{"id":438,"date":"2010-07-04T19:16:30","date_gmt":"2010-07-04T23:16:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/?p=438"},"modified":"2010-07-06T14:47:09","modified_gmt":"2010-07-06T18:47:09","slug":"is-you-a-photographer-or-is-you-a-mouse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/?p=438","title":{"rendered":"Is You a Photographer or is You a Mouse?"},"content":{"rendered":"

There are many confusing copyright items on the Internet these days. Some offer to \u201chelp\u201d photographers, like the Creative Commons (CC).\u00a0 Our plain English interpretation of which can be simplified as: \u00a0take your copyright, let anyone use the work, and maybe we will magnanimously give you pennies<\/em> in return. They keep the dollars<\/em>, if any.<\/p>\n

They are a \u201cnon-profit\u201d organization but that\u2019s a tax designation, not necessarily a business philosophy. \u00a0Do not automatically perceive them as somehow benevolent. \u201cNon-profits\u201d generate tons of cash that are used to pay big salaries and perks. \u00a0Rather recall Burt Lancaster as the huckster in the movie The Rainmaker,<\/em> or as the fake evangelist in Elmer Gantry or\u00a0almost any role played by George Clooney.\u00a0 They sound so sweet, smooth, so logical, as they pat you on the back with one hand and pick your pocket with the other. \u00a0Why, they\u2019re doing you a big favor taking your money (copyright) and giving it away. \u00a0 Note that there\u2019s nothing illegal about it.\u00a0 They are quite open in what they are offering to do \u201cfor you\u201d.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cselling\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

We think that most artists are missing a gene in their DNA that prevents them from saying \u201cno\u201d 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 \u201csteal you blind with a smile on their face\u201d gene.<\/p>\n

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\u2019re work is infringed but also contained this stinker: \u201cWhen you don\u2019t want to alienate the infringer (the infringer is a potential client and\/or appears to be an innocent infringer)\u201d .<\/p>\n

When you don\u2019t want to alienate<\/em> the infringer??!!?? Potential client<\/em>???!!??
\nTrust 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 \u201cleave money on the table\u201d that\u00a0they are willing to try and do business with a thief. \u00a0Not a good business plan unless you like to pay bankruptcy lawyers. But we hear of photographers engaging in this suicidal activity over and over.\u00a0 Remember gang they do have laws against this stuff!<\/p>\n

This is how Jack\u2019s views this utterly illogical concept-<\/p>\n

So someone breaks into my house and steals my stereo. I hear the thief, and go downstairs. \u00a0Do I:<\/p>\n

A)<\/strong> Ask myself if I really want to offend him, because maybe he might want to hire me to photograph stuff? Or<\/p>\n

B)<\/strong> 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\u2019s my stereo. Maybe they want to hire me. (Or steal more stuff. Advertising works). Or<\/p>\n

C)<\/strong> Do nothing because, it\u2019s just too much trouble. It\u2019s only a top of the line stereo. I\u2019ll hock the car and buy another one. Or<\/p>\n

D)<\/strong> Decide that I\u2019d never want to see this scumbucket ever again breathing, as he broke into my house, stole<\/strong> from me, and I now have a bat in my hands that will make a pleasant sound to my ears as I play \u201cwack-a-mole\u201d with his head.<\/p>\n

9 out of 10 photographers will pick A, B, or C with most picking \u201cA\u201d. Don\u2019t laugh.\u00a0 It is nothing short of pathetic.\u00a0 Jack picks D. \u00a0\u201cD\u201d paid for both his country house and ecologically correct Prius.\u00a0Those 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.<\/p>\n

Why do photographers try to placate and \u201cnot alienate\u201d or antagonize someone who steals <\/strong>from them? There are some rare exceptions – like if you live in a small town and it\u2019s really someone locally who really doesn\u2019t 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. \u00a0To 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\u2019s Jack\u2019s opinion.\u00a0 You are best off selecting your own bat (lawyer) and keeping him\/her in the \u201cbat rack\u201d a\/k\/a speed dial.\u00a0 Use as directed when the appropriate occasion presents itself.<\/p>\n

Jack and Ed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There are many confusing copyright items on the Internet these days. Some offer to \u201chelp\u201d photographers, like the Creative Commons (CC).\u00a0 Our plain English interpretation of which can be simplified as: \u00a0take your copyright, let anyone use the work, and maybe we will magnanimously give you pennies in return. They keep the dollars, if any. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyright-info"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=438"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":441,"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions\/441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecopyrightzone.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}