Tuesday, August 7, 2007

copyright materials

I'm not to sure what to think of digital copyright materials. I have been posting my pictures on our wiki, on flickr, and on my blog and I don't want someone else to say that they are their pictures but at the same time I don't care if they use the pictures. I guess that is where creative commons comes in and is a great idea. This way you still get credit for your work and the other person can still use the information/pictures.

Many people download and burn movies and music. You aren't suppose to, it is illegal and the artists don't get their credit for their work. I don't know thought.... some people download music to check out the artist and if they enjoy it then they go and buy the cd and they go to concerts and they buy clothing at the concert... so are artists still not getting the credit for their work??? But then you have others that will just download the whole cd and not do any of the other things, so what is right and what is wrong? Before the internet people shared music by bringing their cds to their friends house and listening to the music. Downloading and uploading is just a broader form of this. You get to listen to music from people that want to share their favorite artists.

So what is right and what is wrong? Is copyright realistic? Many people don't care that an item is copyrighted and use the information/music/pictures/movies anyway. This youtube movie shows that copyright is constantly changing and is exploited constantly.

So is copyright good, bad, or inbetween? I don't know. Depends on how you view it and what you know about it.


rwedhorn said...

Hi there
As a photographer I can relate to copyright. For photographers even though we think we own the photo we took - in the eyes of the law we probably don't. The law is currently under review and as I type it may have changed but until very recent - legally a photographer is hard pressed to win in court for copyright stealing. I do livestock photography at horse shows quite a bit and people steal my work all the time and post it on their web site or I see it hanging on a poster somewhere with no photo credit or in a magazine - even the editor who knows it is my work often skips my name when she prints my photo ... so what can I do? Well I could try and take it to court and if I got lucky and won I might get that $10,000 copyright money people talk about but on the other hand it might cost me $50,000 to go to court. I just let it go. People are people, I have had people come up to my backdrop and et their horse up in my spot and take their own photos using my flood lights and all my set up props - that takes a lot of nerve. I have also had people take a video of my monitor as their photo comes on it instead of purchasing the photo. There are all kinds of people out there but I believe that if I go along with these "nervy" ones and smile and be real nice to them somewhere down the line they might come back and buy a photo. Of course it helps that I am 99% sure that the itty bitty flash on their camera is not strong enough to get a good shot and they will have nothing when they get home for being cheap and trying to use my stuff.

Janine said...

I didn't realize that copyright was so bad for photographers. I just assumed that the pictures you took you would get credit for. I think I would be irrate if my photos appeared in a magazine and I wasn't compensated or mentioned especially if the publisher new that it was my photo.

When I use others photos I try as hard as possible to remember to link to the original but sometimes I forget and by the time you go back and try and find the photo it is too late.

Some people are really arrogant and don't consider the fact that you are trying to do your job and they wouldn't like it if someone came in and started highlighting something on the page they were reading.

Thank you for your comment it opened my eyes on a side of copyrighting that I didn't know about.