When Toyota's ad agency Saatchi was confronted about the misuse, they offered a flat fee of $500 (if I recall correctly ) for each photo. Several of the photographers took the deal. A group of around 10 of us hired a lawyer and settled for much more (withholding amount was part of the deal) per infringement.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright...
[2] http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydama...
HOWEVER -- I think it would be REALLY fun to write for them -- I think the challenge of trying to figure out what's hot on the internet and what has people's attention and then trying to get as much traffic as possible would be a ridiculously fun daily challenge.
Would I ever actually consider doing it? Not a chance in hell
It's a long-established business model that works. Just look at food grain.
As a practical matter you can't own public, unencrypted arrangements of bits. All attempts to enforce ownership of public, unencrypted arrangements of bits are forms of rent-seeking or forms of begging or, at the pleasant best, forms of politely asking other people to go along with your view of the world for a while.
"A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."
Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say...
I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the "you can't own" portion of his statement was a point of possession and direct control, not necessarily law.
exratione, please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your position here at all, and I'll correct my post. (I'm intentionally leaving out my opinion, just trying to clarify yours. :))
But it should. Copying is not theft, and shouldn't be treated as such by law, even though it is now. IP is just wrong, we just haven't adjusted to that truth yet; we will eventually.
Lets pretend that every computer connected to the internet today starts randomly generating images. Lets optimistically say they can generate 1 million per second each, and optimistically assume there are 3 billion such computers. For any particular image as described above, these computers have an expected time to generate the image of around 2^24 years. That's almost the age of the universe so far. Increase the image size to 3x3 and those computers will effectively never generate the image (expected time something like 2^75 times the age of the universe).
Those bits in an image aren't arbitrary. Do not trivialize the importance of digital content by equating a picture to an "arrangement of bits." Even a seemingly very small arrangement of bits is extremely special.
http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-ha...
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/...
Now there's an interesting startup idea.
"I'd love it if it remained 'pretty challenging' to identify who owned what on the web, because our whole business model would crater if we had to pay for the content we rip off."
Unfortunately, it's easy to thwart. (just transform the image slightly)
[1] http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&o...
EDIT: Even a photo filter might not succeed if it did a homogenous effect across the pixels.
I have to find that algorithm someday.
http://www.useplus.com/aboutplus/system.asp
Though I can't say it's gained much traction.
http://www.photometadata.org/meta-resources-field-guide-to-m...
The problem is that the people you most want to follow this are the least likely to check IPTC metadata first.
Although the page you link to is a great resource, it's a sad fact that there's no metadata for 'Cost of 3-month nonexclusive license: $60 per million impressions. Remit-to: my_account@paymentprocessor.com'.
All sorts of restrictions on usage and what-all else, but no fields for price or payment method...the only two things that a potential buyer actually needs to transact business.
/facepalm
jhead -purejpg in.jpg out.jpg
If you don't take steps to strip out typical metadata, such is indeed already present, in EXIF and IPTC fields.
I agree, it could be a startup.
Perhaps they aren't hated for it, but they sure are ridiculed for it. "You wouldn't steal a car"->"You wouldn't download a car" anyone?
If your friend convinces your girlfriend to leave you for him, it is common to say he "stole" her from you.
A sports team that wins from behind at the last minute against a supposedly better team is often said to have "stolen" the game.
If a restaurant owner paid a waiter at another restaurant to spy on the kitchen to figure out a sauce recipe, and then put that sauce on his menu, many would say the recipe was "stolen" [1].
Falling in love is often described as having your heart "stolen".
If someone bugs your office and hears you practicing your pitch for a startup incubator, and then they apply and pitch your idea before you, using the points from your pitch, most would say he "stole" your idea and your pitch.
[1] This may not be such a good example, because the recipe could be a trade secret, and "theft" might then be legally correct usage instead of just colloquial usage since misappropriating trade secrets is actually called "theft of trade secrets" in some jurisdictions. For instance, see 18 USC 1832, "Theft of Trade Secrets" [2].
By focusing on the infinitely reproducible media (which cannot, strictly speaking, be stolen) the RIAA/MPAA made themselves look like idiots. But just because they failed to correctly identify what was being stolen does not mean that no theft was taking place. Focus on the money not changing hands (which obviously can't be duplicated) and the picture becomes a lot clearer.
Edit: Downvotes? I guess the truth stings, especially when the logic is airtight.
1. Defaulting on a contract is, generally speaking, a civil matter and has nothing to do with theft.
2. There is no contract here, implied or explicit.
3. Buzzfeed haven't physically taken anything from the OP intending to permanently deprive him of it.
You seem to have received a few downvotes unfortunately, but I assume that is because your post is mainly bad metaphors supporting a faulty argument.
Edit: line breaks.
"Theft" works, here.
Theft has a meaning which involves "taking with an intent to deprive the owner of their rightful possession". Sure I understand you when you misuse the word, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
My response to this is to say the OP is using extortion to squeeze money out of Buzzfeed with the threat of expensive lawsuits.
That makes him sound like a real bastard doesn't it? Because it isn't really extortion, it is a legitimate attempt to settle a legal dispute. My answer is... let's use words as accurately as we can, rather than twisting them to make our point.
The above is the thing I find most amazing. If you are compiling a list so that you can one day produce "10 neat things I learned" etc. then the last thing you should be doing is putting that info anywhere on the internet. The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law".
By posting it online, multiple small parties will potentially take it, spread it around, and you will never have enough legal resources to police it. Effectively it is gone forever.
The saying was never really that - only through bastardization and a gradual veering away. In fact, it was that "possession is nine /points/ of the law".
1st - the law is obviously on his side. 2nd - he is the little guy in the case which for me matters 3rd - he is not looking at extreme damages but is making a small claim. 4th - it seems to me that he is mostly annoyed for not being credited properly and being just dismissed/made fool of by the company statements.
And lets be honest - whatever a person views should be for non commercial infringement (mine are extremely lax) and sampling/transformation (the author should be entitled to part of the earnings, but should not have the ability to stop the work from being created or distributed) if you make money out of someone's IP he is in his right to say Fuck you, pay me! for some part of that amount.
I totally get him, but I think the way in he expressed his belief came up as just whiny.
Also I believe the problem is with copyright laws and not with BuzzFeed. They are not selling that image, they are just illustrating their content and the same article without his image would have exactly the same value.
But beyond all, what pisses me off the most is the blue background on those link, good lord!
Linking to the wrong page sounds like they were probably on that page to download the image, and when they went to get the attribution they just happened to have that tab open. Most likely laziness, not malice.
Bear that in mind - if this is accurate (and the guy once worked on Flickr), then linking to the download page avoids bumping the photo's view count up, which might indicate to the photographer that the photo's been featured on a highly trafficked page.
My god it must be nice to have something like this actually be a problem in your life and make you mad.
Yes, if BuffPo were to agree some payment for photo or writing reuse, they'd have much greater outgoings. However, they'd also then become legitimate channels for syndication, rather than incidental leeches.
I do profess some grim amusement in noticing that serial infringers - the Daily Mail comes prominently to mind - are never punished with anything greater than a nominal fee for whatever work they've lifted. Given these are outfits that are entirely based around profit (rather than simply linking to them in a personal journal, for example, with no money involved), surely the consequences for copyright infringement ought to be amplified, rather than diminished into inconsequentiality?
Imagine a BuzzFeed that shared the ad revenue with the creators of the photos involved. It wouldn't lead to anyone's early retirement, I'm sure, but we have the means to make such happen, very easily. Shouldn't such sites be working toward helping creators be rewarded for what fuels those very sites?
http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page...
Plus most of the time if you approach a photographer first you're going to get a much better deal than when you've decided that licensing it properly wasn't important.
Definitely not saying you necessarily deserve nothing, but what amount did you put in your invoice? Want to know what you think the value is
Huh?
How about I grew up on the other side of the world, in a completely different culture, where we don't care for words like 'denomination' and 'ordained'.
Welcome to the internet, which as you don't seem to understand, is global.
So while I was curious before, now I just think you're a jerk, and I'm rereading your post in a different light (the jerk that's always got a chip on his shoulder light). Have a blessed day, night, evening, morning or whatever it is where ever you are.
* Also note that I didn't comment on your use of the swear words ... it's pretty common and I can filter it out and/or understand the exclamatory nature of the use.
1) Koran - [4:148] GOD does not like the utterance of bad language, unless one is treated with gross injustice. GOD is Hearer, Knower.
2) Talmud - [Ketubot 8b] Even a heavenly decree for seventy years of good can be reversed if one perverts his mouth with improper speech.
3) Bible - [Ephesians 5:4] Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting – all of which are out of character – but rather thanksgiving. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: 8 that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
4) A gentleman has no skill in trifles, but has strength for big task: the vulgar are skilled in trifles, but have no strength for big tasks. - Confucius, Analects, c.400 b.c.
5) Buddism - "Right Speech" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_speech#Right_speech
Note that I'm not sure where to look for other religions of the world.