After buying an expensive Nikon or Canon DSLRs, these photographers keep going for photo walks. One or two of their best shots from the day gets to Flickr or Facebook. But wait! It just doesn't get there simply. There are a few © floating around, a big logo of theirs, ABC..XYZ photography rubber stamp at the right hand corner. And the info of the photo will carry a CC 2.0 to it.
And 2 weeks later (or 2 months or 2 years -- depending on the quality of the photo), it lands in Facebook or other blogs. And they may/may not hold the big list of copyrights in the photo. And one fine day, the photographer will be notified of this photo making rounds in Facebook. And a big fight would start there.
Let's take a step back. Photography is more like coding. Code snippets are free. The entire code base will not be exposed -- unless its open source. And when it's open source, the code ideas, logic, and even the code (with the license not removed) is free. But when the code is for a closed project, the code is totally inaccessible. A photo is just the same. When the photographer wants name and fame, and posts it in Flickr or Facebook, he is "open sourcing" the photograph. A new photographer can take a similar photo in the same location or take a screenshot of the same photo and use it. Once one has shown it to the world publicly, what's the point in holding rights over it? If it's an one of a kind photograph which the photographer intends to sell, he shouldn't be posting in Flickr or Facebook. It's like code for closed project. I still don't understand why photographers cry when someone uses their photo -- but they want name and fame and that's why they share the photo publicly.
On the other hand, a photo is the most screwed up piece of art work. None of the browsers have encryption allowing the photo not to be downloaded or screenshot-ed. There are few triggers that cause the flash not to work when a celebrity doesn't want him to be photographed. There are no encryption mechanisms in use, that wouldn't allow an OS to screenshot an image on the screen. What's the guarantee that a copyrighted photo is download and printed, but not shared online? How will a photographer identify it?
On the last part of this lengthy discussion.. is photography a true art? After using Sony W-5, Sony H50 and a Nikon D7000, I know what a camera can contribute to a photo. With more advanced and powerful cameras, the more lovely and beautiful are these photographs. So, does anyone pay the camera company a royalty for the sensor? And, what's the photograph about? A house, some lawn, a dog, etc. Are they being given royalty from the profits of the photograph? That empty barren lighthouse wouldn't have been dilapidated if all the photographers paid royalty for taking a photograph of it. That national park wouldn't be at loss if all the photographers contributed from their profits of the photos taken there. I agree it has creativity and talent in it. Setting a frame, focusing on a subject, metering for the brightness, setting the aperture and shutter speed, adjusting the EVs, checking the ISO, holding a deep breath.. CLICK! is not an easy task. But.. it doesn't seem like a photographer can "own" a photograph.
And 2 weeks later (or 2 months or 2 years -- depending on the quality of the photo), it lands in Facebook or other blogs. And they may/may not hold the big list of copyrights in the photo. And one fine day, the photographer will be notified of this photo making rounds in Facebook. And a big fight would start there.
Let's take a step back. Photography is more like coding. Code snippets are free. The entire code base will not be exposed -- unless its open source. And when it's open source, the code ideas, logic, and even the code (with the license not removed) is free. But when the code is for a closed project, the code is totally inaccessible. A photo is just the same. When the photographer wants name and fame, and posts it in Flickr or Facebook, he is "open sourcing" the photograph. A new photographer can take a similar photo in the same location or take a screenshot of the same photo and use it. Once one has shown it to the world publicly, what's the point in holding rights over it? If it's an one of a kind photograph which the photographer intends to sell, he shouldn't be posting in Flickr or Facebook. It's like code for closed project. I still don't understand why photographers cry when someone uses their photo -- but they want name and fame and that's why they share the photo publicly.
On the other hand, a photo is the most screwed up piece of art work. None of the browsers have encryption allowing the photo not to be downloaded or screenshot-ed. There are few triggers that cause the flash not to work when a celebrity doesn't want him to be photographed. There are no encryption mechanisms in use, that wouldn't allow an OS to screenshot an image on the screen. What's the guarantee that a copyrighted photo is download and printed, but not shared online? How will a photographer identify it?
On the last part of this lengthy discussion.. is photography a true art? After using Sony W-5, Sony H50 and a Nikon D7000, I know what a camera can contribute to a photo. With more advanced and powerful cameras, the more lovely and beautiful are these photographs. So, does anyone pay the camera company a royalty for the sensor? And, what's the photograph about? A house, some lawn, a dog, etc. Are they being given royalty from the profits of the photograph? That empty barren lighthouse wouldn't have been dilapidated if all the photographers paid royalty for taking a photograph of it. That national park wouldn't be at loss if all the photographers contributed from their profits of the photos taken there. I agree it has creativity and talent in it. Setting a frame, focusing on a subject, metering for the brightness, setting the aperture and shutter speed, adjusting the EVs, checking the ISO, holding a deep breath.. CLICK! is not an easy task. But.. it doesn't seem like a photographer can "own" a photograph.
No comments:
Post a Comment