Listics

In the popular blog “TechCrunch” the Silicon Valley gaggle have been tossing around just what it means for a photographer to control rights to her own work. Robert Scoble has pulled up amazingly lame in this discussion for someone who has found work in the publishing world, so lame in fact, that Lane Hartwell has chosen to school him. The comment below from Lane Hartwell to Robert Scoble is pulled from a thread of 100 comments or so at the “TechCrunch” blog. I’m not sure of the implications of quoting it in full here, but if whoever holds the copyright on that blog wants me to modify my use, I’ll comply within reason.

Lane Hartwell is a fantastic photographer, a superior talent. Here’s a link to a series of her photos Wired ran following this year’s Burning Man.

As luck would have it for the folks who made the video, Ramona Rosales, the professional photographer who took the picture of phallo-centric Michael Arrington (author of CrunchNotes)fondling and chomping his big stogie for Newsweek, remains dissatisfied with Richter Scales’ use of her picture.

Here’s the permalink for Lane Hartwell’s comment to Scoble as it appears on the copyrighted “TechCrunch” blog:

* * *

@ Robert Scoble,

I just wanted to address a few things here:

[quoting Scoble] “I think it really is lame to take pictures of people (who don’t get a cut of the profits) at parties, without being commissioned, and then send in invoices for that work when it gets used in a parody video.”

I was commissioned, by Wired News to shoot the party in question. I was an invited guest, a member of the media. I had the permission of the organizers to photograph the event and use it for editorial purposes. GigaOm was interested in using them afterwards and I had to explain to them that Wired had exclusive rights to those images for 90 days and I did not have permission to allow that. There are even restrictions on me for how I can use them in that period. If you had asked me to not take your photo there, I would have respected your wishes. However if you are on public property, that’s a whole different story. Ask your buddy Thomas Hawk about that. Personally, if a person doesn’t want me to photograph them, I don’t.

[quoting Scoble] “If photographers are getting paid to take pictures of me, why shouldn’t we get a cut too as subjects? I didn’t sign a model release for commercial work when Lane and other people take pictures of me at parties like she did of Owen Thomas. Did Owen sign a model release? Did he approve for his photo to be used for commercial purposes?”

I am not using Owen’s photo for commercial purposes. In fact, the Richter Scales are the ones that used his photo for commercial purposes when they posted a video that drove traffic to a site where they sell a CD of their music and concert tickets. I’m surprised you don’t have an understanding of the difference between editorial and commercial. So while I can’t sell a photo of you to advertise, say, Nike shoes, I can sell a photo of you as editorial stock. I do not require a model release for such usage. I can assure you I have never sold a photo of anyone as commercial stock. Period. Check out my flickr page or my blog. You’ll find no advertising for anything…not even for me as a photographer for hire or that I have prints for sale. Then check out the Richter Scales page and tell me what you see. Adverts for a $15.00 CD. Adverts for concerts. Check out the Richter Scales YouTube profile page, here: http://youtube.com/profile?user=TheRichterScales What do you see? Again, more advertising for their CD and shows. They aren’t a non profit charity. So no, Owen never gave permission to be used to sell their CDs. And they took my rights to protect his image from unauthorized commercial use out of my hands when they took an all rights reserved image without asking first. That has nothing to do with me. Think about it. This is part of what I have been saying since day one of this whole debate.

[quoting Scoble] “I think that when I do an event or party I’m going to only let photographers in who freely distribute their work without expectations that they’ll get compensated for its use.”

You should try that, the next time someone from the media wants to shoot your event. Tell, say, Conde Net, that you expect them to give up their work for free. Tell the writer and photographer that you are going to take his or her work and use it for your own purposes, commercial or otherwise, without crediting them or compensating them. In essence what you are starting to ask is that the media has to compensate you for the privilege to shoot your events, or subsidize your event photography. Which is unethical and would not fly. On the other hand, if you want to hire a photographer for your event, and those are the terms you specify (work for hire) or a buyout of images, the rates are higher than if you just want to license the images.

Finally, licensing images is how photographers make money. I didn’t invent the system, I just have to play by the rules. You might want to educate yourself about that a little bit before spouting off. Here’s some links to help you:

Catagories of Photography Use: http://www.asmp.org/commerce/l…../
A copyright primer: http://www.asmp.org/commerce/l…..yright.html
What is a license? http://www.asmp.org/commerce/l…..g/what.html
Licensing terms: http://www.asmp.org/commerce/l…../terms.html

It’s hard for most people to understand licensing photography. It’s a little complicated. But even if you pay a photographer to shoot something for you, unless otherwise agreed upon, the photographer owns the images and you essentially rent them.

I think a lot of the hatred here springs from the fact that people don’t understand the business of photography and how it is billed. Fair enough…But if you are going to point the finger at me for doing something that everyone in the photography business does, and say that I’m doing something unusual or unethical, I’m suggesting you educate yourself.

Regards,
Lane