There are many confusing copyright items on the Internet these days. Some offer to “help” photographers, like the Creative Commons (CC).  Our plain English interpretation of which can be simplified as:  take your copyright, let anyone use the work, and maybe we will magnanimously give you pennies in return. They keep the dollars, if any.

They are a “non-profit” organization but that’s a tax designation, not necessarily a business philosophy.  Do not automatically perceive them as somehow benevolent. “Non-profits” generate tons of cash that are used to pay big salaries and perks.  Rather recall Burt Lancaster as the huckster in the movie The Rainmaker, or as the fake evangelist in Elmer Gantry or almost any role played by George Clooney.  They sound so sweet, smooth, so logical, as they pat you on the back with one hand and pick your pocket with the other.  Why, they’re doing you a big favor taking your money (copyright) and giving it away.   Note that there’s nothing illegal about it.  They are quite open in what they are offering to do “for you”.

But their slick sales pitch can be confusing to artists. And photographers and artists are easy marks for these sales pitches, because they hate and are scared to death to think that they might miss out on selling or licensing their work. Even if “selling” their work brings in a loss rather than profit. After all a sale is a sale, even if it costs you money. That attitude is the blood that sharks smell in the water from miles away.

We think that most artists are missing a gene in their DNA that prevents them from saying “no” to a bad deal or thinking that someone may actually have bad intentions when dealing with them and their work. People missing that gene seem to always find those that possess the “steal you blind with a smile on their face” gene.

Which brings us to this quote, which was brought to our attention by a reader. It was posted on another website, that had some good information overall regarding what to do when you’re work is infringed but also contained this stinker: “When you don’t want to alienate the infringer (the infringer is a potential client and/or appears to be an innocent infringer)” .

When you don’t want to alienate the infringer??!!?? Potential client???!!??
Trust us, an infringer is not someone you want to do business with at any point. Why would you? Think about it. Photographers and artists are so scared to “leave money on the table” that they are willing to try and do business with a thief.  Not a good business plan unless you like to pay bankruptcy lawyers. But we hear of photographers engaging in this suicidal activity over and over.  Remember gang they do have laws against this stuff!

This is how Jack’s views this utterly illogical concept-

So someone breaks into my house and steals my stereo. I hear the thief, and go downstairs.  Do I:

A) Ask myself if I really want to offend him, because maybe he might want to hire me to photograph stuff? Or

B) Ask him to please, pretty please, place my name is on the side of the stereo so at least everyone who sees it knows it’s my stereo. Maybe they want to hire me. (Or steal more stuff. Advertising works). Or

C) Do nothing because, it’s just too much trouble. It’s only a top of the line stereo. I’ll hock the car and buy another one. Or

D) Decide that I’d never want to see this scumbucket ever again breathing, as he broke into my house, stole from me, and I now have a bat in my hands that will make a pleasant sound to my ears as I play “wack-a-mole” with his head.

9 out of 10 photographers will pick A, B, or C with most picking “A”. Don’t laugh.  It is nothing short of pathetic.  Jack picks D.  “D” paid for both his country house and ecologically correct Prius. Those that pick A, B, or C are both consenting to work for less than minimum wage while assisting third parties to live better than they deserve.

Why do photographers try to placate and “not alienate” or antagonize someone who steals from them? There are some rare exceptions – like if you live in a small town and it’s really someone locally who really doesn’t understand copyright. In that case, you have to educate them, but in a manner somewhat more gentle than with a Louisville Slugger. But some corporate scumbuckets, who do know better, get an attitude when you call and they do deserve the bat. Understand that a baseball bat is just a metaphor Jack likes to use.  To him it represents calling Ed in and having him handle the infringer. In reality, if given a choice, Jack thinks the infringers would pick the bat over Ed, but that’s Jack’s opinion.  You are best off selecting your own bat (lawyer) and keeping him/her in the “bat rack” a/k/a speed dial.  Use as directed when the appropriate occasion presents itself.

Jack and Ed