Agree. Sigh...

I reiterate my last post.

> Me too.
> If they asked me, gave me credit and didn't turn Lapland
> into Alaska. That isn't too much to ask for.

I'd guess it an easy mistake, there are a lot of similarities between Lapland and Alaska, and Greenland and Kamchatskiy, ...

I don't think Ron's or his people's intentions are bad.

Just want to make one comment about copyrights.

It doesn't matter how and with what kind of tool you use, be it a top-level professional camera or a plastic toy camera, if you create an original image or object, no matter how crappy it is or lacking in artistic quality, and you don't sign away the rights to it, it is yours. There is a whole other can of worms concerning "value to society" (in other words artwork belongs to the community rather than the individual), but in a nutshell "you produce the artwork, it is yours".

"There is a whole other can of worms concerning"

You said it there. Actually, copyright law in almost every country in the world is extremely murky water. Especially so as it relates to use across borders, international copyright law is about as interpretive as it gets.

This is a pointless argument guys. How about the old adage: "No harm, no foul." ?

>This is a pointless argument guys. How about the old adage: "No harm, no foul." ?

Word.

Well, I've been saying as much way back in Page 2. Travis too.

No, YOU need to get real -- that's theft. Being a professional photographer, I'd be charging a license fee for the use of my images in marketing materials -- depending on the usage, exclusivity, and duration of the license, that could be as much as five thousand dollars.

Note -- since they took down the image after a simple request, Six Moon did the right thing in the end... so had it been my image, I wouldn't have threatened them with a suit... and granting permission for them to use the image is the creator's right, it's a fine way IMO to support a company you like.

Edited by Tamerlin on 02/09/2010 19:30:04 MST.

I'm about to commit threadicide

Who the heck is Rakesh screaming at 'to get real'? Someone left the looney ward open today?

Edited by ben2world on 02/09/2010 19:33:59 MST.

No, I just expected that replying to a specific post would include that post as a quote, since that's common in most forum software... and you just made the folks that gave me such a warm welcome and spoke so highly of the community look like liars.

Dave Horton way back at the bottom of page 1. I couldn't figure it out either.

sheesh... this is a backpacking forum

take your moot court elsewhere

>"and you just made the folks that gave me such a warm welcome and spoke so highly of the community look like liars"

Woah. Easy. In some respects this is a very tight-knit community, and many of us know each other quite well. I've said this on a completely unrelated thread a few months ago: you can't just come into a conversation a whoopin' and screamin' at people and expect a "warm welcome." Even if you've got a justifiable point, don't expect hugs and kisses with a post like that. You've got 6 posts. Often you've gotta have earned your keep around here to come in guns a blazin'. Just a friendly heads up.

Edited by T.L. on 02/09/2010 19:52:32 MST.

If you read through the thread, there are only a few of us here who are professional photographers. You may notice that each of us knows a little about copyright law, although very few know much about the Sweden vs. USA angle.

I've had my photos stolen before and used in print. Naturally, the boss in charge pleaded "sorry, my fault, I didn't know, yada yada". However, those are easy words to plead, very easy. It's the philosophy that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

I think it was appropriate for Johan to make a stink about it, because he probably didn't have any other forum. I've had managers simply ignore my emails, and if they don't feel any customer or legal consequences, they brush it off, too busy, executive privilege, etc.

Ron or whoever else at the company needs to avoid hassles like this in the future. If he is in charge, then he should make a company policy. Then whoever is assembling their web site must follow company policy or face consequences. The company policy will probably state something to the effect that there must be a release form on file for each photo used in the commercial web site. The release form simply identifies exactly what photo is at issue, and that the photographer can prove, if necessary, that he is the copyright holder on that photo. The photographer can release the photo for specific uses, or just sort of a universal release to use it for anything. Then the photographer signs it. The company holds that paper in their files as long as they have the photo file in their possession, because they might use it this year, skip a year, or whatever.

Now, many companies do not want to go through this hassle, so they get their own employees to shoot product photos. That's a different deal, and the rights go to the employer immediately, no questions asked.

It was stated that the photographer should embed his own IPTC (identification) into the photo file. Yes, that is a good idea, and all of mine that are publicly accessible are identified. But it is not Johan's burden to do that. Maybe his software does it, and maybe it doesn't. If the company can't easily find the owner of the photo, then they simply shouldn't use it. Simple. There are millions of photos available.

You know, many organizations that ask my permission in advance may be granted it for use of one or two of my photos. But, when they don't ask and just do it, watch out!

I hope that ends Copyright Law For Dummies.

--B.G.--

Edited by --B.G.-- on 02/09/2010 21:34:23 MST.

Part of the problem working as an artist (I am an illustrator, graphic designer, photographer, and writer) is that too many people who have never made the effort to learn the skills of being an artist assume that the work artists produce is useless, easily replicable, and something anyone can do... until they have to produce the artwork themselves. Then suddenly the artist becomes valuable, but a lot of people don't want to pay for the skills that artists have. I was once offered 30 cents for a graphic design that took me three weeks to produce!

I don't want to get into the debate about whether SMD was wrong or not, but I do want to insist that the discussion about artwork belonging to someone who made it is very important and shouldn't be pooh-poohed as being childish or whiney. Just think if someone had taken one of SMD's (or any other company's) shelters without the producer's permission and used it on their website for marketing purposes, what do you think the reaction would be?

The point I'm trying to make is not about who was wrong, but about the relevance of the conversation. Why is a shelter legitimate to get outraged about, but not a photograph? To my mind they are both valid and respectable creations. I think the degree of relevance is often left to the vagaries of people's sense of proportion; to some people a shelter just seems worth more than a photograph, to others, vice versa. Unfortunately the people who decide the laws about such things tend to place much more value on a shelter and nonchalantly brush off the artist as "irrelevant". It's been like this a long, long time, and the reason why there are so many "starving artists"!

Edited by butuki on 02/09/2010 21:45:27 MST.

@ Joshua:

I see. Thanks. All the way back to page 1 -- and then such a violent outburst! Delayed reaction I guess. :)

Edited by ben2world on 02/09/2010 21:37:30 MST.

Fine, Bob -- except for the last line. Sigh.

Edited by ben2world on 02/09/2010 21:49:03 MST.

The pictures didn't even look in-focus to my eye. Very mediocre snapshots in my opinion. What's the big deal?

bwahaha!