word

Does the large Amazon banner at the bottom of this page combined with photographs from Flickr members in the side panel not enter the same territory, just on a smaller scale?

Yes, you could attempt to make that argument. La Pura Vida has never made one cent from the Amazon affiliate links and in fact I removed the sidebar awhile go and didn't realize the banner on the bottom was still there.

However, do you see any sort of Terms of Service on this blog? And when you click on the photographs, where do you go? Right back to the source of the work.

Right, it's a moot point if the Amazon banner was just an oversight. Best to make sure your own house is in order before throwing stones :)

BTW, I don't see why LPV shouldn't try to monetize the site for the effort involved and to fund future projects, exhibitions, etc. as long as the participants are aware of this at the submission stage on Flickr or wherever else submissions are accepted.

And don't forget that Facebook also have a little checkbox in their 'privacy' settings, which (if it's checked) lets them use photographs from your account, to target your friends, with other people's ads. 'Social Ads' I think they're called.

How long before a Bruce Gilden photo ends up promoting some shit-heap online photography school? Not that most of my friends would know it's Gilden, but you get the idea.... more making money off the content we provide them with.

When the content isn't your own, it's not right.

This is all very simple - No one has the right to upload photos to facebook or anywhere else, unless they are the copyright holder or if they ask the copyright holder's permission. That's why facebook ASKS if you have the rights. The little check box, right?

But if the photographers don't complain, then nothing happens.

The only legitimate use of images that don't belong to you is on a photography-related blog that is talking abut that specific photographer or photograph. In addition, only if they're writing an original article about it. If a blog is re-posting someone else's written content with accompanying photos, again, without permission, it's infringement.

But when is a copyright holder going to complain?

Caveat: I read American Subrub X and enjoy it very much.

In fact whenever you upload something to Facebook asks if you have the rights to the image in question. So even before reading the T+C of Facebook, theres a warning there.

About this topic I'm a bit ambivalent, I believe in the distribution of knowledge, and there is examples when the opposite of what we are discussing here is even worse.

Here in mexico theres a society of rights management integrated by the main record labels. They are charging restaurants, public transportations (buses, cabs, etc), hotels and commercial venues a fee for the music being played in this places. Even if its from broadcasted radio stations, wich I find a bit disturbing. This places are doing money with people going to consume or use their services so the logic behind this societies is: They are doing money with an environment where theres our music so we should charge a fee.

Sounds like an overkill doesn't it. In fact this example is very similar to ASX and Facebook.

But I also understand why photographers living from their work would be worried. Having ads on a blog is sufficient to make it a commercial blog. Judging against traditional business plan sounds like it, but we are against new media. There are some tumblr users out there like me that put photographs, quotes and abstracts of other blogs and sites, it's a scrapbook, photocopies from other places. But remember than photocopying books sometime was considered or it's still considered a breach on copyright even if it was for studying (non comercial use right).

The whole thing with copyright, fair use, licensing it's a thing that most people like myself doesn't know for sure and we were'nt educated on that.

Still I find ASX uploading to Facebook a bad move, I think they are shooting themselves on the foot. The whole thing I've said before was more for blogs and the such. And my whole point is that there's this new thing that has to be discussed, legislated or whatever.

I like the fact that you’re a purist Bryan, it teases out the issues better that way, makes them look so black and white, but if you wanted to be a purist about blogs then no advert should be possible on a blog, not even the ‘powered by Wordpress link’.

Having that link there make’s it clear that you can’t build your own blogging software, so Wordpress gives it to you at a reduced cost or no cost, so you create content on their software that promotes their name and ultimately increases their market share. Why else would you get this tremendous software essentially for free?

So, on a much smaller scale you are no different than the face-book example, difference being links to published work verses uploading published work. Constructively you're accomlishing the same thing on a much smaller scale, but still constructively impure of you and as a ‘purest’ and this makes you constructively ‘hypocritical’. ;-)

But I totally agree with your cause Bryan, and I didn’t come here to tease you, I came here to suggest god is dead, and now maybe age of copyright is on the verge of a quantum shift of life, if not a total phoenix situation.

You see I don’t think Copyright is An Immutable Law; I think copyright is a device to support a set of immutable economic and evolutionary ‘drives’, for example:

Humans Seek to Maximise – Humans, with a few exceptions, will seek to maximise the benefit they can get for a given cost.

Copyrights exist to protect the benefit-side of the cost/benefit decision, without confidence in the benefit; the outlay of cost is unappealing. If you take the ‘absence’ of copyright enforcement to the logical ‘commercial’ conclusion: no longer would there be any commercial motivation to outlay cost since collecting the benefits are now perceived as impossible.

I chose the word ‘perceived’ for a reason as ‘perception’ can be a stronger drive than ‘actuality’ in decision making and enforceable copyright benefits are losing it’s perception of rigour.

I chose ‘commercial motivation’ for a reason as I’m not convinced commercial behaviour is the best driver of the best artistic behaviour and likely why the best artistic photography is self-funded or the product of grants (Alessandra Sanguinetti comes to mind)

But back to copyright, it’s is a concept that works perfectly when applied in a perfect vacuum, in the vacuum it’s elegant and in that vacuum it’s a zero-energy-loss system. Applied outside the vacuum in the real world, it loses more and more energy to the ‘cost’ of application and the exact same drive it means to protect:

Humans Seek to Maximise – Humans, with a few exceptions, will seek to maximise the benefit they can get for a given cost.

The concept in the real-world requires energy to enforce and police, again, here’s that immutable drive again: enforce and police in a cost/beneficial way.

The concept has never been perfect and there has certainly been some battles won by the pirates because the cost of going into undeveloped countries and penalising copyright infringement has not been cost-beneficial, but it’s still done well historically to protect the commercial interest of copyright material producers. But now, I don’t know.

I think the concept of copyright is elegant, it compliments human nature’s need to evolve and get greater benefits with the same or less cost through innovation and invention of copyrighted material, but I think the world has changed for copyrighted material, technology continues to favour the ‘pirate’ over the ‘producer’.

Maybe technology will shift the balance of power back to the producer in the future, but if the music industry are the glaciers of the copyright world then the future seems to be creating a different model, a model to find a way to preserve the appetite for innovation and invention, and still respect the need for human’s to make cost/beneficial decisions, and now, embrace the fact that maybe technology will continue to make it more costly to enforce copyright efforts.

My personal logical conclusion, there must be a different incentive scheme for the producers of copyright material, and it must consider first, the cost of enforcement.

"WordPress is a free and open source blog publishing application and content management system."

There's an enormous difference Joe. When you 'upload' photos you're agreeing to Facebook's 'Terms and Services' and if you don't own the copyright, you have no right to agree to those terms. It even clearly states it:

"1. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law."

While some may see no difference to inline linking, I do. Furthermore, while I may not contact every single individual regarding the work, all the features come from groups where it's been clearly stated that some of the work maybe featured on LPV.

I also clearly state on the Homepage that the 'individual contributors' retain their copyright.

"Copyright © 2009 La Pura Vida and individual contributors."

"I came here to suggest god is dead, and now maybe age of copyright is on the verge of a quantum shift of life, if not a total phoenix situation."

This is fine. If you're going to make that leap, then I hope you're prepared to admit that you believe bloggers and publishers can use copyrighted material anyway they please without the permission of the copyright holders. And further, anyone can use copyrighted material anyway they please and profit from it.

I haven't seen any evidence from the media or publishing industry that any thought leaders are ready to make that leap. But I don't doubt that they are out there, and perhaps you're just way ahead of the times Joe....

Ok, Ok Bryan, you’re correct on the hypocrisy shout, I formally take it back, but I don’t take it back from anyone else that does the same thing as you in the blog world and has a single commercial advert on their blog.

As far as the rights-grab that’s going on with competitions and even face-book, well, I think there’s nothing more sinister and defeating on earth for the photographer, but everyone is in agreement on that.

I do find this sentence you write interesting:

"I also clearly state on the Homepage that the 'individual contributors' retain their copyright."

This is the irony Bryan. The greatest conceptual infringement of images is the publishing of images on a blog, and the blogger has already collected all the benefit they need by embedding them in their blogging framelines, so what good is it for the producers of those images to ‘retain’ copyright?

This is the crux of the issue, Blogs and Web-News are THEE destination now, Print is an extra-stop on the road ahead that most worthy images will never see.

There simply is no after-life for most images, with merit, after the monitor, they will forever live out their commercial benefit as pixels on the monitor. Not a totally bad thing, but with the ability to link and just add a copyright by-line, a totally uncompensated thing for the producer of work that millions might enjoy.

I think images must be the most vulnerable, sought-after copyrighted material on earth, change the model or watch the rants about the futility of the existing model forever more.

I suspect Blogs will come under regulation someday as the newspapers begin to fail, I suspect that technology will provide a better, more widespread compensation model, for example every time an image gets view it send the author a penny, it’s too costly to implement this now, but I suppose the technology curve will make this easier and then Darwin and Greed will come in to make it all fair again.

I'm not claiming to be completely innocent in this battle. I do think endeavors like LPV and other blogs, mags, etc. should make an effort to find a model that compensates content creators. In fact, I'm going to write a follow up post about the rise of the 'editor/filter/curator' and the 'exposure' industry. I don't think it's some heroic act of publishing to be in the business of 'exposing' new photographic talent.

I think the way forward is for content creators to control the publishing their content as well. Magnum is in the process of re-designing their site and I'm fairly certain when it launches it'll probably change industry for the better.

Collectives and artist owned publications is one route I see out of this mess. If I were ever to go down the commercial route with LPV it would be a model that compensates the content creators first, and the editor/filter/creator second.

radiohead and NIN comes to mind, they realized selling records is an almost lost battle against music sharing so they are hanging their business model using a variable that music sharing can't provide, live shows. they still sell records but they've now segmented to their true fan base.

so yes we are living through a paradigm shift where to go I don't know. but content sharing is here and I don't think will go away.

the age of the product has almost faded out we are in the age of the services

Another example, how do you think Radiohead would feel if I uploaded a song to Facebook, agreed to the terms of service, and then Facebook turned around and used the song in a TV commercial? Without paying Radiohead?

yes, as I've stated facebook is a shark I wouldnt upload anything that isn't mine, and even my own stuff I. My remarks were not about facebook itself but more about blogs that might have advertising on it. As I've said I'm not sure what this will end up too and nor if I'm talking nonsense, but it's good to have this discussions.

I'm still unsure about blogs with advertising on them. They are doing money in an indirect way with shared content. But if they are still crediting the ones that they should how much damage are they making. Somehow I still find it similar to the argument in music that every downloaded song is less money for the record companies and the artists. While most of those downloads comes from people that wouldnt even buy a record at all.

But they would certainly have a problem if I were to download their work and then turn around and sell CDs on my website for profit, no?

There's a difference between 'content sharing' and a commercial enterprise. Facebook is a commercial enterprise.

Non-profit blogs are in the business of content sharing.

I would not have a problem with it if he kept it on the blog where there are no ads or Terms of Service. But he's putting this copyrighted material on Facebook which is serving up ads against the content. In essence, they are profiting from the content without paying a dime for it.

It's all about the commercial aspect of Facebook, and Doug using the copyrighted content of others as he sees fit. It's wrong in every way conceivable and the fact that it took this long for anyone to say anything about just shows you how immune photographers are to what's going on with copyright these days.

I could be wrong though, and maybe this is the new model and I just don't see it....

yeah agree on the Facebook thing, they are sharks making profit of free user generated content, forget about the famous photographers but from the millions of pictures and personal information they got.

As Bryan said, Facebook is a media company, and they are looking for free content to sell ads against. Making this decision yourself is one thing, but to make it for someone else is just plain wrong. Magnum doesn't need exposure, they need revenue.

Initially I wasn't overly concerned about the copyright issue. You have to hold copyright to be able to give it to Facebook as I understand it.

Then I thought:

That doesn't mean legal fees wouldn't probably be incurred by photogs trying to get this point across to the behemoth corporation. Might'n those costs mean less well-to-do photogs wouldn't have the resources to legally demand compensation from Facebook if their images were uploaded by someone else? Wouldn't the gamble that only a few would even know Facebook used them and even fewer would have the resources to fight them in court make it worthwhile for Facebook to use them for promotion?

Seems like an awful slippery slope.

Bryan, Ben and Followers,

I had a closer look at the Facebook verbiage and I am going to delete most of the galleries on Facebook, with the exception of those that I work with explicitly and that are comfortable with the FB content verbiage. Until the Facebook ad/usage issues are sorted out, I think that it is the best approach.

Regards,

Doug Rickard

Hi Doug,

Thanks for commenting. I think you're doing the right thing. It's very difficult to gauge what Facebook is doing these days in terms of user generated content. They are having difficulty developing revenue streams and I believe they're trying get around as many copyright issues as possible. For the last year, I know that most photographers have been decidedly against their Terms of Service verbiage. While I completely believe your intent was purely to expose and promote the work of photographers you admire, I think Facebook is not the best platform to do it on.

I think on the blog you have much more leniency in terms of Fair Use.

peace,

Bryan

Guys,

Yes, unfortunately, I think that it takes on a certain layer of complexity when you consider the Facebook legal verbiage and the ad generation that is occurring there. I had seen lately that folks are spending so much time on FB and I hoped to provide a central place on Facebook where people could go to find the photographers work that I feel are making a mark... or have made perhaps even a massive crater in this field. It didn't seem to make sense for people to hop from fan page to fan page to accomplish this... I envisioned a fluid flow through photography's cream of the crop and then from the gallery section, I hoped that they would find their way outward to the photographers work on Amazon and other places...

I suppose that a careful approach is best.

I will work with some key folks to see if they want to participate in the structure that I had envisioned and those that do, can remain. I realize that photojournalism and the photographers in that field are far more sensitive to this usage issue (and rightly so) vs the fine art field who are essentially looking for gallery, print and book sales vs licensing of imagery in the media flow...

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Thanks. Insightful comment. The issues is that Facebook wants people to be spending the majority of their web time on the site. That's their business model right, ATTENTION. And the only way they've been able to monetize that attention is through serving ads. That turns it into a commercial platform. It's kind of shady how they do it.

I think anyone interested and devoted to photography needs to be extremely diligent in how the flow of content is handled, and most importantly, who ultimately is rewarded monetarily from the flow. I know people that have worked at Magnum, and been laid off in the recent downturn. They are struggling to find new revenue streams and I think we need to respect the usage of their content as much as possible, because if Magnum photographers aren't making money, what hope is there for anyone else?

Lastly, none of these issues regarding fair use, copyright, or social networking are unique to photography. Hell, just look around the web right now, it's all a war over the control over the flow of content. We're only entering the first phase of a very ugly war...

peace,

Bryan

I think that's the best course, and keep up the good work at ASX Doug.

you know what? when i saw ASX posting images by other photographers, i had my doubts immediately. i think it's a really dodgy thing to be doing, especially when you look at facebook's t+c's for uploaded media.

"In order for us to use certain types of content and provide you with Facebook, you agree to the following:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it). "

also:

"Protecting Other People's Rights

We respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.

1. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.
2. We can remove any content you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.
3. We will provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more, visit our How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement page.
4. If we removed your content for infringing someone else's copyright, and you believe we removed it by mistake, we will provide you with an opportunity to appeal.
5. If you repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate. "

i was thinking of contacting doug myself too mention this to him. as a photographer, i know if my images were published on facebook without my permission i would be absolutely livid....

I hope you spread the word Ben because I trust your insight (no pun intended) on this matter. It's reassuring to know that you're just as uneasy about it as I am. I think it's wrong and I think it needs to be debated.

If the copyright holders aren't complaining, why rock the boat? While the names that show up in interviews on American Suburb X may be familiar to a few crowds, I would argue the majority of camera-owners do not, so there is a case to be made for exposure. If someone learns about Koudelka on ASX's facebook page and runs out to buy Prague 68 and a bunch of Tri-X it seems like everyone wins.

Like Ben said, I highly doubt the copyright holders are aware of this. Do you actually believe Koudelka and Mary Ellen Mark are reading ASX on Facebook?

The 'exposure' arguments is always made in these situations and it's incredibly weak. Why does he need to upload 50 + photographs to give Koudelka exposure when he can simply link to his work, or the book?

I'm also not a believer in win-win logic. It maybe lost on many people, but keep in mind that Doug is also a photographer and directly links to his portfolio on the blog. The more heat he generates through the blog, the more attention he's likely to draw to his own work.

If you accept Doug's argument, you're basically saying that bloggers and websites have the right to use copyrighted material in any manner they choose as long as it's not a commercial venture. Are you willing to make that leap? What are the consequences?

Well I think it comes down to the difference between a library and a book store. Is Facebook the best place for the content? Probably not, because of the contextual ads. But I don't get the outrage at ASX. Crappy 500px images fall under "fair use" when discussing leading photographers, that's just my opinion. Not everyone has $300 or whatever to cough up for something like Larry Sultan's "Pictures from Home".

doug has uploaded a lot of photography onto facebook from a lot of photographers. i wonder if they all know about this? would they complain if they did know? i know that i would.