Points about copyright

James Duncan Davidson in his blog makes some good points about copyright protection for your photographs in the US. While copyright is automatic for everyone in the US that creates original works, it is far from automatic that you will get reimbursed for any infringement of your copyright. We have seen now many times big media companies lifting photos from flickr and using them without permission and flaunting the holder to do anything about it. If you have never registered for copyright with the copyright office, you might not be able to get more than a pittance back that won't even cover your legal costs! This is a sad state of affairs especially in the age of social networks and "sharing" of your photos online.

photos, copyright and more

The "web" is abuzz today because of a rather lame youtube video that used some photos from photographers active on flickr without their permission. The photo was taken down apparently because photographer Lane Hartwell did not like the photo being used without permission. Read her reasoning here. For some weird reason wired calls the video (which they link to in the article) creative. I don't see it. It's just lame insiderish jokes set to photos they never asked to be able to use. Wired links to an outrageous post by someone called Robert Scoble which I am not going to link to. Fake Steve Jobs often makes fun of this self-acclaimed internet expert - deservedly so. What a bunch of uninformed nonsense. Using someone's work without asking and attribution in a situation that is very clearly not fair use (the video is clearly meant to promote the maker's website) is rather unethical. How hard is it to ask if the rights of the original do not specifically allow this sort of use? Scoble apparently does not mind. Maybe that says something? Myself I am OK with non-commercial use, as long as people ask me. Parody is fine too since it is protected by copright law, but this video was NOT a parody of the photographer's work.