"The lawless Internet has changed all the rules."
Even "nice" people copy everything. They download all the movies and TV shows. The upload to YouTube and maybe even say "I don't own copyright, I just like this." And YouTube (owned by Google) is ok with that.
At one time, you could hardly even xerox a page in a library without worrying if you'd get thrown out.
Now, everybody copies everything. Yes, you have the professional plagiarists like NEWSER, and other websites that simply copy and re-write what they see on REAL news sites. You have forums and torrents, and bloggers (Google owns Blogspot, the worst offender) who figure they're entitled to ANYTHING on the Net. "Copyright is copy WRONG."
You think my name on this photo of Brother Theodore even gets me a photo credit? Nope. People routinely Photoshop the photo credits off. They either want to pretend THEY own the image, or they don't want to blatantly be caught using somebody else's photo without permission.
What do I do, "watermark" the photo, and put a transparent COPYRIGHT RONALD L. SMITH over Theodore's face?
Do I add: "DON'T COPY?"
Back in the late 80's, before there WAS an Internet, my friend Theodore was using a publicity photo from the 50's. We decided he should have a new publicity photo.
We went down to the 13th Street Theater, where he performed his Saturday night one-man show, and I used his lighting set-up for a few rolls of color and black and white. I rented a darkroom and printed out a dozen or two 8x10's for him to choose from.
At this point, you can find them all over the Internet, almost always WITHOUT a photo credit.
Bootleggers have used the above image to sell CDs on obscure websites.
A 70 minute documentary about Theodore, produced by a first-timer from South Carolina named Jeff Sumerel, uses my uncredited photo on IMDB.
Google "Brother Theodore" and you'll see quite a few of my photos being used all over the place. Uncredited.
As with music bootleggers, who write "if you like it, buy it" some sites say in small letters, "image may be copyrighted." As if I'm going to track down some asshole and sue. "What are your damages?"
Generally it isn't worth a lawyer's time and Internet weasels aren't easy to dig out of their holes.
Google DOES have the "face recognition technology" to block images on their search engine and on their notorious BLOGS and YOUTUBE. They COULD siphon off ten cents or fifty cents or a few bucks from somebody's G-PAY account for usage. As in: "Pay up or we block the image."
On YOUTUBE their sensors actually do detect the use of Warner Bros. movie clips or various songs, and tell the uploader, "your upload has been blocked" or, "your upload stays but YOU don't get monetization, the copyright owner does."
How about that happening with photos?
Yeah, how about that. It won't happen because photographers have no union. They have no lobbyists. At best, there are a few photo agencies, such as Getty, that are badly run, don't encourage submissions, and are, like the RIAA and the rest, making enough without rocking the boat on behalf of the mere FOOLS who supply them with material.
While Theodore was around, payment was certainly not important to me. Any magazine or newspaper that wanted to use one of my pictures was free to...get it FREE. The important thing was publicity for my good friend. Now? It would be nice if my images were ONLY being used in non-commercial ways, and by people who asked. But that's not how the Internet works.
As Theodore used to say, "In this best of all possible worlds...everything is in a hell of a mess."
No comments:
Post a Comment