160 replies to this topic

[tsrwright]

'Are you suggesting it's your perogative to use the labor of others as some sort of entitlement?'

 

Absolutely not.

I am suggesting that the copyright protection of 'old' photographs is now so extreme that it is preventing photographs of historical interest being published just because the 'author' may not have been dead for long enough and even though there is no prospect of a financial return to the legatees.

 

I am suggesting that the 'entitlement', which is a relatively modern creation, has, in the case of 'old' photography, got out of hand and is over-riding the public interest.

 

As an architect for some 50 years, I am well aware of the importance of the rights of artists, including another recent over-reach (at least In Australia) that a published photograph of a building can infringe the architect's copyright!

[E1pix]

I understand your concern. But as someone who's dedicated his life to photography and art, the idea that after I'm gone it is "expected" to be used makes me lean towards either:
-- donating it to a proper distribution and licensing concern with usage benefitting the art profession;
-- destroying it to prevent exactly what you're suggesting.

[tsrwright]

I don't believe anything I suggest justifies destroying a historical record.

Your first option is fine and good but the problem is that in many cases no such arrangements are made for post mortem use and the material lies in limbo probably to be lost for ever.

 

Maybe we are close to agreeing on this?

 

[john aston]

If you made your living creating content (writing, composing, performing, photographing, drawing, etc.), you might think differently. The problem is that if we make professional content-creation nonviable, then eventually all we'll have left is content created by amateurs. And goodness knows the www provides ample proof of the folly of that.

 I wouldn't think any differently,  I do a make few quid from stuff I have written , having had stuff published for 30 odd years and two books, third imminent.  But I do share your concern - the point I was making was simply that enforcing copyright is hard.in a world of free content and entitlement, and that sometimes people have wildly unrealistic views on the value of an old picture. I recall somebody , in all innocence , posting some early 60s pics he'd found in a magazine . Cue copyright lynch mob . 

 

I've seen stuff I've written , even the odd photo appear and I don't lose any sleep

[PCC]

 I wouldn't think any differently,  I do a make few quid from stuff I have written , having had stuff published for 30 odd years and two books, third imminent.

But in fairness, that is very different from actually making your living from it. Those who do either fight for their copyright, or find some other line of work.

 

I agree, it's hard to enforce copyright, just as it's hard to protect privacy online. But I think we need to start taking these problems seriously, because there's a price for not doing so and we're only just beginning to realize it.

 

And before Vitesse intervenes with a reminder that we're OT, I'll sign off...

[E1pix]

I don't believe anything I suggest justifies destroying a historical record.

Your first option is fine and good but the problem is that in many cases no such arrangements are made for post mortem use and the material lies in limbo probably to be lost for ever.

 

Maybe we are close to agreeing on this?

 

We just might if you didn't think your great grandkids somehow deserved my life's work as if I owed that to them. 

 

Edit: I might add that I'm about to finish vastly-updated prep work on thousands of old scans. Your comments have me thinking twice in even posting them here, if that means giving them away to what you make sound like a deserving audience.

Edited by E1pix, 15 April 2018 - 20:37.

[PCC]

As an architect for some 50 years, I am well aware of the importance of the rights of artists, including another recent over-reach (at least In Australia) that a published photograph of a building can infringe the architect's copyright!

That's interesting, and unusual. That would be impossible under Canadian law (I know this because I have photographed and published hundreds of buildings, and consulted a copyright lawyer about the relevant laws). Here, the architect's drawings are his/her IP, but the appearance of the building from the street cannot be protected by copyright. The only way I could get into trouble is by wandering onto private property to shoot - but that would be a trespassing violation, not a copyright one. I agree that what you describe is an over-reach – even I have my limits!

[E1pix]

I believe there's a similar architectural law here but I've never heard it pursued. If part of a city skyline though, I suspect it'd be a tough case to pursue, and the difference may be (presumably) an architect gets paid for designing a building whereas the mass majority of photographers are paying to produce their images.

I'm about to launch my website. The opening will be "ghost footprints" trailing on a sand dune. I was gonna use a windy background sound but chose Robin Trower's "In This Place" song opening instead. Most would blow it off. I am negotiating with the reps now, and why wouldn't I? If it fit a use in a hundred years and was still the property of five generations distant, how is it mine?

What I think society forgets is we are in a digital age where once archived, it could be available forever. Perpetual archiving is In full swing and racing will catch up.

Will the Beatles be the Latest Rage in 2127? Should John Lennon's or Doug Nye's or a shooter's work be a free for all in perpetuity? Will there be any impetus to produce anything new anymore?

Edited by E1pix, 16 April 2018 - 05:39.

[DCapps]

Blame Sonny Bono and The Mouse for the current mess and the never-ending confusion and continuing chaos over copyright.

 

That all this has made academic, scholarly researchers slightly paranoid is yet another reminder that Capital Is Not Your Friend.

[E1pix]

I couldn't agree more, Don. :-(

[elansprint72]

Phew...