Rips off Jay Maisel and gets caught but doesn't think he did anything wrong....

[Jay DeFehr]

Maybe because they are a 45 billion $ for profit corporation that would charge you up the ars for everything they do/

So I should allow their business model to influence how I share my work? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Kirk Gittings]

Makes perfect sense to me. I donate tons of my work to real charities, real non-profits etc. Because of the work they are doing I am willing to share my work with them. Because of the kind of business Merck is doing I wouldn't give them the time of day wihout being properly compensated.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think the Merck argument is a red herring, but even so, it makes a point; Your default is to not share, while mine is to share. For me, if Merck decides to join the CC and accept my share-alike licensing, I say "welcome".

[Mike Anderson]

I'd like to start a website where photographers can submit photos directly to the public domain. Anyone could use any of the photos in any way, without anyone's permission, and for free. Maybe something like this exists already?

Have you ever heard of "copyleft" (promoted by software guru/activist Richard Stallman)? That might be a framework already worked out you can use. I'm not sure it's completely in alignment with your ideals, but maybe.

...Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Mike,

Yes, the CC Share-alike license is similar:

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.

[Frank Petronio]

Ah Utopia, isn't it outside of Eugene?

Where everyone is an artist and musician and poet. Magical Mexicans pick up the trash and harvest the ganja. And we all gather around to beat drums and have a nice sweat.

If everything is shared and free it becomes valueless. Nobody will be critical and nothing will be done all that well.... and our culture and civilization will dribble away.

Sorry I rather fight and make messes....

Conflict = Achievement = Money = Art. We're animals. Deal with it.

[Jay DeFehr]

Frank,

Fortunately I don't have to deal with your misanthropic view of culture because it's pure fiction. Nearly all of the work done by members of this forum is done for the intrinsic rewards of creating and sharing. Sure, some hope to profit by their work, but I think that's incidental and not the primary motivation for doing the work, except in a very few cases.

The idea that the only work that's well done is work that's done for profit is cynical at best, and also just plain wrong.

The Apache web server was developed (and continues to be) under a "copyleft" license, and is the dominant web server and has been since its introduction, not despite it's licensing, but because of it.

If everything is shared and free it becomes valueless

The above illustrates not only a shocking lack of imagination, but a near complete ignorance of the world around you. How much does it cost to use Facebook? How much is Facebook valued at?

But even the above example is crass, because it limits value to revenue. A better example of value might be Wikipedia, an free resource without advertising created and maintained by volunteers. Compare Wikipedia to its for-profit competitors and your worries about our culture and civilization should dribble away.

Conflict = Achievement = Money = Art. We're animals. Deal with it.

The above, though it explains nothing of substance, does explain your "art". Deal with it.

[Kirk Keyes]

Ah Utopia, isn't it outside of Eugene?

You mean Springfield???

[Frank Petronio]

Well I know Facebook advertising costs real money, and if you go and use the Facebook logo to advertise another business you're going to be sued for real money.

And while Linux and Apache and all that Open Source stuff was done for free, many if not nearly all the contributors work in the digital industry... for money. They collaborated to build and share tools they needed... so they could do their paid jobs better.

I bet you do work for money too.

Even if you give your photos away, you shouldn't be if you respect and value any of the professional photographers you've learned, befriended, and benefitted from. You're only undercutting and destroying the market... bringing the lowest common denominator to your level.

[bdkphoto]

Just to be clear, I still have a very strong impression of an old, established man resisting the change much more than defending his rights. Everything I read and heard points in that direction.

Not a theory, not even a hypothesis - just an impression. An opinion.

For those of us that know Jay and his reputation in the photo community your "opinion" makes you look foolish.

As to the rest of your thoughts, the bottom line is that the case is NOT a precedent setting case for the digital age, just a simple infringement case with an out of court settlement- common in the business. As to Andy Biao, he might also be a great guy, I think Kickstarter is a great tool, but he just spent $32,000 to NOT use artwork for his album.