I think this is an excellent example of the way we need to look at copyright laws. Copyright 2.0, we'll call it.
Now if only the recording industry could see it that way!
Tech For Novices
· 2 years ago
Dear Sir
Evrybdy is talking about scrolling adsense. So why dont you do it and put it on techmeme ?
Preston
· 2 years ago
I'd be careful with your choice of words because stealing does not equal take it and credit me back. I know you said some people won't link back and you're okay with that, but if you take your argument to its logical extension, it doesn't work.
Suppose everyone steals your content and no one links back. There is no "magical stuff" that can happen to you. They steal it and cut you out of it. That's what happens.
Otherwise, your point is well said. It's the free market of ideas and the best is rewarded.
Ingemar (Sweden)
· 2 years ago
Problem is, you don't have any content I want to steal...
Jeremy Pepper
· 2 years ago
Huh?
Matt Nicholson
· 2 years ago
If someone is psying me to write content, through a sponsorship deal for example, then of course I'm happy for it to be spread far and wide free of charge (and so, presumably, is the sponsor). However if it is something I have put a lot of effort into in the hope of getting it published at some point, then I don't want someone else stealing my work. This 'magical stuff' is all very well, but we've all got to feed our families and pay the mortgage. The world would be a poorer place if creative work could only be a hobby.
Sam Freedoms Internet Marketin
· 2 years ago
Kumbaya, Brother Scoble! When you are done lifting your skirt for everyone, would you mind come helping me milk the cows?
The thing I'd like you to consider Robert are the physics and mechanics of this way of thinking. In a snapshot, it seems lovely. And, in a way, it really is, just like some of the photos you've taken.
But if you leave the lens open and take the long shot, you'll find something that resembles the arc of a pendulum. So because you had some fun and interesting success, you promote the idea of giving away your content (nice Henny Youngman reference, by the way). Then everyone starts doing it and, soon enough, either you or a compatriot are touting the opposite idea of somehow repackaging content, or renting it out, or some other such thing.
It's just a big back and forth... when you see it once, you'll then be able to see it all the time such as this eye trick here, "Sam to Mission Control: We've Got a Problem Here". For the first 5 minutes, I couldn't "reverse" the illusion and swore that it was either a practical joke someone was playing on the public or that everyone who said they "saw it" was out of their minds.
Once I saw it, I spent like the next half hour going back to the thing and playing with my ability to "alter my perception" as if it were a new toy. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about the law of the pendulum. Reporting on these little snippets of seemingly new and interesting experience are, as in quantum physics, one thing when we see them as a snapshot, or as a "particle"; but it turns out that they are quite something else when we step back and view them as a wave through time.
And that is where exists our locus of control - in going from being a "disposable" snapshot machine to a more advanced, sleeker evolution that can keep its lens open for a while and record a more accurate representation of what's happening, as it happens across time.
Btw, I just realized that I apparently took that gif of the rotating woman without knowing whose it was. So it's not that your discussion has no merit - it could just use a dash of time exposure to make it more complete.
Best regards, Sam
Paul Elosegui
· 2 years ago
Nicely put, though I think policing for full attribution may need some work. Or at least pushing for a culture where there is more peer pressure to reference sources.
Many photos of Leweb3 are used without respecting their CC licence. That cannot be a good thing.
Andrew Denny
· 2 years ago
I don't see what's the difference between putting it on Flickr and putting it on your own personal website.
Lane Hartwell's home page now has no photos showing, just 'x' placeholders, and for a photographer that looks awful.
Jeremiah Owyang
· 2 years ago
Much of Lane's beautiful work was already watermarked, I recall seeing logos on them.
People will re-use content any way they choose, we're in a new digital world.
* MISS UNIVERSE
· 2 years ago
All photographers who complain about others using their work - should realize that if they are photographing individual PEOPLE or crowd scenes, they themselves are getting a free service of someone's image.
Additionally, when they are photographing public figures or people in the news, they do so regardless of whether those people gave permission or even want to be photographed at that moment.
In other words, Photographers are making a living directly off of others who are getting no compensation directly from them.
Vincent van Wylick
· 2 years ago
I think the concept of "content" is completely dependant on where your revenue comes from. I don't think you would like it if people were to take your video, strip out all the Seagate-ads, and re-broadcast it as their own. Rephrase: I don't think Seagate would like it.
Pete Steege
· 2 years ago
Exactly right! I'm a big believer in this magic. The go-forward model for content is shareware. The more my stuff spreads - attributed or not - the better for me. Doesn't work for a one-shot contribution, but if I'm invested in what I'm doing, it adds up somehow.
It's my brand!
This is also the future of DRM, although it will be a messy road to get there.
monkeyleader
· 2 years ago
I'd be interested to hear your response if you then found out that someone sold you content without your permission for $10k - would you still be so happy for people to steal?
I've been struggling with this very aspect recently and have started to upload lesser resolution images to Flickr - but then of course you are perhaps taking something away from people legitimatly viewing the photos of flickr. I'm happy for people to take my stuff if they link back to it - but I'm sure there are some out there who simply take and never ask, then perhaps even try to sell.
Still a subject I'm not 100% sure about tho ..
Nige
Thomas Minturn
· 2 years ago
Thank you! It is refreshing to see someone who is willing to put forth their efforts without expecting some instant gratification. Whether or not you get direct credit for your work is not the point. There are ways to make sure you do. And of course there are ways to defeat this. But, when you give of yourself and don't expect any return is when the Bible's comment of, "pressed down, shaken together, and running over", returns your contribution many times over. Whether you believe this or not: It does work!
Mariana Evica
· 2 years ago
Robert, at the risk of sounding airy-fairy, let me say how much your sentiments made me and my heart smile. There is *no argument* that credit is valuable and should be given/attributed.
However, i think we're poised on the brink of a business revolution where sharing (value/info/content/networking) becomes a more standard and respected model.
As far as "everyone stealing your content" goes, I think that establishing strong relationships across various networks kinda helps put the kibosh on this. People will stand up for friends and colleagues and shun those who steal content without adding value or enhancing relationships.
Does this make sense to you?
The new business paradigm is far more relationship-driven, so if you poop where you eat, you're screwed and people will hold your feet to the fire - eventually!
Open English
· 2 years ago
@ monkeyleader
I think if someone does steal your content and somehow manages to sell it for a very high amount of money you could probably sue them if you have proof that the original content is yours. Other than that I completely agree with this article... the more your stuff is seen, the better off you are.
db0
· 2 years ago
If someone sells your content that you licensed with a CC non-commerial licence you can very well sue and you can trace them from the money trail.
Amit Patel
· 2 years ago
1. It's not stealing. It's unauthorized copying.
2. If you give permission it's no longer unauthorized.
I do agree with some of the commenters that whether you want to give permission depends on the context. If people are coming to you for content, you may want to freely allow copying -- with credit -- to help build your brand. People are paying you with credits. If people are coming to the content, not to you, then the brand is less important and copies (esp. without credit) are worse for you. If your brand is already very strong then the added brand value may be small and you may not want copying. And finally, some people aren't doing things for a living and don't care, so they may allow copies.
I do think copyright laws in general favor the well known brands too much but I think there are cases in which you don't want to freely give permission to copy. Creative Commons has several options because a single approach isn't right for everyone.
Dileepa
· 2 years ago
Good luck with the new full time job at FC (if what MA said on TC is true).
anders
· 2 years ago
I've been releasing everything I do openly for the last few years and it's been working out very well for me. All the code I write (that might be of interest to anyone) gets released as GPL or BSD. The result is that I'm known and respected in some programming circles and get frequent offers for jobs and contract work (though I have a full time job already so I have to turn them down). All my photos are CC licensed on Flickr and as a result many have found their way into Wikipedia which thrills me because I've gotten a lot of value out of Wikipedia and like to feel that I've contributed back in some way. I've even published three books of my artwork and placed them in the Public Domain. The result has been that more people see my work and spread it around. I get offers out of the blue from people who want to buy paintings from me, invites to participate in gallery shows, some of my drawings are even set to be included in an upcoming anthology alongside the works of some of my favorite artists, and I get lots of just pleasant emails from strangers who have enjoyed my work and want to thank me. None of that wonderful stuff would have happened if I'd kept it all private and treated everyone like criminals until proven innocent.
What's Hot Today.com
· 2 years ago
Best of luck with your new position. You're the man!
I think you're so right. I´m happy to share my own 700 pictures on my homepage with the world. They are not large (800pix) so I don't think anyone can have use fore them to make money anyway. It´s rewarding to now that someone use them in their blogpost or as wallpaper on their computer. But of course It´s nice to get credit.
Eric Engleman
· 2 years ago
I think these are really good points. Bits to bytes. It just changes things.
However, like @ monkeyleader, I would be interested in hearing what financial restrictions you would place on your content for those making money off of your content.
My assumption is that you're cool with people using your content with credit, as long as they are not making big bucks off of your content. You'll probably place various commercial restrictions on your content to prevent large commercial enterprises from monetizing your content.
BTW - I think getting people to know about Creative Commons is really awesome. For photo credit, on our corporate blog, we point to the person and their creative common license. It's small, but we want to educate our users about the different creative commons licenses. Many people think that all Creative Commons licenses are the same.
Karel - Caribbean Public Relat
· 2 years ago
I'm also a believer in the magic. Sometimes, you also have to trust that people won't take advantage of your content, and you. I actually know or a person who had the serious issue of another blog, reproducing all of her posts, thereby making a duplicate blog in entirety. So that's a worse case scenario.
On the brighter side, if you do allow your content to travel, this can reap benefits because people who are serious about getting the best options, will return to the original source for expertise. So, if you use your blog as a means of getting business, then sharing aids the viral marketing process, creating opportunities for "the magic" to happen. Like everything else there's the pros and cons.
Jeneane Sessum
· 2 years ago
@jeremypepper, LOL.
John Dowdell
· 2 years ago
If you edited more, after listening harder, then I might. ;-)
(I think any of us who create digital bits should be able to choose, in all our variegated wonder, how others can use what we've created.)
jd
Thomas Hawk
· 2 years ago
As a photographer who had a photograph used without authorization in the Richter Scales Web 2.0 video I say who the hell cares. Life's too short without worrying about petty unauthorized use.
I'd rather focus on making new art than getting all bitchy when someone uses my art to create something cool.
Agreed. However, I do have a problem when someone takes your art without permission, and makes money off of it. It's different if they change it or re-mix it, but to use an unaltered photograph, and say, sell prints of it without your permission--that's just wrong. And I'm sure Thomas Hawk would agree with me.
After all, we gave Only-Dreemin such a hard time for doing it to Rebekka, we should keep that same attitude for anyone else.
Jim Goldstein
· 2 years ago
The inherent difference between you and the likes of Lane is that you have no plans of leaving your day job and thus have a secure source of income. You are photographing for fun or you have enough skill to supplement your writing with it. That's great, but those that are passionate enough about photography to make it a living have to live by a different credo and are dependent on existing Copyright law to survive. I'm all for the so called Internet cultural revolution of remix/reuse, but lets be real as I discuss in Here Comes Another Fair Use Dispute it all comes down to asking for permission... nothing more nothing less. That can involve payment and it can be free use, but in the end we all approach web 2.0 marketing differently. Expecting everyone to be OK with giving away their work is unrealistic and shows a lack of business understanding in this area.
Photographers who pursue formal education, buy expensive gear, have to transport themselves and/or subscribe to services have to support that with income. These things are NOT free. Our laws recognize photography as property and if there is demand for that work it carries value. Independent photographers are bound to the reality of having to develop a business model and live by it. Few people can survive on thanks, web links and adding "to the human experience" alone the necessities of life cost money.
As for Lane and how she'll put her work out there in the future... I've talked to her extensively about this and change is in the air. Photography to be sold or licensed needs to be seen and to do that with out problems like this arising requires the right tool. She'll get there, but that's hardly the issue and for her to speak to.
Thomas Hawk
· 2 years ago
Sean, right. There is a difference to me in wholesale ripoffs such as a gallery republishing exact copies of works without adding or contributing anything to the artistic process, conversation and statement and selling these prints vs. more limited infringement such as that of The Richter Scales with significant creative use and in the application of the imagery.
A while back a gallery in Israel was selling Thomas Hauk (they misspelled my name) prints of my photos without authorization. This was not done to in any way contribute to the artistic landscape but was being done for the pure motive of profiting off of my art. This to me is quite different than the use that I'm advocating.
francine hardaway
· 2 years ago
I never lock my "digital door," and anyone is welcome to anything. Very seldom is something overtly stolen. More than likely, it is referred to and gives me some Google juice. And I've been around for a while; people have had many years in which to rip me off of my intellectual property.
But I, like you, believe in the karmic universe, in which what you put out comes back to you. I've never been burned, to any great degree, and I've benefitted mightily.
When you take yourself off sites and don't participate in a community, it's almost impossible to market yourself. Everyone will figure that out. We're in a transition.
dawnkey
· 2 years ago
I'm sure Naked Conversations publisher will be happy to know they no longer have to pay you for sales of the book. ;)
Thomas Hawk
· 2 years ago
but those that are passionate enough about photography to make it a living have to live by a different credo and are dependent on existing Copyright law to survive.
Jim, I'm as passionate about my photography as any of these individuals. In most cases I've spent more hours, created more imagery, and devoted more of my time, energy and emotional effort to my art than most of these so called Professionals. I've also sold my work professionally and been published in many places.
I do have a day job because I have four kids that need to have a house to live in, food on the table, and college funds to be funded. Yet still I put in countless hours every single week towards my photography. I shoot every single day and have built up a collection of online imagery of almost 18,000 images. These images all were taken with care and processed with considerable effort.
It's my choice to work as hard as I do at managing a day job, Zooomr, my photography and my family.
I have known many many struggling artists who have to take day jobs to continue their work. I have known artists who are waiters and bartenders and office workers and whatever and yet they still have found the deep commitment inside themselves to produce their art.
The fact remains that shutting down projects like The Richter Scales does absolutely *nothing* to put more money in the pockets of artists. It simply removes one more creative production out of the collection consciousness. No artists win or are better off or are richer by the absence of this creative effort.
Jim Goldstein
· 2 years ago
One more thing if you're letting people steal your photography do you mind if I convert "Naked Conversations" to PDF and give it away with out attribution? Clearly time, effort and expenses matter not when it comes to photography so why should it matter for the written word?
Duane Storey
· 2 years ago
The problem isn't really that photos aren't properly licensed, the problem is people feel entitled to use them even if the license prohibits the use in certain situations. I blogged about this a whole ago -- even proper attribution isn't done on CC photos by most people.
Have you ever seen a really great photograph in a magazine or a newspaper? Do you remember who took it? Most people probably wouldn't, which is why giving away photographs for free isn't worth most pros time anymore -- it generally doesn't lead to more exposure. In the web world, you can argue that it gives you more links, and there's definitely some merit there, especially if that's your prime point of contact. But CC licensing is ignored by most people. Here's the article I wrote, and it has some audio from one of the heads of the CC organization.
charlieanzman
· 2 years ago
How does it feel to be the No. 1 headline throughout the entire web today Robert?? Good Luck !
PS: We didn't run the headline ... sandbagged it so noone accuses us of stealing ! :)
Jim Goldstein
· 2 years ago
@Thomas Hawk I have no idea how to respond to you seriously. On your blog you've feigned interest in photographers rights and then post that you're going to cast the same laws to the wind so you can pursue "renegade" photography. Clearly you have no respect for copyright or property law when it comes to photography. Frankly you've made the choice to throw away your ability to generate income from photography by giving it away for free. People still find value in high quality photography and will pay money for it. There are numerous photographers out there that have viable business plans that enable them to make a living as a photographer. When individuals like yourself give imagery away for free it undermines how photographers can make a living and locks you into your day job. So no tears for you on that claim.
The Richter Scales are a commercial entity and sell CDs and get paid for doing shows. Their video was promotion and tied people back to their site to make purchases. They chose to give the song away for free but the intent was to create a low cost ad to raise awareness and possibly boost sales or get more gigs. They didn't put the video out to benefit a magical community or "collective consciousness" that you paint of artisans. The fact that it is gone from YouTube for the time being isn't a detriment to anyone. No one is losing their life and our individual way of life isn't being undermined. Wierd Al Yankovic is a great example of how musical spoofs have succeeded in the past. There's no problem with his spoofs because he gets permission, licenses work and creates good will with the artists that he mocks. The Richter Scales chose to cut corners and not credit photographers or seek permission. Our world hasn't turned upside down as of late where permission is no longer the courteous thing to do whether the content is being acquired for free or not.
One thing would have been certain if the Richter Scales had approached Lane for permission is that one artist would have been paid. Lane nor other individual photographers are doing what they are doing with the first priority of supporting a "collective consciousness". To be a photographer you deal with a lot of competition and you have to pay the bills. A photographer has to put themselves first to survive. The "collective consciousness" is an after thought and frankly a virtual development. Pop culture has thrived in the current copyright model and the ability of popular culture to survive isn't in jeopardy if photographers don't agree to give their work away for free.
Belindalouwho
· 2 years ago
Can't we all just get along?.........Seriously, give credit where credit is due. Karma will thank you later.
Joe Caruso
· 2 years ago
I have more respect for cheap prostitutes than whores who give their soul (among other things) away for free. The creative arts industry has been cheapened by people who give away their talents for nothing. In music you have the "Weekend Warriors" who will work for next-to-nothing and like it. Would other "Professionals" do that ? It cheapens art, and it portrays artists as schmucks who will do anything for exposure. Bartering for exposure is o.k. to an extent, but it is a very slippery slope.
Artists-true artists, no matter the medium have been beaten down way too long and treated like second-class citizens. Artists help create so much beauty in this world, and intelligent people should be doing all they can to help strengthen revenue streams to help artists. If someone is benefiting from your image, why shouldn't you be compensated for it? By giving everything away only means the owner places no value in what they do. Just because people can snap some photos and give their rights away doesn't mean it's a good idea. Robert, the next time you talk to a CEO, ask them about giving all their software away for free. Tell them that "The Magical Stuff Will Start Happen"
If you want to add to the human experience, how about standing up for artists rights and proper compensation instead of encouraging thievery? You're forgetting that overexposure isn't a good thing for personalities or images...
Hector Gonzalez
· 2 years ago
Are you comparing this to professional photography?
Dear god.
Life design
· 2 years ago
This is how to survive online - and it's liek survival once you count up the social networks, blogs, professional pages, and - yes - Flickr accounts you need to keep track of.
It's zen-like. Forward thinking Scoble.
Mitch Aidelbaum
· 2 years ago
Jim, I totally agree with you with your last post. If Hawk and Scoble had to do it full time, I doubt they would be giving away their photos for free.
Christopher Coulter
· 2 years ago
Most Loser Generated Content CAN be given away for free, no one will pay for it anyways, differing story altogether, for professional and customized content. Just because some bloke with a digital cam decides to be generous, doesn't mean copyright no longer applies, or that Jeremiah's 'everyone steals nowadays, just get over it' has any merit. Granting samples has long been a marketing tool, but extending that to always giving away the store is just a false tech-commie utopia.
Steal your content? You can say that, when you have nothing worth even making the effort to steal. I suppose I could DVD archive Scoble Show's and sell them, keeping all profits, but somehow I don't think it'd be a bestseller, nor even worth the time.
egoiste
· 2 years ago
Even with print media you cant stop people from scanning stuff and repurposing it. Sure, Flickr can install disable right clicks on their site and you can also watermark your images before uploading, but I thought the whole point of putting your images up was for exposure.
The best solution I can think of is to use flash galleries (which a lot of professionals do) hosted on their own sites. I can still take screenshots of that though.
What confounds me are people's expectations. You put it out for the public and you're surprised?
OLM
· 2 years ago
I WANT YOU to steal my content.
The difference between you and Lane is Lane is a professional photographer with talent and you're some buffoon that bought $5g of photog equipment and thinks that's all it takes to take a great image.
edtajchman
· 2 years ago
Great article,.....why not compromise between the two methods though, I for instance do share my work online but only post them with limited size (the 'save for web' option in Photoshop for example, with a small watermark, this way the photo still looks good, and no one can really do anything with it other than post it themselves, which is fine with me.
Rich Pearson
· 2 years ago
The consistent theme seems to be that it's ok if properly credit the artist . . . with some exceptions for really valuable.
"Credit" in the google economy means links, plain and simple. A big improvement would be to make sure that everyone can 1) have visibility into where their content is copied and 2) for those less interested in direct monetization, ensure that link credit is given back or 3) for those whose income depends on direct monetization, offer a license for payment
the positive attitude, optimistic and hopeful mindset, and now i have your permission to steal some of your stuff
NIIIIIIIIICE
idot60
· 2 years ago
i guess technology enables us to "steal me" but it also teaches a new generation of people how to appreciate people's comments and other people's intellectual property. With new technology comes the good and evil and i guess as long as we responsibly quote and cite the original content owner like an academic paper it should be ok. Technology will enables us to share information and learn more...
krsnakhandelwal
· 2 years ago
Also,who does not steal contents or at least uses the content of others as 'masala' for ones own recipes
Scott Mace
· 2 years ago
Robert, when you say you'll make your video shows available under the CC license, do you mean including all the PodTech work you've done, or only the post-PodTech video?
fetchingphoto
· 2 years ago
Robert, you need to put your money where your mouth is and give your book away for free. Don't think we don't all see it up there in the corner with the Amazon pricetag. In fact, give everything away for free. I challenge you. I think you should have a big open house where you invite all your readers to take whatever they want from your home. Then we'll move to your intellectual property (and I'm being very generous with that description) and you can give that away too. I have dibs on your Canon 5D...I know photography is your new career now since you sold a few photos, but I promise, magical things will happen if you give it to me.
Waxy
· 2 years ago
Robert, when you say you want people to "steal my content," you are just being a hypocrite...right? I mean, it clearly states on your right panel:
You should really change that if you seriously believe the BS you have written.
John
Waxy
· 2 years ago
Also, I just realized that your Flickr content is still ARR. You know, you are talking about making these changes next year but with a few clicks of a button, you can make it all CC right now.
Also, you say: "I’ve found that the more I give away my content, the more magical stuff happens"
Clearly the old adage ("Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.") is meaningless to you. Do you really believe you are so wise? If so, I double dare you. No. I triple dog dare you to make all of your photographs give-a-away boobie prizes. I have given away content for free and it rarely, if ever brings more exposure. I'm not saying you are a bad photographer, but people expect things for free, maybe more now than ever.
Finally, you say:
"...today I have a little less competition from Lane, who was a great photographer but who’s work will be hard to discover now."
You must admit -- some of what you say is a bit conceited. Will it really be harder to discover? Maintaining image control is vital to some customers. But then, maybe Jay Z was wrong about all that licensing stuff. How much money does he have now? Oh nevermind...
Lane is a fantastic photographer who has clearly documented her abilities and has a proven track record. If this were a competition, and maybe it is, I wouldn't get too far ahead of your new photography career with this spin. Owning a 5D does not make one a great, or even good, photographer all buy itself. And selling a few image trinkets here and there, while bad mouthing another fully professional photographer, is hardly putting yourself in some glowing spotlight. Rather, what you have seemed to achieve is an article that brings you to light in the mythical land of Internet famedom. Congratulations.
Oh, and by the way, do tell me when you make your content free for the taking and when it brings you the riches. I'm waiting....
Angell
· 2 years ago
There has been some speculation over how the image was found in the first place. A day or so ago, I typed "Owen Thomas" into Google Images and lo and behold, I got the aforementioned photograph.
What's interesting is that Lane (the photographer) is credited at the top and at the bottom of the article as the photographer (it says "Continue reading for more photos from the party by Lane Hartwell." and "All photos by Lane Hartwell.") and very her name is hyperlinked in both cases to her website. On the front page of her website at the bottom is a link to her email address. Her email is just as easy to find as the photograph.
From viewing that picture, in just TWO mouse clicks I could be typing an email to ask permission to use that photograph in my upcoming music video parody...
It's theft AND it's lazy too! Maybe the real bubble that's bursting is people ability to give a damm about other peoples rights and feelings. Richter Scales are quite clearly in the wrong and no amount of "oh but it's on the internet so it's ok really" talk will change that fact.
Finally, I really don't want this to come across as a personal dig, but having actually looked at your photostream, I would posit that you sold a couple of photos in that situation more because you are Robert Scoble, than the fact that they are good photographs. You undervalue the weight of your name.
Angell
· 2 years ago
Actually Robert. Now that you have mentioned "I WANT YOU to steal my content." is it ok if I buy a copy of your book, scan it in, OCR it and make it available on Usenet and as a torrent via PirateBay.
I mean, I just wanted to check before I do that, as I would hate to spend all the time it would involve only to have a lawsuit land on my desk. I mean, I will leave in the title page thats says you wrote it...
Also is Shel ok with this?
Unless you want to beat me to it and offer the book as a free downloadable PDF - ala Radiohead...
Brad Trent
· 2 years ago
Wow...you've spent more than $5,000 on equipment on your hobby, oh, I'm sorry, your "photographic career", and through all the knowledge you've gained with that 5K purchase you think it's just groovy to have anybody come by and steal your work! Sonny, do you have any idea how Goddamned stupid you sound?!! It's completely boneheaded thinking like this that makes the day-to-day lives of REAL professional photographers so challenging. And just in case you were wondering, I don't want your photos adding to "the human experience" if it makes it even the tiniest bit harder for me to convince a client to pay a fair usage fee for one of my images!
Ben
· 2 years ago
Robert, I'm sure SF Mag will be happy to know they won't have to pay for your photos in the future.
I find the negative attitude towards this disturbing. Is it so strange that a content creator ask for their work to not be used without permission? If you want to give it away, fine. CC is good for that. But don't dismiss someone because they choose to do something different for their own reasons.
Ryan
· 2 years ago
I'm with Lane. Thank you, Scoble, for giving us all permission to steal your book.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Ryan, wait a second here. That's not up to me, that's up to Wiley (they own the copyright on that work, not me). But, let's go over the facts, shall we? We put it up on the Web for free. So, you could read the entire book for free, if you wanted. Why, then, have we sold tens of thousands of copies and outsold all other corporate blogging books combined?
Also, you might talk to Cory Doctorow. His books are free and, yet, his books are best sellers.
Weird how this "stealing" thing works.
acidmine
· 2 years ago
Based on your flickrfolio, it looks like "free" is the only way people will use your photos.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
acidmine: you're so funny. So explain the check I got from San Francisco Magazine. Or, explain why my photo of Ronald Reagan is hanging in Silicon Valley's Republican Headquarters.
Shannon
· 2 years ago
I'm not sure about this. I've had my content on all of my blogs stolen time and again and nothing magical has happened to me. I did give up on trying to hunt every person down that takes my stuff without proper attribution--so I guess in a way I indirectly am allowing the stealing now. It's just getting too vast to deal with.
However, I agree with what others have been saying, people take posts from my blogs and make money off of them. I'm a mom with 4 little mouthes to feed and I find it obnoxious that something I put time and energy into is putting green in someone's pocket and it's not mine.
I respect you a lot Robert, so I'll cross my fingers that something magical happens to me soon.
madame l.
· 2 years ago
So, it's ok that I used your beautiful photo of that lobster roll for my holiday greeting cards? Rock on dude! I am waiting for the day you make one post that does not mention money or food.
The idea that the word "art" is even uttered on your blog is hilarious. explain why my photo of Ronald Reagan is hanging in Silicon Valley’s Republican Headquarters... OMGZWTFBBQLOLicopter!!! you never fail to amaze and dazzle.
Jonathon
· 2 years ago
Mr. Scoble,
I just stole your content.
And improved it.
And improved its comments.
Feel free to build upon my contribution.
You're welcome,
Jonathon
Jonathon
· 2 years ago
(I stole this article.)
Tom
· 2 years ago
@Jim Goldstein:
"One thing would have been certain if the Richter Scales had approached Lane for permission is that one artist would have been paid."
That is definitely NOT certain... the Richter Scales most likely would have found one of many other photos who's photographer didn't have a stick up her ass...
Tom
· 2 years ago
@Joe Caruso
"In music you have the “Weekend Warriors” who will work for next-to-nothing and like it. Would other “Professionals” do that ?"
Where there's muck there's brass. Usually fun jobs don't pay as well as un-fun jobs, for good reason.
You need to educate yourself; you are clearly showing your ignorance of your new profession: photography. Business isn't "magic". If you produce a product you don't give it away for free and expect to earn a living from it. [see Hollywood writer's strike) Remember the '90's internet "burn rate" for investment dollars? It seems you're a little late on the learning curve.
Please educate yourself on our copyright laws, the reasons it was created, it's importance to the lively hood of those it protects and why, if it's not upheld, our society would be damaged.
One of the air-headed ramblings by a dilettante I've read on the subject so far.
Or perhaps not, I hear the Toyota dealership down the street is giving away Camrys because magical things are happening over at corporate.
I could be naive, though. The author (and his landlord, phone company, bank, hospitals, etc.) may traffic purely in "attention," thus removing the need for money altogether.
Robert Alamo
· 2 years ago
I notice that Richter Scales sell mp3 songs. I think Lane should ste--...fair use their mp3 songs and add her photos to them. And upload them to Youtube. I wonder how they would like them apples.
or, would it be okay for me to take their "music" and make a funny video of my friends?
hypocite = sin.
ellen
· 2 years ago
That is soooo excellent, your post. I believe every word you say. I am an artist and I have recently asked two people for their permission to use their photos so that I could paint them. One was an Italian professional photographer and another just a normal guy on flickr. They both were very pleased to have me ask them and that surprised mevery much. The italian guy said that he should be thanking me and that he thought that the idea that a person in italy could shoot a photo that a person in Ireland would turn into a painting was amazing. Both asked to see the finished product and of course I will credit them. Excellent post as I was just reading an article in Vanity Fair about Prince. Clever and daring guy.
Paul Jacobson
· 2 years ago
Hey Robert
You are on the money with a Creative Commons license and we would be more than happy to chat to you about applying a Creative Commons license to your content. The new CC+ and CC0 protocols are really interesting extensions to CC licenses which open up some really interesting possibilities on both sides of the commercial fence.
It would be fantastic to see your content released under a CC license because it could be a case study on how to contribute meaningfully to the community and still make for a sustainable business.
StMarc
· 2 years ago
Photography is Lane's career, because if she doesn't sell photos, she doesn't *eat.*
When making money with your photography is what stands between you and living under a bridge, you can talk about your photography "career" and how you have any right whatsoever to have your opinion taken seriously. (You always have the right to speak, but that right does not inherently include the right to be listened to.)
Until then, go preach to the converted and stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.
M
LookingForFreebies
· 1 year ago
It is Christmas day and you still have have a copyright notice on your blog and flickr stream.
What happened to the hippie dippy feelings of giving away your content?
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
LookingForFreebies: I've tried to change my Flickr, and it won't do it for some reason. Also, there's no setting for "PublicDomain."
As for my blog here, I own the copyright and this post gives it away. Any lawyer worth his salt will be able to block me with this post from collecting anything on my copyright.
Jesse
· 1 year ago
It's all fun and games until a competitor steals one of your images and uses it on their delivery truck:
All Comments
Now if only the recording industry could see it that way!
Evrybdy is talking about scrolling adsense. So why dont you do it and put it on techmeme ?
Suppose everyone steals your content and no one links back. There is no "magical stuff" that can happen to you. They steal it and cut you out of it. That's what happens.
Otherwise, your point is well said. It's the free market of ideas and the best is rewarded.
The thing I'd like you to consider Robert are the physics and mechanics of this way of thinking. In a snapshot, it seems lovely. And, in a way, it really is, just like some of the photos you've taken.
But if you leave the lens open and take the long shot, you'll find something that resembles the arc of a pendulum. So because you had some fun and interesting success, you promote the idea of giving away your content (nice Henny Youngman reference, by the way). Then everyone starts doing it and, soon enough, either you or a compatriot are touting the opposite idea of somehow repackaging content, or renting it out, or some other such thing.
It's just a big back and forth... when you see it once, you'll then be able to see it all the time such as this eye trick here, "Sam to Mission Control: We've Got a Problem Here". For the first 5 minutes, I couldn't "reverse" the illusion and swore that it was either a practical joke someone was playing on the public or that everyone who said they "saw it" was out of their minds.
Once I saw it, I spent like the next half hour going back to the thing and playing with my ability to "alter my perception" as if it were a new toy. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about the law of the pendulum. Reporting on these little snippets of seemingly new and interesting experience are, as in quantum physics, one thing when we see them as a snapshot, or as a "particle"; but it turns out that they are quite something else when we step back and view them as a wave through time.
And that is where exists our locus of control - in going from being a "disposable" snapshot machine to a more advanced, sleeker evolution that can keep its lens open for a while and record a more accurate representation of what's happening, as it happens across time.
Btw, I just realized that I apparently took that gif of the rotating woman without knowing whose it was. So it's not that your discussion has no merit - it could just use a dash of time exposure to make it more complete.
Best regards,
Sam
Many photos of Leweb3 are used without respecting their CC licence. That cannot be a good thing.
Lane Hartwell's home page now has no photos showing, just 'x' placeholders, and for a photographer that looks awful.
People will re-use content any way they choose, we're in a new digital world.
Additionally, when they are photographing public figures or people in the news, they do so regardless of whether those people gave permission or even want to be photographed at that moment.
In other words, Photographers are making a living directly off of others who are getting no compensation directly from them.
It's my brand!
This is also the future of DRM, although it will be a messy road to get there.
I've been struggling with this very aspect recently and have started to upload lesser resolution images to Flickr - but then of course you are perhaps taking something away from people legitimatly viewing the photos of flickr. I'm happy for people to take my stuff if they link back to it - but I'm sure there are some out there who simply take and never ask, then perhaps even try to sell.
Still a subject I'm not 100% sure about tho ..
Nige
However, i think we're poised on the brink of a business revolution where sharing (value/info/content/networking) becomes a more standard and respected model.
As far as "everyone stealing your content" goes, I think that establishing strong relationships across various networks kinda helps put the kibosh on this. People will stand up for friends and colleagues and shun those who steal content without adding value or enhancing relationships.
Does this make sense to you?
The new business paradigm is far more relationship-driven, so if you poop where you eat, you're screwed and people will hold your feet to the fire - eventually!
I think if someone does steal your content and somehow manages to sell it for a very high amount of money you could probably sue them if you have proof that the original content is yours. Other than that I completely agree with this article... the more your stuff is seen, the better off you are.
2. If you give permission it's no longer unauthorized.
I do agree with some of the commenters that whether you want to give permission depends on the context. If people are coming to you for content, you may want to freely allow copying -- with credit -- to help build your brand. People are paying you with credits. If people are coming to the content, not to you, then the brand is less important and copies (esp. without credit) are worse for you. If your brand is already very strong then the added brand value may be small and you may not want copying. And finally, some people aren't doing things for a living and don't care, so they may allow copies.
I do think copyright laws in general favor the well known brands too much but I think there are cases in which you don't want to freely give permission to copy. Creative Commons has several options because a single approach isn't right for everyone.
http://www.whatshottoday.com
However, like @ monkeyleader, I would be interested in hearing what financial restrictions you would place on your content for those making money off of your content.
My assumption is that you're cool with people using your content with credit, as long as they are not making big bucks off of your content. You'll probably place various commercial restrictions on your content to prevent large commercial enterprises from monetizing your content.
BTW - I think getting people to know about Creative Commons is really awesome. For photo credit, on our corporate blog, we point to the person and their creative common license. It's small, but we want to educate our users about the different creative commons licenses. Many people think that all Creative Commons licenses are the same.
On the brighter side, if you do allow your content to travel, this can reap benefits because people who are serious about getting the best options, will return to the original source for expertise. So, if you use your blog as a means of getting business, then sharing aids the viral marketing process, creating opportunities for "the magic" to happen. Like everything else there's the pros and cons.
(I think any of us who create digital bits should be able to choose, in all our variegated wonder, how others can use what we've created.)
jd
I'd rather focus on making new art than getting all bitchy when someone uses my art to create something cool.
More here: http://thomashawk.com/2007/12/is-world-better-o...
After all, we gave Only-Dreemin such a hard time for doing it to Rebekka, we should keep that same attitude for anyone else.
Photographers who pursue formal education, buy expensive gear, have to transport themselves and/or subscribe to services have to support that with income. These things are NOT free. Our laws recognize photography as property and if there is demand for that work it carries value. Independent photographers are bound to the reality of having to develop a business model and live by it. Few people can survive on thanks, web links and adding "to the human experience" alone the necessities of life cost money.
As for Lane and how she'll put her work out there in the future... I've talked to her extensively about this and change is in the air. Photography to be sold or licensed needs to be seen and to do that with out problems like this arising requires the right tool. She'll get there, but that's hardly the issue and for her to speak to.
A while back a gallery in Israel was selling Thomas Hauk (they misspelled my name) prints of my photos without authorization. This was not done to in any way contribute to the artistic landscape but was being done for the pure motive of profiting off of my art. This to me is quite different than the use that I'm advocating.
But I, like you, believe in the karmic universe, in which what you put out comes back to you. I've never been burned, to any great degree, and I've benefitted mightily.
When you take yourself off sites and don't participate in a community, it's almost impossible to market yourself. Everyone will figure that out. We're in a transition.
Jim, I'm as passionate about my photography as any of these individuals. In most cases I've spent more hours, created more imagery, and devoted more of my time, energy and emotional effort to my art than most of these so called Professionals. I've also sold my work professionally and been published in many places.
I do have a day job because I have four kids that need to have a house to live in, food on the table, and college funds to be funded. Yet still I put in countless hours every single week towards my photography. I shoot every single day and have built up a collection of online imagery of almost 18,000 images. These images all were taken with care and processed with considerable effort.
It's my choice to work as hard as I do at managing a day job, Zooomr, my photography and my family.
I have known many many struggling artists who have to take day jobs to continue their work. I have known artists who are waiters and bartenders and office workers and whatever and yet they still have found the deep commitment inside themselves to produce their art.
The fact remains that shutting down projects like The Richter Scales does absolutely *nothing* to put more money in the pockets of artists. It simply removes one more creative production out of the collection consciousness. No artists win or are better off or are richer by the absence of this creative effort.
Have you ever seen a really great photograph in a magazine or a newspaper? Do you remember who took it? Most people probably wouldn't, which is why giving away photographs for free isn't worth most pros time anymore -- it generally doesn't lead to more exposure. In the web world, you can argue that it gives you more links, and there's definitely some merit there, especially if that's your prime point of contact. But CC licensing is ignored by most people. Here's the article I wrote, and it has some audio from one of the heads of the CC organization.
PS: We didn't run the headline ... sandbagged it so noone accuses us of stealing ! :)
The Richter Scales are a commercial entity and sell CDs and get paid for doing shows. Their video was promotion and tied people back to their site to make purchases. They chose to give the song away for free but the intent was to create a low cost ad to raise awareness and possibly boost sales or get more gigs. They didn't put the video out to benefit a magical community or "collective consciousness" that you paint of artisans. The fact that it is gone from YouTube for the time being isn't a detriment to anyone. No one is losing their life and our individual way of life isn't being undermined. Wierd Al Yankovic is a great example of how musical spoofs have succeeded in the past. There's no problem with his spoofs because he gets permission, licenses work and creates good will with the artists that he mocks. The Richter Scales chose to cut corners and not credit photographers or seek permission. Our world hasn't turned upside down as of late where permission is no longer the courteous thing to do whether the content is being acquired for free or not.
One thing would have been certain if the Richter Scales had approached Lane for permission is that one artist would have been paid. Lane nor other individual photographers are doing what they are doing with the first priority of supporting a "collective consciousness". To be a photographer you deal with a lot of competition and you have to pay the bills. A photographer has to put themselves first to survive. The "collective consciousness" is an after thought and frankly a virtual development. Pop culture has thrived in the current copyright model and the ability of popular culture to survive isn't in jeopardy if photographers don't agree to give their work away for free.
Artists-true artists, no matter the medium have been beaten down way too long and treated like second-class citizens. Artists help create so much beauty in this world, and intelligent people should be doing all they can to help strengthen revenue streams to help artists. If someone is benefiting from your image, why shouldn't you be compensated for it? By giving everything away only means the owner places no value in what they do. Just because people can snap some photos and give their rights away doesn't mean it's a good idea. Robert, the next time you talk to a CEO, ask them about giving all their software away for free. Tell them that "The Magical Stuff Will Start Happen"
If you want to add to the human experience, how about standing up for artists rights and proper compensation instead of encouraging thievery? You're forgetting that overexposure isn't a good thing for personalities or images...
Dear god.
It's zen-like. Forward thinking Scoble.
Steal your content? You can say that, when you have nothing worth even making the effort to steal. I suppose I could DVD archive Scoble Show's and sell them, keeping all profits, but somehow I don't think it'd be a bestseller, nor even worth the time.
The best solution I can think of is to use flash galleries (which a lot of professionals do) hosted on their own sites. I can still take screenshots of that though.
What confounds me are people's expectations. You put it out for the public and you're surprised?
The difference between you and Lane is Lane is a professional photographer with talent and you're some buffoon that bought $5g of photog equipment and thinks that's all it takes to take a great image.
"Credit" in the google economy means links, plain and simple. A big improvement would be to make sure that everyone can 1) have visibility into where their content is copied and 2) for those less interested in direct monetization, ensure that link credit is given back or 3) for those whose income depends on direct monetization, offer a license for payment
more thoughts on this topic here http://attributor.com/blog/?p=26
the positive attitude, optimistic and hopeful mindset, and now i have your permission to steal some of your stuff
NIIIIIIIIICE
"© Copyright 2007 Robert Scoble"
You should really change that if you seriously believe the BS you have written.
John
Also, you say:
"I’ve found that the more I give away my content, the more magical stuff happens"
Clearly the old adage ("Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.") is meaningless to you. Do you really believe you are so wise? If so, I double dare you. No. I triple dog dare you to make all of your photographs give-a-away boobie prizes. I have given away content for free and it rarely, if ever brings more exposure. I'm not saying you are a bad photographer, but people expect things for free, maybe more now than ever.
Finally, you say:
"...today I have a little less competition from Lane, who was a great photographer but who’s work will be hard to discover now."
You must admit -- some of what you say is a bit conceited. Will it really be harder to discover? Maintaining image control is vital to some customers. But then, maybe Jay Z was wrong about all that licensing stuff. How much money does he have now? Oh nevermind...
Lane is a fantastic photographer who has clearly documented her abilities and has a proven track record. If this were a competition, and maybe it is, I wouldn't get too far ahead of your new photography career with this spin. Owning a 5D does not make one a great, or even good, photographer all buy itself. And selling a few image trinkets here and there, while bad mouthing another fully professional photographer, is hardly putting yourself in some glowing spotlight. Rather, what you have seemed to achieve is an article that brings you to light in the mythical land of Internet famedom. Congratulations.
Oh, and by the way, do tell me when you make your content free for the taking and when it brings you the riches. I'm waiting....
What's interesting is that Lane (the photographer) is credited at the top and at the bottom of the article as the photographer (it says "Continue reading for more photos from the party by Lane Hartwell." and "All photos by Lane Hartwell.") and very her name is hyperlinked in both cases to her website. On the front page of her website at the bottom is a link to her email address. Her email is just as easy to find as the photograph.
From viewing that picture, in just TWO mouse clicks I could be typing an email to ask permission to use that photograph in my upcoming music video parody...
It's theft AND it's lazy too! Maybe the real bubble that's bursting is people ability to give a damm about other peoples rights and feelings. Richter Scales are quite clearly in the wrong and no amount of "oh but it's on the internet so it's ok really" talk will change that fact.
Finally, I really don't want this to come across as a personal dig, but having actually looked at your photostream, I would posit that you sold a couple of photos in that situation more because you are Robert Scoble, than the fact that they are good photographs. You undervalue the weight of your name.
I mean, I just wanted to check before I do that, as I would hate to spend all the time it would involve only to have a lawsuit land on my desk. I mean, I will leave in the title page thats says you wrote it...
Also is Shel ok with this?
Unless you want to beat me to it and offer the book as a free downloadable PDF - ala Radiohead...
I find the negative attitude towards this disturbing. Is it so strange that a content creator ask for their work to not be used without permission? If you want to give it away, fine. CC is good for that. But don't dismiss someone because they choose to do something different for their own reasons.
Also, you might talk to Cory Doctorow. His books are free and, yet, his books are best sellers.
Weird how this "stealing" thing works.
However, I agree with what others have been saying, people take posts from my blogs and make money off of them. I'm a mom with 4 little mouthes to feed and I find it obnoxious that something I put time and energy into is putting green in someone's pocket and it's not mine.
I respect you a lot Robert, so I'll cross my fingers that something magical happens to me soon.
I am waiting for the day you make one post that does not mention money or food.
The idea that the word "art" is even uttered on your blog is hilarious. explain why my photo of Ronald Reagan is hanging in Silicon Valley’s Republican Headquarters... OMGZWTFBBQLOLicopter!!! you never fail to amaze and dazzle.
I just stole your content.
And improved it.
And improved its comments.
Feel free to build upon my contribution.
You're welcome,
Jonathon
"One thing would have been certain if the Richter Scales had approached Lane for permission is that one artist would have been paid."
That is definitely NOT certain... the Richter Scales most likely would have found one of many other photos who's photographer didn't have a stick up her ass...
"In music you have the “Weekend Warriors” who will work for next-to-nothing and like it. Would other “Professionals” do that ?"
Where there's muck there's brass. Usually fun jobs don't pay as well as un-fun jobs, for good reason.
(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/06....)
Robert Scoble" from the sidebar and from your photos on Flickr. It's beginning to look like this post was just a plea for attention. Or am I wrong?
You need to educate yourself; you are clearly showing your ignorance of your new profession: photography. Business isn't "magic". If you produce a product you don't give it away for free and expect to earn a living from it. [see Hollywood writer's strike) Remember the '90's internet "burn rate" for investment dollars? It seems you're a little late on the learning curve.
Please educate yourself on our copyright laws, the reasons it was created, it's importance to the lively hood of those it protects and why, if it's not upheld, our society would be damaged.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_...
Or perhaps not, I hear the Toyota dealership down the street is giving away Camrys because magical things are happening over at corporate.
I could be naive, though. The author (and his landlord, phone company, bank, hospitals, etc.) may traffic purely in "attention," thus removing the need for money altogether.
or, would it be okay for me to take their "music" and make a funny video of my friends?
hypocite = sin.
You are on the money with a Creative Commons license and we would be more than happy to chat to you about applying a Creative Commons license to your content. The new CC+ and CC0 protocols are really interesting extensions to CC licenses which open up some really interesting possibilities on both sides of the commercial fence.
It would be fantastic to see your content released under a CC license because it could be a case study on how to contribute meaningfully to the community and still make for a sustainable business.
When making money with your photography is what stands between you and living under a bridge, you can talk about your photography "career" and how you have any right whatsoever to have your opinion taken seriously. (You always have the right to speak, but that right does not inherently include the right to be listened to.)
Until then, go preach to the converted and stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.
M
What happened to the hippie dippy feelings of giving away your content?
As for my blog here, I own the copyright and this post gives it away. Any lawyer worth his salt will be able to block me with this post from collecting anything on my copyright.
http://projects.jesseheap.com/stolen-cake-photo...