6 ms·

Copyright laws need to be amended in today's digital age.

by suyash 9y ago

Double_a_92 9y ago
Why? Why sould it not be allowed to sell the right to use pictures that you made?
- lolc 9y ago
  Why should you need permission?
  - johannes1234321 9y ago
    Because a photographer (or other artist) needs to be able to earn his living and pay for his equipment. Also they probably don't want to be associated with all kinds of folks.
    - rwmj 9y ago
      Perhaps (and I realize I'm being devil's advocate here), "photo-journalist" is no longer a profession where one should expect to make a living? Photographers can still work for commissions or for the pure joy of it, but these days everyone carries a camera and can take decent photos of news and sports events.
      - chris_wot 9y ago
        Well, no... many photojournalists spend a huge amount of money in equipment and go to places others won’t venture. Copyright get, limits, however, are way too long. They should be maximum 25 years IMO.
        rwmj 9y ago
        I'm guessing that's more of a commission basis, rather than journalists going on-spec to warzones and hoping to sell the photos. And if not, then they could move to a commission / work-for-hire model and still make a living.
        tomatocracy 9y ago
        Freelancing for sports photography has been common for a long time. Many photographers covering an event but only one may get the picture which illustrates the key point scored/etc well (because luck and skill both play a part). As to "why not replace that with photos from the public" - with press accreditation they can sit court-side and have space to use large lenses, monopods etc. All that equipment and access costs money, and it's not just a one-off cost either (on the equipment side competition also drives quality up meaning upgrading equipment relatively frequently is required, and it does wear out over time as well) - hence the cost of the "best" photos will always be higher than random crowd pics in a functioning market (which needs copyright protection).
        rwmj 9y ago
        This is the same sort of argument as "horses require expensive stabling, food and years of training". All true, but that didn't stop horses from becoming obsolete as a mode of transport, in the same way that I'm suggesting photo-journalists may become obsolete because technology and the internet makes their jobs less and less necessary. What happens when cameras get so good and cheap that photos from the crowd are as good as the ones from beside the court? Or we can place numerous nearly-free court-side cameras operated by AIs to capture everything?
        stinkytaco 9y ago
        It also doesn't mean that horses becoming obsolete means you can just use anyone's horse.
        tomatocracy 9y ago
        It's a market, same as any other, and there's a cost-quality curve same as many markets. That curve might move over time but it won't change the fact that the people who own the images get to decide on what terms they are used and the people who own the court get to decide who they let in with cameras and to where (and if they install your nice AI cameras to replace the freelance photojournalists they currently let in, that may well raise the market price because they've just created a nice little monopoly for themselves). I don't get to go and ride someone else's horse for free whenever I feel like it just because cars exist.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
        That doesn't make sense. Even if that were the case, what gives you the right to just use someone else's work for a profit? And why does a major studio get to decide that people no longer need to be paid for taking photos?
        rwmj 9y ago
        The alternative is that we need to have a complex system of payments and invasive DRM/spyware to monitor everything posted. People will share these photos widely anyway, but occasionally and randomly someone will be sued for $150,000 per violation and have to defend against that. Is that a good trade-off for keeping a few photo-journalists in business?
        2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
        Well, if everybody has a decent camera these days, they why not just ask amateurs to submit photos in return for attribution and a small prize to the next event or cash reward if their photo gets chosen? There's no need to hire photo journalists if you really don't want to. Also no need to use their work (for a profit!) without asking or paying because you decided it was unnecessary.
        detaro 9y ago
        Does your imagined copyright reform target only photojournalists, or all creators? It's also not a pure choice between your two extremes. There are various tools that could be used to push this towards a more reasonable middle ground. E.g. through some level of standardization for claim levels, incentives to solve conflicts without actual lawsuits, ... In this specific case, I find the argument "photography isn't as valuable anymore" not very convincing. If the specific pictures have low value, there was no need to use them without permission. That the photographer likely is incentivised to start with high claimed damages to then get a lower sum in a side-deal sounds like a general bug in how these cases tend to work in the US, copyright-related or not, and should be fixed elsewhere.
        Joeboy 9y ago
      - cowsandmilk 9y ago
        That is an irrelevant argument. If a news outlet wants to rely on images taken by the public, they are free to do so. And many outlets have moved towards that. That doesn't mean that they should be free to take images a professional photographer has taken at an event and use them willy-nilly. 247 Sports likely used Tannen's photos because they were better than ones that could be gotten for free from fans in the crowd. If you want the better photos, pay up.
        rwmj 9y ago
        > If a news outlet wants to rely on images taken by the public, they are free to do so. In fact they're not free to do so, not the way that copyright currently works.
    - Retric 9y ago
      I am ok just trashing all forms of copyright. software, music, movies, books etc. Because that's how people make money breaks down when a most small artists are supported by donations or sales of original works. Copywrite, would have been bad for Shakespeare, and likely does more harm than good.
      - stinkytaco 9y ago
        Define "bad" for Shakespeare. Bad in the sense that he wouldn't have been famous, or bad in the sense that it would have prevented him from making a living off his work? Because I'm skeptical if the later. Copyright is the only recourse for small creators against large actors that might co-opt their work with superior resources and reach. It certainly has its issues, but it's hard to imagine making a living in the Internet age as a photographer without that barrier to discourage reuse. Most photographers make money selling their work to magazines, websites, etc, not "original works" (i.e. prints).
        Retric 9y ago
        Bad as it would have made his plays worse as he directly copied various things from other writers. Remember, he could copy content from others, but needed enough originality to keep an audience interested. Net result plenty of stuff lifted then improved resulting in evolutionary improvements we lost with copy-write.
        stinkytaco 9y ago
        That's an interesting view. I see what you mean, but I don't think copyright stops us from using other's works. There's a huge cultural zietgiest that is regularly appropriated for new content that doesn't require directly copying other's words or pictures. Shakespeare taking the well known story of Romeo and Juliet and writing a play is quite different than Shakespeare taking someone else's play and putting it on with his theater company and under his name. One is acceptable under copyright law, and the other, I would argue, is unacceptable under moral law (the underlying legal theory behind copyright). And there are provisions in the law meant to mitigate some of this: the protection of transformative use and fair use. I believe copyright needs reform, but in the days of mass distribution controlled by a small number of large companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.), I think it might be more important than ever.
  - Double_a_92 9y ago
    Because it takes skill and effort to take a good picture? Why would anybody give that away for free? We are not some kind of hive mind...
Joeboy 9y ago
I agree but I think the way they need to be amended is to shorten copyright periods by at least 50%. I think it's a good thing that it's possible to make a film or a piece of music and insist on payment for its use, at least if it's used brazenly by a commercial organization.

by suyash 9y ago

Why? Why sould it not be allowed to sell the right to use pictures that you made?

lolc 9y ago
Why should you need permission?
- johannes1234321 9y ago
  Because a photographer (or other artist) needs to be able to earn his living and pay for his equipment. Also they probably don't want to be associated with all kinds of folks.
  - rwmj 9y ago
    Perhaps (and I realize I'm being devil's advocate here), "photo-journalist" is no longer a profession where one should expect to make a living? Photographers can still work for commissions or for the pure joy of it, but these days everyone carries a camera and can take decent photos of news and sports events.
    - chris_wot 9y ago
      Well, no... many photojournalists spend a huge amount of money in equipment and go to places others won’t venture. Copyright get, limits, however, are way too long. They should be maximum 25 years IMO.
      - rwmj 9y ago
        I'm guessing that's more of a commission basis, rather than journalists going on-spec to warzones and hoping to sell the photos. And if not, then they could move to a commission / work-for-hire model and still make a living.
        tomatocracy 9y ago
        Freelancing for sports photography has been common for a long time. Many photographers covering an event but only one may get the picture which illustrates the key point scored/etc well (because luck and skill both play a part). As to "why not replace that with photos from the public" - with press accreditation they can sit court-side and have space to use large lenses, monopods etc. All that equipment and access costs money, and it's not just a one-off cost either (on the equipment side competition also drives quality up meaning upgrading equipment relatively frequently is required, and it does wear out over time as well) - hence the cost of the "best" photos will always be higher than random crowd pics in a functioning market (which needs copyright protection).
        rwmj 9y ago
        This is the same sort of argument as "horses require expensive stabling, food and years of training". All true, but that didn't stop horses from becoming obsolete as a mode of transport, in the same way that I'm suggesting photo-journalists may become obsolete because technology and the internet makes their jobs less and less necessary. What happens when cameras get so good and cheap that photos from the crowd are as good as the ones from beside the court? Or we can place numerous nearly-free court-side cameras operated by AIs to capture everything?
        stinkytaco 9y ago
        It also doesn't mean that horses becoming obsolete means you can just use anyone's horse.
        tomatocracy 9y ago
        It's a market, same as any other, and there's a cost-quality curve same as many markets. That curve might move over time but it won't change the fact that the people who own the images get to decide on what terms they are used and the people who own the court get to decide who they let in with cameras and to where (and if they install your nice AI cameras to replace the freelance photojournalists they currently let in, that may well raise the market price because they've just created a nice little monopoly for themselves). I don't get to go and ride someone else's horse for free whenever I feel like it just because cars exist.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
      That doesn't make sense. Even if that were the case, what gives you the right to just use someone else's work for a profit? And why does a major studio get to decide that people no longer need to be paid for taking photos?
      - rwmj 9y ago
        The alternative is that we need to have a complex system of payments and invasive DRM/spyware to monitor everything posted. People will share these photos widely anyway, but occasionally and randomly someone will be sued for $150,000 per violation and have to defend against that. Is that a good trade-off for keeping a few photo-journalists in business?
        2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
        Well, if everybody has a decent camera these days, they why not just ask amateurs to submit photos in return for attribution and a small prize to the next event or cash reward if their photo gets chosen? There's no need to hire photo journalists if you really don't want to. Also no need to use their work (for a profit!) without asking or paying because you decided it was unnecessary.
        detaro 9y ago
        Does your imagined copyright reform target only photojournalists, or all creators? It's also not a pure choice between your two extremes. There are various tools that could be used to push this towards a more reasonable middle ground. E.g. through some level of standardization for claim levels, incentives to solve conflicts without actual lawsuits, ... In this specific case, I find the argument "photography isn't as valuable anymore" not very convincing. If the specific pictures have low value, there was no need to use them without permission. That the photographer likely is incentivised to start with high claimed damages to then get a lower sum in a side-deal sounds like a general bug in how these cases tend to work in the US, copyright-related or not, and should be fixed elsewhere.
        Joeboy 9y ago
    - cowsandmilk 9y ago
      That is an irrelevant argument. If a news outlet wants to rely on images taken by the public, they are free to do so. And many outlets have moved towards that. That doesn't mean that they should be free to take images a professional photographer has taken at an event and use them willy-nilly. 247 Sports likely used Tannen's photos because they were better than ones that could be gotten for free from fans in the crowd. If you want the better photos, pay up.
      - rwmj 9y ago
        > If a news outlet wants to rely on images taken by the public, they are free to do so. In fact they're not free to do so, not the way that copyright currently works.
  - Retric 9y ago
    I am ok just trashing all forms of copyright. software, music, movies, books etc. Because that's how people make money breaks down when a most small artists are supported by donations or sales of original works. Copywrite, would have been bad for Shakespeare, and likely does more harm than good.
    - stinkytaco 9y ago
      Define "bad" for Shakespeare. Bad in the sense that he wouldn't have been famous, or bad in the sense that it would have prevented him from making a living off his work? Because I'm skeptical if the later. Copyright is the only recourse for small creators against large actors that might co-opt their work with superior resources and reach. It certainly has its issues, but it's hard to imagine making a living in the Internet age as a photographer without that barrier to discourage reuse. Most photographers make money selling their work to magazines, websites, etc, not "original works" (i.e. prints).
      - Retric 9y ago
        Bad as it would have made his plays worse as he directly copied various things from other writers. Remember, he could copy content from others, but needed enough originality to keep an audience interested. Net result plenty of stuff lifted then improved resulting in evolutionary improvements we lost with copy-write.
        stinkytaco 9y ago
        That's an interesting view. I see what you mean, but I don't think copyright stops us from using other's works. There's a huge cultural zietgiest that is regularly appropriated for new content that doesn't require directly copying other's words or pictures. Shakespeare taking the well known story of Romeo and Juliet and writing a play is quite different than Shakespeare taking someone else's play and putting it on with his theater company and under his name. One is acceptable under copyright law, and the other, I would argue, is unacceptable under moral law (the underlying legal theory behind copyright). And there are provisions in the law meant to mitigate some of this: the protection of transformative use and fair use. I believe copyright needs reform, but in the days of mass distribution controlled by a small number of large companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.), I think it might be more important than ever.
- Double_a_92 9y ago
  Because it takes skill and effort to take a good picture? Why would anybody give that away for free? We are not some kind of hive mind...

I agree but I think the way they need to be amended is to shorten copyright periods by at least 50%. I think it's a good thing that it's possible to make a film or a piece of music and insist on payment for its use, at least if it's used brazenly by a commercial organization.