Attribution is not worth much on Steemit. People click on new content and then everything goes into oblivion.
Case in point - few people would open the links under the photos, featured on one of these copy pasted posts, to upvote the original post by the author. Instead, they upvote the post containing all the photos and move on to something else.
I wouldn't think those people really are my target audience then. There are still, few who do click the picture anf leave a vote or a comment or better yet, follow. Those are the people I want to have a dialog with, they are the "true fans" who come for more even if the others were just skimming through. They are the bread and butter of an artist, not the passers-by.
I agree, but these people are few. I've posted about this - most users rarely take the time to read the content, instead they upvote anything posted by certain users, whose posts usually get high payouts (for a high curator fee).
Yes yes, they are few, but we can't expect the majority to seek us out anyway because of a couple of shots they saw, say in a magazine, either. It's always just those few who are interested in doing exactly that. Most of them just buy the magazine, and if you don't especially have a royalty deal with the mag you don't see that money either.
I don't really care if someone profits off my work, I care about the attribution, so that those few, who find themselves liking my stuff (and not just some collection) might come to me.
I do however understand your point. In the words of a great band Queen, You want it all. I'm just saying we can't have it all.
DPS, they didn't show the photos of those artists who didn't want theirs to be shown. That's all fine, until you realize people are definitely not going to click those links, because they don't know what to expect. (Happened when I was watching the post, I did however click through those I saw I liked and upvoted and followed them.Oh, and reading the latest @photo-trail
So I would definitely ask them to display my photo for exposure. Obscurity, not exposure (not even unwanted or unrewarded exposure), is an artists worst enemy. Exposure (as in visible photos) bring more clicks than some links, no matter how clever the accompanying note.
So you're willing to give almost all profits from your work to some account, which has gained the little popularity it has by exploiting your fellow photographers' work, just so you become a tiny bit more famous?
Sure, it's a choice!
BTW, on the comment of "You want it all" - all I want is fair use of intellectual property. So I can pay for other people's intellectual property. And you can't buy that with fame.
Nope, I'm just willing to accept that nothing in life is "fair".
I can be fair, maybe you can be fair, but not everyone is. Oh, and I should also add that there is no way to please everybody however fair you want to be.
To me personally, it is not a problem though. I can navigate these waters.
There's a legal term "fair use of intellectual property", which is properly defined, especially on legal agreements on sites like YouTube, for example. I don't use "fair" as in fair according to each individual, but"fair" as in legal terminology.
In other words, you can use bits of other people's work to illustrate your point, but not repost other people's work in its entirety for personal profit (unless the author has agreed to give away his work for free). Otherwise this is violating international copyright laws.
To fully understand the term "fair use" you first need to understand the word "fair".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say @photo-trail is currently asking for permission to use photos? If I got this right, I don't see what your problem is with them publishing the photos and getting rewards for it. Neither do I see a problem in them not sharing the rewards after the fact. This has nothing to do with "fair use" policies concerning copyright.