistry the photographer brings to bear.
If you own a bank of millions of stock photos, it's a pretty valuable business.
posted by GuyZero at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2014
Like ads, stock photos are individually worthless regardless of how hard they were to take or how much technique or artistry the photographer brings to bear.
If you own a bank of millions of stock photos, it's a pretty valuable business.
posted by GuyZero at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2014
He specifically says that he's making enough money but hates having to spend so much time addressing copyright issues:
posted by XMLicious at 11:36 AM on September 25, 2014
...publishers, museums, and the pest control industry send me enough in licensing fees that I haven’t starved to death. By nature photographer standards, business is booming.
posted by XMLicious at 11:36 AM on September 25, 2014
I am starting a fantastic new job in January, thanks! It’s exactly the sort of academic position I trained for as a graduate student many years ago, and I am excited for the move.Sounds like he's using a career change to take some parting shots.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:39 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
If you own a bank of millions of stock photos, it's a pretty valuable business.
Right, but even Getty has cannibalized their own business with microstock. It was not that long ago that you could earn a decent living, run a studio, have employees, all off of stock photo revenue. Those days are long gone., it's simple supply and demand.
posted by bradbane at 11:45 AM on September 25, 2014
Right, but even Getty has cannibalized their own business with microstock. It was not that long ago that you could earn a decent living, run a studio, have employees, all off of stock photo revenue. Those days are long gone., it's simple supply and demand.
posted by bradbane at 11:45 AM on September 25, 2014
This is less a copyright infringement problem and more an overall shift in the photography market - stock photos are worthless.
But ... just to ask the obvious question ... why are they becoming worthless? Because the market is flooded? Because lots of needs are being filled with infringing images? Something else?
If you own a bank of millions of stock photos, it's a pretty valuable business.
I don't know about photos, but on the production music side, this is pretty much what Pump Audio did. They owned the rights to something like 100,000 tracks (which they basically weren't pitching, based on revenue), which they then sold to Getty for $42m. And now Getty is trying to drag the bar even lower by asking composers to waive their right to broadcast royalties.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:47 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
But ... just to ask the obvious question ... why are they becoming worthless? Because the market is flooded? Because lots of needs are being filled with infringing images? Something else?
If you own a bank of millions of stock photos, it's a pretty valuable business.
I don't know about photos, but on the production music side, this is pretty much what Pump Audio did. They owned the rights to something like 100,000 tracks (which they basically weren't pitching, based on revenue), which they then sold to Getty for $42m. And now Getty is trying to drag the bar even lower by asking composers to waive their right to broadcast royalties.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:47 AM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
The supposed purpose for the existence of the government-enforced monopolies that are IP regimes around the world, and for the legislation during the past century that has removed untold trillions of dollars' worth of IP from the public domain by expanding the scope of copyright law—to ensure that creators and inventors are financially compensated for the value the rest of us get from their work—is not primary to the laws and mechanisms we've ended up with. It's an afterthought or practically an accident if that actually happens.
posted by XMLicious at 11:54 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 11:54 AM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
He may want to stop commercial photography, but thars gold in them thar infringers.
posted by spock at 11:58 AM on September 25, 2014
posted by spock at 11:58 AM on September 25, 2014
Sounds like he's using a career change to take some parting shots.
I see what you did there.
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:13 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
I see what you did there.
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:13 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
Wish I did.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:21 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:21 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Another copyright article that basically says "Won't someone do something?" without getting to the thing he is proposing. Stricter version of the DMCA? It's already being abused. Hardware DRM on any computing device that can show a photograph? Please.
Photographs can be downloaded in the time it takes for me to finish this sentence. Without restricting the Internet to a degree that most of us would find unpleasant, I don't know how you can stop this.
posted by zabuni at 12:34 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Photographs can be downloaded in the time it takes for me to finish this sentence. Without restricting the Internet to a degree that most of us would find unpleasant, I don't know how you can stop this.
posted by zabuni at 12:34 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
He specifically says that he's making enough money but hates having to spend so much time addressing copyright issues: "...publishers, museums, and the pest control industry send me enough in licensing fees that I haven’t starved to death. By nature photographer standards, business is booming."
So he's making enough money the way things are, but he's frustrated that he "has" to spend time chasing infringers. How much more money would he make if he spent that time and effort on something that he could actually get paid for, like taking more of those photos that business is "booming" for?
posted by straight at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
So he's making enough money the way things are, but he's frustrated that he "has" to spend time chasing infringers. How much more money would he make if he spent that time and effort on something that he could actually get paid for, like taking more of those photos that business is "booming" for?
posted by straight at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
The caption on that photo is killer: "A worker honey bee covered in pollen. Honey bees add about 20 billion dollars a year to the US economy, mostly through their pollination services. Urbana, Illinois, USA." Really cuts right to the heart of the issue.
posted by nevercalm at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by nevercalm at 12:45 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Photographs can be downloaded in the time it takes for me to finish this sentence. Without restricting the Internet to a degree that most of us would find unpleasant, I don't know how you can stop this.
I don't know, appealing to better human nature? Chris Ruen noted in Freeloading that he had a good amount of success actually discussing the issue with people, since most people didn't grasp what was happening when they download media without permission.
In fact, I really hate this argument for two reasons:
1) It argues that infringement is a fait accompli that cannot be remedied.
2) It proposes an inverted model of responsibility between man and machine that is very dangerous.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:54 PM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't know, appealing to better human nature? Chris Ruen noted in Freeloading that he had a good amount of success actually discussing the issue with people, since most people didn't grasp what was happening when they download media without permission.
In fact, I really hate this argument for two reasons:
1) It argues that infringement is a fait accompli that cannot be remedied.
2) It proposes an inverted model of responsibility between man and machine that is very dangerous.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:54 PM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
"How much more money would he make if he spent that time and effort on something that he could actually get paid for"
Zero, because he says in TFA that on pictures where he's given up trying to enforce copyright, they become so widespread that no-one ever licenses them.
posted by IanMorr at 12:56 PM on September 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
Zero, because he says in TFA that on pictures where he's given up trying to enforce copyright, they become so widespread that no-one ever licenses them.
posted by IanMorr at 12:56 PM on September 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
1) It argues that infringement is a fait accompli that cannot be remedied.
Everyone now has several copying machines at their disposal. Policing them would take draconian measures. At this point the "cure" is worse than the disease.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:03 PM on September 25, 2014
Everyone now has several copying machines at their disposal. Policing them would take draconian measures. At this point the "cure" is worse than the disease.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:03 PM on September 25, 2014
Would most people walk out of a supermarket without paying, even if they were sure they wouldn't get caught? Probably not. Some would. But most wouldn't. It's an attitude. One that we can at least endeavor to teach people to extend to digital media before we throw our hands up and give up.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:08 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by uncleozzy at 1:08 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
1) It argues that infringement is a fait accompli that cannot be remedied.
Everyone now has several copying machines at their disposal. Policing them would take draconian measures. At this point the "cure" is worse than the disease.
Thank you for illustrating my second point. Just because you possess a "copying machines" does not compel you to copy.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:08 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Everyone now has several copying machines at their disposal. Policing them would take draconian measures. At this point the "cure" is worse than the disease.
Thank you for illustrating my second point. Just because you possess a "copying machines" does not compel you to copy.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:08 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
I almost didn't read this because I expected it to be another rant by some entitled artist driven bitterly insane by a changing world.
But this guy is reasonable, erudite and astoundingly clueful:
"Alternatives to the current ailing copyright system should not be tasked with providing a living to artists (after all, artists should be free to fail the old-fashioned way, where no one understands their work). But any alternative needs to preserve the central rationale to copyright—an incentive to create."
I am a big believer in giving away digital goods as marketing for less copyable, tangible items (in my case, prints, t-shirts, mugs, etc).
In his case however, I can only agree with him - I don't know how to solve this problem and now I'm curious as to what is going to happen to the quantity of quality images on the internet.
posted by mmrtnt at 1:15 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
But this guy is reasonable, erudite and astoundingly clueful:
"Alternatives to the current ailing copyright system should not be tasked with providing a living to artists (after all, artists should be free to fail the old-fashioned way, where no one understands their work). But any alternative needs to preserve the central rationale to copyright—an incentive to create."
I am a big believer in giving away digital goods as marketing for less copyable, tangible items (in my case, prints, t-shirts, mugs, etc).
In his case however, I can only agree with him - I don't know how to solve this problem and now I'm curious as to what is going to happen to the quantity of quality images on the internet.
posted by mmrtnt at 1:15 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Just because you possess a "copying machines" does not compel you to copy.
Free speech includes the ability to repeat what others have said. The fact that we can now do so exactly doesn't change that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:26 PM on September 25, 2014
Free speech includes the ability to repeat what others have said. The fact that we can now do so exactly doesn't change that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:26 PM on September 25, 2014
I'm not a very good photographer, yet even some of my mediocre shots have been copied to flickr and reposted under a CC licence without my permission, using someone else's name as the creator. It's a shame that photo hosting companies don't automatically check uploaded images against Tineye (impractical, I know) but I'm thinking a lot of this copying and reposting is bot-driven.
posted by scruss at 1:28 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by scruss at 1:28 PM on September 25, 2014
Free speech includes the ability to repeat what others have said. The fact that we can now do so exactly doesn't change that.
Ah, free speech absolutism, a classic bad penny of the internet.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:39 PM on September 25, 2014
Ah, free speech absolutism, a classic bad penny of the internet.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:39 PM on September 25, 2014
Pretty sure that US courts (and most others) have held up that copyright law doesn't violate any rights to free speech. That's an insane conflation. Do you also support selling your own printing of books without paying anything to the authors?
posted by GuyZero at 1:45 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 1:45 PM on September 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
Do you also support selling your own printing of books without paying anything to the authors?
"Printing?"
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2014
"Printing?"
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2014
Sounds like he's using a career change to take some parting shots.
Sounds like something really bugged the guy... Oh wait, that one's taken. Stung again! I'm really winging it here...
posted by stenseng at 2:16 PM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
Sounds like something really bugged the guy... Oh wait, that one's taken. Stung again! I'm really winging it here...
posted by stenseng at 2:16 PM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
1) It argues that infringement is a fait accompli that cannot be remedied.
I posit that any remedy would be worse than the damage that infringement does. As for appealing to their better nature, you're talking about people who may share no heritage, country, language, or even shared moral values. That's a high order. Also, most of the infringers are corporations, which really don't respond to morality unless it hurts the bottom line.
It's also responsive to any other parts of their morality. So copying becomes all right if it's a company of large enough size, if they don't support the politics I do, if they are the wrong sort of people.
Thank you for illustrating my second point. Just because you possess a "copying machines" does not compel you to copy.
But compelling people not to copy requires force, and the force that has been given to do that, like the DMCA, has already been used for ends that have nothing to do with copyright.
posted by zabuni at 2:38 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
There's a surprising lack of sympathy for the situation here. Yes, stock photo is, like most creative work, being devalued and under immense deflationary pressure. But this is small scale theft.
No one is suggesting closing the internet. But, as someone who produced documentary tv for years, and therefore spent a lot of time licensing images and footage (and music), I'm pretty aware of the obligation to pay for the right to use someone else's IP. Obviously, that now makes me a pretty small minority. Its too bad small claims court isn't a useful tool here, the small scale infractions seem made for it.
He should focus on the large commercial infractions, and billing for them, rather than take down notices.
Fer Christ's sake, reproducing someone's copyrighted images is now repeating someone's speech? That is one hell of a stretched analogy.
posted by C.A.S. at 2:47 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
No one is suggesting closing the internet. But, as someone who produced documentary tv for years, and therefore spent a lot of time licensing images and footage (and music), I'm pretty aware of the obligation to pay for the right to use someone else's IP. Obviously, that now makes me a pretty small minority. Its too bad small claims court isn't a useful tool here, the small scale infractions seem made for it.
He should focus on the large commercial infractions, and billing for them, rather than take down notices.
Fer Christ's sake, reproducing someone's copyrighted images is now repeating someone's speech? That is one hell of a stretched analogy.
posted by C.A.S. at 2:47 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Compelling people NOT to copy doesn't require force, just like compelling people not to break the law doesn't always take force. It just requires a financial penalty. That isn't worse than the crime, its in proportion to the crime.
posted by C.A.S. at 2:48 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by C.A.S. at 2:48 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Free speech includes the ability to repeat what others have said. The fact that we can now do so exactly doesn't change that.
You're using the concept of free speech incorrectly; this isn't a free speech issue.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
You're using the concept of free speech incorrectly; this isn't a free speech issue.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on September 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
just like compelling people not to break the law doesn't always take force. It just requires a financial penalty
But... that's force. What happens if you don't pay the financial penalty? That's right, force.
posted by Justinian at 3:52 PM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
But... that's force. What happens if you don't pay the financial penalty? That's right, force.
posted by Justinian at 3:52 PM on September 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
This seems like another one of those internet-type problems that can be boiled down to "We gave things away early one to make it easier to access said things, but now, people won't respect the need to pay for those very same things!" See news, classified ads, and so on.
Is there a technical solution? No, but one could be implemented. There would be an awkward and difficult period of trying to cram the genie back into the bottle, though. Also, and probably more difficult, you would have to get WHATWG and the W3C to agree to the technical solution, and then Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mozilla, et al to implement it. Very, very difficult.
It depresses me that the web as it stands has more or less killed a portion of his livelihood. He wasn't rent-seeking. He wasn't living off of arbitrary legal constructions passed by paid-for congressional reps. He didn't need to be "disrupted" in the current parlance. He just wanted to earn a fair wage for his day-to-day work. It's a pity when this happens, especially considering that he doesn't have an alternative within the same realm (as musicians do with touring, for instance).
posted by aureliobuendia at 3:53 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Is there a technical solution? No, but one could be implemented. There would be an awkward and difficult period of trying to cram the genie back into the bottle, though. Also, and probably more difficult, you would have to get WHATWG and the W3C to agree to the technical solution, and then Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mozilla, et al to implement it. Very, very difficult.
It depresses me that the web as it stands has more or less killed a portion of his livelihood. He wasn't rent-seeking. He wasn't living off of arbitrary legal constructions passed by paid-for congressional reps. He didn't need to be "disrupted" in the current parlance. He just wanted to earn a fair wage for his day-to-day work. It's a pity when this happens, especially considering that he doesn't have an alternative within the same realm (as musicians do with touring, for instance).
posted by aureliobuendia at 3:53 PM on September 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
I hope people are reading the article, because it's a really good, well-written discussion of the problem. It might have even changed my mind about a few things, which is something an infinite number of rants about "freetards" is never going to do.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:10 PM on September 25, 2014
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:10 PM on September 25, 2014
Shameful confession: I commented without reading the whole article. He does directly address my dumb suggestion that chasing infringers is unnecessary:
That last question is rhetorical, but I actually have let a few of my most commonly infringed images go unenforced. I could not keep up, so I left these as a natural experiment. The result confirmed what I suspected: images that become widespread on the Internet are no longer commercially viable. Thousands of businesses worldwide now use one of my Australian ant photographs to market their services, for example, and not a single paying client has come forth to license that image since I gave up.
Fighting the copyright fight is not all bad. An unanticipated benefit is that, when done politely, a certain upstanding percentage of my infringers decide to pay for an image so they can continue using it. A few even return for more images later. I have yet to find a better system for cold-contacting potential customers than casting a broad net of polite takedown notices. These conversions are only around one percent of infringers, but they still amount to an extra couple thousand dollars of income each year. It's not enough to offset the time I spend on infringements, but it’s something.
posted by straight at 4:34 PM on September 25, 2014
That last question is rhetorical, but I actually have let a few of my most commonly infringed images go unenforced. I could not keep up, so I left these as a natural experiment. The result confirmed what I suspected: images that become widespread on the Internet are no longer commercially viable. Thousands of businesses worldwide now use one of my Australian ant photographs to market their services, for example, and not a single paying client has come forth to license that image since I gave up.
Fighting the copyright fight is not all bad. An unanticipated benefit is that, when done politely, a certain upstanding percentage of my infringers decide to pay for an image so they can continue using it. A few even return for more images later. I have yet to find a better system for cold-contacting potential customers than casting a broad net of polite takedown notices. These conversions are only around one percent of infringers, but they still amount to an extra couple thousand dollars of income each year. It's not enough to offset the time I spend on infringements, but it’s something.
posted by straight at 4:34 PM on September 25, 2014
His big example is a foreign country that used one of his images on a coin. This is a problem with national boundaries and jurisdiction, not the webs. If the image had been lifted from the pages of NatGeo the issue would be exactly the same. And if they're going to steal a digital image for something as public as commemorative currency, they're shady enough to steal it from print media too.
His real problem is it wasn't published in NatGeo in the first place.
If someone waved a wand and every pirate copy suddenly vanished how would he be making more money? Enterprises that use his graphics without paying do so because they're not inclined to. If the same magic wand forced everyone to pay, they'd simply not use the images. There's no enforcement scenario in which he'd make money from these people.
He does directly address my dumb suggestion that chasing infringers is unnecessary
It's still not a dumb suggestion. If the image isn't commercially viable because everyone knows it exists, it wouldn't be commercially viable if no one knew it existed either.
He's counting imaginary money and calling it a loss.
This is a man whose work is famous and it's not translating into wealth. This is a problem which exited long before the internet. I understand his frustration, but if the fame didn't exist he'd still have to take that teaching job.
posted by clarknova at 5:19 PM on September 25, 2014
His real problem is it wasn't published in NatGeo in the first place.
If someone waved a wand and every pirate copy suddenly vanished how would he be making more money? Enterprises that use his graphics without paying do so because they're not inclined to. If the same magic wand forced everyone to pay, they'd simply not use the images. There's no enforcement scenario in which he'd make money from these people.
He does directly address my dumb suggestion that chasing infringers is unnecessary
It's still not a dumb suggestion. If the image isn't commercially viable because everyone knows it exists, it wouldn't be commercially viable if no one knew it existed either.
He's counting imaginary money and calling it a loss.
This is a man whose work is famous and it's not translating into wealth. This is a problem which exited long before the internet. I understand his frustration, but if the fame didn't exist he'd still have to take that teaching job.
posted by clarknova at 5:19 PM on September 25, 2014
> Just because you possess a "copying machines" does not compel you to copy.
Only if you use it.
posted by one weird trick at 4:46 AM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Only if you use it.
posted by one weird trick at 4:46 AM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
this isn't a free speech issue
Copyright is a restriction on speech. The question is whether it is a useful one.
Is there a technical solution? No, but one could be implemented.
That is ever the promise of DRM purveyors. Such solutions are at best an annoyance.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:21 AM on September 26, 2014
Copyright is a restriction on speech. The question is whether it is a useful one.
Is there a technical solution? No, but one could be implemented.
That is ever the promise of DRM purveyors. Such solutions are at best an annoyance.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:21 AM on September 26, 2014
Copyright is a restriction on speech.
No, it really isn't (and we have a balancing system in place for the cases where the two do need to be balanced), and trying to argue that it is demonstrates why free speech absolutism is unworkable.
And you'll pardon me if I've never bought the logic of the "they're not all lost sales" argument, because it always came across to me as an attempt to justify allowing someone to just take something for free, because they "would never pay".
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:48 AM on September 26, 2014
No, it really isn't (and we have a balancing system in place for the cases where the two do need to be balanced), and trying to argue that it is demonstrates why free speech absolutism is unworkable.
And you'll pardon me if I've never bought the logic of the "they're not all lost sales" argument, because it always came across to me as an attempt to justify allowing someone to just take something for free, because they "would never pay".
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:48 AM on September 26, 2014
Making it illegal to sing "Happy Birthday" when in "public" (which may include most birthday parties, even in private homes) or any other copyrighted song, without obtaining written permission in advance and paying a fee to the copyright holder, or not being able to show vacation photos you took yourself around in public if a copyrighted sculpture or artwork was caught in the background, actually does rather seem like a restraint on free speech.
It's not a primary reason I object to intellectual property laws, but I think the only reason it might not appear to be a free speech issue is because the laws aren't enforced in the cases of the countless infringements most people commit every day.
posted by XMLicious at 9:36 AM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's not a primary reason I object to intellectual property laws, but I think the only reason it might not appear to be a free speech issue is because the laws aren't enforced in the cases of the countless infringements most people commit every day.
posted by XMLicious at 9:36 AM on September 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, it really isn't (and we have a balancing system in place for the cases where the two do need to be balanced), and trying to argue that it is demonstrates why free speech absolutism is unworkable.
If it wasn't a restriction on speech we wouldn't need to balance anything. XMLicious' link demonstrates that adherence to copyright (as currently enacted) is what is unworkable.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:10 AM on September 26, 2014
If it wasn't a restriction on speech we wouldn't need to balance anything. XMLicious' link demonstrates that adherence to copyright (as currently enacted) is what is unworkable.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:10 AM on September 26, 2014
But... that's force. What happens if you don't pay the financial penalty? That's right, force.
No. Small claims enforcement doesn't mean a cop handcuffing you, it means getting a judge to award wage garnishment, or bank seizures. Its no different than any other financial penalty in law.
If you don't agree with paying for pictures, its easy, don't use someone else's pictures. Its not The Man squashing your fuggin freedom.
posted by C.A.S. at 11:14 AM on September 26, 2014
No. Small claims enforcement doesn't mean a cop handcuffing you, it means getting a judge to award wage garnishment, or bank seizures. Its no different than any other financial penalty in law.
If you don't agree with paying for pictures, its easy, don't use someone else's pictures. Its not The Man squashing your fuggin freedom.
posted by C.A.S. at 11:14 AM on September 26, 2014
Taking your money against your will is still use of force.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:23 AM on September 26, 2014
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:23 AM on September 26, 2014
If the image isn't commercially viable because everyone knows it exists, it wouldn't be commercially viable if no one knew it existed either. He's counting imaginary money and calling it a loss.
Well he claims that he makes money on the images that he spends time chasing unlicensed use of but he doesn't make money on images where he doesn't do that.
He claims to have actually tested the assertion you're making and found it to be wrong.
It's not a randomized test, but it seems like pretty good evidence unless you've got better data to back up your claim.
posted by straight at 11:55 AM on September 26, 2014
Well he claims that he makes money on the images that he spends time chasing unlicensed use of but he doesn't make money on images where he doesn't do that.
He claims to have actually tested the assertion you're making and found it to be wrong.
It's not a randomized test, but it seems like pretty good evidence unless you've got better data to back up your claim.
posted by straight at 11:55 AM on September 26, 2014
Against your will? You stole someone's property against the owner's will. I guess that was it was "use of force" to take someone else's pictures for commercial use, so its only an equitable use of force in response. Fair enough. I'm comfortable with that
posted by C.A.S. at 3:00 PM on September 26, 2014
posted by C.A.S. at 3:00 PM on September 26, 2014
Looks like he got out of the nature photog business just in time.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:36 PM on September 26, 2014
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:36 PM on September 26, 2014
« Older Homage Warehouse | A Rant Against The Quantification Of Aesthetics Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 11:18 AM on September 25, 2014