Author Topic: Information wants to be free... (continued?) (Read 46047 times)

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #25 on:** November 29, 2011, 17:39 »

This discussion is getting a little crazy. I would hope IP laws wouldn't take an all or nothing approach. There is subtlety needed. Yes a designer created the shirt your model is wearing. Do you need to pay the designer a royalty if it's in your shot? Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Yes major corporations benefit most from these laws but it's either that or we dispose of both digital media and the internet because it's the ease in which things are stolen, copied and re-distributed without so much as a byte of lost quality that makes the laws really necessary in the first place. All this talk of baaaack in the day seems to leave that important part out.

Lastly, microstock is not about free information because it is a service. So it is using a new business model I guess. Most if not all designers have digital cameras these days and can shoot their own source material (how do you think I got started) but it's less cost effective to do so especially if you need a photo of the Grand Canyon and you live on the east coast. So we use a service (stock agency) to quickly and affordably provide the images we need. Of course the trouble starts with digital media being distributed over the internet without any loss of quality despite the bazillion times it's copied and downloaded. That makes IP laws necessary. Otherwise the service would disappear and I'd have to bill my clients $2500 for my trip to Arizona to shoot the canyon.

Maybe we should get rid of the internet and go back to shooting film.

Graffoto · « **Reply #26 on:** November 29, 2011, 18:11 »

According to the video posted, fashion cannot be copyrighted due to its utilitarian purpose.
The fashion industry does not care.... fashion trends change every other nanosecond anyway.

I came from a jewelry industry background.
Jewelry is not utilitarian and the designs are unique.
Knock off a Tiffany or Cartier design and see how fast the lawyers come knocking on your door!

We are not talking about knock offs here anyway. If that were the case, Yuri would be able to go after every copycat image that mirrors his stuff.

Microbius · « **Reply #27 on:** November 30, 2011, 07:09 »

Little IP protection in the fashion industry works because you have tangible goods purchased almost solely for the status of owning them.
People will continue to pay silly money for products that are pretty much identical to cheaper ones just because they have a certain logo so others get to know that you spent far too much for the item.
How innovative the product is is neither here nor there.

Compare that to say scientific research or digital art and may realize just how fuzzy your think on this actually is.

ETA. oh and the knock of stuff produced due to the lax IP protection in fashion is the poo you see at 1:51. Not more innovation but less.

Microbius · « **Reply #28 on:** November 30, 2011, 07:24 »

Another point, you don't seem to be saying that people shouldn't have to pay to use digital media, but that they should be able to use the, say, image as they wish once they do.
So what is your point? that the license should be broader? that it should't be called a license? what?
Also most IP protection is there to stop people using digital media without having paid for the use, given that you don't seem to be saying everything intangible should be free, what do you have against this?

You also need to bear in mind that what is happening now is not that distributors are pocketing the larger percentage and screwing the artist, but that distributors like Rapidshare are taking 100% and not passing anything at all onto the artist or considering the cost of production in any way.
Clearly this has to stop if any decent content is going to be produced.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #29 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:04 »

Quote from: Graffoto on November 29, 2011, 17:19

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 29, 2011, 16:29
Quote from: Graffoto on November 29, 2011, 16:26
This whole premise is idiotic. Information WANTS to be free? No PEOPLE want everything for free.

What does a university like Yale or Harvard sell? Its information!!!
OK, they call it an education but an education is just information presented in a formal manner.

Taken to its logical conclusion university should be free.
Oh and all those folks that sell how to books? Those should be free right?
Oh and lets post detailed information on how to source, assemble and detonate a nuclear device for free as well...after all information WANTS to be free!

Balderdash!

Schools don't sell information - last time I checked, what they sell are things others discovered on their own or in groups of people.

What schools do sell:

The help of seasoned professors

A degree that certifies subject competence

That's basically it.

"Things others have discovered" = Information! Intellectual Property.

You missed the point. Anyone can figure it out on their own. The schools are selling access to professors to help learn subjects and degrees to certify they have learned them well, the information itself is readily available if you want to discover it yourself. I think my wording threw you off, sorry about that.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #30 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:12 »

Quote from: Graffoto on November 29, 2011, 18:11

According to the video posted, fashion cannot be copyrighted due to its utilitarian purpose.
The fashion industry does not care....

Some do care, some big name designers have been lobbying for copyright protection for years.

Now imagine how fast the entire stock photo industry would die when THAT happens. Another example of IP law hurting your business. Just look at this forum alone, tons of examples.

Graffoto · « **Reply #31 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:23 »

"Anyone can figure it out on their own."

Um, really? Try amassing the knowledge needed to become a medical professional on your own & for free.
Most medical articles on the web require that you pay to get access to them.

@Cardmaverick is it blatantly obvious that you don't like the current IP laws.
What would you replace them with?
If your answer is no protection at all, then we will have to agree to disagree because no amount of posting to the contrary will change my mind.

In my life I have been a musician, a jewelry industry professional and a photographer.
Every single one of the above has had IP protection.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #32 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:32 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 30, 2011, 07:24

Another point, you don't seem to be saying that people shouldn't have to pay to use digital media, but that they should be able to use the, say, image as they wish once they do.
So what is your point? that the license should be broader? that it should't be called a license? what?
Also most IP protection is there to stop people using digital media without having paid for the use, given that you don't seem to be saying everything intangible should be free, what do you have against this?

You also need to bear in mind that what is happening now is not that distributors are pocketing the larger percentage and screwing the artist, but that distributors like Rapidshare are taking 100% and not passing anything at all onto the artist or considering the cost of production in any way.
Clearly this has to stop if any decent content is going to be produced.

I think you're starting to catch on to this. If we were to operate in a market where once you sold the product and lost total control, then YES. You could say it's akin to selling all the rights, thus the prices would need to be higher. It just makes sense. I know a studio that will sell RAW files to its wedding clients. They charge $800-1,000 for those files. Why? Because they know that once they let them go, the have no more opportunities to make money off of that particular client.

My main argument against IP is that it's akin to outlawing the free breathing of air. It so quickly becomes so ridiculous, not to mention lopsided. Clearly our business gets more government favors than the fashion business who would love to have IP laws so they can sue their way to profits.

I just want people in this business to start finding business models that can work in world where people will (and already do!) buy an image once, then use it forever, or even flat out "steal" the sample image with useless agency watermark in the corner of the image. Let's not forget the file sharing as well.

Once people accept this stuff will always happen, we can start pinpointing things we can do that simply can't be packed into a torrent file and distributed all over the web, etc...

One idea I've floated to image buyers that is always welcomed is the idea of paying to create a customized search algorithm for a particular clients tastes and needs. A "search brain" of sorts. If the price is right, many will leap all over that. Just talk to anyone who's tried to find clients images they like. It can be a terrible process. Imagine charging to analyze images they like (color, composition, etc...) and then being able to search with a true custom algorithm that fits the client like a glove.

You can't easily steal that, and people want to buy that.

So why aren't we doing that? Probably because people are stuck in their old ways, stuck enough that would probably give that away for free and still think selling imaginary "rights" is the way to go, LOL. Crazy.

Graffoto · « **Reply #33 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:32 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 30, 2011, 10:12

Quote from: Graffoto on November 29, 2011, 18:11
According to the video posted, fashion cannot be copyrighted due to its utilitarian purpose.
The fashion industry does not care....

Some do care, some big name designers have been lobbying for copyright protection for years.

Now imagine how fast the entire stock photo industry would die when THAT happens. Another example of IP law hurting your business. Just look at this forum alone, tons of examples.

I don't imagine that most here make a living photographing Haute Couture! Generic clothing is just that, generic.
IP protection of their designs if granted, could be limited to copying of the design for sale rather than a blanket protection that would prohibit use in say; a fashion editorial.

I one shot a model wearing a certain type of pearl jewelry. Their pearl designs are protected.
I went directly to the manufacturer and asked them for their permission in writing. No problem.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #34 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:38 »

Quote from: Graffoto on November 30, 2011, 10:23

"Anyone can figure it out on their own."

Um, really? Try amassing the knowledge needed to become a medical professional on your own & for free.
Most medical articles on the web require that you pay to get access to them.

If no one can figure anything out, how did we find the information? LOL. I understand your point for highly technical subjects, but again, universities don't sell info, and what about the Library? Pretty sure thats free, and the one in DC, Library of Congress, has virtually everything ever published - for free. What about apprenticeships and internships, how about all the medical text books people bought that can be handed over to someone else? Once information gets out, it's free.

Graffoto · « **Reply #35 on:** November 30, 2011, 10:49 »

You may be correct that once information gets out its free.

That does not mean that universities are not selling information. It only means that people are willing to pay to get access to the best, latest, cutting edge information and have someone that understands it intimately, explain it to them.

What about drug companies?
They get to have patents on their products. That is IP protection.
Without that, there would be no incentive to spend millions of dollars on research plus going through the burdensome process of getting FDA approval.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #36 on:** November 30, 2011, 11:05 »

Quote from: Graffoto on November 30, 2011, 10:49

You may be correct that once information gets out its free.

That does not mean that universities are not selling information. It only means that people are willing to pay to get access to the best, latest, cutting edge information and have someone that understands it intimately, explain it to them.

What about drug companies?
They get to have patents on their products. That is IP protection.
Without that, there would be no incentive to spend millions of dollars on research plus going through the burdensome process of getting FDA approval.

The "incentive problem" is a fallacy, and you can use it in both directions:

If all you have to do is make one successful IP creation and live off of its royalties, etc... why would you ever bother to produce more stuff? You're already a millionaire off say, a movie. You're life is secure, why risk anymore money on creating other things? After all... it's a financial risk with no guarantee of success, even with tons of IP laws, you can still lose big.

... and people still produce stuff. Even without IP, they will still produce for one simple reason - people want what we make.

The only thing that changes is the business model!

I keep on pounding the "business model" drum because thats what needs to change. If we strip away IP laws, yes, some industries will radically change, but they won't die, they will simply change how they operate.

BTW - the big pharma example is not too far off from Fashion (physical objects resulting from ideas), they spend millions to produce and distribute their clothes, just like drug companies spend millions... and yet they have no IP laws helping them. They still produce because people still want their stuff.

Graffoto · « **Reply #37 on:** November 30, 2011, 12:55 »

Chris, You keep saying the business model needs to change, yet you offer nothing constructive.
I'm not counting that search engine thingy you spoke of, because that is not something we as individuals who are not in the IT industry can do anything with.

So, where/what is this sparkly new business model you speak of?

Graffoto · « **Reply #38 on:** November 30, 2011, 14:30 »

The "incentive problem" is a fallacy, and you can use it in both directions:

If all you have to do is make one successful IP creation and live off of its royalties, etc... why would you ever bother to produce more stuff? You're already a millionaire off say, a movie. You're life is secure, why risk anymore money on creating other things? After all... it's a financial risk with no guarantee of success, even with tons of IP laws, you can still lose big.

It is a fallacy? Why, just because you say it is? No one needs fashion. All they need is something to keep them warm. Want is a different story.
Many peoples lives depend on medications. It is a totally different situation.

Large corporations like big Pharma, have thousands of employees and shareholders.
They have to generate huge amounts of money just to keep going.

You left out a huge part of the equation: Greed and Ego.
Use your movie example. Let's say you make a few mill off of a hit movie. First off all, unless you are a shrewd investor that money will be burned through in several years time. But we all know, once you have a little success, most everyone wants more. That is where greed and ego come into play.

Lets say someone comes to you with a screenplay and you like it.
Are you going to change a few lines and go ahead with the movie production without buying the rights to the original screenplay?
No? Why not? Oh, maybe because you will you get yourself sued to the ends of the earth?!

IP laws exist because without those protections it is a free-for-all. Total anarchy.

No one, including yourself has come up with a better plan thus far.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #39 on:** November 30, 2011, 15:56 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 30, 2011, 10:32

One idea I've floated to image buyers that is always welcomed is the idea of paying to create a customized search algorithm for a particular clients tastes and needs. A "search brain" of sorts. If the price is right, many will leap all over that. Just talk to anyone who's tried to find clients images they like. It can be a terrible process. Imagine charging to analyze images they like (color, composition, etc...) and then being able to search with a true custom algorithm that fits the client like a glove.

You can't easily steal that, and people want to buy that.

So why aren't we doing that? Probably because people are stuck in their old ways, stuck enough that would probably give that away for free and still think selling imaginary "rights" is the way to go, LOL. Crazy.

You're rehashing the idea of a "best match" on a search engine and suggesting that is what we should be producing, instead of images? There won't be anything to search through if all anyone is producing is search algorithms.

Licences are a terribly flawed solution to the problem of generating earnings from microstock (because sales volume does let everything out into the wild where it can easily be stolen) but currently there is no sensible alternative.

Graffoto · « **Reply #40 on:** November 30, 2011, 19:51 »

Maybe what we need is a 'self destruct' algorithm.
Images would need to have some sort of invisible chrono tag built in so that after a certain license period expires (one year?), the image becomes unusable.

Microbius · « **Reply #41 on:** December 01, 2011, 05:31 »

Also been reading into the fashion industry example more, I think people need to Google IP in the fashion industry instead of just going by that one video (which it turns out is pretty much BS).
It's a lot more complex than that made out, fashion designs are often adequately protected by copyright law as works of applied art and often companies use things like the Hague System for the international registration of industrial designs to protect work further. The reason that fashion designs aren't usually individually registered in practice isn't because they can't be due to the utilitarian nature of the fashion, but the opposite, each trend is so transient it isn't worth the time and effort of registering it.

Big Pharma example; start with http://pharma.about.com/od/Government_IP/a/Ip-Laws-And-Pharma.htm

That example is a total non starter, as I'm sure most here are aware, discoveries in the Pharmaceutical industry are strongly protected by IP laws. In fact it's very controversial because of poorer countries not benefiting from discoveries for that reason.

It just seems like there's a soundbite or two been latched on to and your desperately trying to justify that position.

Who is going to pay a large single sum for a catch all license now that their competitors can steal the same content for free?
That's a step back to the pre-micro days, not a new model at all.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #42 on:** December 01, 2011, 08:55 »

Quote from: Graffoto on November 30, 2011, 19:51

Maybe what we need is a 'self destruct' algorithm.
Images would need to have some sort of invisible chrono tag built in so that after a certain license period expires (one year?), the image becomes unusable.

Obviously that would only work on electronic copies, if you make a plate from a file that would still exist. If your tag could be set for the duration of the license it might be acceptable in more traditional agencies, like Alamy, but not for RF.

Graffoto · « **Reply #43 on:** December 01, 2011, 11:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 01, 2011, 08:55

Quote from: Graffoto on November 30, 2011, 19:51
Maybe what we need is a 'self destruct' algorithm.
Images would need to have some sort of invisible chrono tag built in so that after a certain license period expires (one year?), the image becomes unusable.

Obviously that would only work on electronic copies, if you make a plate from a file that would still exist. If your tag could be set for the duration of the license it might be acceptable in more traditional agencies, like Alamy, but not for RF.

Your point about making a plate is valid, but seriously how many micro buyers are going to go to that trouble? The point here is that we need better protection from the 'information wants to be free" mindset.

Just for fun, let's say we can embed a suicide pill into our digital files. The micro model would change to accommodate this new feature with new rate structures, just like they do now with an extended license. Only need a year of use? The base rate applies. Need two years, three? Next rate structure applies and so forth.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #44 on:** December 01, 2011, 11:56 »

Yeah, that sounds quite good. But I wonder if the punters would buy it.

I have my own time-bound self-destruct systems, I call them CDs and hard drives. I'll bet lots of buyers use them. too. For long-term use I have things called negatives - but they have their own drawbacks.

(Actually, I may unintentionally have made a good point there. I wonder how many saved RF files eventually just die on old discs, so people just buy something else instead of reusing).

Graffoto · « **Reply #45 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:15 »

I don't even use CDs or DVDs anymore.
The storage space is too small and my filing system for things in the physical world is: just chuck it in a corner somewhere.
Negatives? I can't find any of my old negatives. I do have some chromes stored, but they are not commercial material.

I use multiple internal hard drives and back them up to external drives. As long as one backs up often; data is forever... oh wait, that's "A Diamond is Forever". My bad

Punters? (I had to look up the English use of that term). I don't think they would have a problem with it. Its all about getting fair value for what you have paid for.
Pay to play. Same as it ever was.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Information wants to be free... (continued?) (Read 46047 times)

digitalexpressionimages

Graffoto

Microbius

Microbius

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

Graffoto

cardmaverick

Graffoto

cardmaverick

Graffoto

cardmaverick

Graffoto

Graffoto

BaldricksTrousers

Graffoto

Microbius

BaldricksTrousers

Graffoto

BaldricksTrousers

Graffoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors