|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2010 09:38:04 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/07/2010 08:35:34 AM · #2 |
as with anything, moderation makes the most sense. you also can't paint all images with the same brush; what might make sense for those in the stock image trade might not hold true for those shooting events or sports.
it is true that you can't just partially protect your images. it makes no sense to watermark them if you aren't going to register them with the copyright office.
i also think the logic of 'yes, thieves will steal, but they aren't going to be your paying customers, anyways' is a bit convoluted; unless you are going to track down and prosecute the thieves, no one has any incentive to pay. oh, unless they are going to pay because it's the right thing to do?
there is a difference between sharing and using. it's one thing to have an image 'go viral' because people like it so much they can't stop sharing it. it's a whole other thing when someone sees it, likes it, and uses it (whether as a personal print or a background image on their website or...offers it for sale!).
if you do not to make efforts to protect your work, then you are simply saying you do not value your work. |
|
|
|
09/07/2010 08:47:57 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Skip:
if you do not to make efforts to protect your work, then you are simply saying you do not value your work. |
That's right !
Look at all those open-source morons who give programs for free. People said 20 years ago that they would die soon. We will never be so close to their death than now.
All those programs are useless : Firefox, Linux, Gimp, InkScape, VLC ... and (lol) Open Office.
... if I'm wrong, it means that sharing stuff is as valuable as selling stuff. And this is communism !!! |
|
|
|
09/07/2010 06:18:34 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by keyz:
Originally posted by Skip:
if you do not to make efforts to protect your work, then you are simply saying you do not value your work. |
That's right !
Look at all those open-source morons who give programs for free. People said 20 years ago that they would die soon. We will never be so close to their death than now.
All those programs are useless : Firefox, Linux, Gimp, InkScape, VLC ... and (lol) Open Office.
... if I'm wrong, it means that sharing stuff is as valuable as selling stuff. And this is communism !!! |
get a grip. read my whole post before selectively grabbing a part and spewing the hyperbole. open source succeeds because it is protected by licensing that spells out what you can and cannot due. there are plenty of creative commons licenses available for artists to both share and protect their work. given such, any individual can decide how much they want to share, how much they want to give, and how much they want to charge. if you have no intention of assigning commercial value to any works you create, that is your choice. however, if someone else decides they don't want to give their creations away, that doesn't mean that others should be free to take those creations without regards to the property rights of their owners. |
|
|
|
09/08/2010 06:59:40 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Skip:
[quote=keyz] [quote=Skip] open source succeeds because it is protected by licensing that spells out what you can and cannot due. |
qmail and djbdns (second only to the copywrited BIND DNS server in usage, at one point if not currently).
SQLite which is has become increasingly popular for end-user application datastores, including in the aforementioned FireFox.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee released the very first web browser as public domain (non-protected) software spawning the creation of the World Wide Web.
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
Benjamin Franklin was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the Franklin stove, bifocals and the lightning rod to the public domain. |
(ESR and Bruce Perens weigh-in on public domian being open source: //news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9881858-39.html)
Back on topic, I think point 4 might be the one most salient--although this obviously varies depending upon what you try to market yourself as. If someone's looking to spend money, they aren't going to steal your photo. If they're going to "steal" your photo (infringe on your copyright), they probably won't spend money on your photo (and would grab the next thing they see). Unlike shrinkage in the retail industry, one person who wouldn't buy your product digitally copying it won't affect your margins at the end of the year. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:34:45 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:34:45 AM EDT.
|
