54 ms·

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

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
    Yeah, I mean "taking a photograph" is literally something a macaque can do (and claim copyright for), so on that basis it would probably not be worth establishing a complicated rights infrastructure for photography alone. Photos are going to get taken, including great ones, without the state creating artificial incentives / punishments. At the other end of the spectrum, look at films. A tentpole superhero film costs maybe $200m or so, but maybe those would be no great loss. The sensible minimum for a low budget indie film is maybe $1m, and there's the occasional outlier like Tangerine that's made on a shoestring budget of $100k. Pretty much nobody is going to invest those amounts unless there's a possibility of getting paid. The only possible exceptions being advertisers, state propagandists and maybe the odd eccentric that might sell their house to make a terrible indie film. Maybe that would be OK (it might at least help with the Harvey Weinstein problem) but I quite like films, and most of the ones I like cost like $10m+.

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
  Yeah, I mean "taking a photograph" is literally something a macaque can do (and claim copyright for), so on that basis it would probably not be worth establishing a complicated rights infrastructure for photography alone. Photos are going to get taken, including great ones, without the state creating artificial incentives / punishments. At the other end of the spectrum, look at films. A tentpole superhero film costs maybe $200m or so, but maybe those would be no great loss. The sensible minimum for a low budget indie film is maybe $1m, and there's the occasional outlier like Tangerine that's made on a shoestring budget of $100k. Pretty much nobody is going to invest those amounts unless there's a possibility of getting paid. The only possible exceptions being advertisers, state propagandists and maybe the odd eccentric that might sell their house to make a terrible indie film. Maybe that would be OK (it might at least help with the Harvey Weinstein problem) but I quite like films, and most of the ones I like cost like $10m+.