4 ms·

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.

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.

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.