pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Information wants to be free... (continued?)  (Read 38120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« on: November 28, 2011, 15:03 »
0
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8958j3s

November 2011 NYT Review

The real conflict online, Levine writes, is between the media companies that fund much of the entertainment we read, see and hear and the technology firms that want to distribute their content legally or otherwise. By delivering content they dont pay for, or selling content far below the price it cost to create, Levine says, information and entertainment distributors like YouTube and The Huffington Post become parasites...

And not to be above hijacking my own threads: SOPA has many websites coming out against it. They claim the laws are too strict, and the large media industry lobbys have created over enforcement.

"Protect IP, as well as SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act (two bills currently in the United States Senate and House, respectively), threaten the world of online writing as we know it."


Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???


« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2011, 18:11 »
0
Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???

It's called change your freaking business model and get over it. That's all this is about - a bunch of people clinging to a broken, horribly failed business model and trying to get a useless government to save it.

Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2011, 18:58 »
0
Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???

It's called change your freaking business model and get over it. That's all this is about - a bunch of people clinging to a broken, horribly failed business model and trying to get a useless government to save it.

Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

Way back in the day as in before the internet? Back then violating someone's copyright took more than a right click "save as". There were IP laws back then too but the difference was if you wanted to steal an image you had to scan it out of a printed catalog the agencies sent out. You ended up with a rescreen of a thumbnail which never really looks good. It was harder to violate copyright then. What business model do you suggest that would allow for photographers to get paid while distributing product over the web?

« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2011, 21:45 »
0
"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2011, 00:19 »
0
Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???

It's called change your freaking business model and get over it. That's all this is about - a bunch of people clinging to a broken, horribly failed business model and trying to get a useless government to save it.

Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

Way back in the day as in before the internet? Back then violating someone's copyright took more than a right click "save as". There were IP laws back then too but the difference was if you wanted to steal an image you had to scan it out of a printed catalog the agencies sent out. You ended up with a rescreen of a thumbnail which never really looks good. It was harder to violate copyright then. What business model do you suggest that would allow for photographers to get paid while distributing product over the web?

I'm referring to times prior to all IP laws. Waaaaay back in the day. Last time I looked into it, authors for example, still made a living, but their business models worked differently than they do today - they also had to be more prolific. Same thing for composers.

This can be a very long discussion, but look at this way. IP laws are nothing more than an economic distortion caused by useless governments. Imagine the government trying to force you to buy your air from people selling oxygen tanks. How long do you think that will last? Sure, they could fine you all day long when your walking down the street without your little mask and tank, but how many people do you think would actually be buying new tanks of oxygen every time it ran out? None. It's an outlandish, colorful way of making my point, but it makes it easy to understand. Ideas are not property, and they never will be. The digital age has only made this more apparent to the public, and those who depend on the old ideas and have no good new ideas are simply tying to protect themselves with more useless laws that will actually hurt our business more than it helps it.

Imagine a crack down on trade dress - the shapes and designs of virtually any object. That alone would totally destroy our business.

Think about that. Would you be quick to support more draconian IP laws now? If you are, you're literally holding a gun to your business' head, because IP laws actually work 100% against the stock photo business concept.

What the future of this industry is happens to be very uncertain, but I can tell you this much, the concept of selling "licenses" is NOT the future. It's time for us to get over it and start thinking outside the box about services we can sell that cannot be so easily taken by others without paying.

Some good examples of companies that "get it", Apple and Adobe. Apple is all closed source because it's more reliable for them to control their product, far more reliable than a draconian IP law. Adobe programs are slowly moving online. Right now you can buy a month of access to a program on your local machine. In the future, it will be hosted on a super computer and you have a subscription. Might sound crazy now, but it will be far more profitable when the technology to support that arrives.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 00:24 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2011, 00:28 »
0
"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

I love your example with the statue. Imagine all the stuff we COULD shoot and SELL if we dumped our IP laws.

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2011, 02:35 »
0
"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

I love your example with the statue. Imagine all the stuff we COULD shoot and SELL if we dumped our IP laws.

So let me ask if I understand, you don't care if I steal your images and sell them, and give you nothing? Just want to make sure I understand you point of no IP laws. You enjoy working for free?

Personally when I work to create something, I'd like to get paid for it, otherwise why am I doing it? I can go pile bricks or slap down hamburgers at a fast food joint and make better money. (or worse, do what I actually do for a living, but I'm not going there!) LOL

ps It's not illegal to shoot and sell many statues, it's just another of the CYA policy of agencies.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2011, 03:50 »
0
"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

I love your example with the statue. Imagine all the stuff we COULD shoot and SELL if we dumped our IP laws.

So let me ask if I understand, you don't care if I steal your images and sell them, and give you nothing? Just want to make sure I understand you point of no IP laws. You enjoy working for free?

Personally when I work to create something, I'd like to get paid for it, otherwise why am I doing it? I can go pile bricks or slap down hamburgers at a fast food joint and make better money. (or worse, do what I actually do for a living, but I'm not going there!) LOL

ps It's not illegal to shoot and sell many statues, it's just another of the CYA policy of agencies.

The statue example is very useful. Selling a picture of a statue is different from claiming you're the author of that statue, and different from reselling someone else's picture of that statue.

A picture of a thing is different from that thing. In mathematical terms:

p = f(x,y)

in which:
p = picture;
x = a thing (building, statue, etc) which cannot be copied but can be photographed;
y = the photographer's point of view (lighting, composition, ...) making photography itself a work of art which one cannot resell unless s/he is the author;

Put this way, I see a lot of freedom, and still an adequate copyright protection for all artists.

The German Panoramafreiheit comes to my mind as the best real-life approach to copyright, logical and clear. We are allowed to take and sell pictures of a building - including modern ones - but we are not allowed to copy a building design as that would mean infringing the rights of the original architect.

Without IP laws we couldn't sell anything, since all of our pictures would be in the public domain. Copyright laws are out there to protect us as well as big companies. Big companies may be exaggerating at protecting everything at times, but the problem is not IP law itself.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 04:34 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2011, 04:28 »
0
Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???
Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

Ah, yes, the "starving artist" era. Those were the days. Look what we got out of it: the early demise of Van Gogh, the political career of thwarted artist Adolf Hitler.... (that's sort of a joke, btw, don't get hung up on it).

If "providing services" rather than "selling licenses" is the only way forward then we all need to become wedding photographers as there is no room for stock any longer. But where will designers get their content from when all the stock agencies close? I thought the sale of licenses was actually a service provided by photographers to designers to save them having to employ photographers on a per-job basis. If what I am doing is not providing a service to anyone, I don't know why I get paid for it.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2011, 04:33 »
0
Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???
Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

Ah, yes, the "starving artist" era. Those were the days. Look what we got out of it: the early demise of Van Gogh, the political career of thwarted artist Adolf Hitler.... (that's sort of a joke, btw, don't get hung up on it).

If "providing services" rather than "selling licenses" is the only way forward then we all need to become wedding photographers as there is no room for stock any longer.

This is what is happening to musicians which are forced to tour all the time since piracy has made selling records unprofitable.
As an avid concert-goer I am enjoying this side-effect, but it can be tiresome for artists. Although touring is still better than doing weddings.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 04:42 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2011, 08:17 »
0
Well maybe somewhere in the middle, we will actually have some protection and get paid for our work, some day?  ???

It's called change your freaking business model and get over it. That's all this is about - a bunch of people clinging to a broken, horribly failed business model and trying to get a useless government to save it.

Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

Way back in the day as in before the internet? Back then violating someone's copyright took more than a right click "save as". There were IP laws back then too but the difference was if you wanted to steal an image you had to scan it out of a printed catalog the agencies sent out. You ended up with a rescreen of a thumbnail which never really looks good. It was harder to violate copyright then. What business model do you suggest that would allow for photographers to get paid while distributing product over the web?

I'm referring to times prior to all IP laws. Waaaaay back in the day. Last time I looked into it, authors for example, still made a living, but their business models worked differently than they do today - they also had to be more prolific. Same thing for composers.

This can be a very long discussion, but look at this way. IP laws are nothing more than an economic distortion caused by useless governments. Imagine the government trying to force you to buy your air from people selling oxygen tanks. How long do you think that will last? Sure, they could fine you all day long when your walking down the street without your little mask and tank, but how many people do you think would actually be buying new tanks of oxygen every time it ran out? None. It's an outlandish, colorful way of making my point, but it makes it easy to understand. Ideas are not property, and they never will be. The digital age has only made this more apparent to the public, and those who depend on the old ideas and have no good new ideas are simply tying to protect themselves with more useless laws that will actually hurt our business more than it helps it.

Imagine a crack down on trade dress - the shapes and designs of virtually any object. That alone would totally destroy our business.

Think about that. Would you be quick to support more draconian IP laws now? If you are, you're literally holding a gun to your business' head, because IP laws actually work 100% against the stock photo business concept.

What the future of this industry is happens to be very uncertain, but I can tell you this much, the concept of selling "licenses" is NOT the future. It's time for us to get over it and start thinking outside the box about services we can sell that cannot be so easily taken by others without paying.

Some good examples of companies that "get it", Apple and Adobe. Apple is all closed source because it's more reliable for them to control their product, far more reliable than a draconian IP law. Adobe programs are slowly moving online. Right now you can buy a month of access to a program on your local machine. In the future, it will be hosted on a super computer and you have a subscription. Might sound crazy now, but it will be far more profitable when the technology to support that arrives.

I just want to be clear: I wasn't arguing in favour of new laws simply looking for your suggestions for the so called new business model you want to use. It's easy to decry the current situation without offering a way to improve it. Sort of like saying "all we need is a cleaner environment".

As for the OP regarding information wanting to be free, I'm not sure there is a better business model. In your examples, and related specifically to things like photography,  how do you operate like Apple in a closed system? Just not let anyone see your photos? Or like Adobe, people can see your pics but only if they come to your website and subscribe to gain access to view? No downloading, just view. I doesn't work. In the waaaay back, it was much harder to steal IP. Maybe that's why they didn't have strict laws about it. If you go back far enough, there weren't even any recording devices so copying an image (i.e. a painting) or a song wasn't even possible. If you wanted to hear music you had to go to the hall and listen to the artist.

Devices for creating art and music are so accessible now that everyone is or thinks they are an artist or a musician. They post on Youtube hoping to be Justin Beiber. But, you get what you pay for. If information wants to be free then the people that are really good at it, aren't likely to put the effort into doing it because they'll get nothing for it but likes on youTube. Then all we'll have is the crap that floods the net everyday.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2011, 08:31 »
0
"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

I love your example with the statue. Imagine all the stuff we COULD shoot and SELL if we dumped our IP laws.

So a sculptor crafts a work of art and you come along, point a camera at it and you make the money? I can see why you're opposed to IP laws. The only problem is in a free information world the photo you take wouldn't be sold, you would distribute it freely. Then you're no further ahead. Why did you bother taking the picture?

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2011, 08:35 »
0
Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.
You are definitely talking pre Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 27
"everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author".

Are you talking pre-constitutional?:

"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;.......To promote the Progress of .......Arts, by securing .........Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Are you talking pre- enlightenment? which took place under printing monopolies and then specific copyright laws like the Statute of Anne?

Are you talking about when the Medici were sponsoring Michelangelo? because trust me benefactors aren't going to fork out to artists when anyone can benefit from the work by stealing it.

Please give an example of when independent authors or artists were spewing out work for the sheer hell of it with no protection.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 09:44 by Microbius »

« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2011, 11:48 »
0
My example of photographing a statue referred to works in public parks, paid for by taxpayer money.  Some artists, and some cities (Chicago comes to mind), have attempted to forbid (or charge for) photography of those works even after they're installed in public parks.  Presumably if they'd succeeded at this, the trees and flowers would have been next.

http://boingboing.net/2005/05/27/chicagos-bean-sculpt.html

Obviously we need IP protection.  I'm selling photos just like the rest of you.   What I said was that most of the legal and political activity I see today is aimed not at protecting artists and authors but at protecting the current business models of big corporate content providers.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 11:49 by stockastic »

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2011, 11:52 »
0

Devices for creating art and music are so accessible now that everyone is or thinks they are an artist or a musician. They post on Youtube hoping to be Justin Beiber. But, you get what you pay for. If information wants to be free then the people that are really good at it, aren't likely to put the effort into doing it because they'll get nothing for it but likes on youTube. Then all we'll have is the crap that floods the net everyday.

Yes got the rest of it now, thanks.

Yes to the last part, when I was in a band I had a four track recorder. Fairly expensive, mics and mixing boards, 15IPS tape, DBX, you get the idea, thousands of dollars to record at home. People often forget that musicians take years of practicing and preforming to make something worthwhile. (hey photographers too) So when we played for four hours and made $50 each, someone would say, "hey good money". Lets see, played for about 20 years before that, practiced, drove to the job, had to pay for equipment, breakage, drive home, expenses... Manager took 20% for getting us jobs and screwing us sometimes, whole longer story. So $12 an hour wasn't really that good. If you had a record and no record company, you have No Distribution, no sales, no stores would handle your record.

Now we can make a CD with digital equipment on a computer, burn on demand and sell on the Internet. Freedom from the clutches of the big record companies and distribution network. There's a creative artist friendly business model?

Photography, we buy cameras, lighting, props, all kinds of other equipment. Some pay models, travel, have computers, take time to edit, skills develop and training. Then time to keyword, and upload and wait for that quarter to drop out of the MicroStock slot machine.

I don't believe that "Information wants to be free" I think that it needs to be done as a business in order to maintain quality and keep the best producers working. Otherwise if everything is free, kind of like a socialist state, what incentive is there to work or create?

My argument was about the fact that electronic distributors are making money on the backs of free work. YouTube makes money from free uploads. MicroStock works on the crowd-source plan, at least we get paid something, but if it's looked at the right way, "THEY" get 80% and we get 20%. It's backwards. That's because people are so hungry for money that they are willing to sell out their effort. Before someone points ot the top people, be realistic, none of us are The Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Grateful Dead... that's the kind of people who make the top of the Micro business.

Most of the sites, starting with the big ones, most people never get one photo accepted! Then an estimated 65% of those people, never make it to payout on most agencies, it's pretty slim. Pointing to the 1/10th of 1% who are making it as Black Diamonds for example, is a little blind.

Yes people do earn money and do well in MicroStock and as you pointed out, yes Justine Beeber was discovered on YouTube, Lana Turner was discovered at a soda fountain. (I'm sure she had some special assets.) Everyone else doesn't and didn't. LOL  ;D

We can run our own websites and some people appear to be making sales. I love it!

If we got a fair share and had protection from thieves, maybe more people could earn some real income for their hard work and effort.

Actually if I had copyright protection, I'd be pretty happy. But DMCA does nothing. Like catching a thief and they say, "oops sorry, here's your stuff back." And then they walk away free. They can go steal from someone else and someone new can steal from me again. It's a hampster wheel, chasing them and getting nowhere.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 11:58 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2011, 12:51 »
0
But DMCA does nothing. Like catching a thief and they say, "oops sorry, here's your stuff back." And then they walk away free. They can go steal from someone else and someone new can steal from me again. It's a hampster wheel, chasing them and getting nowhere.

That is my point.  Actual artists, photographers and authors get worthless symbolic protection.  Big content companies lobby Congress to piss on the Constitution and pass laws requiring ISPs to snoop on everyone's private traffic, and report 'suspects' to 'the authorities.

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2011, 13:09 »
0
But DMCA does nothing. Like catching a thief and they say, "oops sorry, here's your stuff back." And then they walk away free. They can go steal from someone else and someone new can steal from me again. It's a hampster wheel, chasing them and getting nowhere.

That is my point.  Actual artists, photographers and authors get worthless symbolic protection.  Big content companies lobby Congress to piss on the Constitution and pass laws requiring ISPs to snoop on everyone's private traffic, and report 'suspects' to 'the authorities.

When I worked for some providers and when I ran a public system, we didn't collect and report, it was only when the FBI came and asked. The point was, I could give them the information or they could get a subpoena and take all the computers and get the information themselves. Obviously if they wanted logs of users activity, they got it. And no they didn't even ask about pirated software that people traded back then. (think days of dial-up)  :)

Here's the part that jumped out at me and I'll sit on my fingers...

selling content far below the price it cost to create That's where it applies to MicroStock.

We produce and invest and do all the work. They get it virtually free, and don't pay until it's sold. Then the agencies take 80% of the price and we get some spare change or peanuts. People buy or steal the images, resell them. The laws don't protect or prosecute.

« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2011, 15:49 »
0
"IP laws are nothing more than an economic distortion caused by useless governments. ...I can tell you this much, the concept of selling 'licenses' is NOT the future." cardmaverick

Maybe IP licenses are not the future, but they do go back to the 17th century and are essential parts of our legal system. Intellectual Property includes trademarks and patents. It would be nice if I could write software and sell it calling it 'Adobe Photoshop' or a build a computer and sell it calling it an 'Apple'. Or freely use patents belonging to IBM or Google, but what would that do to the world economy?

"Ocean Tomo ... conducted an analysis of the largest companies in the United States and found that patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other intangible assets have exploded as a percentage of the S&P 500s market value, from seventeen percent in 1975 to eighty percent in 2005." Wiley Media

Ending IP rights would not only mean that all microstock agencies, ASCAP/BMI, publishing houses and so on would be out of business, but also that US corporations would suddenly lose 80% of their value, causing the worst stock market crash in history, and wiping out the retirement savings of millions or people, for starters. Good idea?

« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2011, 15:55 »
0
"Piracy" used to mean that you boarded someone's ship using violence and intimidation, and stole their goods, which meant they didn't have those goods any more.

Today it's used to describe someone taking a photo of a statue in a public park.  

What I see is mostly just a lot of stinkin' rich suits telling Congress that the laws have to change because they're not making as much money as they used to.

I love your example with the statue. Imagine all the stuff we COULD shoot and SELL if we dumped our IP laws.

So let me ask if I understand, you don't care if I steal your images and sell them, and give you nothing? Just want to make sure I understand you point of no IP laws. You enjoy working for free?

Personally when I work to create something, I'd like to get paid for it, otherwise why am I doing it? I can go pile bricks or slap down hamburgers at a fast food joint and make better money. (or worse, do what I actually do for a living, but I'm not going there!) LOL

ps It's not illegal to shoot and sell many statues, it's just another of the CYA policy of agencies.

One of the big problems with stock photography is that our agencies LET people easily take our images. Now, once I sell you something however, yes, you can do what you want with it.

Imagine the producer of your favorite sofa you purchased knocking on your door demanding money every time you sit on it and on top of that, telling you that you have no right to sell it at a flee market when you no longer want it.

It's crazy. IP is no different.

BTW - Artists don't have to starve, but to be honest, even WITH IP LAW - artists still starve... so let's not even venture down that road.

« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2011, 16:09 »
0
As a blanket response to many who support IP laws, think about this point that is always ignored:

Stronger IP laws will prevent our business from existing. Imagine having to create your own clothes, furniture, phone props, etc... all because of really strong trade dress laws?

Now, since your pro IP, you can't deny the intellectual designers of those products you call "props" the right to share in your sales profits....

Are you still in favor of that world? We've already had a taste of that - remember when Ford started to demand all cars that looked like Mustangs be pulled off of stock photo sites? The Sydney Opera house is another PITA.

You see this is the hypocrisy I like to point out about our business, and all over business' heavily affected by IP laws. It's always "protect me as much as possible, but don't apply these protections to anyone one else."

In the end, I think if we got rid of IP laws you would see far more photographers shooting assignment work. Is that really a bad thing? And no, stock would still be around, not everyone can afford custom productions.

« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2011, 16:26 »
0
This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2011, 16:29 »
0
This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

Schools don't sell information - last time I checked, what they sell are things others discovered on their own or in groups of people.

What schools do sell:

The help of seasoned professors

A degree that certifies subject competence

That's basically it.

« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2011, 16:31 »
0
Way back in the day the world had full time creative's who didn't have the benefit of IP laws, the difference was simple, they had a different business model.

You are definitely talking pre Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 27
"everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author".

Are you talking pre-constitutional?:

"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;.......To promote the Progress of .......Arts, by securing .........Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Are you talking pre- enlightenment? which took place under printing monopolies and then specific copyright laws like the Statute of Anne?

Are you talking about when the Medici were sponsoring Michelangelo? because trust me benefactors aren't going to fork out to artists when anyone can benefit from the work by stealing it.

Please give an example of when independent authors or artists were spewing out work for the sheer hell of it with no protection.


Thousands of Fashion designers, past and present. Many don't know that the fashion world has no IP laws protecting it beyond trademark.

Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion's free culture


See, not impossible.

« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2011, 17:19 »
0
This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

Schools don't sell information - last time I checked, what they sell are things others discovered on their own or in groups of people.

What schools do sell:

The help of seasoned professors

A degree that certifies subject competence

That's basically it.

"Things others have discovered" = Information! Intellectual Property.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2011, 17:23 »
0

Devices for creating art and music are so accessible now that everyone is or thinks they are an artist or a musician. They post on Youtube hoping to be Justin Beiber. But, you get what you pay for. If information wants to be free then the people that are really good at it, aren't likely to put the effort into doing it because they'll get nothing for it but likes on youTube. Then all we'll have is the crap that floods the net everyday.

Yes got the rest of it now, thanks.

Yes to the last part, when I was in a band I had a four track recorder. Fairly expensive, mics and mixing boards, 15IPS tape, DBX, you get the idea, thousands of dollars to record at home. People often forget that musicians take years of practicing and preforming to make something worthwhile. (hey photographers too) So when we played for four hours and made $50 each, someone would say, "hey good money". Lets see, played for about 20 years before that, practiced, drove to the job, had to pay for equipment, breakage, drive home, expenses... Manager took 20% for getting us jobs and screwing us sometimes, whole longer story. So $12 an hour wasn't really that good. If you had a record and no record company, you have No Distribution, no sales, no stores would handle your record.

Now we can make a CD with digital equipment on a computer, burn on demand and sell on the Internet. Freedom from the clutches of the big record companies and distribution network. There's a creative artist friendly business model?

Photography, we buy cameras, lighting, props, all kinds of other equipment. Some pay models, travel, have computers, take time to edit, skills develop and training. Then time to keyword, and upload and wait for that quarter to drop out of the MicroStock slot machine.

I don't believe that "Information wants to be free" I think that it needs to be done as a business in order to maintain quality and keep the best producers working. Otherwise if everything is free, kind of like a socialist state, what incentive is there to work or create?

My argument was about the fact that electronic distributors are making money on the backs of free work. YouTube makes money from free uploads. MicroStock works on the crowd-source plan, at least we get paid something, but if it's looked at the right way, "THEY" get 80% and we get 20%. It's backwards. That's because people are so hungry for money that they are willing to sell out their effort. Before someone points ot the top people, be realistic, none of us are The Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Grateful Dead... that's the kind of people who make the top of the Micro business.

Most of the sites, starting with the big ones, most people never get one photo accepted! Then an estimated 65% of those people, never make it to payout on most agencies, it's pretty slim. Pointing to the 1/10th of 1% who are making it as Black Diamonds for example, is a little blind.

Yes people do earn money and do well in MicroStock and as you pointed out, yes Justine Beeber was discovered on YouTube, Lana Turner was discovered at a soda fountain. (I'm sure she had some special assets.) Everyone else doesn't and didn't. LOL  ;D

We can run our own websites and some people appear to be making sales. I love it!

If we got a fair share and had protection from thieves, maybe more people could earn some real income for their hard work and effort.

Actually if I had copyright protection, I'd be pretty happy. But DMCA does nothing. Like catching a thief and they say, "oops sorry, here's your stuff back." And then they walk away free. They can go steal from someone else and someone new can steal from me again. It's a hampster wheel, chasing them and getting nowhere.

Yeah that's what I said. i didn't use as many words though.  ;)

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2011, 17:39 »
0
This discussion is getting a little crazy. I would hope IP laws wouldn't take an all or nothing approach. There is subtlety needed. Yes a designer created the shirt your model is wearing. Do you need to pay the designer a royalty if it's in your shot? Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Yes major corporations benefit most from these laws but it's either that or we dispose of both digital media and the internet because it's the ease in which things are stolen, copied and re-distributed without so much as a byte of lost quality that makes the laws really necessary in the first place. All this talk of baaaack in the day seems to leave that important part out.

Lastly, microstock is not about free information because it is a service. So it is using a new business model I guess. Most if not all designers have digital cameras these days and can shoot their own source material (how do you think I got started) but it's less cost effective to do so especially if you need a photo of the Grand Canyon and you live on the east coast. So we use a service (stock agency) to quickly and affordably provide the images we need. Of course the trouble starts with digital media being distributed over the internet without any loss of quality despite the bazillion times it's copied and downloaded. That makes IP laws necessary. Otherwise the service would disappear and I'd have to bill my clients $2500 for my trip to Arizona to shoot the canyon.

Maybe we should get rid of the internet and go back to shooting film.

« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2011, 18:11 »
0
According to the video posted, fashion cannot be copyrighted due to its utilitarian purpose.
The fashion industry does not care.... fashion trends change every other nanosecond anyway.

I came from a jewelry industry background.
Jewelry is not utilitarian and the designs are unique.
Knock off a Tiffany or Cartier design and see how fast the lawyers come knocking on your door!

We are not talking about knock offs here anyway. If that were the case, Yuri would be able to go after every copycat image that mirrors his stuff.

Microbius

« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2011, 07:09 »
0
Little IP protection in the fashion industry works because you have tangible goods purchased almost solely for the status of owning them.
People will continue to pay silly money for products that are pretty much identical to cheaper ones just because they have a certain logo so others get to know that you spent far too much for the item.
How innovative the product is is neither here nor there.

Compare that to say scientific research or digital art and may realize just how fuzzy your think on this actually is.

ETA. oh and the knock of stuff produced due to the lax IP protection in fashion is the poo you see at 1:51. Not more innovation but less.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 07:27 by Microbius »

Microbius

« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2011, 07:24 »
0
Another point, you don't seem to be saying that people shouldn't have to pay to use digital media, but that they should be able to use the, say, image as they wish once they do.
So what is your point? that the license should be broader? that it should't be called a license? what?
Also most IP protection is there to stop people using digital media without having paid for the use, given that you don't seem to be saying everything intangible should be free, what do you have against this?

You also need to bear in mind that what is happening now is not that distributors are pocketing the larger percentage and screwing the artist, but that distributors like Rapidshare are taking 100% and not passing anything at all onto the artist or considering the cost of production in any way.
Clearly this has to stop if any decent content is going to be produced.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 07:27 by Microbius »

« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2011, 10:04 »
0
This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

Schools don't sell information - last time I checked, what they sell are things others discovered on their own or in groups of people.

What schools do sell:

The help of seasoned professors

A degree that certifies subject competence

That's basically it.

"Things others have discovered" = Information! Intellectual Property.

You missed the point. Anyone can figure it out on their own. The schools are selling access to professors to help learn subjects and degrees to certify they have learned them well, the information itself is readily available if you want to discover it yourself. I think my wording threw you off, sorry about that.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:07 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2011, 10:12 »
0
According to the video posted, fashion cannot be copyrighted due to its utilitarian purpose.
The fashion industry does not care....

Some do care, some big name designers have been lobbying for copyright protection for years.

Now imagine how fast the entire stock photo industry would die when THAT happens. Another example of IP law hurting your business. Just look at this forum alone, tons of examples.

« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2011, 10:23 »
0
"Anyone can figure it out on their own."

Um, really? Try amassing the knowledge needed to become a medical professional on your own & for free.
Most medical articles on the web require that you pay to get access to them.

@Cardmaverick is it blatantly obvious that you don't like the current IP laws.
What would you replace them with?
If your answer is no protection at all, then we will have to agree to disagree because no amount of posting to the contrary will change my mind.

In my life I have been a musician, a jewelry industry professional and a photographer.
Every single one of the above has had IP protection.

« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2011, 10:32 »
0
Another point, you don't seem to be saying that people shouldn't have to pay to use digital media, but that they should be able to use the, say, image as they wish once they do.
So what is your point? that the license should be broader? that it should't be called a license? what?
Also most IP protection is there to stop people using digital media without having paid for the use, given that you don't seem to be saying everything intangible should be free, what do you have against this?

You also need to bear in mind that what is happening now is not that distributors are pocketing the larger percentage and screwing the artist, but that distributors like Rapidshare are taking 100% and not passing anything at all onto the artist or considering the cost of production in any way.
Clearly this has to stop if any decent content is going to be produced.

I think you're starting to catch on to this. If we were to operate in a market where once you sold the product and lost total control, then YES. You could say it's akin to selling all the rights, thus the prices would need to be higher. It just makes sense. I know a studio that will sell RAW files to its wedding clients. They charge $800-1,000 for those files. Why? Because they know that once they let them go, the have no more opportunities to make money off of that particular client.

My main argument against IP is that it's akin to outlawing the free breathing of air. It so quickly becomes so ridiculous, not to mention lopsided. Clearly our business gets more government favors than the fashion business who would love to have IP laws so they can sue their way to profits.

I just want people in this business to start finding business models that can work in world where people will (and already do!) buy an image once, then use it forever, or even flat out "steal" the sample image with useless agency watermark in the corner of the image. Let's not forget the file sharing as well.

Once people accept this stuff will always happen, we can start pinpointing things we can do that simply can't be packed into a torrent file and distributed all over the web, etc...

One idea I've floated to image buyers that is always welcomed is the idea of paying to create a customized search algorithm for a particular clients tastes and needs. A "search brain" of sorts. If the price is right, many will leap all over that. Just talk to anyone who's tried to find clients images they like. It can be a terrible process. Imagine charging to analyze images they like (color, composition, etc...) and then being able to search with a true custom algorithm that fits the client like a glove.

You can't easily steal that, and people want to buy that.

So why aren't we doing that? Probably because people are stuck in their old ways, stuck enough that would probably give that away for free and still think selling imaginary "rights" is the way to go, LOL. Crazy.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:48 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2011, 10:32 »
0
According to the video posted, fashion cannot be copyrighted due to its utilitarian purpose.
The fashion industry does not care....

Some do care, some big name designers have been lobbying for copyright protection for years.

Now imagine how fast the entire stock photo industry would die when THAT happens. Another example of IP law hurting your business. Just look at this forum alone, tons of examples.

I don't imagine that most here make a living photographing Haute Couture! Generic clothing is just that, generic.
IP protection of their designs if granted, could be limited to copying of the design for sale rather than a blanket protection that would prohibit use in say; a fashion editorial.

I one shot a model wearing a certain type of pearl jewelry. Their pearl designs are protected.
I went directly to the manufacturer and asked them for their permission in writing. No problem.

« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2011, 10:38 »
0
"Anyone can figure it out on their own."

Um, really? Try amassing the knowledge needed to become a medical professional on your own & for free.
Most medical articles on the web require that you pay to get access to them.

If no one can figure anything out, how did we find the information? LOL. I understand your point for highly technical subjects, but again, universities don't sell info, and what about the Library? Pretty sure thats free, and the one in DC, Library of Congress, has virtually everything ever published - for free. What about apprenticeships and internships, how about all the medical text books people bought that can be handed over to someone else? Once information gets out, it's free.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:45 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2011, 10:49 »
0
You may be correct that once information gets out its free.

That does not mean that universities are not selling information. It only means that people are willing to pay to get access to the best, latest, cutting edge information and have someone that understands it intimately, explain it to them.

What about drug companies?
They get to have patents on their products. That is IP protection.
Without that, there would be no incentive to spend millions of dollars on research plus going through the burdensome process of getting FDA approval.

« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2011, 11:05 »
0
You may be correct that once information gets out its free.

That does not mean that universities are not selling information. It only means that people are willing to pay to get access to the best, latest, cutting edge information and have someone that understands it intimately, explain it to them.

What about drug companies?
They get to have patents on their products. That is IP protection.
Without that, there would be no incentive to spend millions of dollars on research plus going through the burdensome process of getting FDA approval.

The "incentive problem" is a fallacy, and you can use it in both directions:

If all you have to do is make one successful IP creation and live off of its royalties, etc... why would you ever bother to produce more stuff? You're already a millionaire off say, a movie. You're life is secure, why risk anymore money on creating other things? After all... it's a financial risk with no guarantee of success, even with tons of IP laws, you can still lose big.

... and people still produce stuff. Even without IP, they will still produce for one simple reason - people want what we make.

The only thing that changes is the business model!

I keep on pounding the "business model" drum because thats what needs to change. If we strip away IP laws, yes, some industries will radically change, but they won't die, they will simply change how they operate.

BTW - the big pharma example is not too far off from Fashion (physical objects resulting from ideas), they spend millions to produce and distribute their clothes, just like drug companies spend millions... and yet they have no IP laws helping them. They still produce because people still want their stuff.

« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2011, 12:55 »
0
Chris, You keep saying the business model needs to change, yet you offer nothing constructive.
I'm not counting that search engine thingy you spoke of, because that is not something we as individuals who are not in the IT industry can do anything with.

So, where/what is this sparkly new business model you speak of?

« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2011, 14:30 »
0
The "incentive problem" is a fallacy, and you can use it in both directions:

If all you have to do is make one successful IP creation and live off of its royalties, etc... why would you ever bother to produce more stuff? You're already a millionaire off say, a movie. You're life is secure, why risk anymore money on creating other things? After all... it's a financial risk with no guarantee of success, even with tons of IP laws, you can still lose big.



It is a fallacy? Why, just because you say it is? No one needs fashion. All they need is something to keep them warm. Want is a different story.
Many peoples lives depend on medications. It is a totally different situation.

Large corporations like big Pharma, have thousands of employees and shareholders.
They have to generate huge amounts of money just to keep going.

You left out a huge part of the equation: Greed and Ego.
Use your movie example. Let's say you make a few mill off of a hit movie. First off all, unless you are a shrewd investor that money will be burned through in several years time. But we all know, once you have a little success, most everyone wants more. That is where greed and ego come into play.

Lets say someone comes to you with a screenplay and you like it.
Are you going to change a few lines and go ahead with the movie production without buying the rights to the original screenplay?
No? Why not? Oh, maybe because you will you get yourself sued to the ends of the earth?!

IP laws exist because without those protections it is a free-for-all. Total anarchy.

No one, including yourself has come up with a better plan thus far.
 

« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2011, 15:56 »
0
One idea I've floated to image buyers that is always welcomed is the idea of paying to create a customized search algorithm for a particular clients tastes and needs. A "search brain" of sorts. If the price is right, many will leap all over that. Just talk to anyone who's tried to find clients images they like. It can be a terrible process. Imagine charging to analyze images they like (color, composition, etc...) and then being able to search with a true custom algorithm that fits the client like a glove.

You can't easily steal that, and people want to buy that.

So why aren't we doing that? Probably because people are stuck in their old ways, stuck enough that would probably give that away for free and still think selling imaginary "rights" is the way to go, LOL. Crazy.

You're rehashing the idea of a "best match" on a search engine and suggesting that is what we should be producing, instead of images? There won't be anything to search through if all anyone is producing is search algorithms.

Licences are a terribly flawed solution to the problem of generating earnings from microstock (because sales volume does let everything out into the wild where it can easily be stolen) but currently there is no sensible alternative.

« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2011, 19:51 »
0
Maybe what we need is a 'self destruct' algorithm.
Images would need to have some sort of invisible chrono tag built in so that after a certain license period expires (one year?), the image becomes unusable.

Microbius

« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2011, 05:31 »
0
Also been reading into the fashion industry example more, I think people need to Google IP in the fashion industry instead of just going by that one video (which it turns out is pretty much BS).
It's a lot more complex than that made out, fashion designs are often adequately protected by copyright law as works of applied art and often companies use things like the Hague System for the international registration of industrial designs to protect work further. The reason that fashion designs aren't usually individually registered in practice isn't because they can't be due to the utilitarian nature of the fashion, but the opposite, each trend is so transient it isn't worth the time and effort of registering it.

Big Pharma example; start with http://pharma.about.com/od/Government_IP/a/Ip-Laws-And-Pharma.htm

That example is a total non starter, as I'm sure most here are aware, discoveries in the Pharmaceutical industry are strongly protected by IP laws. In fact it's very controversial because of poorer countries not benefiting from discoveries for that reason.

It just seems like there's a soundbite or two been latched on to and your desperately trying to justify that position.

Who is going to pay a large single sum for a catch all license now that their competitors can steal the same content for free?
That's a step back to the pre-micro days, not a new model at all.

« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2011, 08:55 »
0
Maybe what we need is a 'self destruct' algorithm.
Images would need to have some sort of invisible chrono tag built in so that after a certain license period expires (one year?), the image becomes unusable.

Obviously that would only work on electronic copies, if you make a plate from a file that would still exist. If your tag could be set for the duration of the license it might be acceptable in more traditional agencies, like Alamy, but not for RF.

« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2011, 11:23 »
0
Maybe what we need is a 'self destruct' algorithm.
Images would need to have some sort of invisible chrono tag built in so that after a certain license period expires (one year?), the image becomes unusable.

Obviously that would only work on electronic copies, if you make a plate from a file that would still exist. If your tag could be set for the duration of the license it might be acceptable in more traditional agencies, like Alamy, but not for RF.

Your point about making a plate is valid, but seriously how many micro buyers are going to go to that trouble? The point here is that we need better protection from the 'information wants to be free" mindset.

Just for fun, let's say we can embed a suicide pill into our digital files. The micro model would change to accommodate this new feature with new rate structures, just like they do now with an extended license. Only need a year of use? The base rate applies. Need two years, three? Next rate structure applies and so forth.

« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2011, 11:56 »
0
Yeah, that sounds quite good. But I wonder if the punters would buy it.

I have my own time-bound self-destruct systems, I call them CDs and hard drives. I'll bet lots of buyers use them. too. For long-term use I have things called negatives - but they have their own drawbacks.

(Actually, I may unintentionally have made a good point there. I wonder how many saved RF files eventually just die on old discs, so people just buy something else instead of reusing).
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 11:58 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2011, 12:15 »
0
I don't even use CDs or DVDs anymore.
The storage space is too small and my filing system for things in the physical world is: just chuck it in a corner somewhere.
Negatives? I can't find any of my old negatives. I do have some chromes stored, but they are not commercial material.

I use multiple internal hard drives and back them up to external drives. As long as one backs up often; data is forever... oh wait, that's "A Diamond is Forever". My bad  ;D

Punters? (I had to look up the English use of that term). I don't think they would have a problem with it. Its all about getting fair value for what you have paid for.
Pay to play. Same as it ever was.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6028 Views
Last post March 09, 2007, 21:34
by hatman12
2 Replies
2181 Views
Last post September 06, 2009, 02:29
by hofhoek
14 Replies
6817 Views
Last post January 13, 2010, 04:17
by alias
0 Replies
8527 Views
Last post November 21, 2011, 23:16
by Angel
9 Replies
2743 Views
Last post June 08, 2013, 14:24
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors