The question of Copyright

One day, I may take a picture of historical significance. I haven't

yet...but...one day. Perhaps I might be the only person with a camera

on scene during a momentous event and be quick enough to capture

something important. </p>

 

I expect to 'own' those images! I expect that, if they are really

valuable, that my investment in camera gear might actually pay for

itself! I would feel upset if somebody took my work and made money

from it.</p>

 

On my side is the concept of 'copyright'. As the creator, I own all

of the rights to my image. The law allows me to determine who gets to

use my work; for how long or how many times they can use it and

enables me to come to a binding business agreement with those who

want to use my work. If they want to use the shot, they will have to

compensate me and pay for the privilege. I can say, you can use this

image one time ONLY and for that, I expect payment of X dollars or I

can say, you can use this image an unlimited umber of times but the

cost for that privilege will be considerably higher. That is how I

can make money from my photography.</p>

 

I don't want to have pressure put on me by people trying to say that

I (as the creator of the image) have to give up my rights because of

the larger historical significance of the event. "It is part of our

cultural heritage so you should give it up!"</p>

 

In our paper today, there was an article arguing just that. A group

of whining 'documentary film makers' (who want to make money selling

THEIR work) are complaining that they have to pay the owners of

historic film clips for the rights to use them. They can no longer

afford the amount that the owners of the material want to charge and

so they are complaining about <a

href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050117.wxdo

cs17/BNStory/Entertainment/" >How copyright could be killing

culture</a></p>

 

 

All that I can see is that they want to make money from something

that was built on the foundations of somebody else's work and they

want that foundation for free!

 

As I said, if I ever take a picture that is of historical or cultural

significance, I would want to have some protection from the parasites

who think they can profit from other people's work. That is why the

copyright laws need to be strengthened and not weakened. If they are

so creative...let them create, then their work will be protected too

but don't think they can be creative on MY back!

<blockquote><em>All that I can see is that they want to make money from something that was built on the foundations of somebody else's work and they want that foundation for free!</em></blockquote>

So, your argument is based on making a profit... What if the documentarists were working for charity?

The copyright laws have already been strengthened, in many ways beyond reason, by the media conglomerates like Disney and their ilk, who bribe politicians to keep extending protection so that it never runs out.

 

Copyright was never meant to exist in perpetuity. Copyright was never meant to stifle new creativity and freedom of speech by involving artists in legal quagmires over trivial uses of old material, such as a television program playing in the background during an interview. It was not meant to allow corporations with teams of lawyers to chill expression by threatening lawsuits over what is most likely fair use. Copyright was never meant to prevent people from fully utilizing works that they have purchased in the way they see fit.

And, by the way, if you think that documentary filmmaking is a way of "making money," then you really have a thing or two to learn about it. Unless your name is Michael Moore, it isn't.

I remember reading several years back that King's "I Have a Dream" speech is (still) copyrighted. That is why you hear a lot about him, but very seldom do you see or hear this speech. Very ironic in ways.

That's ironic since some people <a href="http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/books/gt_plagiarism.html">believe Dr. King was a plagiarist.</a> (Disclaimer: I'm not saying *I* believe that; I don't know!) Best wishes . . .

I'm slightly confused, is there an objection to ownership? I understand Meryl's post but I am not sure I understand the others. Why should a photographer have to give up his/her ownership of a photo? Am I missing something, and I am seriously asking?

 

dG

I read the article and didn't see any whining. What are you talking about?

I said I didn't understand the other posts... Hopefully they can elaborate. Who said anything about whining?

 

1. "So, your argument is based on making a profit... What if the documentarists were working for charity?" Charities have to pay for things too - maybe I missed somethere there?

 

2. "...in many ways beyond reason, by the media conglomerates like Disney and their ilk, who bribe politicians to keep extending protection so that it never runs out." Not sure I understood the reason for the statement, politicians shouldn't be for sale, but they are, so someone has to buy them...

 

3. The Dr. King stuff was somewhat clear, but "ironic?" I don't see how.

 

Why am I explaining myself to you? Any how, it's already written.

 

Best regards.

dG

<p>The posts above are referring to issues raised in the book Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig. That book is <a href="http://free-culture.org/">available for free online</a>, and there's a free audio version floating around somewhere too.

 

<p>Anyone wanting to discuss copyright issues really should read (or listen to) that book first.

Documentary films are closer to the role of the free press, than the role of Hollywood. They are not supposed to be creative -- that's called "making it up". They do need to make money though, the same as newspaper companies. So if the necessary clips are too expensive, they are in trouble.

 

There is a potential problem in a situation where a few large companies have exclusive rights to a lot of archive material. Yes, there are various kinds of laws for freedom of information and disclosure to courts, and so on. But, doesn't it increase the chance for the release of material to be biased in some way? Supposing "Holocaust deniers" could buy up all the footage of WW2 death camps and prevent its release?

 

I'm not arguing against copyright. In general it's a good thing the same as patents. But it can be abused. I don't have a solution to offer. But copyright has already been extended considerably during the 20th century. We should consider very carefully before extending it any more.

The major problem is, that the system of copyrights, while itself good, may lead to de facto monopoly - especially when somebody has the only picture of some event or buys almost all of some specific material (as mentioned above). And monopoly is never good for anybody but the owver of this monopoly.

 

So while copyrights are good and protective, when these rights turn into a monopoly they are wrong. In presence, the law only protects owners of copyrights, while users are not protected against the possible danger of copyrights becoming monopoly.

A relevant real-life case to your question is the making of the famous Ernesto "Che" Guevara picture. Lots of folks got rich from that image except the person who took it (and Ernesto, of course).

Another funny thing about intelectual property (and copyrights): Not only film and photographs, but also architecture and fashion are products of artists. If you take a photo, which includes architecture (any building or even public place designed by architect) and people wearing some clothes, in the same logic you should pay to the architects and fashion designers or you are as well a parasite making profit of their work... OK, maybe they will ask you to pay so much, that nobody will buy your excellent photograph, because it will be too expensive, but it should be their right - or not? Is there any difference? I can't see any.

 

Take it especially in the point of view of architecture photography and photography of such events as carneval in Rio or in Venezia. These photographs are based on someone others work - the same as photography of some action is in fact based on the ideas behind that action (for example political ideas).

Tomas makes an interesting point about photographing someone elses 'work'. Major sporting events have very strict media partnerships, could we see other businesses moving in that direction.

 

30 years ago you could photograph a Formula One grand prix and sell your images to whoever you wanted, if you tried that now you'd find yourself sued. Will we see the day when we need to be accredited to a specific agency before we can sell pictures of the Empire State Building, or Big Ben, and have to pay a percentage back?

There are people who would like it to be like that.

Meryl, if the photograph you are hypothetically referring to has great

importance or historical significance to many people, doesn't that transcend

marketing and legal concerns? i.e., when the value of your image is derived

from a collective experience, as opposed to value derived from an image

made by Adams, Arbus, Weston, or Meryl.

 

Then there are the realities and practicalities of copyrights. The reality is,

it's illegal to duplicate the intellectual property of another. In practice,

however, the ease of duplication (not to mention the accuracy) dictates how

often the medium is duplicated. Ease and accuracy of duplication, like it or

not, also dictates the actual value of an individual copy of said photo/cd/video.

Please don't try to convince me that a Metallica cd is worth 17 bucks when I

can get an exact copy for free. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

 

If you are concerned about cashing in on a historic/important image, then

this is your best business plan: put the thing out there in as many places as

you can, for free. Even if it's the only decent image you've ever made, people

will beat down your door to see what else you have. I've got enough pirated

music in my basement to put me in jail for a year, yet for every pirated album I

have five more that I paid full price for, having been exposed to them by the

illicit means. This is what the beancounters at WB/BMG/ et al do not

understand.

 

As for the true parasites . . .they've been around a lot longer than than

lawyers and copyright laws, and something tells me they will be around long

after.

Mark Ci's comments regarding the corruption of copyright are on-target, but today's digital culture weakens one of his assertions: documentary films are beginning to enjoy more exposure than ever before. Today a vendor can offer a quantity of films that is, in fact, an order of magnitude greater than ever before because they need not focus on the hoary top 100 films to afford to do business.

 

As Mark said, copyright has gone over the top in terms of its original mission. In its current form it is just crazy and does stifle creative efforts.

 

BUT the OP's concern is unwarranted. He will be the copyright holder for his lifetime and his work won't be taken away from him by some unnamed public interest. It will be stolen often enough, and like the rest of us he will just have to deal with that.

Most people these days take copyright for granted, as if it were a natural extension of them creating something.

Copyright was actually meant to be a 2 ways deal, although one side of it has been getting the short end of it for quite some time now.

The two way deal is: We (the people) grant you (the creator) a monopoly for a limited time to keep you motivated to create more.

 

The idea behind this is not the enrichment of the artist (although she/he is free to use that as the motivating force) but to increase the amount of "art" that is created and the amount that can be used in future by others. For it is clear that almost everything we produce is based on the work of those that have gone before us. (In one way or another)

 

Strangely those that have profited the most from others works like Disney (Snow White, Peter Pan....) are often the most reluctant to give any back.

 

I think that if you make a historically significant photo, that yes, you should be able to profit from it. But I don't think that the possibility to profit from it should be taken for granted. Ideas, images and all that are basically free, it is only the law that gives one a monopoly on ones work.

 

Maybe if people would see that they gain something from respecting the artists copyright (which these days they don't anymore with copyright being extended more and more) then they wouldn't be so quick to violate it.

Hi,

 

This is America. This is capitalism. And "private property" is the name of the

game. Right or wrong, like it or hate, that seems to be a common agreement

in our society.

 

Tom

"This is America. This is capitalism. And "private property" is the name of the game. Right or wrong, like it or hate, that seems to be a common agreement in our society."

 

No it isn't, this is the internet, it is the World, and people should respect that not everyone is surrounded by the same values which they are!

 

How much influence do the genuinely talented have to gain from the current copyright laws, lighting cameraman vs Film producer, software engineer vs Bill Gates? It seems to me that it's just corporations protecting their investment, nothing to do with protecting creative talent.

I really wish it would be different, but I also believe that our enlightened modern mind is influenced and somewhat inevitably obscured by ancient basic instincts. therefore, we should just try to make work those insticts for the best. that is: yes, profit and restrain on general interest photos is bad, but inevitable to keep you motivated to produce more enlighened pictures.

For an insightful discussion of these issues I highly recommend Larry Lessig's writings, in particular his book Free Culture.

 

You can buy this book on Amazon, but you can also read it online (or download it) for free at http://www.free-culture.cc/.

re: the "I have a dream" speech plagarism claim.; Hyperbole from the right.

 

Most of that speech was improvised on the spot: he wasn't preaching from a prepared

text.