Comments on: Rule 1 for Collaborative Media: Ask First http://powazek.com/posts/836 It's pronounced poe-WAH-zek. Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:26:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Ellen http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-2055 Ellen Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:00:43 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-2055 I came here via blurbomat. THANK YOU for your post! May I use it as an example in my middle school classroom? School starts tomorrow :O I came here via blurbomat.
THANK YOU for your post!
May I use it as an example in my middle school classroom?
School starts tomorrow :O

]]> By: Cheryl Wright http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-2054 Cheryl Wright Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:22:54 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-2054 Coming in late on this, but just wanted to give my two cents worth. I've been on the wrong end of plaguarism twice, and it's not nice. No one - repeat, no one - has the right to use your work without permission. As creatives, we have every right to expect our 'products' to be paid for in cold hard cash. Those who have day jobs expect bossess to pay for their services. Those of us who use our creativity as a way to earn our living also expect to be paid for our services. Bottom line: it's our personal creation and we have every right to be paid for it. Whether it's on or off the internet makes no difference whatsoever. And whether or not it's for a non-profit makes no difference either. Would you expect your neighbor to give you his car for free? I doubt it. So why would you expect a writer or photographer to supply their product/goods/services for free? Unfortunately the internet has made it much easier for people to steal our work, and in record time. Lane, good on you for standing your ground. I'm right behind you! Cheryl Coming in late on this, but just wanted to give my two cents worth.

I’ve been on the wrong end of plaguarism twice, and it’s not nice.

No one – repeat, no one – has the right to use your work without permission. As creatives, we have every right to expect our ‘products’ to be paid for in cold hard cash.

Those who have day jobs expect bossess to pay for their services. Those of us who use our creativity as a way to earn our living also expect to be paid for our services.

Bottom line: it’s our personal creation and we have every right to be paid for it. Whether it’s on or off the internet makes no difference whatsoever. And whether or not it’s for a non-profit makes no difference either.

Would you expect your neighbor to give you his car for free? I doubt it. So why would you expect a writer or photographer to supply their product/goods/services for free?

Unfortunately the internet has made it much easier for people to steal our work, and in record time.

Lane, good on you for standing your ground. I’m right behind you!

Cheryl

]]> By: Erik Sherman http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-2043 Erik Sherman Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:36:23 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-2043 Fair use can be tricky, but I think many people twist it farther out of shape so they can excuse their own behavior. A parody is something addressing an original work. Commentary, news reporting, and educational use can all come into play when the copyrighted work is the item of study or discussion. But to use a work to promote a song seems a pretty commercial endeavor, and when it's commercial in that fashion, it falls out of fair use. What "hastens the demise" of professional photography is not that a photographer insists not just on payment, but on control of use and presentation of her work. The real problem is that people assume they shoudl be able to take whatever they want because it is easy to copy it. As that continues, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford being in any creative endeavor, because they will have to make a living. The upshot is that be demanding everything for free, the people doing so are setting the conditions to ensure that eventually there will significant limits on new work, at least at a professional level. Fair use can be tricky, but I think many people twist it farther out of shape so they can excuse their own behavior. A parody is something addressing an original work. Commentary, news reporting, and educational use can all come into play when the copyrighted work is the item of study or discussion. But to use a work to promote a song seems a pretty commercial endeavor, and when it’s commercial in that fashion, it falls out of fair use. What “hastens the demise” of professional photography is not that a photographer insists not just on payment, but on control of use and presentation of her work. The real problem is that people assume they shoudl be able to take whatever they want because it is easy to copy it. As that continues, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford being in any creative endeavor, because they will have to make a living. The upshot is that be demanding everything for free, the people doing so are setting the conditions to ensure that eventually there will significant limits on new work, at least at a professional level.

]]> By: E Doyle-Propst http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-2029 E Doyle-Propst Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:05:57 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-2029 We are having issues on this - and this was the MOST reasonable article out there that I have found so far. If one writes, creates or makes something - no one has the right to take it - we learned that in GRADE SCHOOL. It is called "coping and cheating". Some will even take TM information - and all one wants out there is acknowledgment and credit for their work. We are having issues on this – and this was the MOST reasonable article out there that I have found so far.

If one writes, creates or makes something – no one has the right to take it – we learned that in GRADE SCHOOL. It is called “coping and cheating”.

Some will even take TM information – and all one wants out there is acknowledgment and credit for their work.

]]> By: Leah Culver http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-1936 Leah Culver Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:05:20 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-1936 Thanks for sharing your insight into this issue. I'm a bit concerned because for a moment I thought what Dave McClure said could have been written five years ago about music on the internet. Music, photos, blog quotes, illustrations... I appreciate art and care about proper attribution, but how has the internet changed distribution? How will the business of creating artwork adapt? Thanks for sharing your insight into this issue. I’m a bit concerned because for a moment I thought what Dave McClure said could have been written five years ago about music on the internet.

Music, photos, blog quotes, illustrations… I appreciate art and care about proper attribution, but how has the internet changed distribution? How will the business of creating artwork adapt?

]]> By: Derek Powazek http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-1931 Derek Powazek Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:38:24 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-1931 Woadan -- When I was the editor of JPG, I published a photo essay of Lane's that was about the East Bay Rats, a motorcycle club. Is that about Web 2.0, too? Lane's work has nothing to do with "Web 2.0," and stealing her photos is not covered by calling it parody. Woadan — When I was the editor of JPG, I published a photo essay of Lane’s that was about the East Bay Rats, a motorcycle club. Is that about Web 2.0, too? Lane’s work has nothing to do with “Web 2.0,” and stealing her photos is not covered by calling it parody.

]]> By: Woadan http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-1915 Woadan Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:16:03 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-1915 Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that the video was a parody of "Web 2.0", that the photo was of a person involved in Web 2.0, taken by a photographer who covers things connected to Web 2.0. Should the group have given attributions? Sure. Even if you use it for a college class report there are rules about attribution. But ask for permission? Not in a parody, which is fair use. Copyright is supposed to assist creativity and innovation, not stifle it. If there is anything that points to a need for reform of IP laws, this case is it. The DMCA provides that the owner of IP can request a take-down of something posted (not just videos on YouTube). But the Richter Scales could have also, under the DMCA, cited their work as parody and requested reinstatement. At that point, Lane would have had to go to court to get it taken down. As many have commented, some of whom are in the legal profession, Lane would likely have lost because of the parody. Woadan Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that the video was a parody of “Web 2.0″, that the photo was of a person involved in Web 2.0, taken by a photographer who covers things connected to Web 2.0.

Should the group have given attributions? Sure. Even if you use it for a college class report there are rules about attribution. But ask for permission? Not in a parody, which is fair use.

Copyright is supposed to assist creativity and innovation, not stifle it.

If there is anything that points to a need for reform of IP laws, this case is it.

The DMCA provides that the owner of IP can request a take-down of something posted (not just videos on YouTube). But the Richter Scales could have also, under the DMCA, cited their work as parody and requested reinstatement. At that point, Lane would have had to go to court to get it taken down. As many have commented, some of whom are in the legal profession, Lane would likely have lost because of the parody.

Woadan

]]> By: Derek Powazek http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-1906 Derek Powazek Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:54:26 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-1906 Hillary - Damn right I've become a lawyer. After putting my creative works on the internet since 1991, I've had to. If you think that taking a photo and putting it in a video isn't a derivative work, you could use some law classes, too. Hillary – Damn right I’ve become a lawyer. After putting my creative works on the internet since 1991, I’ve had to. If you think that taking a photo and putting it in a video isn’t a derivative work, you could use some law classes, too.

]]> By: Scott Lawton (Blogcosm) http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-1905 Scott Lawton (Blogcosm) Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:04:44 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-1905 Lots of smart comments here, so I hope a followup is ok. I criticized the Richter Scales (above) and tried to find a middle ground in my earlier post. But Hartwell's latest action (sending the band an invoice) hastens the demise of her profession. The world is changing and business (which includes photographers who charge for their work) must adapt. I don't doubt that Hartwell *believes* she's been wronged, but a little perspective is in order. I'll bet most people's reaction is going to be something like: "if professional photographers are so greedy, who needs them?" Lots of smart comments here, so I hope a followup is ok.

I criticized the Richter Scales (above) and tried to find a middle ground in my earlier post. But Hartwell’s latest action (sending the band an invoice) hastens the demise of her profession.

The world is changing and business (which includes photographers who charge for their work) must adapt. I don’t doubt that Hartwell *believes* she’s been wronged, but a little perspective is in order. I’ll bet most people’s reaction is going to be something like: “if professional photographers are so greedy, who needs them?”

]]> By: ben http://powazek.com/posts/836/comment-page-1#comment-1904 ben Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:58:51 +0000 http://powazek.com/posts/836#comment-1904 Well written, and right on. It's a common problem in the artistic world about whether it's easier to ask permission or ask forgiveness. The social reality of the internet makes the latter the most attractive option, or at least the default (in)action. The problem is that it works. The example that comes to mind for me is with the band The Verve, and their song "Bittersweet Symphony," for which they sampled an orchestral track from the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time." The ensuing legal actions ensured that they haven't made a penny for that song. But they've enjoyed many of the benefits of having a hit song, probably opening other doors. (The Verve were well known musicians in the UK, but not as well known in the U.S., and at least for me, unknown until that song came out.) It's my opinion that many (unknown) musicians would risk sacrificing one song and its rights if it created notoriety for them down the road. Well written, and right on.

It’s a common problem in the artistic world about whether it’s easier to ask permission or ask forgiveness. The social reality of the internet makes the latter the most attractive option, or at least the default (in)action.

The problem is that it works. The example that comes to mind for me is with the band The Verve, and their song “Bittersweet Symphony,” for which they sampled an orchestral track from the Rolling Stones song “The Last Time.” The ensuing legal actions ensured that they haven’t made a penny for that song.

But they’ve enjoyed many of the benefits of having a hit song, probably opening other doors. (The Verve were well known musicians in the UK, but not as well known in the U.S., and at least for me, unknown until that song came out.)

It’s my opinion that many (unknown) musicians would risk sacrificing one song and its rights if it created notoriety for them down the road.

]]>