I found the copyright story particularly harrowing. Especially so because, as photographers we tend to believe in these rights and defend them against those who would steal our intellectual property. It's very hard to balance the new world order of "sharing" in the context of trying to help and promote other photographers and their work, knowing that for the most part it is appreciated when done well. (i.e. Share my photo in the context of how great I am and driving traffic to my website, etc? Great!) But of course, it's their property and they can decide to be as aggressive as they'd care to in defending their rights. I'm sorry this happened to you. It's a reminder of my cynical mantra: no good deed goes unpunished.
I am very protective of copyrights and the rights of photographers in general.
I checked before I used it, but, unfortunately not with the photographer himself. The folks I checked with before starting that series all agreed that it would be editorial.
But it is indeed my fault. The link in the footer could be construed as "commercial use" and it would be a coin toss in the choice of judges who understand the digital media. BTW, even if the photographer, who I have access to, had wanted to not sue me, his contract with the legal eagles forbade him from doing so.
But every experience is a learning experience, and I will be sharing what I learned from this experience with other content providers so they can be kept safe. I want to protect both, creator and user.
I absolutely stand for copyright and against infringement.
However some of these firms are called "copyright trolls" because they are not interested in the infringement, only finding cases where they can get the most money due to it being damned hard to fight. They know that the 'infringer' may have a case, but it costs them nothing to put you through hell, and if they win, they win big.
There are at least a couple of dozen photographers making more money off these sort of infringement cases than they ever made as photographers.
To be sure, you must have your work copyrighted by the US Copyright Office. Common copyright wont be litigated anymore, only those with valid copyright coverage.
I think it is sad that photographers go that route, and I am shocked beyond belief that this particular photographer signed a contract with this type of firm.
But live and learn, and I have learned that sometimes your heroes are jerks.
I may have been too harsh on the photographer. I don't know whether they thought this was a good way to protect their copyrights, or if they didn't care what a scam those lawyers were running.
I found the copyright story particularly harrowing. Especially so because, as photographers we tend to believe in these rights and defend them against those who would steal our intellectual property. It's very hard to balance the new world order of "sharing" in the context of trying to help and promote other photographers and their work, knowing that for the most part it is appreciated when done well. (i.e. Share my photo in the context of how great I am and driving traffic to my website, etc? Great!) But of course, it's their property and they can decide to be as aggressive as they'd care to in defending their rights. I'm sorry this happened to you. It's a reminder of my cynical mantra: no good deed goes unpunished.
Oh yeah, I know what you mean.
I am very protective of copyrights and the rights of photographers in general.
I checked before I used it, but, unfortunately not with the photographer himself. The folks I checked with before starting that series all agreed that it would be editorial.
But it is indeed my fault. The link in the footer could be construed as "commercial use" and it would be a coin toss in the choice of judges who understand the digital media. BTW, even if the photographer, who I have access to, had wanted to not sue me, his contract with the legal eagles forbade him from doing so.
But every experience is a learning experience, and I will be sharing what I learned from this experience with other content providers so they can be kept safe. I want to protect both, creator and user.
Sounds like that photographer is an asshole. The lawyers too, of course, but that goes without saying.
I absolutely stand for copyright and against infringement.
However some of these firms are called "copyright trolls" because they are not interested in the infringement, only finding cases where they can get the most money due to it being damned hard to fight. They know that the 'infringer' may have a case, but it costs them nothing to put you through hell, and if they win, they win big.
There are at least a couple of dozen photographers making more money off these sort of infringement cases than they ever made as photographers.
To be sure, you must have your work copyrighted by the US Copyright Office. Common copyright wont be litigated anymore, only those with valid copyright coverage.
I think it is sad that photographers go that route, and I am shocked beyond belief that this particular photographer signed a contract with this type of firm.
But live and learn, and I have learned that sometimes your heroes are jerks.
I may have been too harsh on the photographer. I don't know whether they thought this was a good way to protect their copyrights, or if they didn't care what a scam those lawyers were running.
Perhaps a bit of both.
I can only think he was protecting his work and not really understanding how they go about it.
Hola , El Dinero Siempre Será Un Mal Endémico , Al Igual Que Los Abogados Corruptos. Un Saludo Y Feliz Navidad Y Próspero Año Nuevo 2024.