4 ms·

I interpret Garbage's response as saying that they aren't going to make a profit on the book and that they are asking photographers to give them permission to u

by chris_j 12y ago

I interpret Garbage's response as saying that they aren't going to make a profit on the book and that they are asking photographers to give them permission to use their photographs gratis in order to keep the price of the book down. I've seen artists do similar recently. What's moronic about that?

woof 12y ago
I really don't know where to start... Try to answer the two simple questions Pat Pope asked and Garbage didn't answer.
geoelectric 12y ago
What's unclear to me is that Pat Pope says they -told- him the photographs were being used, whereas the response implies he was -asked- if they could be used. I have no issue with people (Amanda Palmer or otherwise) asking for help at whatever price they want, including free. I think the crowd that gets offended over even asking isn't in the right, and that "no" is a fine answer, as is "yes," or "for tree fiddy" or anything in between. But if they contacted Pat Pope and just informed him these older photos would be used, outside any rights granted, that would be a far different story.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  Pat pope says he was asked. He was told the band liked some of his photos and could they be used free if charge with attribution. What is missing is whether the original query made it clear that this was a collaboration.
  - woof 12y ago
    Is your definition of collaboration "not paying the photographers, but everyone else"?
  - geoelectric 12y ago
    Re-read, and yeah. He doesn't really say it outright, unless it's further down, but does word it as "they would like" and "in return." I really don't see the issue. Just reply that you don't work for free and be done with it. I feel like people must get up in arms over this because they're afraid the value of their own work will drop if other people give it away, or something like that. Otherwise it's simply a "it's insulting to think I'd work for free" thing, which simply sounds kind of arrogant to me. I don't feel threatened by open-source software, even BSD-licensed stuff where someone might sell my contribution, so I'm not real clear where they're coming from. All they have to do is say no. If everyone says no, the situation will change. If everyone doesn't say no, then it's a damned good thing that Pat Pope doesn't speak for the person who actually wants to do it, then.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
I interpreted it as an implicit admission that they don't have any legal documentation they can use any of the old images of them, so they're hoping by sending out mail saying "we're gonna use your photos unless we hear back from you" that most of the photographers will buckle or ignore or overlook the letter. And I've heard variations on "it won't make any [profit] so we don't think we should have to pay [you]" so many times it makes me ill.

by chris_j 12y ago

woof 12y ago

I really don't know where to start... Try to answer the two simple questions Pat Pope asked and Garbage didn't answer.

geoelectric 12y ago

What's unclear to me is that Pat Pope says they -told- him the photographs were being used, whereas the response implies he was -asked- if they could be used. I have no issue with people (Amanda Palmer or otherwise) asking for help at whatever price they want, including free. I think the crowd that gets offended over even asking isn't in the right, and that "no" is a fine answer, as is "yes," or "for tree fiddy" or anything in between. But if they contacted Pat Pope and just informed him these older photos would be used, outside any rights granted, that would be a far different story.

chrismcb 12y ago
Pat pope says he was asked. He was told the band liked some of his photos and could they be used free if charge with attribution. What is missing is whether the original query made it clear that this was a collaboration.
- woof 12y ago
  Is your definition of collaboration "not paying the photographers, but everyone else"?
- geoelectric 12y ago
  Re-read, and yeah. He doesn't really say it outright, unless it's further down, but does word it as "they would like" and "in return." I really don't see the issue. Just reply that you don't work for free and be done with it. I feel like people must get up in arms over this because they're afraid the value of their own work will drop if other people give it away, or something like that. Otherwise it's simply a "it's insulting to think I'd work for free" thing, which simply sounds kind of arrogant to me. I don't feel threatened by open-source software, even BSD-licensed stuff where someone might sell my contribution, so I'm not real clear where they're coming from. All they have to do is say no. If everyone says no, the situation will change. If everyone doesn't say no, then it's a damned good thing that Pat Pope doesn't speak for the person who actually wants to do it, then.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

I interpreted it as an implicit admission that they don't have any legal documentation they can use any of the old images of them, so they're hoping by sending out mail saying "we're gonna use your photos unless we hear back from you" that most of the photographers will buckle or ignore or overlook the letter. And I've heard variations on "it won't make any [profit] so we don't think we should have to pay [you]" so many times it makes me ill.