Hacker News Reader

>Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera?

As a professional photographer (and programmer), I can easily answer that: because they are professionals, and they want to get paid for THEIR pictures.

How about someone steals your business' source code (which you didn't release as FOSS)? Why shouldn't he? Because you spent a couple thousand dollars on a laptop? (if I'm allowed to to use your reasoning).

Not to mention: it's not just the camera: it's also their being were they need to take the pictures (which has costs), they risks they went through, years of training etc. And their particular expression (composition, etc).

If you think their pictures are not worth what they ask for, then don't use them. If you think they are worth it, pay for them. It's that simple.

>I've been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are.

Well, if you're a wedding photographer, or a fine art photographer that makes his living from selling framed, signed and numbered prints, you don't qualify.

In the article we're talking about people that make their money from selling their pictures for print and online media and such (photojournalists). Though it also applies the same to stock photographers.

>The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other "creatives"

If you want to take their stuff and listen to it or use it on the front page of your newspaper then they are clearly creative -- and the quotation marks around that word are not helping your comment.

>If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared.

Thanks for pissing all over my profession.

To answer your idea: people in general don't say things as a business to make money. That's why they are quoted for free. Were "quote" also means "a small part of what they said".

Those that do say things to get paid (e.g comedians, writers, journalists etc), don't get their words reprinted for free.

>How about someone steals your business' source code [...]

Not a proper analogy. You don't sell software because of source code, you sell it based on what users see. Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing.

>[...] you don't qualify.

Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours.

>Thanks for pissing all over my profession.

Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them?

Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible.

Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA. A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale.

Photography is similar to music, so I'll quote from the article 'Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy':

>Several studies have shown that most artists actually profit from unauthorized sharing of files. They sell more albums because people have the opportunity to download songs and entire albums for free. A study by Blackburn (2004), a PhD student from Harvard, found that the 75% of the artist actually profit from piracy. Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing.

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/

Users are seeing your source code, whether directly or indirectly. Your source is your product.

> Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing.

it can be, but that's a pretty large blanket statement. first, it's not free. it costs me something when a photo is used without an exchange of payment for a license to use that photo.

but even playing devil's advocate: marketing doesn't pay our mortgage. publicity doesn't put food on the table for my family.

:)

Yes, you are correct. But going to college, or learning to code nights and weekends, or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either.

It's an investment. You do it in hopes that current work will yield a larger future gain, be it through experience, wisdom, exposure, or something else.

> ... or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either.

and there is the distinction: you are choosing to contribute. when a photo of mine is used without my consent, approval or of my choosing to have it be used, it has been stolen.

>Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing.

And not all people want fucking "free marketing" (ie. let me use your stuff for free, devaluing it as a salable item, and conpensate with "exposure"). That's like the oldest slimmest trick in the book anyway, from people who don't want to pay: and it amounts to "You should be thanking US for using your work".

>>[...] you don't qualify. Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours.

No, if you're on one of those cases describes, then your business model is different.

>Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them?

That's not the definition of "sacred object". That's the definition of something you sell. And yes, a photograph can be something one sells. If you want to give your photographs for free, have a blast. Others wish to sell theirs for use should be respected from people wanting to use them.

>Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible.

That's your choice and more power to you. I, and others, don't want and don't value business and "exposure" gained by such use. That should be my choice.

>Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA.

So what? I don't disagree with all of their arguments. It's 2013. We don't only sell tables and cars, we also sell intagible objects like intellectual property. We've been doing it for centuries. Easy zero-cost copying doesn't mean you can't have an economy of intangibles.

I'm only against part of the current situation, like crazy long copyright times (should be way shorter), obvious patents (should only exist for non obvious inventions), etc.

>A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale.

Besides the point. I don't want unathorized use of my WORK, regardless of if it represents a lost sale or not.

>Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing.

Yay, a study published in Torrentfreak.

I don't think large corporations like Getty and AFP should have the freedom to appropriate peoples' work for profit. When people are quoted, it's usually from an interview or press conference given with the expectation that the words spoken will be used. When someone takes a photo and posts it to Twitter, there is no such expectation. I believe in sweeping copyright reform, don't get me wrong, but I think that copyright reform should shift the balance of power away from huge corporations, not towards them. By allowing big companies to use peoples' work anywhere they want, just as long as they attribute it, you're allowing them to turn even more profit without sharing a dime of that with the people who actually did the work to make it possible (taking the photos). Instead, non-commercial use should be allowed with attribution for any reason, and a standard legal framework for licensing copyrighted works should be established so anyone can take part (sort of how song cover licenses have to be granted).

  > The balance of power is completely wrong...

If I may get a little meta, the goal of copyright is to reward someone for sharing an idea while allowing those who consume the idea to turn around and share it themselves. Since one cannot truly "own" an idea, copyright uses the "expression" of the idea as a proxy, since (in theory) re-expressing the idea extracts an effort penalty. For example, if I read words you publish, I can't just republish your words without your agreement. I can however express your idea in my own words. I may choose to just pay you to use your expression if generating my own is too costly.

Photographs and "news" reveal the weakness of using "expression" as a mechanism for judging whether copyright exists. If I email my next door neighbor and tell him "garbage pickup is on tuesday" and he emails the exact words to his neighbor, has he violated copyright, or is he reporting news? If I attach a photo of the garbage pickup schedule, have I violated copyright? If I attribute the schedule to the trash company am I compliant?

My point is that copyright is complex and imperfect, and finding the balance of power is very difficult.

You are absolutely right, I don't disagree with you. That was a poor choice of words on my part.

Despite how it may appear in other comments I've made in this thread, I don't believe corporate entities are entitled to use a photographer's works for profit and without attribution.

This may seem contradictory, but that's because I have failed to make the proper distinction between sharing for personal use and using for profit.

It's not just purchasing a camera and pressing some buttons. It's having the knowledge of what equipment to purchase, how to compose the photo, how to capture a consistent set of photos, and so on. Experience takes time and money to gain, and no one has any right to that experience but you.

Now, you may chose to charge money for your photos, share them for free, or some mix of both, but the choice is ultimately yours. A news article may not appropriate your photo for their purposes without your permission and license unless it fits one of the fair use exceptions to copyright law.

I've been a professional photographer for close to the same amount of time you have. We own and regularly use approximately $50,000 worth of equipment, and the cost of that and our living has to be amortized over the amount we can realistically expect to sell in the lifespan of that equipment. I have absolutely no interest in someone else making money off my investment unless I get my cut. At no time has free work (e.g., magazines using photos with attribution) ever profited us either directly or indirectly. I'm not saying it couldn't ever, but in our experience, free or discounted begets more demands of the same.

In general, one cannot copyright short phrases or sentences. These are able to be trademarked. However, one CAN copyright the presentation of a sentence/phrase. For example, if it were to be in a painting, or a photo, the photo/painting would be able to be copyrighted. However, that does nothing to stop someone from copying the sentence.

The difference is that you can copyright presentation, but you can't copyright an idea.

Once someone strings together enough words, however, you can't copy it either. That is, after all, why we don't photocopy novels when we want to read them.

I'm not a legal expert. But to me it seems like If you say something in public, it being transcribed into a report is a statement of fact and belongs in what I guess would be called the commons. A photo on the other hand is something quasi tangible that a person put time, effort and resources into to create.

Also if you spoke to a reporter I suppose that would be an implied consent to have your words used.

Yeah, pressing the button is the easy bit, it's getting there that costs the time/money/foresight.

The same could be said about a quote. Verbalizing the words is the easy bit, it's getting the education and life experience to come up with the words that costs the time/money/foresight.

I'm not taking sides with this comment, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Thats true, but a photo leaves a lasting artifact. where as spoken words unless they are transcribed or recorded more or less evaporate. When you take the effort to transcribe or record those words, you have at least some claim to use those words. thats all based on I think montesquieu or adam smith.

We're getting close to the point that every word a person speaks can be automatically recorded. (e.g. Google glass.)

How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say? Quoting them in a blog post? If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public.

Sharing images without attribution is the same as plagiarism. Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe. But it's the same issue.

EDIT: I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world.

> I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world.

Actually, you are. Talking about plagiarizing and being fined and trying to use legal arguments, and then content you aren't referring to the law?

> How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say?

By using Twitter, you give explicitly permission to retweet.

> Quoting them in a blog post?

If someone says something, you are free to quote them.

> If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public.

No, it's not. It's explicitly not because the internet is not the same thing as a public forum.

> Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe.

It depends on to what degree the plagiarizing occurred. But you can't say maybe and follow it up with the edit that you did.