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).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say @photo-trail is currently asking for permission to use photos?" - I most certainly said that. I also said that @photo-trail didn't use to ask for permission and my work and that of other photographers was published without our permission, which is a case of copyright infringement.
"If I got this right, I don't see what your problem is with them publishing the photos and getting rewards for it." - You didn't get it right, read the explanation above.
"Neither do I see a problem in them not sharing the rewards after the fact." - In fact this is exactly what creates a copyright infringement - you can't sue anyone for using other people's work, unless they've used it for their own profit without an agreement with the original author.
"This has nothing to do with "fair use" policies concerning copyright." - Exactly! As I said, @photo-trail is not using our work under the conditions of "fair use", therefore it is a case of copyright infringement.
@gamer000, you are either @photo-trail himself and / or have no idea of copyright. You should clearly see that everyone here agrees what copyright is and that using other people's work without their permission is not only unethical, but also illegal. I hope you don't mind if I don't continue this conversation, as I don't see the point in arguing with someone who is trying to justify stealing other people's work.
This is the weirdest accusation I've seen to day. I have no idea who runs @photo-trail, but copyright is something I've had to research for decades because of misguided people on the Internet. I would dare to say I might know more about copyright issues than even you.
Then this:
That's bull. Copyright doesn't concern with profit, it is only about the right to disseminate other peoples' works. You can sue just about anyone (and the bigger you are, the more you can sue) whether they make profit off your copyrights or not.
"Everyone agrees" is not a fact on copyright, it's an appeal to popularity, nothing more. I have studied copyright to death and AFAIK it simply isn't what you claim it is.
Let me clarify: You are not wrong in what you are basically saying, that copyright is a means for you to control who and how others can share your works. But what I'm arguing against is, that as giving a permission to use your copyrighted works, you will not get to dictate the terms of the agreement after the agreement has already been made.
Of course. I was not arguing otherwise. What I am arguing is, that after you have given permission, then it is perfectly ethical and legal for the receiver of permission to publish the work, whether it is for free or for profit.
Well I do mind, because you just claimed I am "trying to justify stealing", and that just isn't true. Do you know what libel is?