1 post tagged “valleywag”
UPDATE: February, 2009
Civil war has been declared and is being waged on YouTube and in the blogocube
For want of a nail the post was lost.
For want of a post the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
All for the want of a freakin photo of Owen Thomas.
All for the want of a freakin photo of Owen Thomas.
UPDATE (Dec. 2008): I found a copy of the video at the center of this controversy. Judge for yourself! (Original music video using a Billy Joel song and various internet images)
- Video (2:45): Here Comes Another Bubble - The Richter Scales (via "antifreeze")
See Also:
Copyright, fair use and the struggle against online image misappropriation (Law Geek)
Nalts Fans the Flames of Online Civil War (Mashable)
- A flashconf on fair use? (Scripting News)
Stopping a Civil War - A Civil War is Brewing (Furrier.org)
Related Post:
- Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)
This post was written in December of 2007, but one year later, the video is still missing from YouTube; copyright and "fair use" of images remains an issue in spite of Lessig's efforts, and those of Creative Commons.
- Let's assume: high-resolution digital media should be licensed, "paid for" and not pirated.
- For lo-fi photos, lo-fi audio, etc. we could make use and re-use "free", "low flat fee" or "attribution only".
There have been successes making things free or very cheap, letting crowds and time do their magic. Then later you make money in sheer volume, in the tell-all book, the director's cut, the audio re-master, or the glossy magazine cover.
Ms. Hartwell should not have needed to yank all her photos; perhaps she could have replaced them with lo-fi versions, her name inside the image frame, and never made public her hi-res collections.
Most people should still use lo-res public galleries so people know where to go if they do want the "good stuff". Unless, of course, you have all the fancy rich clients you need, and don't care whether new people discover you.
The music industry has missed this exact opportunity as well:
(thanks to Alex Lindsay of PixelCorps.tv for providing a crucial piece long ago)
- Very-lo-fi DRM-free audio tracks everywhere
- Two levels of paid-for service: normal (limited hi-fi), or premium all-you-can-eat
- Playlists then make sense, because playlists should always "just work", and be portable
- Missing track is a thing of the past
- Lo-fi track is what happens when you are cheap or are trying before buying.
- General Solution: Make lo-fi versions of most every photo and audio track available, for free or very low cost, and make it easy for "creatives" to pay to license hi-res media, be it one photo, ten seconds of music, etc.
- Benefit: things don't have to be "taken down", just replaced with lo-fi versions where people haven't paid creators or gotten permission.
This could enable a whole bunch of non-commercial activity, and should the Richter Scales start becoming commercial, they'd license the work or get permission, maybe share royalty. If they used the photo out of laziness, and don't care about the fidelity, I think the argument leans toward their side. Maybe there weren't other recent photos of the "new media d***-bag" (Owen Thomas).
One shouldn't find the hi-res media by searching. One shouldn't find lo-res either if one is going to be sued or taken down after the fact. Perhaps this is Wired's fault? The implication is that Ms. Hartwell's snapshot is worth more than the final music video, which I refute. How can we let a lot of hard work and talent go down the (you) tubes because the rules favor accusers, corporations and lawyers and provide no clarity, no recourse, no compromise, no simple legal guidelines for simple artistic goals.
(I should mention here that Ms. Hartwell was very aware of the large number of views they were getting. She may feel robbed, but others may feel extorted)
I think what angers some is that briefly showing a likeness, photo and subject not unusual or artistic, requires a pre-negotiated license. I do not think it reasonable to make a career of selling licenses to use ordinary (in this case) pictures of people that you* have access to and others don't.
That would put you* half-way toward becoming a paparazzo, wouldn't it? A paparazzo who doesn't have to compete and has the cooperation of the "celebrities." These are big celebrities only in their small insular world.
We aren't talking Princess Di and Dodi, fer cryin' out loud!
you* is a "hypothetical" you.
